IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY

The nettle bouquet goes to ... Cllr Alf Dewis


IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
TO HARASS CLLR MARTIN BROOKES.

In his bid to be seen as an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has led the attack on Martin Brookes. Using the Town Clerk’s allegation of, as yet unsubstantiated and undisclosed, bullying against Cllr Brookes. This issue has seen the Council being asked to vote to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council Offices; from communicating with the Town Clerk, Richard White, or his Assistant, Allison Greaves, either by email; telephone; letter or in person. When this motion was rejected on 5th May 2010 another, slightly watered down, motion was immediately put to the Council - in direct contravention of Standing Order 35 – viz:

(a) A decision (whether affirmative or negative) of the Council shall not be
debated by Council within six months save by special resolution, the written notice whereof shall bear the names of at least five members of the Council.

(b) When a special resolution or any other resolution moved under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Order has been disposed of, no similar resolution may be moved within a further six months.

That motion is null and void, since the previous motion was rejected.

However, once more in contravention of Standing Order 35 yet another motion is being put to the Council this evening (26th May 2010).

Cllr Brookes was asked if he would be prepared to undergo mediation. Since he still does not know of what he is accused, he cannot reply to the allegation with any real insight, other than to reject the allegation.

This is all becoming a bit fantastical; rather like a Kafka novel. In effect what the Council is saying is:

“You are accused of bullying the Town Clerk, Richard White. We are not prepared to tell you what the allegation is and we are banning you from carrying out your duties as a Councillor. Richard White will have a curtain over the glass of his office door so he cannot see you when you do visit the Council Office, he will not reply to your telephone calls, emails or letters, although paradoxically he will email you. We would like you to agree to mediation under the auspices of the staff committee, made up of Councillors many of whom have made your life unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. No, we are not prepared to ask ACAS to mediate on grounds of cost and we also reject your suggestion that Richard White’s Union undertake mediation. You are guilty without trial or investigation and we will take another stab at making it impossible for you to function as a public representative yet again tonight (26th May) in direct contravention of Standing Order 35. We have found you guilty, but we will not tell you precisely what you are accused of doing.”

In his bid to pursue this vendetta on behalf of Council members, Cllr Alf Dewis is claiming to be an expert in employment law. Making a bid to be seen as an Alpha Male leading the pack against Cllr Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis has messed up time and time again. Claiming to know the law and being an acute ignoramus of the laws of Local Government, he is, quite illegally, attempting to right the mistakes he has made at a meeting on 5th May, by yet again ignoring Standing Orders.

I would suggest that all Cllr Alf Dewis has achieved is to prove to me, and any disinterested onlooker, that he is no Alpha Male but is instead a supreme and absolute ignoramus in the law on this matter. He has mired the Council in an illegal and ill-considered vendetta against Cllr Martin Brookes.

Far from being an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has only proved himself to be an Alpha Prat.

Note: Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER 40
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
England and Wales
Section
1. Prohibition of harassment.
2. Offence of harassment.
3. Civil remedy.
4. Putting people in fear of violence.
5. Restraining orders.
6. Limitation.
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/pdf/ukpga_19970040_en.pdf

Is the Town Clerk fit to hold public office?

The Town Clerk, Richard White, has alleged that Cllr Martin Brookes has bullied him. We are not being told why the Town Clerk has not been able to undertake his duties for several weeks. The Council won’t even tell us whether the Town Clerk has been ill or not. Oddly despite refusing to disclose this information they voted to exclude the public from a public meeting on 5th May whilst they attempted to frustrate Cllr Martin Brookes from undertaking his representative duties.

The Town Clerk has:

1. Either deliberately misled me and Cllr Brookes about the six months’ rule, or is insufficiently trained or unable to assimilate his training when he misled us by stating that if a Councillor gives his or her apologies to every public meeting for a period longer than six months they may retain public office, provided their apologies have been sent. This is a nonsense. The Local Government Act 1972 (85) states: Look up Local Government Act 1972 (85) and type here.
2. Richard White, The Town Clerk, does not appear to understand Standing Orders or The Local Government Act. He either deliberately misinterprets it or is unable to assimilate any training he has had. Furthermore his insistence that almost everything be headed ‘Private and Confidential’ displays a complete inability to engage in a democratic and transparent process of government.
3. Council accounts were due to be in a state to be given to the Council auditor on 31 March 2010. They are still, so far as I am aware, not in a state to be audited.
4. The Council accounts were due to be audited in April 2010. They are yet to be audited.
5. The Council accounts were due to be passed during the Annual meeting of the Council in May 2010. They are not yet ready to be scrutinised or adopted and will not be ready until audited.
6. When Cllr Brooks stated that he lived in South East Ward, the Town Clerk assured him he lived in North East Ward. Cllr Brookes, acting on this advice, asked someone to stand as a Councillor for his Ward. Cllr Brookes was deliberately misled and he does, as he originally believed, live in South East Ward. Naughty Town Clerk, but nevertheless a successful feint if one is dedicated to frustrating democracy.
7. When I was told that Martin Brookes has been elected unopposed the Town Clerk, Richard White, said he would be adopted as a Councillor the following week ‘provided nothing happens between now and then.’ What could he have meant?
8. The Town Council accepted a building quote for the public loos – a quote which was three years old and therefore out of date. Who was responsible – you guessed it of course The Town Clerk, Richard White. A row has ensued with Rutland County Council over the outstanding £15,000 shortfall. Well done Richard.
9. Bandstand: When the discussion of the contract came up at a Council meeting, the Town Clerk raced through the names of four builders who would be asked to tender in a low key sotto voce manner. So much so that Cllr Joyce Lucas missed this bit of the meeting and then asked who would be tendering for the contract. Cllr Lucas then said: ‘We must be seen to be whiter than white,’ and demanded that an invitation to tender ought to be advertised. Subsequently a tiny advert appeared in the local paper. The contract for around £30,000 was awarded. £4,000 of which, I am told, has gone into provided 31 wooden plywood slats as temporary hoardings – that alone seems to be a vast price. In my estimation each slat and the erection of each slat has cost us, the council taxpayers, £129.03 per 1 m wide slat. Was this contract value for money? Local builders assure me it was not.
10. Richard White is given to shouting at Cllr Martin Brookes and has reportedly said on one occasion of the Council: ‘It’s like football club, you either abide by the rules or get out.’ If one had any confidence that the Town Clerk knew what the rules were and was prepared to administer them without bias that might be all well and good. However the rules appear to be subject to the Town Clerk’s whim and have no real foundation in Local Government Acts or Standing Orders.
11. When I approached the Town Clerk about a series of emails, the Rutland Chat Forum and a particularly offensive series of pictures and text written in my name the Town Clerk said that anything Councillors did in their own time was nothing to do with the Council. Yet paradoxically he has asked Martin Brookes to remove items from his blog. The Town Clerk also denied that ‘Lardboy’ was one of the Chat Forum pseudonyms of Cllr Charles Haworth. This is a small town and I do not believe that this was anything other than an entirely disingenuous and misleading denial.
12. The Town Clerk refuses to talk to Cllr Brookes by telephone, letter or reply to his emails. He would like Cllr Brookes to be banned from visiting the Council Offices altogether. If the Town Clerk is unable to behave with professional detachment he should perhaps consider his position and reflect that the large salary he is given does require a modicum of professionalism, competence and maturity.
13. A procedural audit is urgently required to re=sestablish correct procedures on the Town Council. I urge the Council to ask for just such an audit from the Audit Commissioner.
14. On 5th May, under the Freedom of Information Act, I asked that all references to me made on Council computers be given to me in hard copy. I have yet to receive this information. Again the Town Clerk appears to be of the opinion that the law does not apply to him or the Town Council.

Cllr Brookes has repeatedly asked to be sent a copy of the allegation made against him by the Town Clerk, Richard White. He is, several weeks later, still waiting to be told why he is alleged to have bullied the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk has failed miserably in his duties; appears not to be able to understand or deliberately misinterprets Standing Orders and the Local Government Act and repeatedly tramples over the law with impunity. A mild private criticism of the Town Clerk’s repeated failings does not constitute bullying.

I will now ask that the Council consider this complaint against the Town Clerk’s incompetent, serious and repeated failure to carry out his duties adequately, whilst serving in public office under the following Standing Order:

67 The Council shall deal with complaints of maladministration allegedly committed by the Council or by any officer or member in the manner recommended in Circular 1.86 of the National Association of Local Councils.

The fact that Martin Brookes has not made an issue of the grave errors repeatedly committed by the Town Clerk, Richard White, is surely evidence that any allegation of bullying is entirely a figment of the Town Clerk’s overactive imagination and a displacement allegation, designed to cover his own incompetence in public office as Town Clerk.

A proper investigation should immediately be made of my complaint, not merely by Richard White's chums on the Council but by a higher and more accountable body.

Note - taken from:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

The offence today

Details of the offence are set out in November 2007 guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS):
Principles
The elements of misconduct in public office are:
a) A public officer acting as such.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

I delivered this complaint to the Council last night, with no real hope that it will be properly addressed. However I was then told that Martin Brookes had been given a copy of the Town Clerk's complaint dated 18th May. So still no idea what was being discussed at the meeting of 5th May.

Perhaps the original complaint is undergoing editing as we speak - or is it? We will never know. Martin Brookes has yet to be furnished with a copy of the Town Clerk's original complaint. I begin to suspect that a legal eagle has given it the once over and said that it just won't do and that he should make a new complaint along proper legal lines. I am told that most of Richard White's complaint is about Martin Brookes' blog. This is laughable considering that the Town Clerk viewed comments made about Martin Brookes by the Rutland Chat Forum and then claimed if Councillors were members of the Chat Forum, under pseudonyms, they were merely acting in a private capacity. It is inconceivable that the Town Clerk did not know who the members of the Rutland Chat Forum were and are. Oakham is a town of around 10,000 people and the ruling clique know precisely who everyone is. Richard White is connected via DNA and political ties to this clique and has a vested interest in protection to and loyalty of the clique, which he often appears to place above his duty as a Town Clerk.

One can't run with the hounds and when the fox finally makes a complaint against you then turn around and cry 'Foul.' The vendetta pursued by Rutland Chat Forum ought to be made public and the IP addresses furnished to us as a matter of urgency. Then we will really see who has bullied who

Six months' rule - councillors' non-attendance at Council meetings

SIX MONTHS’ RULE - continuation of bad advice from the Town Clerk. Stop digging Richard...

From Richard White Town Clerk 20th May 2010

Confused? You will be after you read the Town Clerk’s gobbledegook:

“You will note that there is a slight change in the wording regarding apologies for absence. I was made aware following my absence from work that there was some confusion regarding the so called “6 month rule”. (sic) The relevant section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 states that an apology must be approved in order for the 6 month period for a member’s non-attendance to restart. However, the Council has always used thee term “to accept apologies for absence”. (sic)

Although I do not believe that there is any difference between the two words in this context this is now corrected in order to comply with the wording used in Section 85. Paradoxically, there is no statutory requirement to provide a reason for non-attendance at a meeting but it is my view that it is impossible to approve an apology if the reason is not known. The Council may, therefore, wish to consider how it handles apologies in the future. In particular the reason for non-attendance may be one of some sensitivity that the member does not wish to be in the public domain but has to be known to members in order that they can approve the reason.

Section 85 also states that if a member attends a meeting of another body to which he is the Council’s appointed representative then that counts as attendance of a meeting of the Council and therefore the six month period restarts.

Richard”

This is sheer unadulterated gobbledegook.

Clear advice from Geoffrey Pook, RCC Legal Department, states:

I do not know the circumstances of how the Town Council has dealt with them, but the procedure relating to long-term absences is governed by the six months’ rule: “if a councillor fails to attend any meeting of the Council or one of its committees or other bodies upon which the councillor represents the Council without the Council having given its authorisation for a longer absence before the end of the six months, then the seat becomes vacant.”

Geoff Pook

On the advice of the Town Clerk Oakham Town Council gave a written and erroneous answer that, provided apologies are sent to the Council, rCouncil representatives may stay away from meetings indefinitely.

My questions on the six months’ rule were not properly answered at a Council meeting on 12 May.

1. Why did the Council mislead Councillor Brookes regarding the vacancy of Cllr Swiffin’s seat which the reply from democratic services confirms is now vacant?

(It is now claimed George Swiffin attended a Council meeting on 16th December 2009. However his signature does not appear in the register of members attending that meeting. Neither does the signature of the then Mayor, Jan Fillingham, appear in the same attendance register of the meeting, though it is claimed that she, Jan Fillingham. also attended. This was explained as ‘an oversight.’ Which is really odd because three names appear in the right hand column, where the Chairman and Vice Chairman sign. None of the three signatures corresponds to previous signatures made by Jan Fillingham.)

2. Can the Council tell me who advised them that the seat was not vacant?

3. Will the Council take action to ensure they do not give misleading answers to written questions in the future and that they will take adequate steps to ensure they act on the best advice and adhere to best practice in the future?

4. What action is to be taken against the Town Clerk for failing to advise me correctly on this matter? I was informed that a Councillor may give their apologies continually provided apologies are given to each meeting. This is clearly not correct and misleading.

5. Was it a deliberate lie or is the Town Clerk not sufficiently trained? If he is sufficiently trained is he able to assimilate the training he has undertaken?

6. Are Officers and Councillors aware that tampering with Council documents carries severe penalties? (The minutes of 16 December were not available for scrutiny and I was assured that that meeting had been cancelled. Yet the minutes reappeared by 11th May 2010!)

What the Act actually says:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 in full:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1972/cukpga_19720070_en_11#pt5-pb2-l1g86

85 Vacation of office by failure to attend meetings.
(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, if a member of a local authority fails throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of his last attendance to attend any meeting of the authority, he shall, unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a member of the authority.
(2)Attendance as a member at a meeting of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or at a meeting of any joint committee, joint board or other body by whom for the time being any of the functions of the authority are being discharged, or who were appointed to advise the authority on any matter relating to the discharge of their functions, and attendance as representative of the authority at a meeting of any body of persons, shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) above to be attendance at a meeting of the authority.
[F1(2A)Subject to subsections (2B) and (3), if a member of a local authority which are operating executive arrangements, who is also a member of the executive of that local authority, fails throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of his last attendance to attend any meeting of the executive, he shall, unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the local authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a member of the local authority.
(2B)For the purposes of this section—
(a)the discharge by a member, acting alone, of any function which is the responsibility of the executive; and
(b)in respect of a mayor and cabinet executive or leader and cabinet executive, attendance as a member at a meeting of a committee of the executive,
shall each be deemed to be attendance at a meeting of the executive.]
(3)A member of any branch of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces when employed during war or any emergency on any naval, military or air force service, and a person whose employment in the service of Her Majesty in connection with war or any emergency is such as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, to entitle him to relief from disqualification on account of absence, shall not cease to be a member of a local authority by reason only of a failure to attend meetings of the local authority [F2or of a failure to attend meetings of the executive] if the failure is due to that employment.
[F3(3A)Any period during which a member of a local authority is suspended or partially suspended under section 66, [F466A, 73, 78, 78A] or 79 of the Local Government Act 2000 shall be disregarded for the purpose of calculating the period of six consecutive months under subsection (1) [F5or (2A)] above (and, accordingly, a period during which a member fails to attend meetings of the authority [F6or, as the case may be, meetings of the executive] that falls immediately before, and another such period that falls immediately after, a period of suspension or partial suspension shall be treated as consecutive).]
[F7(4)In this section “local authority” includes a joint authority [F8and a joint waste authority]F9. . .]

TESCO PLANNING APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AT COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT (26TH May 2010)

TESCO PLANNING APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AT COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT (26TH May 2010)

This meeting starts at 7pm.

Members of the public wishing to address Councillors on any item on the agenda, including Tesco’s planning applications, must do so at item 9 on the agenda: Deputations by the public before the Council considers item 10. You will have a total of three minutes to put your objections or voice your support. Anyone trying to speak after that is likely to be ejected from the meeting.

The first item of planning permission is item 10 – i

Extension to Class A1 retail store; provision of additional car parking on land to south and east following demolition of bungalow in Penn Street
Tesco Store 96 South Street

And 10 ii – Demolition of existing dwelling, removal of trees and construction of car park area with additional landscaping
39 Penn Street

Members of the public will only be allowed to voice their concerns on item 10 (the planning applications) must do so at item 9 – DEPUTATIONS BY THE PUBLIC and may speak for a maximum of three minutes.

Oakham photographer Jim Harrison http://jimsteabreak.blogspot.com/

This week’s nettle bouquet goes to … Jim Harrison:

Have just tripped over a website run, I am told, by local freelance Press photographer, Jim Harrison. On it he writes:

http://jimsteabreak.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 18 April 2010
A Lonely Figure (Picture of Martin Brookes and posted by Jim Harrison on his website)

Brookes cutting a lonely figure on Saturday morning (17th April 2010) as he stood outside the Victoria Halls hoping some poor unsuspecting soul would speak to him during his surgery. Didn't even see his puppet master turn up to speak to him, how sad is that.
POSTED BY JIM AT 22:09 0 COMMENTS
LABELS: ENGLAND, MARTIN BROOKES, OAKHAM, OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL, OTC, PARANOID, RUTLAND, UK, VICTORIA HALLS

THURSDAY, 18 MARCH 2010
To all who wish to know the real reason why I resigned as an Oakham Town Councillor see the original letter sent to the Chair printed below


Dear Chair

On Wednesday 17th February 2010 a new councillor will be sitting in the Council Chamber. Allegedly, this new councillor has made repeated personal attacks on various members of this council including myself either verbally or on his web based sites. You will know about this more than any of us as you have had to put up with alleged constant harrassment from this man to the point it made you ill and threatened to ruin what should have been one of the highlights of you being an Oakham Town Councillor.

He has also allegedly attacked the credibility of the Oakham Town Council on numerous occasions and made accusations that the Oakham Town Council was conspiring against him. Similarly, he has allegedly done the same to RCC and also made personal attacks on some members of that council as well.

I fail to understand why a man who appears to hate the Oakham Town Council and some of its members so much would want to be a member of that council.

I am unable to sit around a table with this man and discuss policy matters and other matters appertaining to the town and so on a matter of principle feel that the only course of action open to me is to regrettfully resign my post as an Oakham Town Councillor.

Jim Harrison

16th February 2010
POSTED BY JIM AT 18:58 0 COMMENTS
LABELS: CONSPIRACY THEORIST, HARRASSMENT, JIM HARRISON, MARTIN BROOKES, OAKHAM, OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL, RESIGNATION, RUTLAND, RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL



WELL CAN HE EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING - COPIED FROM THE RUTLAND CHAT FORUM ON 5/6 JANUARY 2010? Jim Harrison’s resignation letter from the Council - see above. 35 posts like this posted in less than 24 hours on the Rutland Chat Forum – January 5th and 6th 2010. ‘Ruddles’ confirmed to me that ‘lardboy’ is Cllr Charles Haworth. I wonder which one Jim Harrison is? Could you be C B Jim old chum? Am told C B stands for Carpet Burns - just the sort of amoral sicko humour the Rutland Chat Forum regularly indulged in.

Copied from Chat Forum on Wednesday, 6 January, 2010 13:22
Rutland Chat forum posts on 5/6 January 2010.

Cllr ****** *******
by C.B. on Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:00 pm
I've heard that ****** ******* is to stand as an Oakham Town Councillor. Fecking hell,
Ave yer seen his post on Flickr bout hate and things. If not check this out:

LINK

and he wants to be a fecking councillor
Growing old is compulsory, Growing up is optional

C.B.
Advanced Member

Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: Here
Top

________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:44 pm
Well that's normal. Not.

That is very disturbing, there's a lot of anger there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by lardboy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:59 pm
What's all them initials stand for, I wonder? Is it really possible for anyone to hate so many people/organisations at once and still be the innnocent "victim"?

lardboy
Advanced Member

Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:06 pm
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by R45PUT1N on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:02 pm
There's an RK, an R, a R4 and an LB which are pretty obviously some of our members, but who/what the feck is KT, B and RCF???
------------------------------
Question EVERYTHING...
------------------------------

R45PUT1N
Advanced Member

Posts: 1788
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 12:46 pm
Location: Leicestercestercestercestershire
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by lardboy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:03 pm
I think RCF = Rutland Chat Forum, as to the others, feck knows!

lardboy
Advanced Member

Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:06 pm
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:05 pm
Innocent victim my a*se.

I'd say RCF = Rutland Chat Forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by lardboy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:11 pm
Now, now folks, let's not give up on RCF so easily - IT'S COMPETITION TIME for the best acronym! Ummmm, here' mine:

RANTING
CRETINOUS
F*CKWIT

lardboy
Advanced Member

Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:06 pm
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by ruddles on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:26 pm
Rutland's
Crap
Fotogropher

ruddles
Advanced Member

Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 6:09 pm
Location: Rural Rutland
Top

________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:31 pm
Right
Crappy
Fotographer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by ruddles on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:06 pm
Reclusive
Creepy
Fart

ruddles
Advanced Member

Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 6:09 pm
Location: Rural Rutland
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:34 pm
Runt
Creeping
Forth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by lardboy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:41 pm
Retarding
Cranial
Fragmentation

lardboy
Advanced Member

Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:06 pm
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by Dotty on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:50 pm
Ridiculous
Creepy
Fellow
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are still alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

Dotty
Advanced Member

Posts: 834
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Pork Pie Land
Top
________________________________________
Re: Cllr Martian Borrocks
by lardboy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:11 pm
Ruinously
Collapsed
Finances

lardboy
Advanced Member

Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:06 pm
Top

Well there you have it - The truth will out. We may not have a decent local press, but at least we can blog ..... although Martin's Flickr' accounts were closed it seems efforts to close these blogs are hitting the buffers.

Anti-discriminatory laws - call for repeal by Libertarian Press

See article entitled Chris Grayling on following URL - Libertarian Press:

http://www.libertarianpress.co.uk/

http://www.libertarianpress.co.uk/feature.php?id=90

The writer makes a case for the repeal of anti-discriminatory laws.

My reply to the writer is:

My main argument against the Chris Grayling article (see Susan Wilkinson and the B&B mid-election argument) is that if one does abolish anti-discrimination laws then there are enough people who would come out of the closet to make life intolerable for minority groups. I would suggest that anti-discriminatory laws do not exist in Oakham. Certainly a great deal of discrimination occurs and the police appear to do absolutely nothing about it in the cases I've witnessed.

You exist in a slightly rarefied atmosphere and mix with like minded people who have some intellectual grasp of political arguments in a much more metropolitan community. Large cities are very different from a rural backwater. I would suggest you come to our neck of the woods to see what actually happens when the law on anti-discrimination is not enforced and so effectively repealed.

Here in the sticks things are very different. For instance in Oakham there is a fairly large gay community. However gay people do not feel able to be openly gay in Oakham and they tend to go to Nottingham, Birmingham, Leicester etc. where they are able to be openly gay, once outside Rutland. A gay shopkeeper says that he daren't come out in Oakham because he would lose business and there does seem to be quite a bit of homophobia locally. That may be because Oakhamians are thoroughly interbred and Oakham is a relatively isolated community with little public transport to dilute the interbreeding on a Saturday night or the blinkered political views during the rest of the week. I don't think that removing the legislation against homophobia would be wise. Particularly since I can see the real impact this has on lives in an area where the law is not enforced.

You and I may have tolerant views but, and this may seem unbelievable to those outside our small community, gays do expect to get beaten up and there are several stories of gay people who have been beaten up locally. One gay man who holds public office actually joins in the hounding of an openly gay Councillor. Why? Because bullies everywhere are, at their insecure core, scared of being bullied themselves. So they tend to reason: 'far better to be the bully than to be bullied.'

If you have a relatively inward looking population they will revert to barbarity and not only exclude the 'other' but actually pursue, hound and assault the 'other.'

Similarly I notice there is a great deal of racism in Oakham - that is anti-black racism. So much so that a Chat Forum contributed to by local Councillors and their friends made an issue about the black olive seller in Oakham market. Under the caption 'A black man in Oakham!' the forum published a picture of the Olive stall in Oakham market.

Was anything done? Of course not. Anti-discriminatory laws have effectively been repealed in Oakham anyway and those who posted the picture were not perhaps even aware how racist they were being on the Chat Forum. In fact the man is a great deal smarter than most locals and was content to let it go and not make a fuss, since that would be bad for business!

The outcome is that the people who are racist and homophobic are never brought to book for their prejudices and continue to be prejudiced.

I have witnessed so much bullying of a local Councillor that it makes you despair. Yet the police do absolutely nothing and are content to let the big cheeses in our tiny pond do what they will without let or hindrance. It is such a small town that it is a bit like the mafia. Everyone knows everyone, families intermarry down generations and everyone is connected to everyone else. Those in power tend to lie and cheat for one another and a code of Omerta prevails. The people doing the bullying are either on the police committee or well connected to those on the police committee and so nothing ever gets done, unless of course the man being bullied eventually reacts - then of course he gets arrested. I can name one Councillor who if breathalysed while driving was found to be sober, would be breaking a lifetime habit. Yet the Councillor has never, to my knowledge, been prosecuted for drink driving. Be ye even fractionally high in Oakham it appears the law is beneath you and you may trample it to death.

Feeling that people are generally tolerant and open minded is all very well in Durham or London, but a bit of a mistake in out of the way prejudiced little communities like Oakham, where a few families and entrenched coteries rule and have done for generations. No one wants to upset the apple cart and loyalty to one another counts for far more than integrity or honesty. 'They' are prepared to lie through their teeth for one another and see that as more laudable than telling the truth, simply because loyalty to one another against the outsider is more valued than honesty.

Sorry we do need anti-discriminatory laws in Oakham and what's more we need those laws enforced. If you want to see what would happen if anti-discriminatory laws were repealed come to Oakham. We don't need to repeal anti-discriminatory laws. The law is simply not enforced, unless one is an outsider.

Sad but true and it creates a very uncivilised atmosphere for many of those who are in minority groups.

Town Council Meeting tonight 12th May 2010. Public attendance welcome

BREAKING NEWS - GEORGE SWIFFIN'S SEAT SHOULD BE DECLARED VACANT TONIGHT.

It appears that George Swiffin is being wheeled into the Town Council meeting tonight. I meticulously looked at previous minutes and noted down absences of both Mrs Fillingham and George Swiffin. Today I was told that there was a meeting of the Town Council on 16th December 2009. These minutes were not there when I went in to consult the minutes. They now are!

I hope Councillors are aware that tampering and fraudulently altering Council documents is severely punishable, as is aiding and abetting the crime?

Is anyone able to let me know if Mr Swiffin was in hospital on 16th December 2009?

I have sent the following email to Mr Pook today and visited him with evidence that the attendance register was not signed either by Mrs fillingham or Mr Swiffin on 16th December 2010. Yet the now 'found' minutes show both were present. Quelle suprise?

The following is a copy of my email to Mr Pook:

Inbox
Flag this messageSwiffin seatWednesday, 12 May, 2010 13:21
From: "Helen Pender" View contact detailsTo: GPook@xxxxxxxxx: "Martin XXXXXXXX" Dear Mr Pook

I visited the Town Council offices and asked to see the minutes of meetings to check the attendance record of Councillors Fillingham and Swiffin. I copied these down meticulously and was told - when I asked about a December meeting missing from the file - that the December meeting was cancelled. I was also told there was not register of attendance and I would have to look through the files of minutes.

I have just visited the offices and been shown a copy of minutes dated 16th December 2010. These were not there when I last attended and I specifically asked about the meeting and was told it had been cancelled.

I copied the following down:



Attendance record of Cllrs Swiffin and Fillingham:



FULL COUNCIL MEETING



7 Oct 2009 Fillingham – present

Swiffin - absent



4 Nov 2009 Fillingham - absent

Swiffin - present



2 Dec 2009 Fillingham – present

Swiffin - absent



13 Jan 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



3 Feb 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



3 March 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin – absent



7 April 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



5 May 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent





PLANNING & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE MEETING



21 October 2009 Fillingham – present

Swiffin - absent



18 November 2009 Fillingham – present

Swiffin - absent

I questioned why no December minutes and both Joyce and Alison said December meeting was cancelled.



27 January 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



17 February 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



17 March 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent



April 2010 Fillingham – absent

Swiffin - absent


Helen Pender




OAKHAM TOWN / PARISH COUNCIL SPENDS £200,000 OF YOUR MONEY.

It would be lovely if members of the public attended the meetings tonight at both 6 and 7 pm in Victoria Hall.

About 25% of the total £200,000 spend is disbursed in salaries (£47,000) and an ex gratia payment (£2,500) made to the Mayor - who hasn't been present at public meetings at all during 2010. Are we getting value for money? I doubt it. The Town Clerk has failed to interpret standing orders correctly and seems to ride rough shod over procedures. He now claims he is being bullied and is trying to take the Council to the cleaners, presumably because one Councillor has been asking entirely pertinent questions.

It would be far cheaper and effective to abolish the Council altogether. The Council appears to be a little comfy clique of old stagers who are outraged at having their cosy little coterie upset by those wanting to have things done properly. If anyone wants to propose a motion to abolish the Council altogether I will support them.

PLEASE COME TO BOTH MEETINGS TONIGHT. TAKE OLIVER CROMWELL AS YOUR EXAMPLE.

This Council has indeed sat too long. £200,000 is spent in your name as local tax payers; 25% of which is largely spent on an inefficient and incompetent Town Clerk whose absence has ensured that the Office has been run more smoothly by his underpaid and under appreciated Assistant Clerk. She is beset by the interference of pfaffing aged Councillors, who refused me a copy of the Standing Orders, promising to post them instead. How the poor Assistant Clerk manages to get anything done as these increasingly stupid Councillors insist on 'helping' and merely add to the stresses of the day by hindering is beyond me. Frankly the underpaid and under appreciated Assistant Clerk has the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the psyche of a Saint. She has had to tread a very fine line and has done so with aplomb.

Luckily Mrs Stokes of Democratic Services will be there to advise her today.

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Meeting 12th May 2010 Council misbehaving again!

Have just been to the Council Offices in the Victoria Hall to ask for copy of Standing Orders before the meetings at 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday. All members of the public are encouraged to attend to hold this irresponsible Council to account and perhaps abolish the Council altogether, since the law / Local Government Act and Council Standing Orders are something they walk over with impunity.

Have sent letter:

Oakham Town Council
Victoria Hall
By Hand 10TH May 2010



Dear Alison
I found it unacceptable that Cllrs Maureen Dodds and Joyce Lucas offered to post a copy of the Council Standing Orders to me – no doubt second class to arrive after the Wednesday meetings.
I have been advised to write to you formally requesting a copy be handed to me when I call into the Council Offices in Victoria Hall tomorrow.
This action on the part of Councillors merely adds to the body of evidence that the Town Council requires a full audit of all procedures. The Council appears to believe it can frustrate the Local Government Act and its own Standing Orders – or reinterpret them in such fashion as to make a nonsense of the democratic process.
I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
Yours



Helen Pender

I called back into the Council Offices and saw Alison Greaves again today when I hand delivered this letter. WOW! What a star. She looked up the Standing Orders and was able to give me a copy today. Many many many thanks Alison. Great to have someone working in the office who is capable, efficient and able to consult standing orders correctly.

Cllr Martin Brookes arrested?

Martin Brookes was arrested yesterday. Why?

He'd put three documents in a Council noticeboard outside Victoria Hall. These were:

1. a piece of hate mail offering whomever assaulted Martin £25.00 for doing so.

2. another piece of hate mail saying Martin was 'Unwanted.'

3. Two offensive pictures of bare men's rear ends - in raw graphic detail - one
with a carrot stuck up it. This was published using my identity and purporting
to be me. It was not. I asked the police to furnish me with the IP Address,
they presumably deemed the offensive material sufficiently inoffensive not to
investigate.

We had both complained to the police separately about these documents which we had not published ourselves. I felt the photographs were offensive but there was nothing I could do, bar ask for information of the Council under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get to the bottom of who had published these photographs in my name.

Illogically, having failed to investigate or prosecute the police arrested Martin yesterday for placing the very same information they had refused to act on in a Council noticeboard, saying the material was now offensive.

Go figure.

Martin was taken to Keyham police station, fingerprinted, his DNA taken and bailed to appear on 3 June 2010.

Sorry folks you can't say the material is inoffensive and refuse to investigate who the perpetrators are and then say it is offensive and arrest Martin for putting the very same material in a Council noticeboard.

I think that's called having your cake and eating it.


This is what has been reported online in the Rutland and Stamford Mercury. I sincerely hope that they are able to publish an pology next week. I trust the police will also issue an apology:

Date: 07 May 2010

A MAN has been bailed by police after he was arrested in Oakham on suspicion of causing criminal damage and displaying offensive images in a public place.

Police were notified that the lock on the noticeboard outside the town hall in High Street had been broken and pornographic images had been placed inside yesterday.

A man was arrested at the scene.

Rutland police commander Johnny Monks said: "It's not nice if people use a public noticeboard to display offensive picture and I won't tolerate it.

"We have laws to be preserved."

The man has been bailed pending further inquiries

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/Arrest-over-pornographic-images-outside.6280787.jp

FACTS

1. I reported the so called offensive material personally to Johnny Monks - he was not so outraged as to pursue my complaint. It was posted in my name by someone purporting to be me. The so called offensive material was tolerated by Inspector Monks when it was online and sent to Martin Brookes. Why the double standards?

2. So far as I know no criminal damage was caused to the public noticeboard. The man was a local Councillor fed up with the bullying and victimisation he has faced at the hands of Council members. He regularly posts Council notices in the noticeboard in the same way he posted this so called offensive material.

Yes I found the material offensive but the police clearly did not until yesterday. I had delivered the material to the police twice and received no further communication from them nor any assurance that my complaint would be given serious consideration. I then let Council members have a copy so as to give them some evidence of why I was asking for all references to me on Council computers.

This is an outrageous dissemination of half truths on behalf of both the police and their press mouthpiece, whom I suspect is that troublemaker and bored housewife – could it be Cllr J L?

After the council meeting on 5th May 2010

AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MAY 2010. - WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Some very offensive material using my private name, which for very good reasons of self-protection, having taught some dangerous prisoners at one stage in my life, I do not use on the internet, had been published in my name.

The published material contained a gratuitously insulting text and then two photographs of the rear of a man’s behind with the cheeks pulled apart, one with a carrot stuck up it in glorious technicolour.

The then Rutland Chat Forum, which seemed to have at the very least one or two Councillors, or close friends of Councillors, contributing some rather offensive material about Martin Brookes and others, had continued to publish tasteless material without let or hindrance. I went to see Richard White the Town Clerk after I’d seen the very offensive material published in my private name.

Richard White claimed that whatever Councillors did in their private time was purely private and nothing to do with their duties as public servants. The Town Clerk admitted he was aware of the material. Feeling that something more might be known by the Town Clerk about the material, I extracted two hairs from my head and left them on his desk, saying: ‘If you want to split hairs, knock yourself out.’

Last night I copied the offensive material in order to show the substance of my complaint and delivered a copy to some Councillors. There are I believe some Councillors, with a modicum of morality, who would find the material offensive rather than funny. On the back of the photocopy I wrote:

‘This offensive material, purporting to be from me to Martin Brookes, was posted on the internet.

Under the Freedom of Information Act I require all references (in hard copy) made about me on Council Computers to be furnished to me within 21 days.’

The offensive material was published on Flick’r under the URL:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmamacass/ The Flick’r account was set up a full month before the pictures were published. Martin only ever published pictures in the public interest and in good taste. Yet Councillors and Council Officers were able to close his Flick’r Accounts. To my knowledge no efforts were made to close the ‘bigmamacass’ account, but perhaps a search of the Council computers will tell me something different.

I very much hope that this material and other references to me are searched for on all Council computers, both new and old, before the Town Clerk returns to work.

But perhaps it is too much to hope for a little justice and transparency and some interesting times ahead. After witnessing some of what was said last night the mood of the Council appears to be to protect employees at the cost of democracy, public accountability and to protect the privacy of Councillors no matter what they do, rather than arrest and prosecute the constant victimisation of Martin Brookes.

The next council meeting will be held in the Victoria Hall on Wednesday 12th May at 6pm. This is a general meeting and there will be ample room for the public to attend.

Police called to parish council meeting 5th May 2010 - exclusion of the public.

CONTRARY TO THE RUMOURS WHICH MAY BE CIRCULATING - NO ARRESTS WERE MADE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MARY 2010.

Report on items 3 – 5

3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*

4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK

5. STAFFING MATTERS

Martin Brookes has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.

When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.

I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.

Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.

When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!

This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.

The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.

It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?

Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.

Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.

I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.

If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.

N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.

Council meeting 5th May - seat vacant - denied by Councillors

EXTRA COUNCIL MEETING – ITEMS 1 and 2.

The Extra Meeting of Oakham Parish Council took place last night. The Agenda was given to members’ of the public attending. Since the Clerk has been off ‘ill’ the public have been treated with greater respect under the aegis of the Assistant Clerk. She should, in my opinion, be offered training and the full time position of Clerk. Her ability to tread a non-partisan very thin line, in stressful circumstances, is to be commended.

Previously, retired ex-Councillors and their mates have had copies of the Agenda and the rest of the public has been in absolute ignorance of the agenda, bar the posting outside Vicky Hall. It is refreshing to be able to have a copy of the agenda supplied to one in the meeting. My thanks and congratulations go to the Assistant Clerk, Alison, for providing agendas to the general public, rather than just to the favoured few. The Agenda looked innocent enough, but what a surprise – or was it?

AN EXTRA MEETING OF
OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY 5TH MAY 2010
7.00 PM AT THE OFFICES OF OALHAM TOWN COUNCIL,
VICTORIA HALLM 30 HIGH STREET OAKHAM

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES
To receive and accept apologies for absence

2. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS
To answer questions previously notified to the Clerk under Standing Order 23

3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*

4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK

5. STAFFING MATTERS


Martin Brookes had asked 17 questions and, presumably, it was decided by the powers that be that they did not want these questions to be given a public airing at the full public meeting on Wednesday 12th May at 6 pm in the Victoria Hall. One of the questions pertained to the non-attendance of Council members. The Clerk had originally told Martin Brookes that Council members could stay away indefinitely provided they gave their apologies. This was repeated at the meeting last night. I had been in touch with RCC and ascertained this is not the case. Even if apologies are given members may only stay away for six months, after that their seat falls vacant. Quite rightly so, since a Councillor cannot effectively represent his or her electors if they refuse to attend, or are prevented from attending Council meetings through illness. I also understand that Mayor Fillingham is in receipt of an ex-gratia payment of £2,500 for the year from rate payers. This payment has not been suspended whilst she has failed to attend full Council meetings. Politicians are regularly expected to resign on the basis of ‘ill health’ in every other Council bar Oakham Town Council. Nevertheless the Chairman assured Councillor Brookes that Councillors may stay away indefinitely without relinquishing their Council seat, provided apologies are given. Mr Pook of RCC tells me that the seat falls vacant after six months. Cllr Swiffin’s seat is therefore vacant, whatever Councillors may claim. Martin Brookes asked whether this meant that a Councillor could get elected and stay away for his or her entire term of office without being made to relinquish their seat. As usual his verbal questions were ignored whilst the Chairman read out answers to Martin Brookes’ questions.

Interestingly the Agenda for the full Council Meeting to be held on Wednesday 12th May 2010 at 6pm in the Victoria Hall, has a report to be given by Cllr Mayor Jan Fillingham. So there may be a lingering doubt amongst some Council members as to the legality of their decision tonight.

This being Cllr Swiffin’s sixth absence, his seat has become vacant. However the Council refused to accept this, despite Cllr Brookes’ reasonable remonstrations. Cllr Brookes has researched the law and Cllr Brookes is correct. If the Standing Orders are treated in such a cavalier fashion it is time that the Council is fully audited and the rules applied by force if necessary.

I will publish the report of items three to five on another blog today.

Attendance record of Cllrs Swiffin and Fillingham:

FULL COUNCIL MEETING

7 Oct 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

4 Nov 2009 Fillingham - absent
Swiffin - present

2 Dec 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

13 Jan 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 Feb 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin – absent

7 April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

5 May 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent


PLANNING & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE MEETING

21 October 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

18 November 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

27 January 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 February 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.

General election 6th May - but who do we vote for in Oakham and Melton?

Having considered long and hard - wanting Dinky Dunk the matchbox Hunk to be kicked into touch - just so I feel I have an MP to represent me if nothing else. Dinky Dunk doesn't do much representing of those who are less privileged.

We don't have a Job Centre, the bus service to Peterborough returns at 16.40 - so one can't even catch a bus to and from work.

Graham Hudson - A Military smugness surrounds him - came third last time, so my money is on John Morgan the Labour candidate who has shown a degree of independence from the Labour Party.

Oddly for a 'safe' seat we seem to have a 70% turnout. What was it Stalin said? To paraphrase from a faulty memory something along the lines of:

'It is not the people who cast the votes that matter, but those who count the votes.'

Vote early to prevent those who would use your vote to vote often is my advice.

Oakham, Rutland,Town / parish Council meeting

EXTRAORDINARY MEETING

Oakham Parish council are having an extraordinary meeting in the Victoria Hall, on Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 7pm.

There is a motion to exclude the public from items 4 and 5 on the agenda.

The lack of transparency, erroneous need to mark missives as 'Private and Confidential' and the ethos that the Council follows of utter secrecy at all times, whenever possible, makes it imperative that members of the public attend in order to make representations that the business of the meeting should be open to public scrutiny.

Anyone wishing to attend should arrive by 7pm. The 'secret' items on the agenda relate to delegating powers to the very efficient, but nevertheless unelected, Assistant Clerk. The Town Clerk is unable to carry out his duties effectively at the moment due to illness and it appears that the job is causing him a great deal of stress. He appears to believe that when Martin Brookes demands legitimate answers to properly put questions that this amounts to bullying. It is proposed to discuss this state of affairs in camera and the parish council wishes to exclude members of the public from hearing these discussions.

This is not good enough.

Just a little reminder:

Victoria Hall, 7pm, Wednesday 5 May 2010. Be there or be unaware!

Any old news?

Who reads the local paper or listens to the local radio?

If we had a decent local press they would have been campaigning for transparency and decent local government, highlighting the bad behaviour of Ex Cllr Beech et al at Parish Council meetings, looking at the contract for the bandstand and the list goes on and on and on and on......

Without a free press - freedom's a mess. Never more so than in Rutland today. The press are meant to be the fifth estate, but that presumes you have people who care about their vocation as journalists and have a zest to examine local government, rather than cosy on up to local government.

Unfortunately the press in this country have given up their freedom to ensure that advertisers advertise.

Market forces dictate that if the press refuse to uncover the news, through fear of losing advertisers, then people won't buy the rag for the adverts alone sans any real news content. Adverts never sold papers, news sold papers. I don't think there has been any real news in our local media for ages. Whatever happened to the Manchester Evening Guardian. Ahhhh.... those were the days my friend.

http://helenpender.blogspot.com/2010/04/general-election-hustings-meeting-27.html