Forensic internet detectives sought in cyberspace
Since 2009 Martin Brookes, others and I have been subjected to cyber stalking. I complained in writing to the police on several occasions and was told no crime had been committed, no incident number was given to me and no crime number. Since about 1989 it has become clear that those who identify the wrong in our society are rarely tolerated and often their lives are made impossible, in the hope that they will seek to end it via suicide. See the high profile cases of Katharine Gunn, David Shayler, Julian Assange – but unfortunately one doesn’t have to be famous to be subjected to tactics meted out to well-known whistle blowers.
On 1 March I complained to Sgt Foster at Oakham Police Station about the latest cyberstalking campaign conducted through: ‘oakytaxidriver’ on tweets and blogs at: www.Brookespendertwittriposte.blogspot.com and http://davescab.blogspot.com/@oakham@rutalnd. As usual the police said no crime had been committed and refused to give me an incident number. On 2 March Martin Brookes said if we sent an email to Davescab and he replied Martin would be able to trace the ip address. In the absence of a law enforcement agency to assist us I sat in the library with Martin Brookes and sent an email. That evening yet more blogs appeared. Martin was very upset and I met him outside Oakham Police station. On 3 March I made a complaint about Inspector ‘Johnny’ Monks, Sgts Collier and Foster and their inaction. On 27 April finally Inspector Mansfield saw me and said he was investigating my complaint and that Oakham Police should have acted on my complaints. However he decided to ask Oakham Police to run the investigation!
On 11th May I was sent three texts of tweets advertising the newest blogs on davescab.blogspot.com. I rang them in on 01162222222 and have heard absolutely nothing. Leicestershire Police Standards have suggested I complain through the IPCC. The level of police corruption in covering up the poster of davescab.blogspot and his forty-two followers leads me to suppose that appealing to the IPCC is a waste of time and energy. As I pointed out to the police yesterday all the police have to do is to identify the poster of the davescab.blogspot and the tweets of oakytaxidriver and their 42 followers to find those responsible for this protracted cyberstalking campaign.
A Rutland County Councillor, Nick Wainwright, has also suffered fraudulent postings on a face book page, which he immediately closed down. Talking to Cllr Wainwright on 6th May, he said that his home computer was hacked and the facebook page fraudulently reinstated. So there is a history of political cyber stalking in Rutland. The Police have Councillors on the Joint Action Group and seem averse to identifying their online activities, from the Rutland Chat Forum, Planet Neptune through to various malicious blogs. According to a Standards for England Enquiry Johnny Monks appeared to ring Helen Briggs to assist a Councillor when being questioned on an assault charge against Martin Brookes. I did cancel my access to Oakham library when postings were made in my name on Martin Brookes’ blog, so proving my innocence, however one cannot keep proving one’s innocence if that is always overlooked, and a new cyberstalking initiative propagated.
So what is the point? Doubtless there are good people out there happy to be our path to enlightenment and I would ask the computer experts to trace the history, IP addresses of these blogs and tweets and their 42 followers, so that we can, in the absence of any will on the part of Leicestershire Police, bring some light to bear on who these people are.
So, if you’re a computer expert, perhaps you might like to solve a riddle, which eludes Leicestershire Police. If you can trace the IP addresses, names and addresses of those on the Rutland Chat Forums, now closed; Planet Neptune, now closed; www.Brookespender.blogspot.com - now closed and, so far as I am aware, still open:
http://davescab.blogspot.com/@oakham@rutland and tweets from Oakytaxidriver then you’re a better man than any in the whole of Leicestershire Police. Do let me know what you find, in fact if you let Martin Brookes know too at www.martinbrookes.blogspot.com he would also be most grateful.
705 words
cyber stalking, Martin Brookes, Oakham, Rutland, Rutland County Council, Rutland Police, Johnny Monks, Leicestershire Police, Helen Pender.
Showing posts with label Martin Brookes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Brookes. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
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
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
Thursday, 17 February 2011
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
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
Friday, 17 December 2010
Harriers put on a showy goodbye
As Japanese say 'Hai' to our Harriers.
Photograph supplied by kind permission of Martin Brookes - if only I had the technical know-how to upload it - heigh ho!
On Wednesday RAF pilots put on a show stopping display, despite the low cloud cover over RAF Cottesmore. It is rumoured that our Harrier jets have been sold to the Japanese. So possibly they may yet be used as a first line of defence against Chinese military might. Although the Chinese onslaught is as yet limited to commercial warfare, predominantly in Africa.
Whilst an assortment of supposed ‘dignitaries’ assembled at the main gate to RAF Cottesmore, before being waved through by MoD policemen – no doubt to partake of some yummy scrummy military rations and the odd tot, or not so odd tot of ethanol, the rest of us assembled at crash gate one and made our way through muddy fields. Enthusiasts with long lens cameras came from Germany, Devon, Scotland, Tynemouth, Cheshire and of course good old Oakham.
RAF Cottesmore was first mooted in 1936 and referred to as ‘The Thistleton Site.’ It became operational in 1938 under Wing Commander H V Drew OBE AFC. By 1943 we had 3,700 U S Airmen stationed at Cottesmore – all determined to be as hospitable as war time rationing and American supply chains allowed. Exton Hall was requisitioned for the burgeoning accommodation needs at the base. In 1999, after our airbase in Germany closed, the Harriers were stationed at Cottesmore. Cottesmore is the second highest air base in the country at around 425 ft above sea level. On Wednesday 15 December 2010 the cloud cover was disappointing. Nevertheless the RAF put on a show of magnificent proportions, hovering, flying in formations of four, peeling off with precision. The RAF, in a spirit of egality, ensured that the assembled photographers at crash gate one got a fantastic display.
My father did his National Service in the RAF and had fond memories of his two years of service prior to going to University. He was eventually posted to Cranwell and got his wings in a Tiger Moth, in which his instructor had told him to simulate a stalled landing. Unfortunately he didn’t hear the word ‘simulate’ and so stalled the plane before taking it in to land. He couldn’t understand why the instructor’s knuckles had turned white.
What will happen to Cottesmore now? There are rumours; rumours that the Air Tattoo at Fairford will come to Cottesmore in 2012; rumours that it will be turned into an immigration centre to house families and children of detained immigrants awaiting the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decisions; rumours that the bully boys of the army and their blinkered commanders will take over the base; pressure from a local Councillor to turn it into a commercial airport. The truth is no one knows. What we do know is that if nothing comes into the base Cottesmore and Oakham will become a ghost town, house prices will plummet and we will be yet another rural backwater with no local economy to sustain us. Perhaps then we might get a change of political leadership. Every cloud …
Photograph supplied by kind permission of Martin Brookes - if only I had the technical know-how to upload it - heigh ho!
On Wednesday RAF pilots put on a show stopping display, despite the low cloud cover over RAF Cottesmore. It is rumoured that our Harrier jets have been sold to the Japanese. So possibly they may yet be used as a first line of defence against Chinese military might. Although the Chinese onslaught is as yet limited to commercial warfare, predominantly in Africa.
Whilst an assortment of supposed ‘dignitaries’ assembled at the main gate to RAF Cottesmore, before being waved through by MoD policemen – no doubt to partake of some yummy scrummy military rations and the odd tot, or not so odd tot of ethanol, the rest of us assembled at crash gate one and made our way through muddy fields. Enthusiasts with long lens cameras came from Germany, Devon, Scotland, Tynemouth, Cheshire and of course good old Oakham.
RAF Cottesmore was first mooted in 1936 and referred to as ‘The Thistleton Site.’ It became operational in 1938 under Wing Commander H V Drew OBE AFC. By 1943 we had 3,700 U S Airmen stationed at Cottesmore – all determined to be as hospitable as war time rationing and American supply chains allowed. Exton Hall was requisitioned for the burgeoning accommodation needs at the base. In 1999, after our airbase in Germany closed, the Harriers were stationed at Cottesmore. Cottesmore is the second highest air base in the country at around 425 ft above sea level. On Wednesday 15 December 2010 the cloud cover was disappointing. Nevertheless the RAF put on a show of magnificent proportions, hovering, flying in formations of four, peeling off with precision. The RAF, in a spirit of egality, ensured that the assembled photographers at crash gate one got a fantastic display.
My father did his National Service in the RAF and had fond memories of his two years of service prior to going to University. He was eventually posted to Cranwell and got his wings in a Tiger Moth, in which his instructor had told him to simulate a stalled landing. Unfortunately he didn’t hear the word ‘simulate’ and so stalled the plane before taking it in to land. He couldn’t understand why the instructor’s knuckles had turned white.
What will happen to Cottesmore now? There are rumours; rumours that the Air Tattoo at Fairford will come to Cottesmore in 2012; rumours that it will be turned into an immigration centre to house families and children of detained immigrants awaiting the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decisions; rumours that the bully boys of the army and their blinkered commanders will take over the base; pressure from a local Councillor to turn it into a commercial airport. The truth is no one knows. What we do know is that if nothing comes into the base Cottesmore and Oakham will become a ghost town, house prices will plummet and we will be yet another rural backwater with no local economy to sustain us. Perhaps then we might get a change of political leadership. Every cloud …
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Truth is stranger than fiction
Picture courtesy of Wikipedia
Truth is stranger than fiction
Once upon a time there were two Councils -
A Town Council and a County Council,
and lots and lots of fake postings on a blog.
But I’ll let the emails tell this story:
From Helen Pender:
To: Geoffrey Pook – legal department
Dear Mr Pook
Do stop dissembling. I am now formally making a request, under the Freedom of Information Act.
Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes' blog? Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? Since Council facilities were used, after opening hours, at 9pm at night, my request properly falls under the Freedom of Information Act.
Disingenuously trying to pull the threadbare covers of the Data Protection Act around the questionable activities of those with access to the Council Chamber is not going to work. From your actions it now appears that protecting the guilty is an accepted part of the duties of Council officials in Rutland. Your collusion in protecting the guilty now makes your own position untenable. I require this information forthwith.
1. The Council does hold the information – you were supplied with all necessary information by Martin Brookes - you have the means to ascertain who was logged onto Council computers at 9pm at night. Whether or not you have chosen to ascertain this information is irrelevant. You are now being asked to do so and I have a right to ensure you provide me with this information. So find out and tell me who it was.
2. The police appear to be happy not to pursue crimes when committed by local Councillors, so that avenue is now closed. The only avenue of justice is now to be furnished with the information and make my own arrangements for seeking redress. Under the Human Rights Act one has a right to seek redress. (See recent Court Reports - Europe)
3. Whether or not I am an aggrieved party I still have a right to this information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
4. You disingenuously assert: “. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.” Mr Brookes has now proved that it is only possible to use the Council’s computer link when in a Councillor’s or Officer’s chair within the Council Chamber. He assures me that the computer access was not available at the time from anywhere other than a very limited area within the Council Chamber. Your hint that someone skulking in the car park may have posted the comments is designed to deliberately mislead.
5. I think you are aware that members of the public sitting in public seating would not be able to access the Council’s internet system from the public seating area. Talk about smoke and mirrors! It won’t work.
6. I asked Local Councillors asked the following question on 24 June: “I have been told in the strictest confidence that Cllr Joyce Lucas told a member of the public that Cllr Brookes was a paedophile at the opening of Royce's recreation ground. I hope this is not true?” Since then no one has issued a denial – which you may remember from your legal training is tantamount to an admission of guilt in Civil Law. About a week later a number of tasteless posts were repeatedly made on Martin Brooke’s blog, purporting to be written by me. They were not written by me. If the calculation is beyond your remediably challenged arithmetical skills I suggest you re-engage your brain once more or stop associating with brainless Councillors. You are not stupid, please don’t behave as if I am. The circumstantial evidence points to local Councillors and the only reason we can’t get hard evidence is because you refuse to supply it.
7. As for your very subtle slur, once again proving your linguistic competence and ability to exploit every legal finesse, I am sure you know that I have cancelled my access to Oakham library computers for the last several months and I do not have a personal I P address, since I rely wholly on library computers. I am tired of proving my innocence only for you to ensure the perpetrators have further opportunities to bandy cowardly and tasteless comments in my name.
Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant questions. I am entitled to this information and you have a duty to give it to me. I repeat: Under the Freedom of Information Act who posted those comments using Council facilities to do so? All you have to do is ask your I T people. Why are you being so abnormally shy about talking to your colleagues?
Yours
Helen Pender
From: Geoffrey Pook
To: Helen
Sent: Wed, 17 November, 2010 17:11:01
Subject: RE: Internet Activity
Hello Ms Pender.
I have not asked for the request contained in the final paragraph of your e-mail of yesterday to be logged as a Freedom of Information request, but the eventual response would be much the same as the one set out below and would take considerably longer to reach you.
If the Council held the information, which it does not, almost certainly it would not be disclosed to you as to do so would be unfair processing of personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. If such information amounted to potential evidence in respect of a possible crime, then it would be shared with the Police.
The information is not held because tracing can be made to the router providing the internet access, but not to a particular computer if more than one may be connected through the router.
Looking beyond that basic point, and without decrying your entitlement to be aggrieved if someone is posing as you, your comments seem to me to include many assumptions. I would be interested in any substantiation you are able to provide.
1. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.
2. Why do you conclude that any such posting was made by a senior officer or councillor? The building was not closed; there was a meeting which was open to the public in progress on the evening in question.
3. Has your name been put to particular comments posted on Mr Brookes's blog by the author, or is it the case that your IP number has been used?
4. Why do you state that the offending postings are the work of local councillors?
Regards
Geoff Pook
From: Helen [xxx@yahoo.xx]
Sent: 17 November 2010 15:59
To: Geoffrey Pook
Subject: Fw: Internet Activity
Dear Mr Pook
I have not had a reply to my email below. Do I have to cite the Freedom of Information Act?
These comments were posted by a senior officer or Councillor on a Council computer after the library and offices closed to members of the public and junior staff. They were therefore made by a senior member of staff or a Councillor and as such are under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act. I expect to receive a copy of the names forthwith.
Yours
Helen Pender
From: Martin Brookes
Dear Rutland County Council
Since my meeting with Mr Pook, I placed a tag on the computer used at RCC as you are aware it was used to access my blog once again yesterday lunch time from Oakham Town Council offices.
Shortly after woods some very disturbing comments were posted suggesting I am making this up and some how it is all a fairytale.
When are councils like Rutland County Council and Oakham Town Council going to stop suggesting people are mad who are critical or in my case they say I am in human and pure evil. This person who I am now satisfied is a County Councillor or senior member of staff, has had an obsession with me for nearly two years now.
Yes the activities I have been subjected to in the real world have upset me but I can assure you I am not mad.
The tag informs me they logged onto my blog in the Leicester area yesterday afternoon at 5.37pm via a BT IP 81-152-120-220
Since August there comments have been of a worrying and absurd sexual nature and in some case homophobic.
It is clear the laptop is old style and suggests it could be a RCC issue.
I trust RCC are doing all they can to identify this user.
I am disgusted that Data Protection protects the person you know who uses the library and the police wont take action when you give them their name and address.
One of these people is responsible for the vile post I receive and the credit accounts opened and the ladies clothes sent to me.
And even more worrying the order for a grave stone.
I wonder why the local press wont publish my findings. For fear of sounding mad everyone knows you have a strangle hold on the local press.
This is true because the Rutland Times and Rutland Mercury currently print anything Oakham Town Council release that suits them, this is organised by ex editor and Town Councillor Tor Clark.
From
Martin Brookes
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Helen
To: XXXXX@rutland.gcsx.gov.uk
Sent: Tue, 16 November, 2010 13:59:30
Subject: Fw: Internet Activity
Mr Pook
I have been forwarded a copy of your email to Martin Brookes. This is not acceptable. Justice has to be done and frankly the postings made in my name on Martin Brookes' blog have been going on for far too long. These are local Councillors and the nature of the material is obscene. It is tantamount to stalking and is having a substantial impact on my freedom. I have cancelled my access to Oakham Library computers in order to protect myself. Your inability to pursue the miscreants smacks of double standards. I can bet that you would not hesitate to pursue these miscreants if they were targeting local councillors.
You may remember the part you yourself played in ensuring Martin Brookes' Flick'r account was closed when it was pointed out what a drunken hypocrite the then Mayor was. Martin quite rightly posted a photograph of her and her mates drinking in front of the bandstand. He also posted a picture showing that the area was 'designated'. He then showed the press cuttings of her interview with the local press boasting of her part in banning drinking in Cutts Close. You appeared to think this perfectly acceptable exposure of Jan Fillingham's hypocritical behaviour deserved to be censured. Frankly your own behaviour smacks of chopped logic and a lack of clarity of thought as well as collusion with the miscreants.
I should like to know who has made my life so unacceptably difficult and I should also like to know which senior member of staff or Councillor was making unacceptable postings at 9pm at night from Council computers. Don't hide behind Data Protection. Your failure to protect law abiding citizens from being persecuted makes you an accessory to the crimes committed against both Martin Brookes and me.
Helen Pender
________________________________________
From: XXXXX@rutland.gcsx.gov.uk – G Pook – legal department
To: XXXXX@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:10:04 +0000
Subject: RE: Internet Activity
Hello Mr Brookes.
I have discussed your concerns with Inspector Monks.
The approach of the Police towards issues of material posted on the internet is based on proportionality. As you can imagine, there is such a high volume of potentially relevant material that it would require a sizeable dedicated force of its own to take up every case of inappropriate language or content. In general the Police rely on website moderators to control activity and block postings if necessary.
That is not to say that the Police would not pursue extreme cases, eg where personal injury is threatened or incited, but they do not investigate lower level, albeit unpleasant and even abusive to individuals, material which is not in the public domain (in the sense that people have to seek out particular websites to read it).
On that basis the Police are not proposing to take any action on the recent postings which you have highlighted.
Regards
Geoff Pook
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
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?
Monday, 28 June 2010
Do the Police serve the Council or the Community?
The Nettle bouquet goes to Oakham Police and Inspector Johnny Monks - well done guys!
I have just received the following email from Martin Brookes:
"Standards Complaint Charles Haworth
Mr Haworth abused his position as a councillor he used his possition to influence the police and along with ex Cllr Beech asked the police to issue a stage one harrasment order against me.
I feel this is due to the amendment of the which now show Cllr Haworth obstructed me at a previous meeting.
Cllr Howarth is able to influence the police because of his connection with JAG
I of course exercised my right to refuse acceptance of the notices."
If true this is outrageous. Can anyone recommend a decent out of area human rights lawyer prepared to work pro bono - this tyranny is so out of hand that it beats the comedy evening at the Merry Monk last night.
Considering Jim Harrison's posts about Martin Brookes this smacks of double standards of such an order that it beggars belief anyone at all can justify it.
See Rutlandshire blog: http://rutlandshire.blogspot.com/
Friday, 25 June 2010
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
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
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
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.
Monday, 21 June 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Oakham Town Council co-options - 16th June 2010
Present: Cllrs Joyce Lucas; Charles Haworth; Alf Dewis; George Swiffin; Alan Walters; Martin Brookes and Chairman and Mayor – Sharon Spencer.
Candidates in order of interview: Linda Grey; Helen Pender; Tor Clarke and Fiona Arnold.
The following Councillors cast two votes each in favour of Mrs Linda Grey and Tor Clarke: Cllrs Alf Dewis; Charles Haworth; Joyce Lucas; George Swiffin; Alan Walters.
When told of the vote by the Chairman, Sharon Spencer, she also said that Martin Brookes and she did not vote since they each knew one of the candidates. This prompted me to ask if I was sleeping with (openly gay) Cllr Brookes, since Linda Grey had admitted to me two weeks earlier that she was a friend of both Alf Dewis and Joyce Lucas. In fact I hear from Martin’s blog that she also admitted this as she was introduced at her interview. However Joyce Lucas wisely shut her up.
Oakham is a town of 10,000 people, a very small community. It is unlikely that the five Councillors who voted did not know at least one of the candidates. What cloistered lives these five must lead.
By a happy coincidence the five Councillors, who did vote, roared in unison like unanimous lions in favour of Linda Grey and Tor Clarke.
Martin’s comment to me after the meeting was that I had not pulled my punches when telling the Council of its failings. This was the only opportunity I would get to be heard and it is important to make the most of opportunities when they arise. The Town Clerk said that everyone else was interviewed for a quarter of an hour. My interview lasted half an hour.
Cllr Dewis listened as I told the meeting that Plato believed that Tyranny and Anarchy replaced democracy when democracy fails. However I am not sure he is capable of understanding the depths to which he is bringing this Council by riding rough shod over Standing Orders.
The public were ejected when the five Parish Councillors voted. Martin Brookes had proposed, I am told by other members of the public, that the public be excluded for the discussion. Needless to say, since it was proposed by Cllr Martin Brookes, no one would second his proposal. A few seconds later Cllr Dewis suggested the public be excluded. No one seconded his proposal either, but it was put to the vote and carried. One shakes ones head in despair at this point. You can’t surely have a motion to exclude the public, which receives no support, and then revive exactly the same motion again, which again receives no seconder, and then put the motion to the vote.
Oh yes you can, but only on Oakham Parish Council where Standing Orders don’t apply. It seems my small opportunity to educate Cllr Dewis had fallen on deaf ears. Heigh Ho! Why can’t I learn that casting pearls before swine is always a vain exercise?
As we left the building Martin was locked out of the Council Chamber and office. It became clear that some Councillors were holding an informal discussion from which they wished to exclude Martin Brookes. Quelle suprise?
The outcome was predictable (see Martin Brookes’ blog posted before the meeting). Martin expressed great regret that he hadn’t placed a bet with William Hill as he left the Council Chamber. I couldn’t help thinking that if he had he might have been arrested and charged with fraud.
Lest we forget, at the last Council meeting Cllr Alf Dewis assured us that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth would serve on the Police Joint Action Group, since membership of this group is in future to be ‘by invitation only.’
My congratulations go to Tor Clarke and Linda Grey along with my fervent hopes that they might bring some sanity to this Council. Chris Hilton, Martin Brookes and I raised our glasses in a toast to Oakham Town Council in the Hornblower afterwards. No doubt there will be a celebratory dinner for Lions and their spouses too in the very near future … so perhaps collective sanity on Oakham Town Council is a vain hope.
Candidates in order of interview: Linda Grey; Helen Pender; Tor Clarke and Fiona Arnold.
The following Councillors cast two votes each in favour of Mrs Linda Grey and Tor Clarke: Cllrs Alf Dewis; Charles Haworth; Joyce Lucas; George Swiffin; Alan Walters.
When told of the vote by the Chairman, Sharon Spencer, she also said that Martin Brookes and she did not vote since they each knew one of the candidates. This prompted me to ask if I was sleeping with (openly gay) Cllr Brookes, since Linda Grey had admitted to me two weeks earlier that she was a friend of both Alf Dewis and Joyce Lucas. In fact I hear from Martin’s blog that she also admitted this as she was introduced at her interview. However Joyce Lucas wisely shut her up.
Oakham is a town of 10,000 people, a very small community. It is unlikely that the five Councillors who voted did not know at least one of the candidates. What cloistered lives these five must lead.
By a happy coincidence the five Councillors, who did vote, roared in unison like unanimous lions in favour of Linda Grey and Tor Clarke.
Martin’s comment to me after the meeting was that I had not pulled my punches when telling the Council of its failings. This was the only opportunity I would get to be heard and it is important to make the most of opportunities when they arise. The Town Clerk said that everyone else was interviewed for a quarter of an hour. My interview lasted half an hour.
Cllr Dewis listened as I told the meeting that Plato believed that Tyranny and Anarchy replaced democracy when democracy fails. However I am not sure he is capable of understanding the depths to which he is bringing this Council by riding rough shod over Standing Orders.
The public were ejected when the five Parish Councillors voted. Martin Brookes had proposed, I am told by other members of the public, that the public be excluded for the discussion. Needless to say, since it was proposed by Cllr Martin Brookes, no one would second his proposal. A few seconds later Cllr Dewis suggested the public be excluded. No one seconded his proposal either, but it was put to the vote and carried. One shakes ones head in despair at this point. You can’t surely have a motion to exclude the public, which receives no support, and then revive exactly the same motion again, which again receives no seconder, and then put the motion to the vote.
Oh yes you can, but only on Oakham Parish Council where Standing Orders don’t apply. It seems my small opportunity to educate Cllr Dewis had fallen on deaf ears. Heigh Ho! Why can’t I learn that casting pearls before swine is always a vain exercise?
As we left the building Martin was locked out of the Council Chamber and office. It became clear that some Councillors were holding an informal discussion from which they wished to exclude Martin Brookes. Quelle suprise?
The outcome was predictable (see Martin Brookes’ blog posted before the meeting). Martin expressed great regret that he hadn’t placed a bet with William Hill as he left the Council Chamber. I couldn’t help thinking that if he had he might have been arrested and charged with fraud.
Lest we forget, at the last Council meeting Cllr Alf Dewis assured us that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth would serve on the Police Joint Action Group, since membership of this group is in future to be ‘by invitation only.’
My congratulations go to Tor Clarke and Linda Grey along with my fervent hopes that they might bring some sanity to this Council. Chris Hilton, Martin Brookes and I raised our glasses in a toast to Oakham Town Council in the Hornblower afterwards. No doubt there will be a celebratory dinner for Lions and their spouses too in the very near future … so perhaps collective sanity on Oakham Town Council is a vain hope.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
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!
"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!
Friday, 11 June 2010
Report of Oakham Town Council Meeting 7th June 2010
REPORT OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 7TH JUNE 2010
I must confess to a great deal of confusion. Bullying of Martin Brookes was somewhat muted.
Why?
This meeting was attended by a member of the Standards Committee for the second time – so Councillors were on their best behaviour.
So, one would think that the rules and regulations would be scrupulously followed too – wouldn’t one?
Cllr Jan Fillingham, not having attended a Council meeting since 16 December (although her rather florid signature is also absent from the attendance register on that date – this is said to be an ‘oversight’) was item number 1 ii on the agenda viz:
1. Ii To approve the absence of Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham since December 16th 2009 from meetings of the Council and its Committees on the grounds of ill health.
Oddly at the Annual meeting on 12th May we had been told that Mrs Fillingham had now recovered. Does this illness come and go? Or do members of the Council suffer from terminal amnesia?
We had been told by Cllr Haworth, via email, that Cllr Fillingham’s tired and emotional state at Remembrance Sunday Service last November was due to her medication. Yet Cllr Fillingham in her Annual report says that she was diagnosed in January 2010. Do Councillors need a calendar of events and a prompt in the wings to remind them what they have asserted? I had seen Cllr Fillingham looking her usual impeccably turned out self in the High Street as I emerged with my bag full of medication the previous week and luckily I was able to remind Councillors of the announcement of her recovery on 12th May.
Ex Councillor Kelly attended and had clearly failed to understand the terms of the ‘six months’ rule.’ He asked why Councillors, who gave their apologies religiously at every meeting for longer than six months, were thought to be in danger of losing their seats. Although I am told Cllr Kelly does read my blog (see 26 May Six Months’ Rule blog) he clearly failed to understand it. I will just refer him back to: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 and recommend that he finds someone with either a level of reasonable literacy or intellectual ability to translate this into a monosyllabic explanation.
No one seems to understand the idea that if one cannot carry out one's duties as a Councillor for longer than six months there should be some code of honour to suggest that one should allow the electors to be properly represented. However that idea goes against the more prevalent idea of an exclusive club of like minded people supporting one another through thick and thin. The code of Omerta till rules among this coterie of Councillors.
Under Item 3 Cllr Dewis stood up and asked why Cllr Brookes had failed to ascertain the situation on the boards around the bandstand. At the last meeting Cllr Brookes had asked that the boards around the bandstand be preserved. The Chairman, Cllr Haworth, then suggested that Cllr Brookes have precisely one week, whilst banned from visiting the Town Clerk to ascertain whether a friend of the Town Clerk might be in a position to take these boards. Clrr Brookes explained at the last meeting that he could not do this, particularly since Cllr Dewis and Haworth had banned him from talking or communicating with the Town Clerk. It was finally decided that the Town Clerk would carry out the research on what to do with these boards. However Cllr Dewis never lets the facts get in the way of a dig at Cllr Brookes and was happy to indulge in total amnesia about what had been decided at the last meeting.
Perhaps we should have the water tested at Victoria Hall. A worrying amount of amnesia seems far too prevalent amongst Councillors.
Item 11 – REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES raised some eyebrows amongst the three members of the public observing the Council meeting. At first it began to look as though Cllr Brookes would not be allowed to serve on any of these Committees. Cllr Brookes proposed himself to the first five committees and received absolutely no seconder whatsoever. It all began to look a little like the vendetta it is. Item 11(v) needed three members as trustees of the Victoria Hall. Cllr Fillingham and Cllr Dodds are on this committee.
The Town Clerk In his eagerness to ensure Cllr Dewis was voted onto this committee ruled rather oddly that he would only take one nomination at a time. The correct procedure would have been to accept all nominations and then had an election. But why would Oakham Town Council want to deviate into the territory of correct procedures? Instead Richard White said: ‘Uh one at a time please.’ So ruling that Cllr Dewis would be voted onto the board of Trustees and further nominations made after he had been voted in. Cllr Dodds said she would like to continue to serve as a trustee of the Victoria Hall and was duly voted in. Cllr Haworth, eager to ensure that Cllr Brookes was edged out immediately proposed himself. So instead of having to vote for four candidates for three positions, members were asked to elect Cllrs Dewis and Dodds and then have a vote between two candidates for one position. Highly irregular and rather against Standing Orders, but never mind we don’t seem to take much notice of regulations on OTC.
Remember the Standards Committee representative sitting in the public seats? As I said Councillors were on their best behaviour. This then begs the question: Are Councillors so politically ignorant as to fail to understand their highly irregular behaviour? Or did they think that the three members of the public attending the meeting would be so thick that they wouldn’t understand this finesse? Furthermore did they think that a member of the Standards Committee would be able to overlook this irregularity? I rather think they are or did. Hence my confusion – I simply can’t decide whether the Council and the Town Clerk are irremedially politically ill educated or whether they think others are even thicker than they are and won’t notice these sorts of irregularities. Would someone please let me know?
Under 11 (vi) Cllr Lucas refused to serve on the Oakham Festival Committee, reasoning that this Committee met on a Wednesday and this often clashed with Town Council meetings. Having spotted the Standards Committee representative in the public seats a small confab took place and, if only to ensure that Cllr Brookes was not edged out of every committee, he was voted onto the Festival Committee. I rather think the Wednesday clash and the prospect of Cllr Brookes being unable to attend one meeting or the other might have recommended him for the position.
But ... it gets worse! Item 11 (ix): Police Joint Action Group. Cllr Dewis stood up and, in his usual confident manner, assured the meeting that elections were no longer valid since the police wanted representation on this committee to be ‘by invitation only.’
It beggared belief. In what Universe do the police decide which Councillors oversee their activities on the Joint Action Group? The face of the Standards Officer was a picture, my chin hit the floor with a bump. Eyeing the consternation in the public seats the Town Clerk said he would come back to the meeting on the situation and let us know. Why didn’t the Town Clerk have the training, common sense or insight to know that this is entirely unacceptable and say so? Why didn't any other Councillor tell us how odd this assertion was? Code of Omerta ... again?
I rather think this constitutes proof positive that this little club of Councillors are well past their sell by date. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman made no effort to rule Cllr Dewis out of order when he asserted that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth were those invited to serve on this committee ‘by invitation’ – although we only have Cllr Dewis’ word on this. Surely this cosy little coterie, or tyrannical triumvirate, should all be ruled off the Police Joint Action Group? One cannot have Councillors believing that democracy, police oversight and elections may be over ruled by a tyrranical police force eager to ensure that those prepared to sing from their hymn sheet should serve on the Joint Action Group, surely??????????
Cllr Brookes, with an eye on the accounts, then begged the question as to why the Town Council had approved expenditure of only £38.00 for signage to the new public loos, yet he now saw that we had paid around £125.40. He also asked why the Churches together had said they did not need electricity at the bandstand, yet used electricity. Cllr Brookes on both points said that the Council had approved expenditure or authorised use of the bandstand on certain terms and those terms were overturned with no reference back to the Council. Other Councillors treated Cllr Brookes as if he were a trouble maker. Cllr Dodds said that one shouldn’t worry about a trivial matter like a small amount of electricity – ‘the important thing was did people enjoy theirselves.’!!! The Town Clerk in his usual effort to evade the truth read from a previous bill to show that 38p’s worth of electricity had been used. However this bill did not cover the period Cllr Brookes was referring to, which the Town Clerk failed to acknowledge and Cllr Brookes had to point out this attempt at a finesse on the truth. Luckily the man from Standards understood why Cllr Brookes had asked these questions.
Is it too much to hope that RCC finally realise what a shower this Council is and call for it to be abolished? At the very least we deserve a full procedural audit – surely?
Finally could I ask the press to desist from making broadcasts or printing items on Oakham Town Council without doing their own independent newsgathering. If the radio station can't be bothered to send a reporter to the meetings and the local paper can't be bothered to send anyone other than Jim Harrison, who has a rather poisonous axe to grind, then they should not make inaccurate broadcasts. News gathering does not mean gleaning poisonous gossip from Cllrs Haworth, Lucas, Dewis, ex Councillor Jim Harrison et al and then publishing their scurrilous stories. Journalism demands a bit more effort. Without a free press (or the fifth estate if you will) we are enslaved to the tyrants who would trample democracy into an early grave.
I must confess to a great deal of confusion. Bullying of Martin Brookes was somewhat muted.
Why?
This meeting was attended by a member of the Standards Committee for the second time – so Councillors were on their best behaviour.
So, one would think that the rules and regulations would be scrupulously followed too – wouldn’t one?
Cllr Jan Fillingham, not having attended a Council meeting since 16 December (although her rather florid signature is also absent from the attendance register on that date – this is said to be an ‘oversight’) was item number 1 ii on the agenda viz:
1. Ii To approve the absence of Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham since December 16th 2009 from meetings of the Council and its Committees on the grounds of ill health.
Oddly at the Annual meeting on 12th May we had been told that Mrs Fillingham had now recovered. Does this illness come and go? Or do members of the Council suffer from terminal amnesia?
We had been told by Cllr Haworth, via email, that Cllr Fillingham’s tired and emotional state at Remembrance Sunday Service last November was due to her medication. Yet Cllr Fillingham in her Annual report says that she was diagnosed in January 2010. Do Councillors need a calendar of events and a prompt in the wings to remind them what they have asserted? I had seen Cllr Fillingham looking her usual impeccably turned out self in the High Street as I emerged with my bag full of medication the previous week and luckily I was able to remind Councillors of the announcement of her recovery on 12th May.
Ex Councillor Kelly attended and had clearly failed to understand the terms of the ‘six months’ rule.’ He asked why Councillors, who gave their apologies religiously at every meeting for longer than six months, were thought to be in danger of losing their seats. Although I am told Cllr Kelly does read my blog (see 26 May Six Months’ Rule blog) he clearly failed to understand it. I will just refer him back to: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 and recommend that he finds someone with either a level of reasonable literacy or intellectual ability to translate this into a monosyllabic explanation.
No one seems to understand the idea that if one cannot carry out one's duties as a Councillor for longer than six months there should be some code of honour to suggest that one should allow the electors to be properly represented. However that idea goes against the more prevalent idea of an exclusive club of like minded people supporting one another through thick and thin. The code of Omerta till rules among this coterie of Councillors.
Under Item 3 Cllr Dewis stood up and asked why Cllr Brookes had failed to ascertain the situation on the boards around the bandstand. At the last meeting Cllr Brookes had asked that the boards around the bandstand be preserved. The Chairman, Cllr Haworth, then suggested that Cllr Brookes have precisely one week, whilst banned from visiting the Town Clerk to ascertain whether a friend of the Town Clerk might be in a position to take these boards. Clrr Brookes explained at the last meeting that he could not do this, particularly since Cllr Dewis and Haworth had banned him from talking or communicating with the Town Clerk. It was finally decided that the Town Clerk would carry out the research on what to do with these boards. However Cllr Dewis never lets the facts get in the way of a dig at Cllr Brookes and was happy to indulge in total amnesia about what had been decided at the last meeting.
Perhaps we should have the water tested at Victoria Hall. A worrying amount of amnesia seems far too prevalent amongst Councillors.
Item 11 – REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES raised some eyebrows amongst the three members of the public observing the Council meeting. At first it began to look as though Cllr Brookes would not be allowed to serve on any of these Committees. Cllr Brookes proposed himself to the first five committees and received absolutely no seconder whatsoever. It all began to look a little like the vendetta it is. Item 11(v) needed three members as trustees of the Victoria Hall. Cllr Fillingham and Cllr Dodds are on this committee.
The Town Clerk In his eagerness to ensure Cllr Dewis was voted onto this committee ruled rather oddly that he would only take one nomination at a time. The correct procedure would have been to accept all nominations and then had an election. But why would Oakham Town Council want to deviate into the territory of correct procedures? Instead Richard White said: ‘Uh one at a time please.’ So ruling that Cllr Dewis would be voted onto the board of Trustees and further nominations made after he had been voted in. Cllr Dodds said she would like to continue to serve as a trustee of the Victoria Hall and was duly voted in. Cllr Haworth, eager to ensure that Cllr Brookes was edged out immediately proposed himself. So instead of having to vote for four candidates for three positions, members were asked to elect Cllrs Dewis and Dodds and then have a vote between two candidates for one position. Highly irregular and rather against Standing Orders, but never mind we don’t seem to take much notice of regulations on OTC.
Remember the Standards Committee representative sitting in the public seats? As I said Councillors were on their best behaviour. This then begs the question: Are Councillors so politically ignorant as to fail to understand their highly irregular behaviour? Or did they think that the three members of the public attending the meeting would be so thick that they wouldn’t understand this finesse? Furthermore did they think that a member of the Standards Committee would be able to overlook this irregularity? I rather think they are or did. Hence my confusion – I simply can’t decide whether the Council and the Town Clerk are irremedially politically ill educated or whether they think others are even thicker than they are and won’t notice these sorts of irregularities. Would someone please let me know?
Under 11 (vi) Cllr Lucas refused to serve on the Oakham Festival Committee, reasoning that this Committee met on a Wednesday and this often clashed with Town Council meetings. Having spotted the Standards Committee representative in the public seats a small confab took place and, if only to ensure that Cllr Brookes was not edged out of every committee, he was voted onto the Festival Committee. I rather think the Wednesday clash and the prospect of Cllr Brookes being unable to attend one meeting or the other might have recommended him for the position.
But ... it gets worse! Item 11 (ix): Police Joint Action Group. Cllr Dewis stood up and, in his usual confident manner, assured the meeting that elections were no longer valid since the police wanted representation on this committee to be ‘by invitation only.’
It beggared belief. In what Universe do the police decide which Councillors oversee their activities on the Joint Action Group? The face of the Standards Officer was a picture, my chin hit the floor with a bump. Eyeing the consternation in the public seats the Town Clerk said he would come back to the meeting on the situation and let us know. Why didn’t the Town Clerk have the training, common sense or insight to know that this is entirely unacceptable and say so? Why didn't any other Councillor tell us how odd this assertion was? Code of Omerta ... again?
I rather think this constitutes proof positive that this little club of Councillors are well past their sell by date. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman made no effort to rule Cllr Dewis out of order when he asserted that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth were those invited to serve on this committee ‘by invitation’ – although we only have Cllr Dewis’ word on this. Surely this cosy little coterie, or tyrannical triumvirate, should all be ruled off the Police Joint Action Group? One cannot have Councillors believing that democracy, police oversight and elections may be over ruled by a tyrranical police force eager to ensure that those prepared to sing from their hymn sheet should serve on the Joint Action Group, surely??????????
Cllr Brookes, with an eye on the accounts, then begged the question as to why the Town Council had approved expenditure of only £38.00 for signage to the new public loos, yet he now saw that we had paid around £125.40. He also asked why the Churches together had said they did not need electricity at the bandstand, yet used electricity. Cllr Brookes on both points said that the Council had approved expenditure or authorised use of the bandstand on certain terms and those terms were overturned with no reference back to the Council. Other Councillors treated Cllr Brookes as if he were a trouble maker. Cllr Dodds said that one shouldn’t worry about a trivial matter like a small amount of electricity – ‘the important thing was did people enjoy theirselves.’!!! The Town Clerk in his usual effort to evade the truth read from a previous bill to show that 38p’s worth of electricity had been used. However this bill did not cover the period Cllr Brookes was referring to, which the Town Clerk failed to acknowledge and Cllr Brookes had to point out this attempt at a finesse on the truth. Luckily the man from Standards understood why Cllr Brookes had asked these questions.
Is it too much to hope that RCC finally realise what a shower this Council is and call for it to be abolished? At the very least we deserve a full procedural audit – surely?
Finally could I ask the press to desist from making broadcasts or printing items on Oakham Town Council without doing their own independent newsgathering. If the radio station can't be bothered to send a reporter to the meetings and the local paper can't be bothered to send anyone other than Jim Harrison, who has a rather poisonous axe to grind, then they should not make inaccurate broadcasts. News gathering does not mean gleaning poisonous gossip from Cllrs Haworth, Lucas, Dewis, ex Councillor Jim Harrison et al and then publishing their scurrilous stories. Journalism demands a bit more effort. Without a free press (or the fifth estate if you will) we are enslaved to the tyrants who would trample democracy into an early grave.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
