Feast of the Enlightenment of the Buddha

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Feast of the Enlightenment of the Buddha

Today is the feast of the enlightenment of the Buddha – Gautama Siddhartha who lived about 2,500 years ago. On the Today programme this morning Thought for the Day was given by a Buddhist, who told us that the Buddha sat beneath a tree for one long night and emerged as the latest incarnation of an enlightened man. Which made me wonder, what is ‘enlightenment.’ Collins’ dictionary gave the following explanation:

‘Buddhism: the awakening to ultimate truth by which man is freed from the endless cycle of personal reincarnations to which all men are otherwise subject.’

Then there is the ‘Enlightenment’ – note the capitalised ‘e’. ‘An eighteenth century philosophical movement stressing the importance of reason and the critical reappraisal of existing ideas and social institutions.’

I have to admit being a tad impatient with all those do gooders who insist that they ‘only look for the good in everything,’ knowing that the overlooking of evil, applying size twelve blinkers if you will, allows evil to flourish. This Blog is dedicated to enlightenment, full uncompromising enlightenment, not the partial enlightenment of overlooking evil to concentrate on the good. For by my reasoning that route leads inevitably to chaos and a vacuum of social order as those dedicated to sleaze are allowed to get away with murder, larceny, corruption and criminal dishonesty. If we are to be freed from the endless cycle of chaos in our world should we perhaps enlighten ourselves about the evil which exists in our midst and show a will to deal with it? Enlightenment is not just self-knowledge, it is knowledge of the environment one inhabits. Let’s hope that we can all achieve enlightenment on this the feast day of the Buddha’s enlightenment.

293 words

Buddha, enlightenment, cyber stalking, Oakham, Rutland, Rutland County Council, Rutland Police, Johnny Monks, Leicestershire Police, Helen Pender

Who guards the Guardians?

The Electoral Commissioner was sent a copy of my account of the irregularities which occurred during the recounts for Oakham South West – five recounts in all (see below). I received an email from a Mr Nyack at the Electoral Commissioner’s Office recommending that I get the Returning Officer, Mrs Helen Briggs, to investigate herself. Well I’ve heard of self-regulation but is this a joke?

Email received from Mr Nyack at the Office of the Electoral Commissioner:

Helen Pender
View Contact
To: Mark Nyack
________________________________________
What other suggestions do you have when the Returning Officer herself was the offender? This is surely obvious in my account of what took place at the count? As one of my voters said recently, you appear to have all the power and effectiveness of a chocolate teaapot.

Helen Pender

________________________________________
From: Mark Nyack
To: "penderh@xxxxxxx.co.uk"
Sent: Thu, 12 May, 2011 12:56:33
Subject: Helen Pender

Dear Helen Pender,

Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission.

The Commission does not have the power to investigate allegations of offences occurring at the Count. If you believe an offence has been committed, you should contact the Returning Officer at your local authority and outline your concerns.

Kind regards

Mark Nyack
Public Information Officer
The Electoral Commission
3 Bunhill Row
London EC1Y 8YZ
Tel: 020 7271 0728
Fax: 020 7271 0505
www.electoralcommission.org.uk

We have moved. Please note our new address.

Make sure you are registered to vote
Follow us on Twitter


Democracy matters

* Please consider the environment before printing this email.


From: Helen Pender [mailto:penderh@xxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 09 May 2011 11:38
To: Midlands Inbox
Subject: Complaint Oakham South West Five recounts Rutland County Council local election 6 May 2011

Dear Sir / Madam

I am formally lodging a complaint about the count / five recounts for Oakham South West, a full account of which follows at the end of this email.

I should like my complaint investigated outside the Midlands area to ensure that those involved are not able to influence the outcome of this complaint.

Yours faithfully

Helen Pender
Shurely not!


Original - sent to the Electoral Commissioner 10th May 2011:

I began to take an interest in the race for second place in Oakham South West after about two or three recounts.

The table, where the recount was taking place, was surrounded by Conservatives, including Cllr Roger Begy, the Conservative Agent – whose name I don’t know, Cllr Terry King, Cllr K Bull, as well as a smartly dressed, pristine, Conservative candidate from Ketton who had won her Conservative seat uncontested. The myth that party allegiances do not have any bearing in Rutland County Council’s local Government was finally put to rest by this gathering of Conservatives at the counting table.

Peter Jones, a Conservative, was one of the candidates, but I had to double back to find out who the other candidate for second place might be. I was told it was someone called Richardson. Stupidly, the name meant nothing to me, but it seems he is an Independent and had no one observing at the counting table on his behalf. Both Peter Jones and Mr Richardson were absent from the count.

I wandered back over to the table where the recount was taking place. Roger Begy, both hands planted palms down on the counting table, with elbows akimbo as he leant in towards the counting officer, was a difficult obstruction to overcome, however I did manage to slip through that hurdle. Having found a place all the Conservatives asked me to leave the table, saying: ‘You are not the candidate, you are not the agent, you shouldn’t be here.’

Remarkably, Mrs Helen Briggs, the Returning Officer, then came over and repeated that mantra, ‘You are not the candidate or the agent, you shouldn’t be here.’ She went on to say that as the Returning Officer she was in charge and I should leave my observation post. One should of course obey a lawful instruction by the Returning Officer.

This was an unlawful order. I would submit that this intervention to support the Conservatives’ ridiculous instruction to me, by The Returning Officer, Mrs Briggs, needs a thorough investigation.

With all the Conservative people on my side of the table asking me to leave and the Returning Officer, on the other side of the table, also asking me to leave, I had no choice but to point out that there were at least four people representing the interests of Peter Jones on my side of the table and one of me representing the interests of Richardson, a man I didn’t know. (Although when he turned up he said that he’d thought we’d met in the Wheatsheaf, but I couldn’t clearly remember doing so, although his face did seem vaguely familiar) I also pointed out that all candidates at the count not only had a duty to themselves, but also had a duty to observe the proceedings on behalf of others, to ensure a free and fair election. This shouldn’t have needed saying, least of all to any Returning Officer.

Then quite stupendously the Conservative Agent said he was: Only here to observe a fair election,’ so implying he was not representing Conservative Peter Jones’ interests!

For the Returning Officer to seek to exclude the only non-Conservative from the counting table was so breathtakingly outside the scope of her statutory duty, that I went over to beg Cllr Richard Gale to come to the counting table too. Cllr Richard Gale seems to play a fairly straight bat.

He came over in time to see that there was a ten vote discrepancy on the reconciliation of votes. (276 – 286 – between pencilled count on the tally sheet for both Jones and Richardson and votes counted on the table for both candidates, yet the final vote for both candidates was double this??? – 277 & 279. Jones’ votes on the pencilled tally sheet were far fewer than Richardson’s.) Before the reconciliation was made Helen Briggs ordered the votes to be taken from the counting table. I was speechless and paralysed for a couple of minutes.

Turning to one of the women counters I asked: ‘Is that correct the unreconciled votes have been removed from the table?’

To which she replied: ‘I couldn’t possibly say.’

With the votes back on a large overloaded desk in the roped off staff area, at the southern end of the Council Chamber, I asked Cllr Gale to get Richardson to the Count. He rang Richardson’s number and handed me the phone. ‘Mr Richardson, you don’t know me, but my name’s Helen. Where the bloody hell are you?’ I said. Everyone could hear me as, I am told, Joyce Lucas mimed a double-handed pot stirring in her chair at the Western end of the room. ‘I am at the Count,’ I continued, ‘and your unreconciled votes have just left the table with an unreconciled 10 vote discrepancy. You have to get over here now, I can’t represent your interests, I am not your agent and I won’t be able to examine the spoiled voting papers.’ (276 – 286 discrepancy between the marked pencilled tally sheet to number of votes counted. This was for both Jones and Richardson. However the final vote was 277 and 279, so I really don’t understand what was being counted in this 276 – 286 vote/tally sheet count. Clearly all the votes were not on the table at this point.)

This discrepancy was never reconciled or explained to me as an observer. Nor did I see it resolved.

Cllr Richard Gale then gave the phone to Cllr Roger Begy. Begy looked like an embarrassed schoolboy as he giggled nervously into the phone and promptly gave the phone to Cllr Gale mid sentence. By handing me the phone Cllr Gale had given me the opportunity to allow Mr Pook to overhear what was going on and my less than dulcet tones informed the room what was happening. The intimidating Conservatives posse began to melt away. I felt they knew they had been rumbled.

Throughout the count the policemen present sat in an eastern recess of the count and hardly moved from their seats. At no time did a policeman venture out from their chairs at the eastern end of the room towards the count for Oakham South West at the western end of the room. It would be nice to have a summary, from all the officers who attended, of what their instructions were for the count on Thursday 6th May.

Furthermore, before the unreconciled votes left the table there had been a nine vote bundle in which voters had voted for both Richardson and Jones. When the votes were brought back to the table there were now eleven voting papers in that pile. Curiouser and curiouser.

During the next recount I noticed that the Conservative Agent began leafing desperately through the 11 vote bundle. Prompting me to say: ‘Excuse me sir, but you are not meant to touch the voting papers.’ At which point the counter nodded her agreement. Why did the counters not have the confidence to issue this instruction themselves? Were they too intimidated to do so? Should one, as a rank amateur, have needed to say this to a qualified Agent for a major political party?

Both the Agent and Roger Begy should be admonished for repeatedly touching voting papers. For the Conservative Agent to pull the bundle of eleven votes towards himself and begin leafing through it, using both hands, is surely a major infraction,

Mr Begy had jabbed his finger at the papers, on more than one occasion, in a rather intimidating fashion as he leant over the counting table with both hands openly resting, palms down, on the table. I felt his stance and finger jabbing was designed to intimidate the counting staff. The fact that counting staff did not have the confidence to tell the Conservative observers that they shouldn’t be touching the votes at all was indicative that they might have been intimidated.

Richard Gale then spotted that one of the voting papers in the eleven vote bundle for both candidates had one vote for Richardson and one vote for the person above Jones on the voting paper. That vote was removed and placed in Richardson’s pile. As the votes were removed from the table again, the chic Conservative woman from Ketton said, ‘That means there’s another discrepancy so we’ll have to have another recount.’

To which I replied, ‘But it’s clear that one vote was placed in the wrong pile, so that discrepancy is fully explained.’

Through the day Mr Pook sat at a desk at the back of the roped off staff area behind a desk in a recess at the southern end of the Council Chamber. To his right was a large desk (about four small tables planted together) which was full of papers and it could not easily be seen what was going on there when the voting papers were regularly returned to this large desk, which appeared to belong to Mrs Briggs, to the right of Mr Pook in the roped off staffing area.

In front of Mr Pook was another table with a ballot box on it. Most remarkably a pile of votes, placed on this table, in the roped off staff area was found, by Mr Pook, on this table, obscured from sight of the observers, behind a ballot box.

A pile of these votes was returned to Mrs Briggs’ desk to the right of Mr Pook from the desk in front of Mr Pook. Now all the votes were back on the Returning Officer’s large desk, out of plain sight in the recess of the roped off Staff area in the recess at the southern end of the Council Chamber.

Furthermore the lack of reconciliation (276 – 286) discrepancy between the pencilled sheet and voting papers was never explained to me as I watched the unreconciled votes leave the counting table.

Mr Richardson finally appeared. He’d been coaching a Rugby Club in Stamford. The votes were brought back to the table once again and this time they were recounted very very carefully. The counters seated at the table behaved impeccably throughout despite grabs and stabs at the voting papers by Conservatives as the desperate Conservatives sought to verify what the counters had ascertained.

This last recount appeared to be properly done. However the infractions I observed of the Conservative Agent, Roger Begy and most of all the Returning Officer, Mrs Helen Briggs, led me to conclude that up to that point something decidedly odd had gone on. In my view Mrs Briggs does not have sufficient probity to fully understand her role and I do not have faith in her conducting her duties adequately as a Returning Officer in any future election. Nor does she have the intellect to conduct a vote with any degree of finesse. Having observed her at the counting of the postal votes the night before, 10pm 5th May, she clearly relied on Mr Pook’s greater knowledge of voting procedures. I would submit Mrs Helen Briggs was less than professional and at times behaved like a partial amateur. Her determination to order me away from the counting table is ample evidence that although she was clear that she was the Returning Officer, she was unclear as to the legal niceties of her role. In short she sought to intimidate me and was absolutely ignorant of the fact that she misbehaved.

Finally the announcement was made – my apologies but the spelling of names may be wrong: ‘Joanna Burrows (Lib Dem) 178 votes, Alfred Dewis 266 votes, Joanna Figgis 285 votes, James Harrison 139 votes, Peter Jones 277 votes, Philips (Lib Dem) 131 votes, Richardson 279. 14 spoilt papers and a turn out of 48.41%’

Various Conservatives, who had said they would stay for the counting of the Parish votes, then high tailed it out of the room and into their cars.

• Mr Begy should not have placed both hands on the counting table and jabbed his finger at votes as he did so.

• The Conservative Agent should not have leafed through votes with both hands.

• I should not have been instructed to leave the table by the Conservative Agent and Mr Roger Begy.

• The unreconciled pencilled tally sheet for both Jones and Richardson should not have left the counting table before it was reconciled.

• I should not have been ordered to leave the counting table by the Returning Officer.

I should like an investigation made into the conduct of Mr Roger Begy; the Conservative Agent and the Returning Officer Mrs Helen Briggs for their conduct during the recounts for Oakham South West on Thursday 6th May.

2,455 words

Helen Briggs, Local Election, Rutland County Council, Roger Begy, Richard Gale, Richardson, Rutland, Oakham, Conservatives, Helen Pender, Multum in Parvo, Peter Jones, Martin Brookes

AND THAT POSTER CAMPAIGN

I drove Martin Brookes, Candidate for Greetham, to Greetham Ward on several occasions and found posters maligning Martin Brookes strewn in public places, one within yards of Roger Begy’s home on Greetham High Street. The most vile accusations were thrown at Martin Brookes on these posters throughout the campaign. One would have thought this was not a very clever thing to do in a two horse race. Wouldn’t one?

At a planning meeting 48 hours before the election Martin Brookes was able to ask his opponent, Mr Begy why he hadn’t taken steps to distance himself from these posters. What was Begy’s reply? ‘I don’t read your blog.’ An imaginative non sequitur!

The first posters were black and white, stapled or drawing pinned to bus stops, wooden poles, fences and most worrying of all in the official Parish notice board in Clipsham. Some of the staples matched those staples on the poster for the Air Ambulance. At Clipsham, on the first occasion we spotted the notice, we thought we might remove it. But this is an official Parish notice board. We decided instead to track down the Parish Clerk and found the Parish Clerk for Clipsham mowing his lawn. We took him to his notice board. He rapidly read the poster and asked whether any of the accusations were true, picking out one particular accusation. I must commend the Parish Clerk for his speed-reading of a document he said he’d not seen before. No doubt Clipsham have a very able and erudite public servant in their midst. What a treasure he must be.

As usual Martin Brookes wittered on at length in a convoluted explanation. Eventually I summed up more succinctly and the Parish Clerk said ‘Well I don’t understand it. There are a lot of funny things going on.’ I am not sure but did I sense a degree of disappointment in the Parish Clerk’s face when I offered my explanation?

We were satisfied that no more posters would appear in the Official Parish notice board in Clipsham. How wrong we were. New coloured posters slightly amended were issued during the week of the election and wonder of wonders there, skewed with just one drawing pin, in the official Clipsham Parish notice board was a new poster! This new poster, presumably in a vicarious distancing of Roger Begy from the poster, proclaimed: “This poster produced by ‘The Friends of Greetham Ward’. It is NOT produced by the RCC, OTC, The Conservatives. The Cabbie nor any individual Society thus accused by Mr Bookes to date.” Well that certainly makes it clear who produced it. Doesn’t it?

However my congratulations go to a user of one of the bus stops in Greetham who had torn down the leaflet. This was found flapping in the hedge at the first bus stop in Greetham. A deep thank you goes to the upright citizen whose sense of fair play led him/her to tear this poster down.

BBC Radio Leicester appeared at the Count in Oakham on 6th May. I bumped into them as they returned from a coffee break and showed them one of the latest anonymous leaflets, which Martin Brookes had removed and cut out his photograph, using the top part as his own election poster. The reporter immediately said ‘Are you Helen?’ Hardly anyone reads my blog, she had clearly been briefed by someone. Who had briefed her and why? She wasn’t prepared to say.

She asked for a copy, so I went to the library and, only having a 20p piece, made two copies. One of which I handed to BBC Radio Leicester. They opened the boot of their radio car and fiddled with a couple of switches, turning off their equipment as one reporter sat reading the leaflet in the back of her radio car. The mike was placed in the boot, but I was not interviewed. Despite this I began to suspect that I was being surreptitiously recorded. Isn’t it amazing how paranoid one can become when faced with an anonymous campaign?

They asked who was behind this campaign. My reply was that I didn’t know but it was funny that the poster had been issued in an area in which there were only two candidates. They asked whom I might suspect. I pointed out that these people hide behind their anonymity, but said that they behaved like terrorist cells, the campaign is coordinated and yet each anonymous cell appears to be acting autonomously and separately. (However I have no doubt that the 42 followers of http://davescab.blogspot.com/@oakham@rutland would be a fair point to start in lining up the possible suspects.)

What I didn’t say was that living through this onslaught of anonymous tweets, blogs, postings and posters is a little like living in a third world country with a despotic and dubious band of autocrats determined to silence any voice of opposition. Shenanigans in the Kingdom of Swaziland sometimes pale into insignificance beside the Kingdom of Rutland.

Like my childhood home, Rutland appears determined to silence any opposition. In Swaziland the opposition is regularly locked up and false accusations levelled at political opponents. The newspapers in Swaziland are prevented from reporting anything but censored news. Whereas in Rutland…

Rumour has it that the new editor of one of our local newspapers is a Conservative who tried to stand for election but was prevented from doing so since she had only just moved back into the area and did not satisfy the residential requirements for prospective candidates. If what Cllr Gene Plews tells me is true, this is only interesting as a litmus test of the political allegiance of our local press.

The only independent and free press would seem to be our blogs. At least one of which has been hacked. A local lady I bumped into recently said: ‘You have to stop otherwise they will destroy you. Your blogs and your emails will be changed. You just can’t win.’ She was clearly upset.

The problem as I see it is – if I stop they will just grind me into the ground silently. Whether I blog and use email or take a vow of omerta, I will be silenced. Better by far to go out attempting, however vainly, to speak out, than to be silenced by fear of intimidation, which will continue come what may. Martin Brookes said he received an offer to arrange financial help from Cllr Terry King yesterday, (16 May) which he has now posted on his blog.

In the face of a despotic regime one should always struggle, however vainly, to speak out before one segues into oblivion. In the despotic Democratic Republic of Rutland let’s hope that we can find others with the courage to ensure that eventually the miscreants are traced and brought to justice.

1,132 words

Helen Briggs, Roger Begy, Rutland County Council, Roger Begy, Richard Gale, Greetham, Parish Clerk, Rutland, Oakham, Conservatives, Helen Pender, Gene Plews, Martin Brookes

Oakham North East Ward - Candidate - Helen Pender - RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS May 5th

Helen Pender
Asks:
Why is our money going to prop up Brent Council?

HELEN PENDER – Independent candidate - Oakham North East Ward.

I’m asking you to help me change the face of local politics on May 5th in order to deliver a more transparent, more accountable, local democracy.

A MORE TRANSPARENT DEMOCRACY

For example, I would like to know how our council justifies giving a two million pound, soft terms loan to Brent Council? Was half a percent (0.5%) really the best interest rate that Rutland County council were able to obtain? Or are the people of Rutland being asked to fork out for overspending in Brent?

We have had various differing reports on what has happened to the money lost in the Icelandic banking fiasco and none of the explanations has been consistent. First we were told that we were going to get all the money back (about a million pounds) – then we were told that we had got all the money back – then we were told that most of the money had been returned – then we were told that we’d recovered just over 50%, but that further instalments were expected. I am not even sure that the members of Rutland County Council (DC), whether Councillors or Officers, know what the real position is – particularly after the local paper reported that our council “found” £1 million recently. No one knows where it was hidden or how it was ‘found.’

To ensure that the money we lost in the Iceland banking fiasco is not repeated we need to be told the thinking behind our investment policies.

This is your money that “they” are misusing and you should be told why approximately 7.5% of our annual budget has gone to Brent Council; when we can expect to see the money returned and why such a small interest rate was fixed.

Had Brent Council gone to a bank for this loan they could have expected to pay at least 6% interest to a bank. Why does Rutland County Council believe that they should use our money to help out a London Council? What on earth induced RCC to make this sort of ‘investment’? Who knows? I don’t. But we should be told. I intend to ask these sorts of questions.

SUPPORTING SAINSBURY'S

The decision to turn down Sainsbury’s is an economic disaster for Oakham. Tesco needs real competition. Some of their pricing reflects the virtual monopoly Tesco has in the area. By denying Sainsbury’s permission to build at the end of Land’s End Way we have given up 300 jobs (equivalent to 200 full time jobs) and a real competitor to help keep down food prices for supermarket shoppers. One of the arguments was that the land Sainsbury’s intended to build on had been set aside for office use – since around 2001. The fact remains that no one has wanted to build offices on this site for ten years and no one else looks likely to want to build on the site.

Nothing has been built on the Sainsbury’s site and so no jobs are being created.

We are gong to be entering an era of severe local economic recession due to the closure of RAF Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell with the loss of hundreds of jobs and the consequent loss of hundreds of people able to pay Council tax. One of the reasons we haven’t attracted sufficient B1 office use on the site, on which Sainsbury’s wish to build, is due to the fact that offices built on that site will have nowhere for office workers to buy sandwiches, petrol, and essential stationery. A supermarket on the site will ensure that it becomes attractive to would be builders of offices.

(See www.helenpender.blogspot.com posting on Sainsbury’s planning fiasco for a more in depth analysis.) Oakham needs to be rescued from the short term thinking which has dogged this Council. I am not connected either financially or in any other way to Sainsbury but will campaign for Sainsbury’s planning application to be accepted and will support any appeal they may make.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The Government has offered substantial economic inducements to build new housing. The RCC new housing initiatives on the Hawkesmead Estate and elsewhere will net the Council well over £500,000 in subsidies from Central Government. However there is a real problem for people who do not drive. Our public transport system is in a dire state. Without a car, residents cannot work on Sundays in either Stamford or Melton (since we have no buses at all on a Sunday and no trains run until the afternoon); mid-week the last bus to leave Peterborough for Oakham is at 4.40 pm. Residents can’t even go to a nightclub, see a film or the theatre in Stamford or Melton, since our public transport system makes it impossible to return on the evening of the performance. Residents unable to drive cannot work or play outside Oakham.

Many households cannot afford to run more than one vehicle and others, especially pensioners and young people, do not have access to motor vehicles. This limits their mobility, both for leisure and for work.

Oakham’s economic future depends upon having a decent public transport system which will be the key to future growth in an increasingly difficult local economy. Employers like RAF Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell have left and we desperately need to attract new businesses to the area. Without public transport we are rudderless and hopelessly adrift in these difficult economic times.

FINALLY

I intend to really listen to electors. The fact that almost everyone I have spoken to in Oakham has supported Sainsbury’s planning application is a proof of the sad reality that local Councillors neither listen to their constituents nor vote in their interests.

Can you help to change the face of local policies in our local Council? - Yes you can.

Printed and published for Helen Pender care of Finkey Street, Oakham, Rutland LE156AG telephone: 07749571341

Rutland County Council Development and Control Licensing Committee Meeting Tuesday 22 February 2011.

Also Known As: The Sainsbury’s planning application fiasco.

There were three public deputations: Mr Fletton spoke in favour of the officers’ recommendation for refusal of the planning permission for a Sainsbury’s Supermarket to be built at the end of Land’s End Way. Why?

Well this was the elephant in the room. Put at its most simply, if I am right, Waitrose has promised to buy a site on the old Rutland College site when they move to Barleythorpe. Waitrose promise to pay top dollar and the monies will go to RCC, who have to stump up for converting Barleythorpe to a New Further Education College. But no one mentioned this all evening. The clue lay in the fact that Mr Fletton is head of Rutland / Tresham College in Oakham.

BUT – Waitrose have said that if planning permission is given to Sainsbury’s then they will not be interested in pursuing their proposed development on the old Rutland College site. So it seems - no Waitrose, no money for a new College. Ergo Sainsbury’s planning application had to be defeated.

However those are not legal or sufficient grounds for denying planning permission to Sainsbury’s. So instead we were subjected to arguments, from the planning officers of RCC about:

1. Loss of employment land. (Three hundred jobs are to be created)

2. The site is more suitable for B1 Office Development. (This site has been available for B1 Office use since 2001 and remains unused. Why? Because no one wants to build offices in the middle of nowhere if staff can’t even get a sandwich during their lunch break and have to negotiate an increasingly busy level crossing to get into the centre of town during a half hour lunch break – an impossibility.)

3. The employment of a foodstore is not as significant as would be created by the uses specified in the Local Plan. [B1 - Office use] (This is pie in the sky. This land has been available since 2001 and no offices have been built on the site. Undeveloped office land creates a 0% increase in employment. In fact the proposed store just uses up 8% of the whole area set aside for B1 Office Development. It would seem with the closure of Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell we are about to hit an economic slump of monstrous proportions. No company has been induced to build any offices on this site for over ten years. The logic of the officers’ arguments appears to be: ‘We want office jobs in the area, but since we can’t get offices into the area we won’t let anyone create retail jobs either.’ The people of Oakham desperately need bread today and the officers appear to be arguing in favour of a fantastical jam tomorrow project in the teeth of economic reality. I would argue that a Sainsbury supermarket is more likely to attract B1 Offices to the site. An employer is not going to believe it an attractive office site if there are no local amenities for staff to purchase emergency office supplies, petrol and sandwiches.)

4. Refusal is consistent with adopted Local Plan Policy and with Government Guidance in Planning Police Statement 4 [PPS4]. (There is some flexibility in that Planning Policy Statement 4 and anyway the PPS4 is ‘Guidance.’ A persuasive argument can me made that allowing a Sainsbury supermarket on the site will attract B1 office use in the longer term.)

5. The need for a foodstore of the scale proposed is marginal. (So let such a store be put on the margins of the town and attract visitors from rural destinations around the by-pass without clogging up the town centre. Conversely with the housing development at Hawkesmeade the site will no longer be so marginal).

6. PPS4 encourages main town centre uses in central locations. (Well why didn’t they say so earlier? Let’s just demolish the Castle and let Sainsbury’s build there. Or perhaps compulsorily purchase the land between Mill Street and the RCC, demolish the Museum and build a Sainsbury’s there. Surely huge great eyesores like Tesco. Waitrose, Sainsbury, Asda, Lidl, etc are better not polluting the aesthetic beauty of our town centres. No – it would seem that the planning officers have identified two alternate sites in the town – one on the Tim Norton site at the railway crossing and another, neither of which would seem to provide enough space in which to shoehorn a supermarket with petrol station. Anyway Land’s End Way is on a bus route and when the Hawkesmead estate opens, with small retail outlets in an edge of town development, the proposed Sainsbury site will no longer be so much ‘out of town’ as ‘edge of town.’ Quite the best place for an eyesore. Furthermore Waitrose proposes to build at the other end of Land’s End Way, not much nearer to the town centre, and you can bet your bottom dollar that planning permission will be recommended by the officers. I wonder why?)

7. A Sequential Assessment is required with any main town centre use proposed for a non-central location – i.e. are there more central sites that would be appropriate? (Already covered in 6 above – this argument was considered by the officers to be their clincher in turning down this planning application and much was made of it. It is merely a red herring, who wants to destroy our town centre with an eyesore? The architectural value of supermarkets is worse than a ‘carbuncle on the face of a very old friend.’ Supermarket architecture has all the charm of a Soviet bunker – except that Soviet bunkers are hidden below ground.

8. Refusal is in accordance with government guidance. (BUNKUM – it’s in accordance with the fact that Waitrose will get permission to build on the same road for some very short term financial considerations regarding a Further Education College’s relocation to Barleythorpe.)

The fact that Cllr Terry King, who pretends to sit on the fence, could be seen jubilating with Helen Briggs, the Chief Executive, after the meeting gave us a clue as to the real reasons behind this refusal. It’s time we asked the full Council to consider this planning application and only YOU the public can do that by popular demand. Write individually to each and every Councillor to demand that this application goes to the full Council. With luck that will happen after May and, with a following wind, all the Tory councillors, whipped in to vote against Sainsbury’s planning application, will have lost their seats. Only your letters and your votes can make a change in Rutland.

The meeting on 22 February was a disingenuous fiasco. The Rutland barn is full of foul smelling excrement. Let’s stop calling a spade ‘an excavating implement’ and let’s shovel this lot of ne’er do wells out of office, together with their jobsworth planning officers.

1,152

MEETING OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL 16 2 11

MEETING OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
Wednesday, 16 February 2011 at 7.30 PM


On accepting apologies once again, Cllr Swiffin’s apologies were presented and voted upon. However this time the Clerk and Mayor went to some lengths to say that Cllr Swiffin last attended a meeting on 15 September (having not attended many meetings in 2010 prior to that meeting) and that his tenure on this Parish Council would be subject to Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 after 15th March 2011. That means that the six-month rule on absences from Council meetings will not kick in until 15th March. The elections are in May and I wonder whether Cllr Swiffin will be standing for re-election.

The opacity of the last meeting of this Parish Council a fortnight ago was much reduced. Councillors were on their best behaviour. At the end of my report on the last meeting I wrote:

“I would beg the Standards Committee to ensure that one of their number attends every Oakham Town Council meeting to ensure that such disrespect for the democratic process is not repeated.”

The Standards Committee are to be congratulated on ensuring that a repetition of the wilful and vicious opacity of the last meeting of this Parish Council did not recur. It is a pity that this could only have been due to the presence of Mr Grimes, of the Standards Committee, who was greeted heartily by his first name. It seems that only if a senior teacher is on duty in this unruly playground will these children behave with a little decorum and respect for the democratic process.

However members of the public were again not given access to the appendices on the Council’s agenda and so were still unable to work out the finer points of items under discussion.

In particular item16: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SITE BACK UP (Appendix II) To consider recommendations from the Council’s I T provider regarding the above and to decide whether to authorise:
(i) purchase of Network Attached Storage
(ii) Off site back up for Council documentation

After the meeting I was shown copies of emails by a member of the public; emails from Andrew Viney of Millenium Ltd, 17 Midland Court, Oakham LE15 6RD; Viney@Millennium.ltd.uk to the Town Clerk, Richard White on the issue of item 16.

Both emails were dated 09 February 2011. The first email was sent at 09.19 and the second at 09.20. The first email gave three options for shared storage options:

1. Windows file sharing - £60 labour excluding VAT
2. Network attached strategy - £206.99 excluding VAT
3. Windows SBS server – cost between £1,500 and £3,000 depending on specification.

You will note that the agenda supposed that the Network Attached Storage - option 2 - was presupposed without considering items 1 and 3 or explaining the options to Councillors, who, I understand, did have a copy of these emails. However I must have missed the vote on (i) of item 16 of this agenda because I do not remember anyone actually proposing to vote for the second option on this email. Of course not having the appendices in front of one makes it very difficult to follow what is being discussed and what is being voted for.

The second email began:

“Richard, Further to your conversations with Nick please find prices for the managed online backup solution…

Prices per month: PC license £2.00
Per Gb £1,40”

The Clerk, Richard White, stated that only about 5Gb of information would need to be shared and stored, whether that was per month, annually or infinitely one could only guess. Cllr Adam Lowe did a quick calculation and worked out that this would mean a cost of around £9.00 per month.

The proposal was put to the meeting and seven Councillors voted to accept the quote with one, Cllr Lowe, voting against. Cllr Lowe did not speak on this item or explain why he had voted against it. But I was able to have a brief conversation, after the meeting closed, and it seems he has reservations on the lack of other tenders or quotes but feels too new to be able to properly grasp what is being done.

I too was more than a little confused and really wonder if the Clerk had made a decision prior to the meeting and just wanted his decision rubber stamped, with no possible quarter for discussion. That would beg the question - why?

But my own reservations go far deeper. Somehow the arrangement all seems rather too cosy. Who, for instance, is Nick? Does Nick have a surname and what is his connection to Millennium Ltd? Who are the Directors of Millennium Ltd, what sort of relationship do they have with Councillors or Officers? How close is Nick to the Clerk, Richard White? Is ‘Nick’ Cllr Nick Wainwright of Rutland County Council (DC)? If not, who is he? Has ‘Nick’ been leaving tasteless messages on Martin Brookes’ blog? Can we continue to tolerate a ‘no names no pack drill’ ethos on this Council?

Having asked for FOI data in the past I somehow doubt that this rather cosy arrangement, with a no surname seemingly local mate of the Clerk’s, can be truly relied upon for properly stored information retrievable for Freedom of Information purposes. Certainly copies of what I was given last year seemed to be incomplete.

So far as I was concerned Councillors voted on an expenditure of £9.00 per month and I completely missed a vote for item 2 on (i) of the agenda. Although Cllr Lowe voted against this item of expenditure he didn’t tell the meeting why he voted against it. Surely Cllr Lowe, having started so well in demanding fiscal probity with proper tenders and quotes, is not going to be cowed by an entrenched tradition of maladministration. Is he?

Item 12. LIBRARY TO CLOSE EARLY. It seems that RCC is proposing to cut the opening hours of Oakham library by two hours per week. A letter has been received asking for £2,500 from Oakham Town Council to subsidise the loss of these opening hours and continue to open during evenings when, through bad public transport, those who work outside the town might visit the library during the week. Oakham Town Council refused to augment the loss in budget and suggested that the library close an hour earlier on two of the three days when the library closes at 7pm. Since Mondays are unlikely to have a heavy footfall it would seem better to close at 5pm rather than 7 pm on Mondays in order to allow those who get back to Oakham after six pm to visit the library on Wednesdays and Fridays.

THE CLERK’S REPORT, under item 8, told us that there is to be a march past on 31 March for the two flights left at RAF Cottesmore as a final farewell. True to form Cllrs Dewis and Lucas made a bit of a song and dance over something the RAF itself seems to want to keep quite low key. We were told that the RAF is keen that this is not a repeat of the Freedom of Entry parade.

Cllr Lucas said: “My concern is that we have such a lot of armed forces retirees in Oakham… Such a shame for my husband and my neighbour.” I gather her husband and neighbour are both ex forces.

Frankly there is a sense of entitlement in those retirees from the forces who have settled in Oakham. The presence of people like ex-commando, ex-Councillor Paul Beech has been nothing if not a stain and a blot on the political complexion of Oakham. If men like that, who seem to think that being ex-forces allows them to transport the bullying ethos and anarchic thuggery of service life into the life of this town, had not been involved in local politics we might have a better run Parish Council.

I have recently been told by Martin Brookes, who assures me that he has blogged and has evidence that Rutland County Council’s ‘investment’ of M£2 with Brent Council (at half a per cent interest) coincided with, local business, Jeakins Weir’s contract payment from Brent Council. It may be remembered that a recent prize from the Conservative Association’s fund raising draw went to Col. Weir. When do coincidental loans or ‘investments’ of this order become political dynamite?

With our dilatory local press it seems this will never even become a political bone of contention.

1,414

ANSWER TO A RIDDLE

ANSWER TO A RIDDLE

Well the Festival is almost over; unfortunately I haven’t had time to attend many events. However I did manage to get to the Merry Monk on Sunday night. It was a comedy evening and Andy Watson was half way through his act. This event was not listed on the back of the festival programme and I almost missed it

At last years’ festival we had two very able comics; unfortunately the audience was not appreciative. The stand ups tried every trick in the book. They didn’t know the Oakham audience and were struggling to find something to get locals to laugh at. The poor comics bombed on everything – and they were funny and very very good.

They tried celebrity culture – nothing, nada. They tried political culture, MPs expenses and you’d have thought that would have touched a cord, particularly in Oakham: nothing, nada. They tried environmental issues – nothing, nada. Having thrown out all their prepared scripts, which had a roaring crowd of people rolling in the aisles with paralytic laughter elsewhere, and bombed only in Oakham, they finally gave up in exasperation.

‘Tell me,’ one of the comedians said, ‘is this the sort of town where everyone is doing everyone else?’ Were they asking if we are inbred? I rather thought they were. Surprised? There are no buses out of Oakham at all on Sundays. Trains don’t run to Peterborough until 12.45 pm on a Sunday either. The last bus from Peterborough leaves at 4.40 on a weekday. Oakham is an anthropologists dream town – an inward looking tribal culture of uncivilised political elitism rules here. The police are in the pockets of local Councillors who may ignore the law with impunity and punish those who criticise the ruling elite, whilst they sit on and influence the Police Joint Action Group. In fact Cllr Dewis was able to assure us, at a recent Town Council meeting, that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was ‘by invitation only.’ What did Cllr Dewis mean? Was he saying that the whole system is so well organised that the police will not tolerate unknown representatives on the Police Joint Action Group? What a pretty state we have got ourselves into. Anyway back to comedy.

At last years’ festival, as I’ve already said, we had two very able stand up comics. The audience were seated in the garden of the Merry Monk, a small group of about four adults and two children came in and took front seats on the garden bench immediately in front of the ‘stage.’ The comic began warning the parents that their children’s vocabulary might widen considerably during the acts. Mum took this as an invitation to interact with the comics. She said that her little darlings were clever and already had a wide vocabulary, presumably having had glowing reports from literacy hour, and that her children’s dreams were fascinating. Oh dear!

Eventually the language became slightly bluer and Mum left. You could almost see the relief on the stand up comic’s face. Immediately two couples arrived and took the spare seats on the bench. Two stunning blonde girls and a couple of so-so men; the comic immediately alighted on his new material with glee.

When he’d asked: ‘Is this the sort of town where everyone is doing everyone else?’ I’d laughed like a drain. The comic had pointed at me and said: ‘Thank you for your honesty madam.’ This got a laugh and finally they knew they had to focus on the introspective citizens of Oakham, rather than on any wider political or cultural issues.

The couple on the right were milked for a few gentle laughs. The leggy blonde girls made their way out to the ladies loo to adjust their go-to-bed hairstyles and lipstick. Turning to the second male the comic gently asked: ‘And where did you two meet?’ The deadpan answer came winging back: ‘At the bar two minutes ago.’

‘Pity,’ said the comic, ‘you make a lovely couple. Why aren’t you a couple?’ The man in the audience answered: ‘My missus wouldn’t like it and to be honest mate I’ve already been there.’ A riot of laughter ensued. ‘Oh so you know each other?’ ‘Yes we’ve known each other a long time.’ The laughter began to die down. However, the man in the audience, slightly disconcerted by the unexplained hilarity which his perfectly straight remarks had attracted, felt he needed someone else in the camp into which he’d painted himself added: ‘And so’s my friend Adrian at the back.’ He pointed his thumb behind him.

The poor girl wandered back into the garden of the Merry Monk completely oblivious to the fact that she had been the butt of the first really good joke of the evening. Her escort was clearly disconcerted that his quite factual explanation of his relationship with the girl had created so much laughter. The comic in mock embarrassment cringed in front of the microphone: ‘I don’t know where to put myself.’ Any prepared material was thrown out and he concentrated for the rest of the evening on audience interaction. You couldn’t write this sort of material, it was gold dust. When all else fails concentrate on the audience.

The comedy circuit is a small world. When Andy Watson let it be known that he was coming to Oakham he probably received commiserations. Oakham is a now a notorious graveyard for stand up comics. Andy was told to forget his prepared material and focus down on the audience. Bad advice. We had four Aussie cricketing teachers from Brisbane in the audience. Andy Watson had a nervous laugh, which became increasingly worse and irritating as his act hit rock bottom. The Aussie teachers became vociferously abusive. The visiting Antipodeans were expecting a stand up comic with some prepared material they could relate to. Dissonance of cultures erupted in Andy Watson leaving the stage early. His counselling bill will probably exceed the small payment he accrued by a factor of ten.

Justified criticism of the ruling elite is never tolerated in Oakham. Martin Brookes has blogged a letter from Joy Everitt, Chairman of the Festival Committee, saying that she cannot accept Cllr Brookes as a Council representative on the Festival Committee. What, you may ask, did Martin Brookes do to start a whispering campaign against him?

At last years festival he took a picture of the then Mayor, Jan Fillingham, drinking in Cutts Close as she watched a band playing. Her party’s deck chairs were prominently placed centre stage in front of the bandstand. Martin Brookes took a picture of Jan Fillingham, Sue Tyers and friends with empty bottles and glasses at their feet. He also took a picture of the prominently displayed notice in Cutts Close saying that Cutts Close is a ‘designated area’ and the police have the right to stop drinkers consuming alcohol in the environs and vicinity of Cutts Close. He also displayed a local newspaper cutting in which Cllr Jan Fillingham, who has not attended Council meetings for six months, boasted that she had been part of the Council initiative to stop alcohol consumption in Cutts Close. He had merely been exercising his right to free speech and pointing out the hypocrisy of local Councillors on his Flickr’ account.

What happened? The local Council were involved in complaining to Flickr’ and got his account closed down. When Martin Brookes opened a blog instead, the Council wrote to him saying they were considering banning him from using the library facilities due to the nature of his blogs. Presumably they have tried to close down his blog and failed. A vendetta of extraordinary proportions has ensued. Unfortunately the police always refuse to take action against local Councillors and their friends and appear to do the bidding of local Councillors instead. I am told that leading citizens were allowed to continue drinking in Cutts Close this year during the ‘Churches Together’ event, yet a sober man drinking a beer was escorted off to pour his beer away. Such double standards are indicative of a tyrannical one party State. If the law applies it should apply to all. Not it seems in Oakham.

Oh yes, the answer to my riddle - previous post:

ANSWER: A Totalitarian Society is a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

One of the first casualties of a Totalitarian State is a sense of humour. When the ruling elite drink with impunity in Cutts Close and run a vendetta of such uncivilised proportions against a local Councillor outside their little cosy coterie, (Martin Brookes demands that Standing Orders are adhered to in Town Council meetings and proper procedures followed) we are no longer on the slippery road. We have embraced totalitarianism. I rather think that no more comics of any stature will be coming to Oakham. Sadly Oakham has become the graveyard of comedians and democracy.

Riddle me ree

Well riddle me riddle me riddle me ree
What is the definition of a totalitarian society?

OPEN LETTER TO THE DEPUTY MAYOR

Cllr Mark Woodcock
Deputy Mayor
Victoria Hall
Oakham

By Hand – not to be posted by mail 25 June 2010.


Dear Cllr Woodcock

You asked Martin Brookes if I would write you a letter regarding what I said at the Parks and Recreation Council meeting on Wednesday of this week. I can confirm that I asked the following question:

'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?'

I can also confirm that the member of the public who told me this was able to confirm her allegation to Martin Brookes.

Cllr Brookes has repeatedly complained to the police about the victimisation, homophobia and bullying he has received at the hands of Councillors, their associates and friends and ex Councillors. Absolutely nothing whatever has been done.

Indeed I complained about offensive material published using my name on a Flickr’ account – two bare men’s behinds in full colour and some rather insulting text aimed at Martin Brookes. The police chose not to let me know who had published this material because it was not offensive enough to investigate. It did seem to be someone with connections to the local Council, yet the police were unwilling to ascertain who the offender was. However, when I wrote a letter to Councillors on the back of a photocopy of this material and Martin Brookes posted my letter in a Council notice board, he was arrested for publishing offensive material. I now begin to wonder whether my confidence in the police force has been dented due to the fact that Councillors Lucas, Haworth and Dewis sit on the Police Joint Action Group and so protect those who indulge in this sort of behaviour. I enclose a copy of that material and shall not post this letter because I believe that using the Royal Mail to let you have a copy could result in my prosecution. However no one will ever be prosecuted for posting this on the internet. Do you now detect a smidgeon of double standards?

I refer you to the posting on the Rutland Chat Forum and repeated endlessly by 'Dotty':

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

Are these allegations of paedophilia designed to ensure that Martin Brookes is killed? Might that be an offence of conspiracy to kill? I rather think it might.

I would also ask what has been done about Cllr Alf Dewis’ wholly unacceptable suggestion that membership of the Police Joint Action Group is ‘by invitation only.’

The Council should further consider the following false allegations against Councillor Brookes and take immediate steps to stop this destructive and potentially dangerous campaign of misinformation. People have been killed for being suspected paedophiles and I can absolutely assure you that, having taught paedophiles, Martin Brookes shows absolutely no signs of being a potential sexual offender.

Posted on ex Councillor Jim Harrison’s blog on 7th June 2010: www.jimsteabreak.blogspot.com:

"Monday, 7 June 2010
CRB Check This Councillor
How can it be right that an Oakham Town Councillor puts on display pornographic images in an official Oakham Town Council notice board, is subsequently arrested and is then seen taking photographs at Royce Playing fields where there are children present when the new equipment was officially opened. Should a man who obviously has a penchant for displaying pornographic images on a public notice board be allowed anywhere near children? I THINK NOT! As a councillor he may be visiting other establishments where there are children present AND THAT CANNOT BE RIGHT. Perhaps he ought to undergo a CRB check before being allowed anywhere near children again. He certainly needs to be watched very closely.

Posted by Jim at 22:39 1 comments"

I enclose copies of what was published on the Rutland Chat Forum about Martin Brookes and the offensive material published in my name on Flickr’.

When Martin Brookes complained about Jim Harrison some time ago he received an apology and was persuaded to withdraw his complaint to the Standards Committee. Since then ex Cllr Harrison ’s blog has become infinitely worse and the false allegations that Martin Brookes is not fit to be around children is extremely dangerous. Martin Brookes does not take pictures of children when out photographing and he does not try to approach children in any way. However these false and criminal allegations are gaining currency.

I further refer you to boys riding past on the bicycles shouting 'paedo' at Martin Brookes - which I have witnessed. Where are these children getting their information?

I repeat my question at the Council meeting on 23rd June 2010.

'I have been told in the strictest confidence that Cllr Joyce L 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.?’

All Councillor Lucas needs to do is to write me a letter saying she never said any such thing and condemning those who have made these allegations. I will then publish her denial on my blog.

Yours sincerely


Helen Pender


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

Town Council meeting 23 June 2010 at 7 pm

In the Chair tonight will be the redoubtable Cllr Joyce Lucas who so ably chaired the Tesco Council meeting on 26th May, which impressed all residents attending. One comment after that meeting was: 'It was better than the Vicar of Dibley' - that from Mr Kevin O'Brien. How well observed Mr O'Brien! It was certainly a most memorable evening.

If there's nothing much on television tonight this meeting might be worth a visit too. It is after all festival week and I can't see any comedy evenings listed elsewhere on the programme.

Start of British Armed Forces Week

At ten thirty this morning - outside Oakham Library - a flag was raised with all the ceremony which the military manage to do so well. It was all a little confusing. As the flag was raised the C O of North Luffenham saluted. So did some of the other ranks, however some did not. Couldn't quite work out what the military etiquette was. The flag stayed folded, there was too little wind to unfurl it.

The Commanding Officer at Cottesmore gave a worthy address after the flag was raised.

When the flag finally shrugged out of its folds one could see this was not a Union Flag but in fact half a Union Flag, beneath the horizontal red line of St George. were the words:

British Armed Forces
Show Your Support

Couldn't work out whether, since it wasn't a Union Flag, it actually deserved a salute from the C O at North Luffenham or not. At the risk of being a 'Colonel Blimp' I mentioned that it appeared the salute had been given to a bit of bunting. Quite whether the O Rs should have been saluting was something I'm not qualified to give an opinion on, but perhaps communications are a bit poor to the O Rs. Not surprising really since I gathered that the Lord Lieutenant, Officers, Mayor and other senior people were off for refreshments at the Castle whilst the Other Ranks were left out in the cold. Glad to see that the Commanding Officer of the cadets at Oakham School very politely side stepped his invitation to the Castle. At least there are some who are politically educated in Oakham.

How very odd too that we were there to honour the military who have lost their lives in a politically questionable war, yet those representing the Other Ranks, who represent the majority of the 300 who have died in this questionable war in Afghanistan and many more who have died in Iraq, were not honoured enough to be included in the official reception.

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.

Oakham Town Council is 'dysfunctional'

I am told by Martin Brookes that Oakham Town Council have been found to be dysfunctional - well it certainly took long enough. The penny does seem to have finally dropped. I am on my way to the Council Offices to find out if I can get a copy of the findings. However Martin Brookes has published the following paragraph on his blog:

"This case taken together with other assessed cases involving many members of Oakham Town Council indicates an inter-relatonship of cases so serious or complex that they could not be handled locally; investigating the complaints requires substantial amounts of evidence beyond that available from the authority's documents, its members or officers; There is substantial governance dysfunction in the authority."

I'll just repeat that:

"There is substantial governance dysfunction in the authority."

Hooray - it took a long time to come to the right conclusion. Perhaps with the justice of Bloody Sunday finally being brought into some sort of transparent light we are undergoing a sea change in the democratic processes in this country. Yes that was worth M£192 and the 41 complaints that Helen Briggs complained that the Standards Committee had received about Oakham Town Council are at last reaping results. Army dysfunctions and Oakham Parish Council dysfunctions do not come cheap when they happen, but they are worth the expenditure expended to investigate them and bring the sorry failures to light.

I, along with Fiona Arold, Linda Grey and Tor Clarke are attending a meeting at Oakham Town Council tonight. They are interviewing four people to be co-opted to two places on the Town Council. I don't have a cat in hell's chance of being selected, but this finding will make the interview process a great deal easier - at last parish Councillors on the Town Council may be in a position to understand why they should be encouraged to question their own behaviour.

Oddly the meeting will be public at 7.45 whilst they discuss which of the four candidates to choose. Should be fun!

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.

Town Council meeting 9 June at 7pm Victoria Hall

There was no need to blog the last meeting - especially since so many turned up to hear about or talk to the Town Council about Tescos.

Comments have found their way about town without my tuppence worth adding to the mess that is the Town Council. At last local residents were able to see the proceedings and see for themselves what happens at these 'events.' I think they did more than I could ever do to undermine themselves and show their total lack of understanding of what and how proceedings should be conducted at that meeting.

If residents would like to attend another meeting, if only for entertainment value, then do come along to the Victoria Hall tonight at 7 pm. As a student of cold war Soviet Russia remarked to me after the last meeting - 'the way this Council is conducted is a copy of what the Soviets used to do. The Town Council, like the Soviets, don't take any notice of standing orders or the law.'

So I feel if I want to live in a democracy it is my duty to observe the 'democratic' process at work. I would be delighted to be joined on the public benches by other residents too.

Israeli attack on Gaza peace flotilla

The nettle bouquet has to go outside Oakham today. Special award to the Israeli Government for attacking the Gaza Peace Flotilla, then lying through their teeth about what happened. Have the Israeli's been taking lessons from Alf Dewis et al?

Having kept up with news of this peace flotilla by email, the press appear to have ignored the situation until the Israeli's killed several peace activists. I received the following email from the ONLY DEMOCRACY on Sunday, the day before the Israeli's sent Special Forces brutally aboard a Turkish ship of the peace flotilla. This atrocity committeed by the IDF deserved condemnation, however the press appears full of apologists prepared to excuse this Israeli act of piracy in International waters. The real situation in Gaza is clearly illustrated by this writter. This is worth sharing with you - a powerfully written piece by an Israeli:

** An Open Letter by Jeff Halper to the Israeli Jewish Public: Support
the Gaza Flotilla -
http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/05/an-open-letter-by-jeff-halper-to-the-
israeli-jewish-public-support-the-gaza-flotilla/


By Jeff Halper

If we were not Israeli Jews, if the nine ships bringing 800 peace-makers
from 40 countries would be sailing with humanitarian aid to an imprisoned
population of a million and a half to, say, Haiti, the flotilla now on
its way to Gaza would be hailed as a monumental event. The government of
Israel would donate another 50 tons of food and materials and a brigade
of army volunteers from the “rescue corps.” But we are Israelis, and
the fact that such an operation is being launched against a siege we
imposed on a civilian population three years ago – actually, the
blockade goes back to the late 1980s – should cause us all to reflect
upon how we and our country have arrived at this sorry state – how the
“light unto the nations” has become one of the most oppressive states
on earth, subject to international protests like this one.

The flotilla is sailing with a number of messages. First and foremost, to
the government of Israel: "Lift the siege on Gaza!" The siege is
absolutely illegal in international law, and for those of us who believe
that the rule of law and human rights is the only recipe for a better
world, it is incumbent upon us to join the flotilla's call to lift the
siege. Civilians cannot be the object of military and political attacks,
as is the case in Gaza (which the Goldstone Report roundly criticized),
nor can they be collectively punished for the policies of their political
leaders. The very idea that people can be brought to their knees and
forced to accept being permanently controlled and dominated, which is the
thrust of Israeli policy, is both unconscionable and counter-productive.
As the situation in Gaza shows, it has only stiffened resistance to the
Occupation.

And then there is the urgency of the flotilla's second message,
"Addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza!" In a policy
frightening reminiscent of other dark regimes in which Jews suffered from
controlled malnutrition, our government has imposed a regime of
counting calories on the Gaza population“ imposing a minimal
dietary regime on a million and a half people who receive as little as
850 calories a day, less than half the recommended daily intake. (Dov
Weisglass, Sharon's Chief of Staff, made a joke out of this. It's
like a meeting with a dietitian, he said. We need to make the
Palestinians lose weight, but not to starve to death. Instant coffee,
fresh meat, rice, beans, spices, honey, chocolate, jam, bananas,
coriander and pasta, among many others, are considered by Israel
luxury foods for Palestinians. All this might be funny if it
weren't for the fact that, according to the World Health Organization,
more than 10% of Gazan children suffer from chronic malnutrition.
Two-thirds of the Gazan population face hunger on a daily basis.

Gaza is today an unreconstructed war-zone. Israel long ago destroyed the
sewage system, so that people have drowned in periodic floods of sewage
that have engulfed whole communities. Raw sewage flowing into the
Mediterranean has polluted the only waters in which Palestinians are
allowed to fish“ the Israeli navy fires on fishermen who attempt to
reach cleaner waters more than three miles out. Having destroyed Gaza's
only power station, much of the area suffers from blackouts, and Israel
prevents adequate amounts of fuel from entering, with severe effects on
hospitals. Gazans also have nowhere to live. More than 2,400 homes were
destroyed in the invasion of last year and Israel, by prohibiting the
import of raw materials, has prevented their being rebuilt. Thus the
flotilla is bringing to Gaza 10,000 tons of humanitarian materials:
temporary shelters, playgrounds for children, cement, steel and other
construction materials, medical equipment and medicines and school
supplies“ a drop in the bucket of which is actually needed. The list
alone is an indictment of our policies.

We Israeli Jews live in a managed information environment in which
reality is carefully framed for us. Our government's explanation for
everything it does is "security," and we accept that almost without
question. But we have to understand a basic fact of life: four million
Palestinians live under a cruel Occupation that we have nurtured for the
past 43 years and which has deprived them of their fundamental rights
(such as electing their own political leaders), robbed them of their land
and homes (Israeli governments have demolished some 24,000 Palestinian
homes in the Occupied Territories since 1967), reduced them to
impoverishment and has led, in the case of Gaza, to their literal
imprisonment.

Why do I have to repeat facts that seem so self-evident, that everyone
knows? Because, though every informed person abroad knows these things,
we Israeli Jews don't and we don't care. Most Israelis know far
less about what our government is doing in our name, in Gaza and
elsewhere in the Occupied Territories, than the activists on the Free
Gaza ships. We seldom if ever use the term "occupation" in our
everyday speech (in fact, our government denied the very existence of an
occupation), and we minimize the impact that our settlements, our
separate roads, the Wall, hundreds of checkpoints and other facets of the
Occupation have upon the political process, which we no longer believe
in. Living in a prosperous "bubble," we do not see Palestinian
suffering, only ourselves as "victims." (And so our Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberman characterizes the Gaza flotillas as "violent
propaganda" against Israel, as if we have nothing to do with conditions
of life in Gaza or the very fact of occupation.) But this is not
reality. For the Palestinians there is no minimizing their suffering or
their yearning for freedom. Why, with our history, is it so difficult for
us to understand resistance to oppression?

And so the third message of the flotilla is directed towards us: "Take
responsibility for your government's policies!" When I entered Gaza
on the first Free Gaza boats in August, 2008, I issued an appeal to the
Israeli public to stand in solidarity with us. I argued that ordinary
people have often played key roles in history, particularly in situations
like this where world governments, who should end the siege, shirk their
responsibilities. We must resist the self-serving and disempowering
statements of our political leaders who would have us believe that there
is no solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, that there is "no
partner for peace," that we are doomed to perpetual war and, therefore,
we must become permanent oppressors. The Palestinians are not our
enemies; our own political leaders are. The very fact that I, an Israeli
Jew, was welcomed by the people of Gaza makes that very point, and it is
the message they asked me to convey to you. But they also insist on their
rights: self-determination.

We of the Israeli peace camp refuse to be enemies with our Palestinian
neighbors. We recognize that as the infinitely stronger party in the
conflict, we Israelis must accept responsibility for our failed and
oppressive policies.

In the meantime, the flotilla to Gaza has already succeeded. If the
Israeli government allows the ships into Gaza, the power of the will have
prevailed once more. If it chooses to stop the flotilla, it will only
highlight the existence of the illegal and inhumane siege and bolster
international efforts to end it. In both cases Israel loses the battle
for legitimacy in the international community. This is the beauty of
non-violent direct action. It is only a matter of time before it will be
forced to relinquish control over the Palestinians and their lands.

Let us, Israeli Jews who aspire to become an integral part of this region
rather than a foreign implant at war with its inhabitants, begin to take
our fate in our own hands. We must side with the people of Gaza and the
activists on the boats against the unjust and immoral policies of our own
government. This is what the good people of the flotilla are trying to
tell us, what people all over the world are trying to tell us: unless we
take responsibility for our actions and end this terrible conflict with
the Palestinians, we will not remain here. And unless we find a way to a
just peace rather than stand on the side of occupation, oppression and
injustice, we may delay that day by force, but our society will not
survive. For our sakes as well as the people of Gaza, let us, the Israeli
Jewish public, board the boats to end the siege of Gaza.

Watch live streaming video from insaniyardim at livestream.com

shiptogaza on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free • Email to a friend
• Article Search -
http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=654339;32355;On The Ground
Reports;An Open Letter by Jeff Halper to the Israeli Jewish Public:
Support the Gaza Flotilla;3843256 • Related • View comments -
http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/05/an-open-letter-by-jeff-halper-to-the-
israeli-jewish-public-support-the-gaza-flotilla/#comments • Track
comments -
http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/0
5/an-open-letter-by-jeff-halper-to-the-israeli-jewish-public-support-the-
gaza-flotilla/feed/&ref=comment:654339 • •


* More Recent Articles

- Israel to World: Screw You, We will Continue to Block Gaza
- Gourmet in Gaza
- Harrowing Update from Family of Ameer Makhoul
- Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Biggest Boycotter of them All?
- Gaza Border Opened after 72 days


Further news also available on the following URL links:

Israeli intervention

http://english. aljazeera. net/
live news coverage of flotilla

http://blogs. aljazeera. net/imperium
excellent analysys of flotilla event from best journalyst and international releations professor of al-jazeera.

http://www.presstv. com/detail. aspx?id=128555