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?
Showing posts with label Charles Haworth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Haworth. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Town Council Meeting 4 August 2010
At the Town / Parish Council meeting tonight item 15 (b) on the agenda reads:
15 Representatives on outside bodies: ...
(b) To confirm representatives on the Police Joint Action Group (JAG)
This item was brought up a couple of months ago. Rather alarmingly Cllr Dewis said that membership of this Committee was 'by invitation only.'
The Council will also discuss my complaint against the Town Clerk's silly allegation of bullying - item 25 - but as usual the public will be excluded. I have been told the matters raised 'have been addressed.'
Somehow I doubt this Parish Council is capable of addressing the matter adquately. The fact remains that Richard White was manipulated by Cllr Dewis into pursuing his spurious complaint of bullying against Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis attempted to use Richard White's complaint as a means to ensuring that Martin Brookes was unable to carry out his duties as a Councillor. Martin Brookes has since resigned, blaming me for bringing to the Council's attention a highly incendiary allegation that a Councillor accused him of being a paedophile. The person who told me this, in the strictest of confidences, remains far too frightened to make her allegation publicly. Which brings into question what sort of power local Councillors might wield? I might say that if this allegation was made it was unkind, criminal and severely dangerous. In my opinion if the allegation was made it amounts to an attempt to seriously harm Martin Brookes. That is a criminal offence.
Richard White appeared to believe that any criticism of his capabilities as a Town Clerk was tantamount to bullying, whereas in fact the criticism was justified and wholly appropriate. Richard White issued inaccurate advice to Councillors on the 'six-month rule.' He seemed to feel that any demand that Standing Orders are adhered to as particularly picky and unnecessary. Since then he has managed to form a basic understanding of Standing Orders, but is still intellectually incapable of grasping the need to keep his distance from the internecine politics of vendettas pursued by local Councillors. Richard White's inability to do the job adequately has led to some levels of stress, but that is not a fault of the job. I would suggest it is a fault of Richard White's rather limited intellectual and administrative capabilities. Any crisis of confidence the Town Clerk has faced might sadly be wholly justified.
The breathtaking way in which item 15 (b) has been listed for tonight's meeting is evidence that, yet again, the Town Clerk is prepared to bend to the will of local Councillors. I was at the meeting when Cllr Dewis stated that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was 'by invitation only.' At no point were representatives voted onto this Committee. Yet the Town Clerk's agenda states: 'To confirm representatives to the JAG.' What the hell does that mean? Who is confirming what to whom? They are either elected or not. What sort of finesse is this intended to be?
No wonder the local police are suffering a lack of public confidence. When the three Town Councillors who represent locals can be described as:
Charles Haworth - aka 'lardboy' on the world wide web - who has posted criminally tasteless material in the belief that it constitutes humour. I had two bare behinds posted in my name on the internet last year. When I complained to the Police they did absolutely nothing to ascertain who posted this material and instead arrested Martin Brookes when he ill advisedly posted a copy on a noticeboard. Such double standards on the part of the police certainly need oversight and I would suggest that Charles Haworth, Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Joyce Lucas are the least likely candidates to ensure that public confidence in the police is enhanced.
Cllr Dewis called the police to throw me out of a Council meeting when the Standing Orders had not been complied with and then proceeded to bully Martin Brookes mercilessly for the rest of the meeting. Cllr Dewis pretends to know the law. In truth Cllr Alf Dewis knows damn all, but is prepared to subvert any situation and use his contacts and influence to bring the democratic process down to a tyrannical level of abuse.
Cllr Joyce Lucas was asked if she had said that Martin Brookes was a paedophile. I wonder if she knows that her lack of denial is, in civil law, tantamount to an admission of guilt. I have yet to see either in letter form or minuted form a denial by Cllr Joyce Lucas and begin to wonder what the reason might be?
A few anonymous postings were made in my name of Martin Brookes' blog. I certainly never made any anonymous postings and one in particular was in the worst possible taste and highly dubious, or even offensive. Should I complain to the police? I suspect that there is no point, particularly since Cllrs Lucas, Haworth and Dewis are to remain our representatives on the Police Joint Action Group.
Let's hope that these dinosaurs of local government do not stand for re-election next year. In the meantime does anyone know the procedure for abolishing a local Parish Council?
15 Representatives on outside bodies: ...
(b) To confirm representatives on the Police Joint Action Group (JAG)
This item was brought up a couple of months ago. Rather alarmingly Cllr Dewis said that membership of this Committee was 'by invitation only.'
The Council will also discuss my complaint against the Town Clerk's silly allegation of bullying - item 25 - but as usual the public will be excluded. I have been told the matters raised 'have been addressed.'
Somehow I doubt this Parish Council is capable of addressing the matter adquately. The fact remains that Richard White was manipulated by Cllr Dewis into pursuing his spurious complaint of bullying against Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis attempted to use Richard White's complaint as a means to ensuring that Martin Brookes was unable to carry out his duties as a Councillor. Martin Brookes has since resigned, blaming me for bringing to the Council's attention a highly incendiary allegation that a Councillor accused him of being a paedophile. The person who told me this, in the strictest of confidences, remains far too frightened to make her allegation publicly. Which brings into question what sort of power local Councillors might wield? I might say that if this allegation was made it was unkind, criminal and severely dangerous. In my opinion if the allegation was made it amounts to an attempt to seriously harm Martin Brookes. That is a criminal offence.
Richard White appeared to believe that any criticism of his capabilities as a Town Clerk was tantamount to bullying, whereas in fact the criticism was justified and wholly appropriate. Richard White issued inaccurate advice to Councillors on the 'six-month rule.' He seemed to feel that any demand that Standing Orders are adhered to as particularly picky and unnecessary. Since then he has managed to form a basic understanding of Standing Orders, but is still intellectually incapable of grasping the need to keep his distance from the internecine politics of vendettas pursued by local Councillors. Richard White's inability to do the job adequately has led to some levels of stress, but that is not a fault of the job. I would suggest it is a fault of Richard White's rather limited intellectual and administrative capabilities. Any crisis of confidence the Town Clerk has faced might sadly be wholly justified.
The breathtaking way in which item 15 (b) has been listed for tonight's meeting is evidence that, yet again, the Town Clerk is prepared to bend to the will of local Councillors. I was at the meeting when Cllr Dewis stated that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was 'by invitation only.' At no point were representatives voted onto this Committee. Yet the Town Clerk's agenda states: 'To confirm representatives to the JAG.' What the hell does that mean? Who is confirming what to whom? They are either elected or not. What sort of finesse is this intended to be?
No wonder the local police are suffering a lack of public confidence. When the three Town Councillors who represent locals can be described as:
Charles Haworth - aka 'lardboy' on the world wide web - who has posted criminally tasteless material in the belief that it constitutes humour. I had two bare behinds posted in my name on the internet last year. When I complained to the Police they did absolutely nothing to ascertain who posted this material and instead arrested Martin Brookes when he ill advisedly posted a copy on a noticeboard. Such double standards on the part of the police certainly need oversight and I would suggest that Charles Haworth, Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Joyce Lucas are the least likely candidates to ensure that public confidence in the police is enhanced.
Cllr Dewis called the police to throw me out of a Council meeting when the Standing Orders had not been complied with and then proceeded to bully Martin Brookes mercilessly for the rest of the meeting. Cllr Dewis pretends to know the law. In truth Cllr Alf Dewis knows damn all, but is prepared to subvert any situation and use his contacts and influence to bring the democratic process down to a tyrannical level of abuse.
Cllr Joyce Lucas was asked if she had said that Martin Brookes was a paedophile. I wonder if she knows that her lack of denial is, in civil law, tantamount to an admission of guilt. I have yet to see either in letter form or minuted form a denial by Cllr Joyce Lucas and begin to wonder what the reason might be?
A few anonymous postings were made in my name of Martin Brookes' blog. I certainly never made any anonymous postings and one in particular was in the worst possible taste and highly dubious, or even offensive. Should I complain to the police? I suspect that there is no point, particularly since Cllrs Lucas, Haworth and Dewis are to remain our representatives on the Police Joint Action Group.
Let's hope that these dinosaurs of local government do not stand for re-election next year. In the meantime does anyone know the procedure for abolishing a local Parish Council?
Monday, 28 June 2010
Do the Police serve the Council or the Community?
The Nettle bouquet goes to Oakham Police and Inspector Johnny Monks - well done guys!
I have just received the following email from Martin Brookes:
"Standards Complaint Charles Haworth
Mr Haworth abused his position as a councillor he used his possition to influence the police and along with ex Cllr Beech asked the police to issue a stage one harrasment order against me.
I feel this is due to the amendment of the which now show Cllr Haworth obstructed me at a previous meeting.
Cllr Howarth is able to influence the police because of his connection with JAG
I of course exercised my right to refuse acceptance of the notices."
If true this is outrageous. Can anyone recommend a decent out of area human rights lawyer prepared to work pro bono - this tyranny is so out of hand that it beats the comedy evening at the Merry Monk last night.
Considering Jim Harrison's posts about Martin Brookes this smacks of double standards of such an order that it beggars belief anyone at all can justify it.
See Rutlandshire blog: http://rutlandshire.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Oakham Town Council co-options - 16th June 2010
Present: Cllrs Joyce Lucas; Charles Haworth; Alf Dewis; George Swiffin; Alan Walters; Martin Brookes and Chairman and Mayor – Sharon Spencer.
Candidates in order of interview: Linda Grey; Helen Pender; Tor Clarke and Fiona Arnold.
The following Councillors cast two votes each in favour of Mrs Linda Grey and Tor Clarke: Cllrs Alf Dewis; Charles Haworth; Joyce Lucas; George Swiffin; Alan Walters.
When told of the vote by the Chairman, Sharon Spencer, she also said that Martin Brookes and she did not vote since they each knew one of the candidates. This prompted me to ask if I was sleeping with (openly gay) Cllr Brookes, since Linda Grey had admitted to me two weeks earlier that she was a friend of both Alf Dewis and Joyce Lucas. In fact I hear from Martin’s blog that she also admitted this as she was introduced at her interview. However Joyce Lucas wisely shut her up.
Oakham is a town of 10,000 people, a very small community. It is unlikely that the five Councillors who voted did not know at least one of the candidates. What cloistered lives these five must lead.
By a happy coincidence the five Councillors, who did vote, roared in unison like unanimous lions in favour of Linda Grey and Tor Clarke.
Martin’s comment to me after the meeting was that I had not pulled my punches when telling the Council of its failings. This was the only opportunity I would get to be heard and it is important to make the most of opportunities when they arise. The Town Clerk said that everyone else was interviewed for a quarter of an hour. My interview lasted half an hour.
Cllr Dewis listened as I told the meeting that Plato believed that Tyranny and Anarchy replaced democracy when democracy fails. However I am not sure he is capable of understanding the depths to which he is bringing this Council by riding rough shod over Standing Orders.
The public were ejected when the five Parish Councillors voted. Martin Brookes had proposed, I am told by other members of the public, that the public be excluded for the discussion. Needless to say, since it was proposed by Cllr Martin Brookes, no one would second his proposal. A few seconds later Cllr Dewis suggested the public be excluded. No one seconded his proposal either, but it was put to the vote and carried. One shakes ones head in despair at this point. You can’t surely have a motion to exclude the public, which receives no support, and then revive exactly the same motion again, which again receives no seconder, and then put the motion to the vote.
Oh yes you can, but only on Oakham Parish Council where Standing Orders don’t apply. It seems my small opportunity to educate Cllr Dewis had fallen on deaf ears. Heigh Ho! Why can’t I learn that casting pearls before swine is always a vain exercise?
As we left the building Martin was locked out of the Council Chamber and office. It became clear that some Councillors were holding an informal discussion from which they wished to exclude Martin Brookes. Quelle suprise?
The outcome was predictable (see Martin Brookes’ blog posted before the meeting). Martin expressed great regret that he hadn’t placed a bet with William Hill as he left the Council Chamber. I couldn’t help thinking that if he had he might have been arrested and charged with fraud.
Lest we forget, at the last Council meeting Cllr Alf Dewis assured us that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth would serve on the Police Joint Action Group, since membership of this group is in future to be ‘by invitation only.’
My congratulations go to Tor Clarke and Linda Grey along with my fervent hopes that they might bring some sanity to this Council. Chris Hilton, Martin Brookes and I raised our glasses in a toast to Oakham Town Council in the Hornblower afterwards. No doubt there will be a celebratory dinner for Lions and their spouses too in the very near future … so perhaps collective sanity on Oakham Town Council is a vain hope.
Candidates in order of interview: Linda Grey; Helen Pender; Tor Clarke and Fiona Arnold.
The following Councillors cast two votes each in favour of Mrs Linda Grey and Tor Clarke: Cllrs Alf Dewis; Charles Haworth; Joyce Lucas; George Swiffin; Alan Walters.
When told of the vote by the Chairman, Sharon Spencer, she also said that Martin Brookes and she did not vote since they each knew one of the candidates. This prompted me to ask if I was sleeping with (openly gay) Cllr Brookes, since Linda Grey had admitted to me two weeks earlier that she was a friend of both Alf Dewis and Joyce Lucas. In fact I hear from Martin’s blog that she also admitted this as she was introduced at her interview. However Joyce Lucas wisely shut her up.
Oakham is a town of 10,000 people, a very small community. It is unlikely that the five Councillors who voted did not know at least one of the candidates. What cloistered lives these five must lead.
By a happy coincidence the five Councillors, who did vote, roared in unison like unanimous lions in favour of Linda Grey and Tor Clarke.
Martin’s comment to me after the meeting was that I had not pulled my punches when telling the Council of its failings. This was the only opportunity I would get to be heard and it is important to make the most of opportunities when they arise. The Town Clerk said that everyone else was interviewed for a quarter of an hour. My interview lasted half an hour.
Cllr Dewis listened as I told the meeting that Plato believed that Tyranny and Anarchy replaced democracy when democracy fails. However I am not sure he is capable of understanding the depths to which he is bringing this Council by riding rough shod over Standing Orders.
The public were ejected when the five Parish Councillors voted. Martin Brookes had proposed, I am told by other members of the public, that the public be excluded for the discussion. Needless to say, since it was proposed by Cllr Martin Brookes, no one would second his proposal. A few seconds later Cllr Dewis suggested the public be excluded. No one seconded his proposal either, but it was put to the vote and carried. One shakes ones head in despair at this point. You can’t surely have a motion to exclude the public, which receives no support, and then revive exactly the same motion again, which again receives no seconder, and then put the motion to the vote.
Oh yes you can, but only on Oakham Parish Council where Standing Orders don’t apply. It seems my small opportunity to educate Cllr Dewis had fallen on deaf ears. Heigh Ho! Why can’t I learn that casting pearls before swine is always a vain exercise?
As we left the building Martin was locked out of the Council Chamber and office. It became clear that some Councillors were holding an informal discussion from which they wished to exclude Martin Brookes. Quelle suprise?
The outcome was predictable (see Martin Brookes’ blog posted before the meeting). Martin expressed great regret that he hadn’t placed a bet with William Hill as he left the Council Chamber. I couldn’t help thinking that if he had he might have been arrested and charged with fraud.
Lest we forget, at the last Council meeting Cllr Alf Dewis assured us that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth would serve on the Police Joint Action Group, since membership of this group is in future to be ‘by invitation only.’
My congratulations go to Tor Clarke and Linda Grey along with my fervent hopes that they might bring some sanity to this Council. Chris Hilton, Martin Brookes and I raised our glasses in a toast to Oakham Town Council in the Hornblower afterwards. No doubt there will be a celebratory dinner for Lions and their spouses too in the very near future … so perhaps collective sanity on Oakham Town Council is a vain hope.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Report of Oakham Town Council Meeting 7th June 2010
REPORT OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 7TH JUNE 2010
I must confess to a great deal of confusion. Bullying of Martin Brookes was somewhat muted.
Why?
This meeting was attended by a member of the Standards Committee for the second time – so Councillors were on their best behaviour.
So, one would think that the rules and regulations would be scrupulously followed too – wouldn’t one?
Cllr Jan Fillingham, not having attended a Council meeting since 16 December (although her rather florid signature is also absent from the attendance register on that date – this is said to be an ‘oversight’) was item number 1 ii on the agenda viz:
1. Ii To approve the absence of Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham since December 16th 2009 from meetings of the Council and its Committees on the grounds of ill health.
Oddly at the Annual meeting on 12th May we had been told that Mrs Fillingham had now recovered. Does this illness come and go? Or do members of the Council suffer from terminal amnesia?
We had been told by Cllr Haworth, via email, that Cllr Fillingham’s tired and emotional state at Remembrance Sunday Service last November was due to her medication. Yet Cllr Fillingham in her Annual report says that she was diagnosed in January 2010. Do Councillors need a calendar of events and a prompt in the wings to remind them what they have asserted? I had seen Cllr Fillingham looking her usual impeccably turned out self in the High Street as I emerged with my bag full of medication the previous week and luckily I was able to remind Councillors of the announcement of her recovery on 12th May.
Ex Councillor Kelly attended and had clearly failed to understand the terms of the ‘six months’ rule.’ He asked why Councillors, who gave their apologies religiously at every meeting for longer than six months, were thought to be in danger of losing their seats. Although I am told Cllr Kelly does read my blog (see 26 May Six Months’ Rule blog) he clearly failed to understand it. I will just refer him back to: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 and recommend that he finds someone with either a level of reasonable literacy or intellectual ability to translate this into a monosyllabic explanation.
No one seems to understand the idea that if one cannot carry out one's duties as a Councillor for longer than six months there should be some code of honour to suggest that one should allow the electors to be properly represented. However that idea goes against the more prevalent idea of an exclusive club of like minded people supporting one another through thick and thin. The code of Omerta till rules among this coterie of Councillors.
Under Item 3 Cllr Dewis stood up and asked why Cllr Brookes had failed to ascertain the situation on the boards around the bandstand. At the last meeting Cllr Brookes had asked that the boards around the bandstand be preserved. The Chairman, Cllr Haworth, then suggested that Cllr Brookes have precisely one week, whilst banned from visiting the Town Clerk to ascertain whether a friend of the Town Clerk might be in a position to take these boards. Clrr Brookes explained at the last meeting that he could not do this, particularly since Cllr Dewis and Haworth had banned him from talking or communicating with the Town Clerk. It was finally decided that the Town Clerk would carry out the research on what to do with these boards. However Cllr Dewis never lets the facts get in the way of a dig at Cllr Brookes and was happy to indulge in total amnesia about what had been decided at the last meeting.
Perhaps we should have the water tested at Victoria Hall. A worrying amount of amnesia seems far too prevalent amongst Councillors.
Item 11 – REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES raised some eyebrows amongst the three members of the public observing the Council meeting. At first it began to look as though Cllr Brookes would not be allowed to serve on any of these Committees. Cllr Brookes proposed himself to the first five committees and received absolutely no seconder whatsoever. It all began to look a little like the vendetta it is. Item 11(v) needed three members as trustees of the Victoria Hall. Cllr Fillingham and Cllr Dodds are on this committee.
The Town Clerk In his eagerness to ensure Cllr Dewis was voted onto this committee ruled rather oddly that he would only take one nomination at a time. The correct procedure would have been to accept all nominations and then had an election. But why would Oakham Town Council want to deviate into the territory of correct procedures? Instead Richard White said: ‘Uh one at a time please.’ So ruling that Cllr Dewis would be voted onto the board of Trustees and further nominations made after he had been voted in. Cllr Dodds said she would like to continue to serve as a trustee of the Victoria Hall and was duly voted in. Cllr Haworth, eager to ensure that Cllr Brookes was edged out immediately proposed himself. So instead of having to vote for four candidates for three positions, members were asked to elect Cllrs Dewis and Dodds and then have a vote between two candidates for one position. Highly irregular and rather against Standing Orders, but never mind we don’t seem to take much notice of regulations on OTC.
Remember the Standards Committee representative sitting in the public seats? As I said Councillors were on their best behaviour. This then begs the question: Are Councillors so politically ignorant as to fail to understand their highly irregular behaviour? Or did they think that the three members of the public attending the meeting would be so thick that they wouldn’t understand this finesse? Furthermore did they think that a member of the Standards Committee would be able to overlook this irregularity? I rather think they are or did. Hence my confusion – I simply can’t decide whether the Council and the Town Clerk are irremedially politically ill educated or whether they think others are even thicker than they are and won’t notice these sorts of irregularities. Would someone please let me know?
Under 11 (vi) Cllr Lucas refused to serve on the Oakham Festival Committee, reasoning that this Committee met on a Wednesday and this often clashed with Town Council meetings. Having spotted the Standards Committee representative in the public seats a small confab took place and, if only to ensure that Cllr Brookes was not edged out of every committee, he was voted onto the Festival Committee. I rather think the Wednesday clash and the prospect of Cllr Brookes being unable to attend one meeting or the other might have recommended him for the position.
But ... it gets worse! Item 11 (ix): Police Joint Action Group. Cllr Dewis stood up and, in his usual confident manner, assured the meeting that elections were no longer valid since the police wanted representation on this committee to be ‘by invitation only.’
It beggared belief. In what Universe do the police decide which Councillors oversee their activities on the Joint Action Group? The face of the Standards Officer was a picture, my chin hit the floor with a bump. Eyeing the consternation in the public seats the Town Clerk said he would come back to the meeting on the situation and let us know. Why didn’t the Town Clerk have the training, common sense or insight to know that this is entirely unacceptable and say so? Why didn't any other Councillor tell us how odd this assertion was? Code of Omerta ... again?
I rather think this constitutes proof positive that this little club of Councillors are well past their sell by date. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman made no effort to rule Cllr Dewis out of order when he asserted that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth were those invited to serve on this committee ‘by invitation’ – although we only have Cllr Dewis’ word on this. Surely this cosy little coterie, or tyrannical triumvirate, should all be ruled off the Police Joint Action Group? One cannot have Councillors believing that democracy, police oversight and elections may be over ruled by a tyrranical police force eager to ensure that those prepared to sing from their hymn sheet should serve on the Joint Action Group, surely??????????
Cllr Brookes, with an eye on the accounts, then begged the question as to why the Town Council had approved expenditure of only £38.00 for signage to the new public loos, yet he now saw that we had paid around £125.40. He also asked why the Churches together had said they did not need electricity at the bandstand, yet used electricity. Cllr Brookes on both points said that the Council had approved expenditure or authorised use of the bandstand on certain terms and those terms were overturned with no reference back to the Council. Other Councillors treated Cllr Brookes as if he were a trouble maker. Cllr Dodds said that one shouldn’t worry about a trivial matter like a small amount of electricity – ‘the important thing was did people enjoy theirselves.’!!! The Town Clerk in his usual effort to evade the truth read from a previous bill to show that 38p’s worth of electricity had been used. However this bill did not cover the period Cllr Brookes was referring to, which the Town Clerk failed to acknowledge and Cllr Brookes had to point out this attempt at a finesse on the truth. Luckily the man from Standards understood why Cllr Brookes had asked these questions.
Is it too much to hope that RCC finally realise what a shower this Council is and call for it to be abolished? At the very least we deserve a full procedural audit – surely?
Finally could I ask the press to desist from making broadcasts or printing items on Oakham Town Council without doing their own independent newsgathering. If the radio station can't be bothered to send a reporter to the meetings and the local paper can't be bothered to send anyone other than Jim Harrison, who has a rather poisonous axe to grind, then they should not make inaccurate broadcasts. News gathering does not mean gleaning poisonous gossip from Cllrs Haworth, Lucas, Dewis, ex Councillor Jim Harrison et al and then publishing their scurrilous stories. Journalism demands a bit more effort. Without a free press (or the fifth estate if you will) we are enslaved to the tyrants who would trample democracy into an early grave.
I must confess to a great deal of confusion. Bullying of Martin Brookes was somewhat muted.
Why?
This meeting was attended by a member of the Standards Committee for the second time – so Councillors were on their best behaviour.
So, one would think that the rules and regulations would be scrupulously followed too – wouldn’t one?
Cllr Jan Fillingham, not having attended a Council meeting since 16 December (although her rather florid signature is also absent from the attendance register on that date – this is said to be an ‘oversight’) was item number 1 ii on the agenda viz:
1. Ii To approve the absence of Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham since December 16th 2009 from meetings of the Council and its Committees on the grounds of ill health.
Oddly at the Annual meeting on 12th May we had been told that Mrs Fillingham had now recovered. Does this illness come and go? Or do members of the Council suffer from terminal amnesia?
We had been told by Cllr Haworth, via email, that Cllr Fillingham’s tired and emotional state at Remembrance Sunday Service last November was due to her medication. Yet Cllr Fillingham in her Annual report says that she was diagnosed in January 2010. Do Councillors need a calendar of events and a prompt in the wings to remind them what they have asserted? I had seen Cllr Fillingham looking her usual impeccably turned out self in the High Street as I emerged with my bag full of medication the previous week and luckily I was able to remind Councillors of the announcement of her recovery on 12th May.
Ex Councillor Kelly attended and had clearly failed to understand the terms of the ‘six months’ rule.’ He asked why Councillors, who gave their apologies religiously at every meeting for longer than six months, were thought to be in danger of losing their seats. Although I am told Cllr Kelly does read my blog (see 26 May Six Months’ Rule blog) he clearly failed to understand it. I will just refer him back to: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 and recommend that he finds someone with either a level of reasonable literacy or intellectual ability to translate this into a monosyllabic explanation.
No one seems to understand the idea that if one cannot carry out one's duties as a Councillor for longer than six months there should be some code of honour to suggest that one should allow the electors to be properly represented. However that idea goes against the more prevalent idea of an exclusive club of like minded people supporting one another through thick and thin. The code of Omerta till rules among this coterie of Councillors.
Under Item 3 Cllr Dewis stood up and asked why Cllr Brookes had failed to ascertain the situation on the boards around the bandstand. At the last meeting Cllr Brookes had asked that the boards around the bandstand be preserved. The Chairman, Cllr Haworth, then suggested that Cllr Brookes have precisely one week, whilst banned from visiting the Town Clerk to ascertain whether a friend of the Town Clerk might be in a position to take these boards. Clrr Brookes explained at the last meeting that he could not do this, particularly since Cllr Dewis and Haworth had banned him from talking or communicating with the Town Clerk. It was finally decided that the Town Clerk would carry out the research on what to do with these boards. However Cllr Dewis never lets the facts get in the way of a dig at Cllr Brookes and was happy to indulge in total amnesia about what had been decided at the last meeting.
Perhaps we should have the water tested at Victoria Hall. A worrying amount of amnesia seems far too prevalent amongst Councillors.
Item 11 – REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES raised some eyebrows amongst the three members of the public observing the Council meeting. At first it began to look as though Cllr Brookes would not be allowed to serve on any of these Committees. Cllr Brookes proposed himself to the first five committees and received absolutely no seconder whatsoever. It all began to look a little like the vendetta it is. Item 11(v) needed three members as trustees of the Victoria Hall. Cllr Fillingham and Cllr Dodds are on this committee.
The Town Clerk In his eagerness to ensure Cllr Dewis was voted onto this committee ruled rather oddly that he would only take one nomination at a time. The correct procedure would have been to accept all nominations and then had an election. But why would Oakham Town Council want to deviate into the territory of correct procedures? Instead Richard White said: ‘Uh one at a time please.’ So ruling that Cllr Dewis would be voted onto the board of Trustees and further nominations made after he had been voted in. Cllr Dodds said she would like to continue to serve as a trustee of the Victoria Hall and was duly voted in. Cllr Haworth, eager to ensure that Cllr Brookes was edged out immediately proposed himself. So instead of having to vote for four candidates for three positions, members were asked to elect Cllrs Dewis and Dodds and then have a vote between two candidates for one position. Highly irregular and rather against Standing Orders, but never mind we don’t seem to take much notice of regulations on OTC.
Remember the Standards Committee representative sitting in the public seats? As I said Councillors were on their best behaviour. This then begs the question: Are Councillors so politically ignorant as to fail to understand their highly irregular behaviour? Or did they think that the three members of the public attending the meeting would be so thick that they wouldn’t understand this finesse? Furthermore did they think that a member of the Standards Committee would be able to overlook this irregularity? I rather think they are or did. Hence my confusion – I simply can’t decide whether the Council and the Town Clerk are irremedially politically ill educated or whether they think others are even thicker than they are and won’t notice these sorts of irregularities. Would someone please let me know?
Under 11 (vi) Cllr Lucas refused to serve on the Oakham Festival Committee, reasoning that this Committee met on a Wednesday and this often clashed with Town Council meetings. Having spotted the Standards Committee representative in the public seats a small confab took place and, if only to ensure that Cllr Brookes was not edged out of every committee, he was voted onto the Festival Committee. I rather think the Wednesday clash and the prospect of Cllr Brookes being unable to attend one meeting or the other might have recommended him for the position.
But ... it gets worse! Item 11 (ix): Police Joint Action Group. Cllr Dewis stood up and, in his usual confident manner, assured the meeting that elections were no longer valid since the police wanted representation on this committee to be ‘by invitation only.’
It beggared belief. In what Universe do the police decide which Councillors oversee their activities on the Joint Action Group? The face of the Standards Officer was a picture, my chin hit the floor with a bump. Eyeing the consternation in the public seats the Town Clerk said he would come back to the meeting on the situation and let us know. Why didn’t the Town Clerk have the training, common sense or insight to know that this is entirely unacceptable and say so? Why didn't any other Councillor tell us how odd this assertion was? Code of Omerta ... again?
I rather think this constitutes proof positive that this little club of Councillors are well past their sell by date. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman made no effort to rule Cllr Dewis out of order when he asserted that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth were those invited to serve on this committee ‘by invitation’ – although we only have Cllr Dewis’ word on this. Surely this cosy little coterie, or tyrannical triumvirate, should all be ruled off the Police Joint Action Group? One cannot have Councillors believing that democracy, police oversight and elections may be over ruled by a tyrranical police force eager to ensure that those prepared to sing from their hymn sheet should serve on the Joint Action Group, surely??????????
Cllr Brookes, with an eye on the accounts, then begged the question as to why the Town Council had approved expenditure of only £38.00 for signage to the new public loos, yet he now saw that we had paid around £125.40. He also asked why the Churches together had said they did not need electricity at the bandstand, yet used electricity. Cllr Brookes on both points said that the Council had approved expenditure or authorised use of the bandstand on certain terms and those terms were overturned with no reference back to the Council. Other Councillors treated Cllr Brookes as if he were a trouble maker. Cllr Dodds said that one shouldn’t worry about a trivial matter like a small amount of electricity – ‘the important thing was did people enjoy theirselves.’!!! The Town Clerk in his usual effort to evade the truth read from a previous bill to show that 38p’s worth of electricity had been used. However this bill did not cover the period Cllr Brookes was referring to, which the Town Clerk failed to acknowledge and Cllr Brookes had to point out this attempt at a finesse on the truth. Luckily the man from Standards understood why Cllr Brookes had asked these questions.
Is it too much to hope that RCC finally realise what a shower this Council is and call for it to be abolished? At the very least we deserve a full procedural audit – surely?
Finally could I ask the press to desist from making broadcasts or printing items on Oakham Town Council without doing their own independent newsgathering. If the radio station can't be bothered to send a reporter to the meetings and the local paper can't be bothered to send anyone other than Jim Harrison, who has a rather poisonous axe to grind, then they should not make inaccurate broadcasts. News gathering does not mean gleaning poisonous gossip from Cllrs Haworth, Lucas, Dewis, ex Councillor Jim Harrison et al and then publishing their scurrilous stories. Journalism demands a bit more effort. Without a free press (or the fifth estate if you will) we are enslaved to the tyrants who would trample democracy into an early grave.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
