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/

Cllr Martin Brookes arrested?

Martin Brookes was arrested yesterday. Why?

He'd put three documents in a Council noticeboard outside Victoria Hall. These were:

1. a piece of hate mail offering whomever assaulted Martin £25.00 for doing so.

2. another piece of hate mail saying Martin was 'Unwanted.'

3. Two offensive pictures of bare men's rear ends - in raw graphic detail - one
with a carrot stuck up it. This was published using my identity and purporting
to be me. It was not. I asked the police to furnish me with the IP Address,
they presumably deemed the offensive material sufficiently inoffensive not to
investigate.

We had both complained to the police separately about these documents which we had not published ourselves. I felt the photographs were offensive but there was nothing I could do, bar ask for information of the Council under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get to the bottom of who had published these photographs in my name.

Illogically, having failed to investigate or prosecute the police arrested Martin yesterday for placing the very same information they had refused to act on in a Council noticeboard, saying the material was now offensive.

Go figure.

Martin was taken to Keyham police station, fingerprinted, his DNA taken and bailed to appear on 3 June 2010.

Sorry folks you can't say the material is inoffensive and refuse to investigate who the perpetrators are and then say it is offensive and arrest Martin for putting the very same material in a Council noticeboard.

I think that's called having your cake and eating it.


This is what has been reported online in the Rutland and Stamford Mercury. I sincerely hope that they are able to publish an pology next week. I trust the police will also issue an apology:

Date: 07 May 2010

A MAN has been bailed by police after he was arrested in Oakham on suspicion of causing criminal damage and displaying offensive images in a public place.

Police were notified that the lock on the noticeboard outside the town hall in High Street had been broken and pornographic images had been placed inside yesterday.

A man was arrested at the scene.

Rutland police commander Johnny Monks said: "It's not nice if people use a public noticeboard to display offensive picture and I won't tolerate it.

"We have laws to be preserved."

The man has been bailed pending further inquiries

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/Arrest-over-pornographic-images-outside.6280787.jp

FACTS

1. I reported the so called offensive material personally to Johnny Monks - he was not so outraged as to pursue my complaint. It was posted in my name by someone purporting to be me. The so called offensive material was tolerated by Inspector Monks when it was online and sent to Martin Brookes. Why the double standards?

2. So far as I know no criminal damage was caused to the public noticeboard. The man was a local Councillor fed up with the bullying and victimisation he has faced at the hands of Council members. He regularly posts Council notices in the noticeboard in the same way he posted this so called offensive material.

Yes I found the material offensive but the police clearly did not until yesterday. I had delivered the material to the police twice and received no further communication from them nor any assurance that my complaint would be given serious consideration. I then let Council members have a copy so as to give them some evidence of why I was asking for all references to me on Council computers.

This is an outrageous dissemination of half truths on behalf of both the police and their press mouthpiece, whom I suspect is that troublemaker and bored housewife – could it be Cllr J L?

General Election Hustings meeting 27 April 2010 - 7 pm Oakham

A meeting will be held in the Parish church tonight at 7.00 under, I am told, the Chairmanship of the cuddly Rector. 26/4/10

The Rector is always keen to ensure the public are well mannered. Whilst the Rector tries to give no opportunity to hecklers, Alan Duncan himself has repeatedly said he 'enjoys' hecklers.

Bit of a problem heckling in All Saints Church if you're at all religious, but I suppose even those who do believe can forget they are in a church for one evening. Well let's try to forget. Always good to test some heavy mettle.

The meeting is usually stuffed full of the main three parties members and very little real testing of our candidates will be allowed.

Questions have to be submitted before hand - too late now. What the procedure was for doing so I'm not sure, but no doubt if you are known to favoured candidates you might be asked to put a question which will show them and their policies in the best possible light.

Candidates from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties will, I've read in the local paper, be attending. Whether the BNP, UKIP and the Independent have also been invited I'm not sure.

This is the nearest Oakham residents will get to holding our candidates to account.

It is a ritual steeped in tradition that everyone behaves and no one says anything which might not be in the best possible taste. How one discerns the goats from the sheep on that basis I'm not sure.

I've always found tradition to be a bit of a strait-jacket. What do you think?

Nun of the above

Have agreed to stand for Oakham Town Council - North East Ward - as an independent candidate. It is important that we have proper elections and bring democracy and public service back into local politics. I am a supporter of Martin Brookes and truly believe that the local parish Council should be about service to the community.

Lately some very silly behaviour has been tolerated at local parish council meetings and I have been pressured to stand. I have decided to accept the nomination primarily because I think democracy demands we have elections, not co-options of mates.

I would like to campaign for better public transport services locally. It is ridiculous that we do not have any buses out of, or into, Oakham on a Sunday and that trains only run after 12.45 pm. There are no buses after 5.40 pm from Peterborough on any day of the week either. This prevents local people, without their own transport, seeking work outside the County. If elected I will undertake to make strenuous representations on behalf of the less well off, who cannot afford their own transport, to be better served and have more employment opportunities.

I will campaign for more openess and disclosure of information to local people. The concept of accountability seems to have bypassed the Town Council. It is reprehensible that so much of the correspondence to local Councillors is marked 'Private and Confidential.'

I am concerned that restoration of the bandstand is likely to cost over £30,000. If a proper restoration job were being undertaken we would be using collyweston tiles, not cedarwood tiles which will probably rot within a relatively short space of time. I also notice that the wooden boards, protecting the bandstand site, have cost thousands of pounds and will be taken down at the end of work. Could we not have used secure and relatively cheaper wire security fencing, rather than paying outright for boarding which will be taken away at the end of the work and presumably recycled by the builders with no financial benefit accruing to local tax payers.

I will also campaign to remove the 'designated area' that the Town Council have voted to enforce on the whole of Oakham.

It was bad enough that local Councillors, some of whom have now resigned, felt able to boast of making Cutts Close a 'designated area' - yet felt no sense of hypocrisy when taking wine bottles to Cutts Close to listen to the Band during festival week. Laws, when they are brought into force, should apply to everyone equally. There does appear to have been a 'them' and 'us' mentality locally. It is about time locally elected representatives understood that they are there to represent and serve their electors and not selfishly exploit their personal positions.

I stood at the last General Election as an Independent candidate and many people suggested that I stand under the tag 'None of the above.' Rather tongue in cheek, since I lead a rather modest life and attend church regularly, I have decided instead to stand as 'Nun of the above.'

You can contact me on: penderh@yahoo.co.uk