Truth is stranger than fiction

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

Truth is stranger than fiction

Once upon a time there were two Councils -
A Town Council and a County Council,
and lots and lots of fake postings on a blog.
But I’ll let the emails tell this story:



From Helen Pender:
To: Geoffrey Pook – legal department

Dear Mr Pook

Do stop dissembling. I am now formally making a request, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes' blog? Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? Since Council facilities were used, after opening hours, at 9pm at night, my request properly falls under the Freedom of Information Act.

Disingenuously trying to pull the threadbare covers of the Data Protection Act around the questionable activities of those with access to the Council Chamber is not going to work. From your actions it now appears that protecting the guilty is an accepted part of the duties of Council officials in Rutland. Your collusion in protecting the guilty now makes your own position untenable. I require this information forthwith.

1. The Council does hold the information – you were supplied with all necessary information by Martin Brookes - you have the means to ascertain who was logged onto Council computers at 9pm at night. Whether or not you have chosen to ascertain this information is irrelevant. You are now being asked to do so and I have a right to ensure you provide me with this information. So find out and tell me who it was.
2. The police appear to be happy not to pursue crimes when committed by local Councillors, so that avenue is now closed. The only avenue of justice is now to be furnished with the information and make my own arrangements for seeking redress. Under the Human Rights Act one has a right to seek redress. (See recent Court Reports - Europe)
3. Whether or not I am an aggrieved party I still have a right to this information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
4. You disingenuously assert: “. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.” Mr Brookes has now proved that it is only possible to use the Council’s computer link when in a Councillor’s or Officer’s chair within the Council Chamber. He assures me that the computer access was not available at the time from anywhere other than a very limited area within the Council Chamber. Your hint that someone skulking in the car park may have posted the comments is designed to deliberately mislead.
5. I think you are aware that members of the public sitting in public seating would not be able to access the Council’s internet system from the public seating area. Talk about smoke and mirrors! It won’t work.
6. I asked Local Councillors asked the following question on 24 June: “I have been told in the strictest confidence that Cllr Joyce Lucas told a member of the public that Cllr Brookes was a paedophile at the opening of Royce's recreation ground. I hope this is not true?” Since then no one has issued a denial – which you may remember from your legal training is tantamount to an admission of guilt in Civil Law. About a week later a number of tasteless posts were repeatedly made on Martin Brooke’s blog, purporting to be written by me. They were not written by me. If the calculation is beyond your remediably challenged arithmetical skills I suggest you re-engage your brain once more or stop associating with brainless Councillors. You are not stupid, please don’t behave as if I am. The circumstantial evidence points to local Councillors and the only reason we can’t get hard evidence is because you refuse to supply it.
7. As for your very subtle slur, once again proving your linguistic competence and ability to exploit every legal finesse, I am sure you know that I have cancelled my access to Oakham library computers for the last several months and I do not have a personal I P address, since I rely wholly on library computers. I am tired of proving my innocence only for you to ensure the perpetrators have further opportunities to bandy cowardly and tasteless comments in my name.

Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant questions. I am entitled to this information and you have a duty to give it to me. I repeat: Under the Freedom of Information Act who posted those comments using Council facilities to do so? All you have to do is ask your I T people. Why are you being so abnormally shy about talking to your colleagues?

Yours

Helen Pender

From: Geoffrey Pook
To: Helen
Sent: Wed, 17 November, 2010 17:11:01
Subject: RE: Internet Activity
Hello Ms Pender.

I have not asked for the request contained in the final paragraph of your e-mail of yesterday to be logged as a Freedom of Information request, but the eventual response would be much the same as the one set out below and would take considerably longer to reach you.

If the Council held the information, which it does not, almost certainly it would not be disclosed to you as to do so would be unfair processing of personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. If such information amounted to potential evidence in respect of a possible crime, then it would be shared with the Police.

The information is not held because tracing can be made to the router providing the internet access, but not to a particular computer if more than one may be connected through the router.

Looking beyond that basic point, and without decrying your entitlement to be aggrieved if someone is posing as you, your comments seem to me to include many assumptions. I would be interested in any substantiation you are able to provide.

1. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.

2. Why do you conclude that any such posting was made by a senior officer or councillor? The building was not closed; there was a meeting which was open to the public in progress on the evening in question.

3. Has your name been put to particular comments posted on Mr Brookes's blog by the author, or is it the case that your IP number has been used?

4. Why do you state that the offending postings are the work of local councillors?

Regards
Geoff Pook

From: Helen [xxx@yahoo.xx]
Sent: 17 November 2010 15:59
To: Geoffrey Pook
Subject: Fw: Internet Activity
Dear Mr Pook
I have not had a reply to my email below. Do I have to cite the Freedom of Information Act?
These comments were posted by a senior officer or Councillor on a Council computer after the library and offices closed to members of the public and junior staff. They were therefore made by a senior member of staff or a Councillor and as such are under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act. I expect to receive a copy of the names forthwith.
Yours
Helen Pender


From: Martin Brookes

Dear Rutland County Council

Since my meeting with Mr Pook, I placed a tag on the computer used at RCC as you are aware it was used to access my blog once again yesterday lunch time from Oakham Town Council offices.

Shortly after woods some very disturbing comments were posted suggesting I am making this up and some how it is all a fairytale.

When are councils like Rutland County Council and Oakham Town Council going to stop suggesting people are mad who are critical or in my case they say I am in human and pure evil. This person who I am now satisfied is a County Councillor or senior member of staff, has had an obsession with me for nearly two years now.

Yes the activities I have been subjected to in the real world have upset me but I can assure you I am not mad.

The tag informs me they logged onto my blog in the Leicester area yesterday afternoon at 5.37pm via a BT IP 81-152-120-220

Since August there comments have been of a worrying and absurd sexual nature and in some case homophobic.

It is clear the laptop is old style and suggests it could be a RCC issue.

I trust RCC are doing all they can to identify this user.

I am disgusted that Data Protection protects the person you know who uses the library and the police wont take action when you give them their name and address.

One of these people is responsible for the vile post I receive and the credit accounts opened and the ladies clothes sent to me.

And even more worrying the order for a grave stone.

I wonder why the local press wont publish my findings. For fear of sounding mad everyone knows you have a strangle hold on the local press.

This is true because the Rutland Times and Rutland Mercury currently print anything Oakham Town Council release that suits them, this is organised by ex editor and Town Councillor Tor Clark.

From

Martin Brookes

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Helen
To: XXXXX@rutland.gcsx.gov.uk
Sent: Tue, 16 November, 2010 13:59:30
Subject: Fw: Internet Activity

Mr Pook

I have been forwarded a copy of your email to Martin Brookes. This is not acceptable. Justice has to be done and frankly the postings made in my name on Martin Brookes' blog have been going on for far too long. These are local Councillors and the nature of the material is obscene. It is tantamount to stalking and is having a substantial impact on my freedom. I have cancelled my access to Oakham Library computers in order to protect myself. Your inability to pursue the miscreants smacks of double standards. I can bet that you would not hesitate to pursue these miscreants if they were targeting local councillors.

You may remember the part you yourself played in ensuring Martin Brookes' Flick'r account was closed when it was pointed out what a drunken hypocrite the then Mayor was. Martin quite rightly posted a photograph of her and her mates drinking in front of the bandstand. He also posted a picture showing that the area was 'designated'. He then showed the press cuttings of her interview with the local press boasting of her part in banning drinking in Cutts Close. You appeared to think this perfectly acceptable exposure of Jan Fillingham's hypocritical behaviour deserved to be censured. Frankly your own behaviour smacks of chopped logic and a lack of clarity of thought as well as collusion with the miscreants.

I should like to know who has made my life so unacceptably difficult and I should also like to know which senior member of staff or Councillor was making unacceptable postings at 9pm at night from Council computers. Don't hide behind Data Protection. Your failure to protect law abiding citizens from being persecuted makes you an accessory to the crimes committed against both Martin Brookes and me.
Helen Pender

________________________________________
From: XXXXX@rutland.gcsx.gov.uk – G Pook – legal department
To: XXXXX@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:10:04 +0000
Subject: RE: Internet Activity
Hello Mr Brookes.

I have discussed your concerns with Inspector Monks.

The approach of the Police towards issues of material posted on the internet is based on proportionality. As you can imagine, there is such a high volume of potentially relevant material that it would require a sizeable dedicated force of its own to take up every case of inappropriate language or content. In general the Police rely on website moderators to control activity and block postings if necessary.

That is not to say that the Police would not pursue extreme cases, eg where personal injury is threatened or incited, but they do not investigate lower level, albeit unpleasant and even abusive to individuals, material which is not in the public domain (in the sense that people have to seek out particular websites to read it).

On that basis the Police are not proposing to take any action on the recent postings which you have highlighted.

Regards
Geoff Pook

The Trolls of Rotland v Laura Norder

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia – many thanks

Trolls of Rotland.v Laura Norder

Once upon a time, deep in a rural rut
warped by time, there were few trains, no buses,
public amenities withered and died.
A small rural town teetered on the brink.
The trolls who governed, this rural outpost,
made sure they had things sewn up to suit themselves.
“Stuff the poor, sod the peasants, we’ll get rich
on the backs of the apathetic voters.
We’ll sew up the local press, get the police
isolated from reality AND
Persecute anyone who tells our story.
We’ll divorce ourselves from political
Reality, ensure we have truly biased
Supremacy, ask for the highest rates
Make sure all contracts go to our brethren.”
So the trolls banded together against
the forces of fairness and Laura Norder.
They got a great big cloth and began sewing,
Finally they had it all stitched up.
Ricardo Blanco was given a job.
Poor little Ricardo tried to do his best
But in every school test he was behind
the rest. The trolls were very impressed.
A man without a brain, was what they needed.
Ricardo was paid thirty thousand pounds
It became clear he really hadn’t a brain,
Not even a single cell organism
could be found on any scan, nor even a
scintilla of moral probity
could be detected in the recesses
of his cranial cavity but the man
had oodles of loyalty, unquestioning
Fealty to troll like supremacy.
The Town Council were deeply satisfied
Mr Peek a Boo held the legal keys
And could be relied on to bend the law.
It all became so bent that anything
which had the crookedest bend could be said
to be straight. All the trolls got together
And nodded in unison their chorus
Melodically sung throughout the rural rot:

“We are Lions, we are circles, we are
on the Square, and squaddies once, shoulder to
Shoulder do our best to squish opponents.
Over ethanol we meet in the bar,
Determined to mar, we’ll feather and tar
Critics who gainsay us. Better by far to
join us,” they coo, “gangs of miscreants do.
We’ll pay obeisance on Remembrance Day
And subvert the cause for which these heroes
gave away their lives for democracy.
We’ll harry and hound right into the ground
Anyone who reveals our sins
For Laura Norder we don’t give two pins.
No Sunday buses, no morning trains,
We get in our cars, humanity drains
as we drive through the lanes, we take no blame
Hypocrisy is our middle name
We really have no sense of shame.”

The trolls were so used to getting away
with all their shenanigans. They’d clearly
got blue rosettes and joined the nasty party.
They ran their little cold club ruthlessly;
no one else would ever get voted into
Power. ‘We are invincible,’ they chortled.
“Anyone who opposes us is an
idiot – idealism won’t be
tolerated. They’re just idiot boys.”
Until an idiot boy with a camera
started taking pictures of the trolls,.
Ethanol in hand in front of the bandstand.
“Stop that idiot boy,” they begged Mr Peek a Boo.
Holding the legal keys in his right hand
And a mouse in his left hand Peek a Boo
Wrote to Flick’r and got his account closed.
Satisfied and rather smug the trolls
Claimed justice had been done, but to
add to the spice of life and have some fun
they developed an obsession with mouses.
on the internet the louses dosed with
Ethanolic souses pursued their quarry
Round the houses. So the idiot boy
took photos morning, noon and night – always.
Pictures of trolls parking illegally,
Legless with bottles their troll like tottles
along the road in ‘designated’ places,
were published on the boy’s blogging website
The idiot boy got himself voted
onto the Council. Something just had to
be done. So Mrs Joyless Curse and Mr
Jimbo Harass, son of a Commando,
Paulo Bitchio, or so Bitchio
claimed as he waddled with medals on his
ever so wide breasts, the result of
imbibing too much sauce with his bisto;
Mr Carlo Haugh Waugh, lardyboy and
Mr Alfredo photoshop Al’ DO EE
Ran a war of attrition – “He’s gay” they
shouted. “I’m out and proud” said the boy.
Then they started a vicious rumour knowing
it to be untrue, they deliberately blew
a nasty whisper far and wide, they failed
to get the rumour to gain currency
Which they wouldn’t deny at all when I
questioned them in their den, so in civil
Law they’d opened the door to a guilty
judgement on their rumour mongering intent.
In a bit of a fix the tortured trolls
Decided to recruit top cat onto
the Council. “We need some good publicity,”
They bleated lamely: “You’re our media star.
Get the papers to be our char, publish
only the best.” Well top cat hadn’t pickled
his brains in alcohol and was happy
to oblige. He polished up their image
so carefully they made him the Tzar.
of the council’s woolly thinking brigade.
The trolls wrote dozens of emails and postings.
When the idiot boy accused them of
doing so, Ricardo Blanco denied it
Mr Peek a Boo ensured it was never
investigated. Instead they oilily
wheeled out The Data Protection Act.
Never mind that the postings were made
at nine o’clock at night from the council’s
own chamber. The police refused to take
any action. The trolls began to muddy
the water and bake a fake cake which smelled
of hake. “Smoke and mirrors man, we’ll make
a false claim – someone’s stolen our laptop.
It wasn’t me, I didn’t make the posting
I wasn’t in the Council at twelve noon
Nor in Leicester later. The boy’s a loon
It’s us against him. We’ll make out he’s dim.
We’ve all got cast iron alibis, test us.”
So once again they raised their glasses
Pickled their brains and went back to their mouses.
There ain’t no justice until we vote out
all these louses. Trolls screamed: “Stop your grouses.
We’ve sewn up all the election polls.”
Can anyone defeat, or even eat, the trolls?
Look forward to another instalment
Of the shenanigans of the drollest trolls.

Some odd retail voting on Tocess proposed planning permission.
But that’s another story…

IS COURTS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT DOOLALLY?

A few months ago, in broad daylight, I witnessed a crime, directed at me by a stranger. Having taken the man’s number plate, I reported the crime to the police. I was termed ‘victim, number one.’ Two weeks later a woman, collecting her children from a dance group, with her three-year-old strapped in the back of her car, was subjected to the same crime. She was termed ‘victim, number two.’

Kent Police pursued the criminal, brought him to justice and did all that could reasonably be expected of an efficient police force; somewhat putting Leicestershire and Rutland Police in the shade by comparison. [See previous post and Sergeant Collyer’s (or is that Collier’s?) failure to put an end to months of nightmare I have suffered on Martin Brookes’ blog; perpetrated by a bunch of bunny boiling Oakham Parish Councillors or their friends, some of whom appear to have mental health issues associated with alcohol consumption and possibly the armed services, and a biscuit taking, pill popping, serially stalking, sociopathic Parish Councillor in Exton.]

The man entered a guilty plea in Court three weeks earlier and was due to be sentenced on 2nd November. The Probation Service was asked to submit a pre- sentencing report. Having attended the initial hearing I presumed I would be able to ring the court to find out what sentence he received, so did not attend the hearing at which he was sentenced.

I telephoned the Court Service, in Maidstone, on 3rd November and was told that they could not tell me what sentence had been handed down to this criminal.

Why, you may ask?

The Court Service cited ‘THE DATA PROTECTION ACT.’

This had been a public trial in a public court, which the press were entitled to attend and report. However, in their wisdom, the Court had changed the venue for both hearings at the last minute to a more private court-room in the complex. The press missed the sentencing of the criminal, so were unable to tell me what had happened. The Court Service then decided, under the DATA PROTECTION ACT, that I could not be told what sentence this criminal had received. Needless to say I told the person I spoke to, twice, at the Court Service that this was utter rubbish and that the point of public trials was to ensure that justice was seen to be done.

Kent Police were finally able to ascertain that the criminal received 150 hours Community Service over one year; a year’s Supervision Order and registration on the SOR for five years. My deepest thanks go to Kent Police for taking this case to a successful conclusion.

However for the Court Service to tell a ‘victim’ (twice) that they are not entitled to know what sentence the perpetrator of the crime against them receives, erroneously citing the DATA PROTECTION ACT, is frankly deeply shocking. I told the Court Service in Maidstone I would be blogging this. I understand, from the woman I spoke to, that this decision had been made by the Clerks’ to the Courts.

When such legislative illiteracy exists amongst the supposedly legally qualified Clerks, then what hope do we have of gaining a semblance of transparent justice?

Are those who wield power becoming collectively doolally?