Are Standards slipping? Or is it an unstoppable landslide to utter corruption?

This sad and sorry tale of a lack of justice needs wider dissemination - I merely give you a taste of some of the email correspondence about a vicious, malicious and dangerous rumour of such untruth that the perpetrators should rightly face the full censure of all the public. Unfortunately in Oakham there is no justice, the police appear to be in the pockets of local Councillors and their henchmen and will only prosecute those whom these henchmen wish to persecute. I fear - bearing in mind Julian Assange that: 'It's the same the whole world over, ain't it all a bleeding shame. It's the rich what get's the money and the poor what gets the blame.' We live in a world of cruel irony where some of the internet bodies who are now refusing to accept money on behalf of Wikileaks continue to accept monies on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan. I can't say that I will shed any tears over the abolition of Standards for England, but it is time that we who are prepared to witness the irregularities in local politics have some sort of redress when the gang like thugs of local government embrace anarchy. These are a small selection of emails which tell this sad and sorry story of the betrayal of justice.


Re: Standards result
From: Helen Pender View Contact
To: Martin Brookes;

Martin

In reply to your email about the lack of justice you have received. I enclose at the bottom of these emails Geoffrey Pook's reply to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. My thoughts are these:

Jo Dickinson told us both, separately, what Joyce Lucas had said to her at Royce's Opening Day. Joyce Lucas has failed to deny this, and in civil law this could be said to be an admission of her guilt. However Jo Dickinson is clearly petrified of giving evidence; with good reason it seems bearing in mind the vicious comments posted on your blog in my name and the pornographic pictures posted in my name on your Flick'r site. It was clear when I went to see Richard about those pictures that he did know who had posted them or he knew how to get a message to those who had posted them. If the police had investigated that this would not have escalated to the extent that it has.

Jim Harrison virtually called you the same vicious epithet on his blog 'Jim's Teabreak.' Children living in the same roads as some Councillors and ex-Councillors have ridden past us when out and about calling out this epithet on their lips, gained no doubt through malicious vindictive and criminal gossip. The fact is that a gang culture operates locally and local councillors and their henchmen behave like gang members. Corruption is something these people revel in and even boast of. Although they pretend to pay obeisance to fallen heroes who fought and died for out freedoms during the Second World War, these people are actually intent on destroying both democracy and freedom.

They behave with impunity and even boast on your comments that Geoffrey Pook, the police et al will protect them when they do commit crimes or even sins - the law is not even handed in Oakham and frankly just because they wear suits and not hoodies does not make these thugs any the less dangerous.

Unfortunately there is no justice - no avenue of redress and this definitely is against European law, but when the law is held in such contempt as it is in Oakham one cannot expect this blinkered incestuous community of self-appointing politicians to behave any more scrupulously than the most corrupt Iron Curtain communities of yesteryear. There is no free press, there is no even handed police force willing to investigate crimes against thee and me. Without these checks and balances to power there will continue to be no justice.

As I said earlier, just because these particular gang members wear suits and not hoodies does not make them any more respectable than common hoodlums intent on anarchy.

Helen



From: Martin Brookes
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 21:45:39
Subject:


Councillor Joyce Lucas Oakham Town Council Standards For England
For Various Reasons I can only publish this the law prevents openness when it comes to local government.

I will ask Cllr Lucas to consider this, you harp on about you Christian kindness, if this is true then name those in Rutland County Councils Chamber who you say call me a paedophile.

Case no: Sfe-000022

Member: Councillor Joyce Lucas

Authority: Oakham Town Council

Principal
authority: Rutland District Council

Allegation: The member failed to treat others with respect

Date Received: 20 August 2010

Date
investigation
completed: 20 December 2010

Outcome: The ethical standards officer found that the member did not breach the code of conduct.

Summary:

It was alleged that Councillor Lucas described a fellow councillor as a paedophile when talking to a member of the public at a Council organised event. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Councillor Lucas acted in the manner alleged and therefore that there has been no failure on Councillor Lucas' part to comply with Oakham Town Council's code of conduct.

My summary: I hope your God forgives you! for your lies and the fear you have placed upon my friend who would not give a statement. Who still describes you as a liar. A true statement and not as half as bad as what you call me along with others. I beginning to like what the young folk call you. How is your broom stick?

Please remember the words I was parked illegally are quite significant laws do apply to all of us you are not exempt
Read More: http://martinbrookes.blogspot.com/

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Geoffrey Pook
To: Helen Pender
Cc: "hxxxxxxx; FOI
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 17:12:34
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request - Internet Activity


Hello Ms Pender.

In accordance with section 1 Freedom of Information Act 2000, the responses to your specific questions are as follows:-

Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes's blog? - The Council does not hold that information. As far as I am aware, you are the only person who has asserted that comments have been posted via the Council's wireless network router available in the general area of the Council Chamber at this approximate time. Mr Brookes himself asserted that his blog had been accessed in this way on one particular evening, but not that any comments had been posted.

In any event, it has not been possible to identify any individual who accessed the blog via this public router.

Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? - The Council does not hold that information. Again, you do not specify a date and the reference to "similar" comments does not sit easily with the first request which does not appear to have involved any comments.

Mr Brookes referred to us one particular occasion when he traced a posting to Oakham Library's public access internet router. The information as to who had requested use of the 20 PCs on the day in question was inconclusive.

I should like to comment on your paragraph numbered 4: Mr Brookes was not able to access the internet on his own equipment on at least two occasions which he has mentioned. That does not amount to proof of the range of the public connection. Indeed, the Council's IT team has established that access is possible from an area outside the meetings rooms' part of the Council offices; it depends on the machine being used. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that any access was gained externally to the building, but I am trying to illustrate that there are uncertainties going beyond the difficulties of identifying a particular machine or user.

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to:-

Monitoring Officer, Rutland County Council, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland

LE15 6HP

Telephone: 01572 722577 e-mail: foi@rutland.gov.uk

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45 Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.



Regards

Geoff Pook



Head of Corporate Governance

Rutland County Council

Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP



From: Helen Pender [mailto:pxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 November 2010 12:51
To: Geoffrey Pook
Subject: Re: Internet Activity

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.

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.

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)

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.
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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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. . .]