Helen Pender
Asks:
Why is our money going to prop up Brent Council?
HELEN PENDER – Independent candidate - Oakham North East Ward.
I’m asking you to help me change the face of local politics on May 5th in order to deliver a more transparent, more accountable, local democracy.
A MORE TRANSPARENT DEMOCRACY
For example, I would like to know how our council justifies giving a two million pound, soft terms loan to Brent Council? Was half a percent (0.5%) really the best interest rate that Rutland County council were able to obtain? Or are the people of Rutland being asked to fork out for overspending in Brent?
We have had various differing reports on what has happened to the money lost in the Icelandic banking fiasco and none of the explanations has been consistent. First we were told that we were going to get all the money back (about a million pounds) – then we were told that we had got all the money back – then we were told that most of the money had been returned – then we were told that we’d recovered just over 50%, but that further instalments were expected. I am not even sure that the members of Rutland County Council (DC), whether Councillors or Officers, know what the real position is – particularly after the local paper reported that our council “found” £1 million recently. No one knows where it was hidden or how it was ‘found.’
To ensure that the money we lost in the Iceland banking fiasco is not repeated we need to be told the thinking behind our investment policies.
This is your money that “they” are misusing and you should be told why approximately 7.5% of our annual budget has gone to Brent Council; when we can expect to see the money returned and why such a small interest rate was fixed.
Had Brent Council gone to a bank for this loan they could have expected to pay at least 6% interest to a bank. Why does Rutland County Council believe that they should use our money to help out a London Council? What on earth induced RCC to make this sort of ‘investment’? Who knows? I don’t. But we should be told. I intend to ask these sorts of questions.
SUPPORTING SAINSBURY'S
The decision to turn down Sainsbury’s is an economic disaster for Oakham. Tesco needs real competition. Some of their pricing reflects the virtual monopoly Tesco has in the area. By denying Sainsbury’s permission to build at the end of Land’s End Way we have given up 300 jobs (equivalent to 200 full time jobs) and a real competitor to help keep down food prices for supermarket shoppers. One of the arguments was that the land Sainsbury’s intended to build on had been set aside for office use – since around 2001. The fact remains that no one has wanted to build offices on this site for ten years and no one else looks likely to want to build on the site.
Nothing has been built on the Sainsbury’s site and so no jobs are being created.
We are gong to be entering an era of severe local economic recession due to the closure of RAF Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell with the loss of hundreds of jobs and the consequent loss of hundreds of people able to pay Council tax. One of the reasons we haven’t attracted sufficient B1 office use on the site, on which Sainsbury’s wish to build, is due to the fact that offices built on that site will have nowhere for office workers to buy sandwiches, petrol, and essential stationery. A supermarket on the site will ensure that it becomes attractive to would be builders of offices.
(See www.helenpender.blogspot.com posting on Sainsbury’s planning fiasco for a more in depth analysis.) Oakham needs to be rescued from the short term thinking which has dogged this Council. I am not connected either financially or in any other way to Sainsbury but will campaign for Sainsbury’s planning application to be accepted and will support any appeal they may make.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
The Government has offered substantial economic inducements to build new housing. The RCC new housing initiatives on the Hawkesmead Estate and elsewhere will net the Council well over £500,000 in subsidies from Central Government. However there is a real problem for people who do not drive. Our public transport system is in a dire state. Without a car, residents cannot work on Sundays in either Stamford or Melton (since we have no buses at all on a Sunday and no trains run until the afternoon); mid-week the last bus to leave Peterborough for Oakham is at 4.40 pm. Residents can’t even go to a nightclub, see a film or the theatre in Stamford or Melton, since our public transport system makes it impossible to return on the evening of the performance. Residents unable to drive cannot work or play outside Oakham.
Many households cannot afford to run more than one vehicle and others, especially pensioners and young people, do not have access to motor vehicles. This limits their mobility, both for leisure and for work.
Oakham’s economic future depends upon having a decent public transport system which will be the key to future growth in an increasingly difficult local economy. Employers like RAF Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell have left and we desperately need to attract new businesses to the area. Without public transport we are rudderless and hopelessly adrift in these difficult economic times.
FINALLY
I intend to really listen to electors. The fact that almost everyone I have spoken to in Oakham has supported Sainsbury’s planning application is a proof of the sad reality that local Councillors neither listen to their constituents nor vote in their interests.
Can you help to change the face of local policies in our local Council? - Yes you can.
Printed and published for Helen Pender care of Finkey Street, Oakham, Rutland LE156AG telephone: 07749571341
Showing posts with label Oakham Rutland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oakham Rutland. Show all posts
Monday, 4 April 2011
Friday, 25 February 2011
Rutland County Council Development and Control Licensing Committee Meeting Tuesday 22 February 2011.
Also Known As: The Sainsbury’s planning application fiasco.
There were three public deputations: Mr Fletton spoke in favour of the officers’ recommendation for refusal of the planning permission for a Sainsbury’s Supermarket to be built at the end of Land’s End Way. Why?
Well this was the elephant in the room. Put at its most simply, if I am right, Waitrose has promised to buy a site on the old Rutland College site when they move to Barleythorpe. Waitrose promise to pay top dollar and the monies will go to RCC, who have to stump up for converting Barleythorpe to a New Further Education College. But no one mentioned this all evening. The clue lay in the fact that Mr Fletton is head of Rutland / Tresham College in Oakham.
BUT – Waitrose have said that if planning permission is given to Sainsbury’s then they will not be interested in pursuing their proposed development on the old Rutland College site. So it seems - no Waitrose, no money for a new College. Ergo Sainsbury’s planning application had to be defeated.
However those are not legal or sufficient grounds for denying planning permission to Sainsbury’s. So instead we were subjected to arguments, from the planning officers of RCC about:
1. Loss of employment land. (Three hundred jobs are to be created)
2. The site is more suitable for B1 Office Development. (This site has been available for B1 Office use since 2001 and remains unused. Why? Because no one wants to build offices in the middle of nowhere if staff can’t even get a sandwich during their lunch break and have to negotiate an increasingly busy level crossing to get into the centre of town during a half hour lunch break – an impossibility.)
3. The employment of a foodstore is not as significant as would be created by the uses specified in the Local Plan. [B1 - Office use] (This is pie in the sky. This land has been available since 2001 and no offices have been built on the site. Undeveloped office land creates a 0% increase in employment. In fact the proposed store just uses up 8% of the whole area set aside for B1 Office Development. It would seem with the closure of Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell we are about to hit an economic slump of monstrous proportions. No company has been induced to build any offices on this site for over ten years. The logic of the officers’ arguments appears to be: ‘We want office jobs in the area, but since we can’t get offices into the area we won’t let anyone create retail jobs either.’ The people of Oakham desperately need bread today and the officers appear to be arguing in favour of a fantastical jam tomorrow project in the teeth of economic reality. I would argue that a Sainsbury supermarket is more likely to attract B1 Offices to the site. An employer is not going to believe it an attractive office site if there are no local amenities for staff to purchase emergency office supplies, petrol and sandwiches.)
4. Refusal is consistent with adopted Local Plan Policy and with Government Guidance in Planning Police Statement 4 [PPS4]. (There is some flexibility in that Planning Policy Statement 4 and anyway the PPS4 is ‘Guidance.’ A persuasive argument can me made that allowing a Sainsbury supermarket on the site will attract B1 office use in the longer term.)
5. The need for a foodstore of the scale proposed is marginal. (So let such a store be put on the margins of the town and attract visitors from rural destinations around the by-pass without clogging up the town centre. Conversely with the housing development at Hawkesmeade the site will no longer be so marginal).
6. PPS4 encourages main town centre uses in central locations. (Well why didn’t they say so earlier? Let’s just demolish the Castle and let Sainsbury’s build there. Or perhaps compulsorily purchase the land between Mill Street and the RCC, demolish the Museum and build a Sainsbury’s there. Surely huge great eyesores like Tesco. Waitrose, Sainsbury, Asda, Lidl, etc are better not polluting the aesthetic beauty of our town centres. No – it would seem that the planning officers have identified two alternate sites in the town – one on the Tim Norton site at the railway crossing and another, neither of which would seem to provide enough space in which to shoehorn a supermarket with petrol station. Anyway Land’s End Way is on a bus route and when the Hawkesmead estate opens, with small retail outlets in an edge of town development, the proposed Sainsbury site will no longer be so much ‘out of town’ as ‘edge of town.’ Quite the best place for an eyesore. Furthermore Waitrose proposes to build at the other end of Land’s End Way, not much nearer to the town centre, and you can bet your bottom dollar that planning permission will be recommended by the officers. I wonder why?)
7. A Sequential Assessment is required with any main town centre use proposed for a non-central location – i.e. are there more central sites that would be appropriate? (Already covered in 6 above – this argument was considered by the officers to be their clincher in turning down this planning application and much was made of it. It is merely a red herring, who wants to destroy our town centre with an eyesore? The architectural value of supermarkets is worse than a ‘carbuncle on the face of a very old friend.’ Supermarket architecture has all the charm of a Soviet bunker – except that Soviet bunkers are hidden below ground.
8. Refusal is in accordance with government guidance. (BUNKUM – it’s in accordance with the fact that Waitrose will get permission to build on the same road for some very short term financial considerations regarding a Further Education College’s relocation to Barleythorpe.)
The fact that Cllr Terry King, who pretends to sit on the fence, could be seen jubilating with Helen Briggs, the Chief Executive, after the meeting gave us a clue as to the real reasons behind this refusal. It’s time we asked the full Council to consider this planning application and only YOU the public can do that by popular demand. Write individually to each and every Councillor to demand that this application goes to the full Council. With luck that will happen after May and, with a following wind, all the Tory councillors, whipped in to vote against Sainsbury’s planning application, will have lost their seats. Only your letters and your votes can make a change in Rutland.
The meeting on 22 February was a disingenuous fiasco. The Rutland barn is full of foul smelling excrement. Let’s stop calling a spade ‘an excavating implement’ and let’s shovel this lot of ne’er do wells out of office, together with their jobsworth planning officers.
1,152
There were three public deputations: Mr Fletton spoke in favour of the officers’ recommendation for refusal of the planning permission for a Sainsbury’s Supermarket to be built at the end of Land’s End Way. Why?
Well this was the elephant in the room. Put at its most simply, if I am right, Waitrose has promised to buy a site on the old Rutland College site when they move to Barleythorpe. Waitrose promise to pay top dollar and the monies will go to RCC, who have to stump up for converting Barleythorpe to a New Further Education College. But no one mentioned this all evening. The clue lay in the fact that Mr Fletton is head of Rutland / Tresham College in Oakham.
BUT – Waitrose have said that if planning permission is given to Sainsbury’s then they will not be interested in pursuing their proposed development on the old Rutland College site. So it seems - no Waitrose, no money for a new College. Ergo Sainsbury’s planning application had to be defeated.
However those are not legal or sufficient grounds for denying planning permission to Sainsbury’s. So instead we were subjected to arguments, from the planning officers of RCC about:
1. Loss of employment land. (Three hundred jobs are to be created)
2. The site is more suitable for B1 Office Development. (This site has been available for B1 Office use since 2001 and remains unused. Why? Because no one wants to build offices in the middle of nowhere if staff can’t even get a sandwich during their lunch break and have to negotiate an increasingly busy level crossing to get into the centre of town during a half hour lunch break – an impossibility.)
3. The employment of a foodstore is not as significant as would be created by the uses specified in the Local Plan. [B1 - Office use] (This is pie in the sky. This land has been available since 2001 and no offices have been built on the site. Undeveloped office land creates a 0% increase in employment. In fact the proposed store just uses up 8% of the whole area set aside for B1 Office Development. It would seem with the closure of Cottesmore and HMP Ashwell we are about to hit an economic slump of monstrous proportions. No company has been induced to build any offices on this site for over ten years. The logic of the officers’ arguments appears to be: ‘We want office jobs in the area, but since we can’t get offices into the area we won’t let anyone create retail jobs either.’ The people of Oakham desperately need bread today and the officers appear to be arguing in favour of a fantastical jam tomorrow project in the teeth of economic reality. I would argue that a Sainsbury supermarket is more likely to attract B1 Offices to the site. An employer is not going to believe it an attractive office site if there are no local amenities for staff to purchase emergency office supplies, petrol and sandwiches.)
4. Refusal is consistent with adopted Local Plan Policy and with Government Guidance in Planning Police Statement 4 [PPS4]. (There is some flexibility in that Planning Policy Statement 4 and anyway the PPS4 is ‘Guidance.’ A persuasive argument can me made that allowing a Sainsbury supermarket on the site will attract B1 office use in the longer term.)
5. The need for a foodstore of the scale proposed is marginal. (So let such a store be put on the margins of the town and attract visitors from rural destinations around the by-pass without clogging up the town centre. Conversely with the housing development at Hawkesmeade the site will no longer be so marginal).
6. PPS4 encourages main town centre uses in central locations. (Well why didn’t they say so earlier? Let’s just demolish the Castle and let Sainsbury’s build there. Or perhaps compulsorily purchase the land between Mill Street and the RCC, demolish the Museum and build a Sainsbury’s there. Surely huge great eyesores like Tesco. Waitrose, Sainsbury, Asda, Lidl, etc are better not polluting the aesthetic beauty of our town centres. No – it would seem that the planning officers have identified two alternate sites in the town – one on the Tim Norton site at the railway crossing and another, neither of which would seem to provide enough space in which to shoehorn a supermarket with petrol station. Anyway Land’s End Way is on a bus route and when the Hawkesmead estate opens, with small retail outlets in an edge of town development, the proposed Sainsbury site will no longer be so much ‘out of town’ as ‘edge of town.’ Quite the best place for an eyesore. Furthermore Waitrose proposes to build at the other end of Land’s End Way, not much nearer to the town centre, and you can bet your bottom dollar that planning permission will be recommended by the officers. I wonder why?)
7. A Sequential Assessment is required with any main town centre use proposed for a non-central location – i.e. are there more central sites that would be appropriate? (Already covered in 6 above – this argument was considered by the officers to be their clincher in turning down this planning application and much was made of it. It is merely a red herring, who wants to destroy our town centre with an eyesore? The architectural value of supermarkets is worse than a ‘carbuncle on the face of a very old friend.’ Supermarket architecture has all the charm of a Soviet bunker – except that Soviet bunkers are hidden below ground.
8. Refusal is in accordance with government guidance. (BUNKUM – it’s in accordance with the fact that Waitrose will get permission to build on the same road for some very short term financial considerations regarding a Further Education College’s relocation to Barleythorpe.)
The fact that Cllr Terry King, who pretends to sit on the fence, could be seen jubilating with Helen Briggs, the Chief Executive, after the meeting gave us a clue as to the real reasons behind this refusal. It’s time we asked the full Council to consider this planning application and only YOU the public can do that by popular demand. Write individually to each and every Councillor to demand that this application goes to the full Council. With luck that will happen after May and, with a following wind, all the Tory councillors, whipped in to vote against Sainsbury’s planning application, will have lost their seats. Only your letters and your votes can make a change in Rutland.
The meeting on 22 February was a disingenuous fiasco. The Rutland barn is full of foul smelling excrement. Let’s stop calling a spade ‘an excavating implement’ and let’s shovel this lot of ne’er do wells out of office, together with their jobsworth planning officers.
1,152
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
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Why is capitalism failing?
That we are in an economic recession, there is no doubt. That right wing politics and politicians come to the fore in times of economic recession is attested to by the History of the Third Reich. There is a laager mentality which ensues; “I’m alright Jack, blow you,” which becomes prevalent during such times. That corruption becomes rife, authorities deliberately wink at sharp practices, is attested to by the lack of political will to regulate the banking sector properly and of course the Andy Coulson debacle; where even our Prime Minister was prepared to wink and give Andy Coulson a ‘second chance.’
Our Government tells us that we all have to bear the burden of the economic recession. However, our Government fails to see the obvious; that the ordinary worker never benefited during the economic boom. Labour imported migrants, which kept profits high and wages down, so playing into the hands of the fat cats who tried to keep wages to £6.00 per hour or below. These workers, many of whom are working for viable business which the banks are refusing to give loans to, are facing redundancy, higher fuel prices and higher VAT on those fuel prices. Can this Government not see that the burden cannot be borne by the poor? They bore poverty during the boom years and have no fat to cut during this recession.
In a rural area, like Rutland, there is no Job Centre at all. It is considered that £65 per week is sufficient to keep body and soul together, whilst trying to heat that body. Those on the poverty line are trying to live on cold food to save electricity, turning off their fridges to save electricity, giving up their televisions to save money and still they are not able to make ends meet. This Government, having decided that the minimum to keep a person alive is £65 per week, rising in April by some £2.00, deliberately winks at the policy of having closed Job Centres, so making the rural poor pay from £6.00 to £10 in travel costs to sign on in order to receive their paltry subsidy. These travel costs are not taken into account by any Government, so each person who has to travel to sign on is surviving on less than the bare minimum the Government considers it possible to live on - of £65 per week.
I joined the Conservative Party under Ted Heath and frankly that Party would now be considered unconscionably Socialist in its care for the poor, its commitment to the National Health Service and a level playing field in education. Our best Universities are embracing academic decline as they raise their fees to £9,000 per annum, so making an education, once more, a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than merit it. It is time those who do have fat to cut are made to acknowledge that too many people are being made to live well below the poverty line, the real poverty line which means that at the end of a fortnight there are three or four days in which even pasta at 28p a packet or stale bread reduced to 30p a packet is beyond their means. It is time we addressed the endemic corruption, which relegates more and more people to the ‘sin of poverty’ and started demanding that we no longer wink at the felonies of capitalism stripped, as it has become, of moral virtue or ethical considerations.
Corruption impoverishes us further and it is time we took action against companies who gain insider information about PFI contracts for say the Air Ambulance Service; ex-military or corrupt police types who set themselves up as ‘private eyes’ and tap our phones and correspondence; banks who pull the rug on viable companies and cricketers who bowl no-balls for profit. These are just the visible tip of a very destructive ice-berg which is holing the Ship of State. We are closing our eyes and ears to all the alarm bells in the hope that the holes won’t sink us.
We are sinking and, whilst the first-class passengers are jumping into the lifeboats, the rest of us are facing a very bleak future.
Our Government tells us that we all have to bear the burden of the economic recession. However, our Government fails to see the obvious; that the ordinary worker never benefited during the economic boom. Labour imported migrants, which kept profits high and wages down, so playing into the hands of the fat cats who tried to keep wages to £6.00 per hour or below. These workers, many of whom are working for viable business which the banks are refusing to give loans to, are facing redundancy, higher fuel prices and higher VAT on those fuel prices. Can this Government not see that the burden cannot be borne by the poor? They bore poverty during the boom years and have no fat to cut during this recession.
In a rural area, like Rutland, there is no Job Centre at all. It is considered that £65 per week is sufficient to keep body and soul together, whilst trying to heat that body. Those on the poverty line are trying to live on cold food to save electricity, turning off their fridges to save electricity, giving up their televisions to save money and still they are not able to make ends meet. This Government, having decided that the minimum to keep a person alive is £65 per week, rising in April by some £2.00, deliberately winks at the policy of having closed Job Centres, so making the rural poor pay from £6.00 to £10 in travel costs to sign on in order to receive their paltry subsidy. These travel costs are not taken into account by any Government, so each person who has to travel to sign on is surviving on less than the bare minimum the Government considers it possible to live on - of £65 per week.
I joined the Conservative Party under Ted Heath and frankly that Party would now be considered unconscionably Socialist in its care for the poor, its commitment to the National Health Service and a level playing field in education. Our best Universities are embracing academic decline as they raise their fees to £9,000 per annum, so making an education, once more, a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than merit it. It is time those who do have fat to cut are made to acknowledge that too many people are being made to live well below the poverty line, the real poverty line which means that at the end of a fortnight there are three or four days in which even pasta at 28p a packet or stale bread reduced to 30p a packet is beyond their means. It is time we addressed the endemic corruption, which relegates more and more people to the ‘sin of poverty’ and started demanding that we no longer wink at the felonies of capitalism stripped, as it has become, of moral virtue or ethical considerations.
Corruption impoverishes us further and it is time we took action against companies who gain insider information about PFI contracts for say the Air Ambulance Service; ex-military or corrupt police types who set themselves up as ‘private eyes’ and tap our phones and correspondence; banks who pull the rug on viable companies and cricketers who bowl no-balls for profit. These are just the visible tip of a very destructive ice-berg which is holing the Ship of State. We are closing our eyes and ears to all the alarm bells in the hope that the holes won’t sink us.
We are sinking and, whilst the first-class passengers are jumping into the lifeboats, the rest of us are facing a very bleak future.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Report on Oakham Town Council Meeting 2 February 2011
MEETING OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
Wednesday, 02 February 2011 February 2011 at 7.30 PM
Last night’s meeting of Oakham Town Council was most notable for the deliberate opaqueness which Councillors conducted their business. If an item on the agenda could be fudged or alluded to in the most obscure manner some Councillors appeared to take great delight in doing so. Furthermore it seemed to me that the Mayor and Councillor Dewis had come to some sort of agreement to be as passively aggressive as they could when avoiding correct procedure, knowing this would provoke ex-Councillor Martin Brookes, who has campaigned tirelessly for correct procedures to be followed. The Council started by accepting apologies from Cllr George Swiffin, who has not attended meetings for some time. The six-month rule appears to have been deliberately overlooked and members of the Council took great delight in proposing, seconding and accepting his apologies once more.
There were just two of us sitting on the public benches, we need more witnesses to this outrageous effort to ensure that accountability and transparency is avoided. Under the sadly less than brilliant chairmanship of the Mayor, Councillor Sharon Spencer, we reached item 9: Deputations by the Public and the Mayor looked at me inviting me, I assumed, to make some sort of speech on a petition I had delivered earlier in the day. I had not intended to say anything but merely said that I trusted that all Councillors had received a copy of a petition nominating Martin Brookes for his ‘Services to the Community’ (in writing his blog and particularly citing his commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability in local government). It was confirmed that the very efficient Deputy Town Clerk had indeed photocopied and distributed the nomination to all Councillors.
When we reached Item 11: ‘High Sheriff’s certificate for ‘Service to the Community’ the Mayor, rather pointedly, said that the Oakham Town Council, not the public, had been asked to make the nominations and invited nominations from Councillors, so justifying her decision to ignore the nomination of Martin Brookes by members of the public. Someone called Tommy Southern(?) was nominated although no one felt it appropriate to give the citation. All that we, on the public benches, could ascertain was that he was around 100 years old and that he qualified since he was alive during the 60 years of the Queen’s reign. If Tommy Southern(?) has done great service in the community the Councillors did not feel it right to explain what that service might have been. Councillors were not asked to vote on the public petition, nominating Martin Brookes, and after proposing and seconding Tommy Suthern(?) they then proceeded to ask for more nominations, rather than ascertaining which candidates were to be nominated and then voting on all candidates. I do wonder whether they realise quite how defective their voting procedure is. Unfortunately the Clerk doesn’t appear to understand voting procedures either, so the advice the Council receives from its trained officer is lamentable too. Having refused to consider Martin Brookes there was only one other nomination, but we, the public, did not know that Councillors would only be nominating two candidates. It all smelt of a private pre-meeting by allegedly non-political Councillors. However, rather more credibly, Cllr Lorna Gray then said she would nominate Pam Gilbert for her services to the Guides over a long period of time. At least we knew why Pam Gilbert was being nominated.
I am told that the next High Sheriff is to be someone called Peter Lawson who was ‘big’ in Arts for Rutland. It ill behoves a High Sheriff to ask a handful of people, who are rather shaky on Standing Orders and voting procedures, to nominate people known personally to them. I would have thought it more usual for the public to be asked for their views through the local press. Heigh Ho - never mind.
Item 12 FUTURE MEETINGS – To agree on an amended schedule of meetings up to the Local Government Elections due to be held on May 5th 2011. The Mayor, Sharon Spencer said: “Proposed changes are before you. Any comments?” As a member of the public I certainly did not have a copy of the proposed changes which were before the Council. The Council agreed to hold a Meeting on the 27th,whether that was the Annual Meeting or some other meeting I’m still not clear. However, we, in the public benches, were not aware which month they meant either. It could have been 27th of February, March, April or May. Since no month was given we were completely in the dark. Martin Brookes, from the public benches then asked: “What month.” At which the Mayor, Sharon Spencer, adjusted her shoulders, with all the nonchalance of a prize-fighter and replied to him: “Mr Brookes you know you’re not meant to ask questions.”
Clearly Martin Brookes was meant to be provoked and the Mayor was leading the attack. A sad day for the chain of office and an abuse of her position; her vendetta against Mr Brookes became palpable at this point. Cllr Alf Dewis turned around and smirked at us. Cllr Dewis has a wonderful smirk, full of menace and ill concealed belligerence.
The opaque and obscure dissemination of information constituted a clear and deliberate effort to exclude those on the public benches from discovering which month was being suggested. This truculent, confrontational, hostile and fractious Mayor was not doing her public duty in chairing the meeting. Sharon Spencer was purposefully and consciously aiming to ensure that we, the public, were not privy to what had been decided and this constitutes a calculated and intentional attempt to duck transparency.
This is not good enough.
Item 13 FLORAL DISPLAY AND WATERING CONTRACTS. It was decided that this year the Council would split this contract into two separate contracts. The Deputy Mayor, Mark Woodcock, appeared to ruffle an awful lot of feathers when he proposed that both contracts go out to tender, rather than be put by invitation to selected businesses on the Council’s register of approved companies. Sharon Spencer offered Mark Woodcock an opportunity to change his proposal, which he tacitly declined to do. The Mayor mentioned a ‘tight schedule’ by way of encouragement to Cllr Woodcock, to amend the proposal from an open tender. The Mayor then suggested: “What about approaching local companies?” Mark Woodcock was adamant – “Open tender with advertisements in the Rutland Times and Rutland Mercury.” So there it was, much to the consternation of Alf Dewis and Sharon Spencer – invitations to tender could be made to local businesses but it was also to be an open tender after all. Quite what had been going on behind the scenes one could only surmise.
Item 15 REQUEST FROM OAKHAM HOME GARDENS AND ALLOTMENT SOCIETY. The more I see of Cllr Adam Lowe the more impressed I am; a local manager of a business and a Special Constable. At an earlier meeting of the Council he had expressed doubts at the request for a subsidy of £600 towards renewing the fencing (some 84 metres) around the allotment, particularly since only one quote seemed to have been sought. He had volunteered to visit the site at the last meeting, and the Clerk had ensured that he too went along. Cllr Lowe proposed that the Council should agree to subsidise new fencing subject to ensuring that three quotes were sought. Cllr Lowe said: “If we give them money we need to know that money is spent wisely and three tenders are necessary.” He went on to point out that this would also be “fairer” and asked that the quotes be given to the Town Council. Hooray! At last we have one Councillor who understands that money can’t be thrown at projects without some sort of fiscal probity. What a ray of hope and light, without Cllr Lowe’s intervention, at the last meeting, we might once again have distributed Council largesse without ensuring proper financial accountability. Cllr Lowe’s description of what was being discussed was clear, to the point, sensible and easily understood by those on the public benches. He did not dissemble, talk in riddles and code or try to make his report to the Council opaque; a refreshing interlude of clarity in an evening of otherwise deliberate opacity.
By Item 16 CORE STRATEGY INVOLVEMENT AND HEARINGS even Cllr Dodds said she was ‘confused’ at the half communicated allusions to the item under discussion. Cllr Dodds was firmly shut up by the Mayor when she tried to insist that, under item 18: HOLLAND’S FAIR, the Fair use their own generators, rather than plug into the bandstand electricity point. She had anticipated item (ii) prior to considering (i) whether the fair should be held at all and what price was to be charged - £300. However, I would have thought it essential for Councillors to have known whether Hollands Fair would be using the electricity in the bandstand before voting on the price to be paid for the use of Cutts Close. It became obvious that some sort of strategy had been decided, prior to the meeting, on how to conduct the business of the evening.
Only Cllr Tor Clark voted against holding the Fair in Cutts Close. I rather think this was because he had, in the past, voted against the Cottesmore Hunt using Cutts Close and is determined to show a degree of consistency in his voting practices. But I might write to him to ascertain whether this is the case.
At item 18 (ii), rather than allow Cllr Dodds to propose that the bandstand electricity point should not be used by Holland’s Fair, Cllr Alf Dewis, with some rather over hasty alacrity, made the proposal - leaving Cllr Dodds standing at the starting gate. Cllr Dewis is always extremely keen to be seen to make a proposal ahead of the rest of the pack, but if seeing his name in print on the minutes gives him a small thrill then perhaps it would be churlish to cavil at a little minor juvenile enthusiasm for the apparent notoriety he seeks in appearing in the minutes as a ‘proposer’. I don't know, perhaps we shouldn’t try to deny him these small pleasures. Certainly the pleasure he gains by deliberately provoking Martin Brookes is more to be damned and in this he again succeeded at the end of the evening when the vote was put to exclude the public at item 21 to exclude the public from Item 22: OAKHAM FITNESS CENTRE.
Martin Brookes asked if someone would let us know when we would be readmitted to the meeting. Rather than allow the Mayor to answer Cllr Dewis said: “You can come back in in the morning and ask the Clerk tomorrow.” Cllr Dodds also said “You can ask Richard tomorra.” Cllrs Dewis and Dodds made it clear that they did not want the public back into the meeting after we had left. Martin Brookes is a bit of a stickler for correct procedure – and rightly so. Cllr Dewis seems to treat the local Council as his private fiefdom and is rather dismissive of standing orders or correct procedure, as are many other Councillors, including the Mayor. Martin Brookes pointed out to Cllr Dewis that it is usual to tell the public what decision has been taken, in camera, before closing the meeting – something, Martin Brookes pointed out to Cllr Alf Dewis that the RCC abides by with religious regularity. He also pointed out that Cllr Dewis often attends RCC meetings and knows what the procedure is. Jutting his chin out and smirking Cllr Dewis began to raise his voice – we left Very kindly Cllr Lowe said he would let us know when we could come back into the meeting.
The item Councillors wished to discuss in camera was: ‘Item 22: OAKHAM FITNESS CENTRE – To discuss various matters and to decide on an appropriate way forward.’ Clear as mud - another very obscure agenda item. This Council clearly does not relish public scrutiny. True to his word Cllr Lowe invited us back into the meeting. However the Mayor, intent on avoiding telling the public what had been decided, merely closed the meeting without any explanation of what decision had been made. I stood up after the meeting closed and said: “Madam Chairman you ought to tell us what decision you came to on item 22.” Pursing her lips in a thin line, Cllr Sharon Spencer replied: “We discussed the Fitness Centre. We deferred it to the next meeting. There’s nothing to tell you.” My reply was: “So tell us that before you close the meeting.” Cllr Dewis smirked at Martin Brookes with his usual provocative aggressive defiance. Unfortunately Cllr Dewis’ provocation finally hit its mark. He, it was, who had erroneously suggested that we come back in the morning to ascertain what had been discussed.
This Council needs a great deal of public scrutiny. Their resentment at following Standing Orders and allowing their actions to be understood is reprehensible. Their insistence on absolute privacy in policy decisions is not only disrespectful to the public, it smacks of a tyrannical mindset. It should be remembered that this Mayor said she was intent on attaining a ‘gold standard’ for this Parish Council. Unfortunately, with a democratically ill-educated cavalier coterie at the core of the Council, it is unlikely that even base metal could be forged into any sort of medal of democratic attainment. 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. Unfortunately Martin Brookes was less than equable in his condemnation of Cllr Dewis’ smirking countenance after the meeting had been closed, but this meeting was nothing if not far short of the correct standards locals should expect from their Parish Councillors. Had the press been in attendance it might have made a difference. On the few occasions the press have attended the business of the evening has been better conducted. Unfortunately the press rely on regurgitated Council press releases, via the Journalism Lecturer, Cllr Tor Clark, to report the news in Oakham. You’d think Mr Clark’s journalistic grasp of correct democratic procedures might make him something of a stickler for accountability to the public. Wouldn’t you?
2,394
Wednesday, 02 February 2011 February 2011 at 7.30 PM
Last night’s meeting of Oakham Town Council was most notable for the deliberate opaqueness which Councillors conducted their business. If an item on the agenda could be fudged or alluded to in the most obscure manner some Councillors appeared to take great delight in doing so. Furthermore it seemed to me that the Mayor and Councillor Dewis had come to some sort of agreement to be as passively aggressive as they could when avoiding correct procedure, knowing this would provoke ex-Councillor Martin Brookes, who has campaigned tirelessly for correct procedures to be followed. The Council started by accepting apologies from Cllr George Swiffin, who has not attended meetings for some time. The six-month rule appears to have been deliberately overlooked and members of the Council took great delight in proposing, seconding and accepting his apologies once more.
There were just two of us sitting on the public benches, we need more witnesses to this outrageous effort to ensure that accountability and transparency is avoided. Under the sadly less than brilliant chairmanship of the Mayor, Councillor Sharon Spencer, we reached item 9: Deputations by the Public and the Mayor looked at me inviting me, I assumed, to make some sort of speech on a petition I had delivered earlier in the day. I had not intended to say anything but merely said that I trusted that all Councillors had received a copy of a petition nominating Martin Brookes for his ‘Services to the Community’ (in writing his blog and particularly citing his commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability in local government). It was confirmed that the very efficient Deputy Town Clerk had indeed photocopied and distributed the nomination to all Councillors.
When we reached Item 11: ‘High Sheriff’s certificate for ‘Service to the Community’ the Mayor, rather pointedly, said that the Oakham Town Council, not the public, had been asked to make the nominations and invited nominations from Councillors, so justifying her decision to ignore the nomination of Martin Brookes by members of the public. Someone called Tommy Southern(?) was nominated although no one felt it appropriate to give the citation. All that we, on the public benches, could ascertain was that he was around 100 years old and that he qualified since he was alive during the 60 years of the Queen’s reign. If Tommy Southern(?) has done great service in the community the Councillors did not feel it right to explain what that service might have been. Councillors were not asked to vote on the public petition, nominating Martin Brookes, and after proposing and seconding Tommy Suthern(?) they then proceeded to ask for more nominations, rather than ascertaining which candidates were to be nominated and then voting on all candidates. I do wonder whether they realise quite how defective their voting procedure is. Unfortunately the Clerk doesn’t appear to understand voting procedures either, so the advice the Council receives from its trained officer is lamentable too. Having refused to consider Martin Brookes there was only one other nomination, but we, the public, did not know that Councillors would only be nominating two candidates. It all smelt of a private pre-meeting by allegedly non-political Councillors. However, rather more credibly, Cllr Lorna Gray then said she would nominate Pam Gilbert for her services to the Guides over a long period of time. At least we knew why Pam Gilbert was being nominated.
I am told that the next High Sheriff is to be someone called Peter Lawson who was ‘big’ in Arts for Rutland. It ill behoves a High Sheriff to ask a handful of people, who are rather shaky on Standing Orders and voting procedures, to nominate people known personally to them. I would have thought it more usual for the public to be asked for their views through the local press. Heigh Ho - never mind.
Item 12 FUTURE MEETINGS – To agree on an amended schedule of meetings up to the Local Government Elections due to be held on May 5th 2011. The Mayor, Sharon Spencer said: “Proposed changes are before you. Any comments?” As a member of the public I certainly did not have a copy of the proposed changes which were before the Council. The Council agreed to hold a Meeting on the 27th,whether that was the Annual Meeting or some other meeting I’m still not clear. However, we, in the public benches, were not aware which month they meant either. It could have been 27th of February, March, April or May. Since no month was given we were completely in the dark. Martin Brookes, from the public benches then asked: “What month.” At which the Mayor, Sharon Spencer, adjusted her shoulders, with all the nonchalance of a prize-fighter and replied to him: “Mr Brookes you know you’re not meant to ask questions.”
Clearly Martin Brookes was meant to be provoked and the Mayor was leading the attack. A sad day for the chain of office and an abuse of her position; her vendetta against Mr Brookes became palpable at this point. Cllr Alf Dewis turned around and smirked at us. Cllr Dewis has a wonderful smirk, full of menace and ill concealed belligerence.
The opaque and obscure dissemination of information constituted a clear and deliberate effort to exclude those on the public benches from discovering which month was being suggested. This truculent, confrontational, hostile and fractious Mayor was not doing her public duty in chairing the meeting. Sharon Spencer was purposefully and consciously aiming to ensure that we, the public, were not privy to what had been decided and this constitutes a calculated and intentional attempt to duck transparency.
This is not good enough.
Item 13 FLORAL DISPLAY AND WATERING CONTRACTS. It was decided that this year the Council would split this contract into two separate contracts. The Deputy Mayor, Mark Woodcock, appeared to ruffle an awful lot of feathers when he proposed that both contracts go out to tender, rather than be put by invitation to selected businesses on the Council’s register of approved companies. Sharon Spencer offered Mark Woodcock an opportunity to change his proposal, which he tacitly declined to do. The Mayor mentioned a ‘tight schedule’ by way of encouragement to Cllr Woodcock, to amend the proposal from an open tender. The Mayor then suggested: “What about approaching local companies?” Mark Woodcock was adamant – “Open tender with advertisements in the Rutland Times and Rutland Mercury.” So there it was, much to the consternation of Alf Dewis and Sharon Spencer – invitations to tender could be made to local businesses but it was also to be an open tender after all. Quite what had been going on behind the scenes one could only surmise.
Item 15 REQUEST FROM OAKHAM HOME GARDENS AND ALLOTMENT SOCIETY. The more I see of Cllr Adam Lowe the more impressed I am; a local manager of a business and a Special Constable. At an earlier meeting of the Council he had expressed doubts at the request for a subsidy of £600 towards renewing the fencing (some 84 metres) around the allotment, particularly since only one quote seemed to have been sought. He had volunteered to visit the site at the last meeting, and the Clerk had ensured that he too went along. Cllr Lowe proposed that the Council should agree to subsidise new fencing subject to ensuring that three quotes were sought. Cllr Lowe said: “If we give them money we need to know that money is spent wisely and three tenders are necessary.” He went on to point out that this would also be “fairer” and asked that the quotes be given to the Town Council. Hooray! At last we have one Councillor who understands that money can’t be thrown at projects without some sort of fiscal probity. What a ray of hope and light, without Cllr Lowe’s intervention, at the last meeting, we might once again have distributed Council largesse without ensuring proper financial accountability. Cllr Lowe’s description of what was being discussed was clear, to the point, sensible and easily understood by those on the public benches. He did not dissemble, talk in riddles and code or try to make his report to the Council opaque; a refreshing interlude of clarity in an evening of otherwise deliberate opacity.
By Item 16 CORE STRATEGY INVOLVEMENT AND HEARINGS even Cllr Dodds said she was ‘confused’ at the half communicated allusions to the item under discussion. Cllr Dodds was firmly shut up by the Mayor when she tried to insist that, under item 18: HOLLAND’S FAIR, the Fair use their own generators, rather than plug into the bandstand electricity point. She had anticipated item (ii) prior to considering (i) whether the fair should be held at all and what price was to be charged - £300. However, I would have thought it essential for Councillors to have known whether Hollands Fair would be using the electricity in the bandstand before voting on the price to be paid for the use of Cutts Close. It became obvious that some sort of strategy had been decided, prior to the meeting, on how to conduct the business of the evening.
Only Cllr Tor Clark voted against holding the Fair in Cutts Close. I rather think this was because he had, in the past, voted against the Cottesmore Hunt using Cutts Close and is determined to show a degree of consistency in his voting practices. But I might write to him to ascertain whether this is the case.
At item 18 (ii), rather than allow Cllr Dodds to propose that the bandstand electricity point should not be used by Holland’s Fair, Cllr Alf Dewis, with some rather over hasty alacrity, made the proposal - leaving Cllr Dodds standing at the starting gate. Cllr Dewis is always extremely keen to be seen to make a proposal ahead of the rest of the pack, but if seeing his name in print on the minutes gives him a small thrill then perhaps it would be churlish to cavil at a little minor juvenile enthusiasm for the apparent notoriety he seeks in appearing in the minutes as a ‘proposer’. I don't know, perhaps we shouldn’t try to deny him these small pleasures. Certainly the pleasure he gains by deliberately provoking Martin Brookes is more to be damned and in this he again succeeded at the end of the evening when the vote was put to exclude the public at item 21 to exclude the public from Item 22: OAKHAM FITNESS CENTRE.
Martin Brookes asked if someone would let us know when we would be readmitted to the meeting. Rather than allow the Mayor to answer Cllr Dewis said: “You can come back in in the morning and ask the Clerk tomorrow.” Cllr Dodds also said “You can ask Richard tomorra.” Cllrs Dewis and Dodds made it clear that they did not want the public back into the meeting after we had left. Martin Brookes is a bit of a stickler for correct procedure – and rightly so. Cllr Dewis seems to treat the local Council as his private fiefdom and is rather dismissive of standing orders or correct procedure, as are many other Councillors, including the Mayor. Martin Brookes pointed out to Cllr Dewis that it is usual to tell the public what decision has been taken, in camera, before closing the meeting – something, Martin Brookes pointed out to Cllr Alf Dewis that the RCC abides by with religious regularity. He also pointed out that Cllr Dewis often attends RCC meetings and knows what the procedure is. Jutting his chin out and smirking Cllr Dewis began to raise his voice – we left Very kindly Cllr Lowe said he would let us know when we could come back into the meeting.
The item Councillors wished to discuss in camera was: ‘Item 22: OAKHAM FITNESS CENTRE – To discuss various matters and to decide on an appropriate way forward.’ Clear as mud - another very obscure agenda item. This Council clearly does not relish public scrutiny. True to his word Cllr Lowe invited us back into the meeting. However the Mayor, intent on avoiding telling the public what had been decided, merely closed the meeting without any explanation of what decision had been made. I stood up after the meeting closed and said: “Madam Chairman you ought to tell us what decision you came to on item 22.” Pursing her lips in a thin line, Cllr Sharon Spencer replied: “We discussed the Fitness Centre. We deferred it to the next meeting. There’s nothing to tell you.” My reply was: “So tell us that before you close the meeting.” Cllr Dewis smirked at Martin Brookes with his usual provocative aggressive defiance. Unfortunately Cllr Dewis’ provocation finally hit its mark. He, it was, who had erroneously suggested that we come back in the morning to ascertain what had been discussed.
This Council needs a great deal of public scrutiny. Their resentment at following Standing Orders and allowing their actions to be understood is reprehensible. Their insistence on absolute privacy in policy decisions is not only disrespectful to the public, it smacks of a tyrannical mindset. It should be remembered that this Mayor said she was intent on attaining a ‘gold standard’ for this Parish Council. Unfortunately, with a democratically ill-educated cavalier coterie at the core of the Council, it is unlikely that even base metal could be forged into any sort of medal of democratic attainment. 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. Unfortunately Martin Brookes was less than equable in his condemnation of Cllr Dewis’ smirking countenance after the meeting had been closed, but this meeting was nothing if not far short of the correct standards locals should expect from their Parish Councillors. Had the press been in attendance it might have made a difference. On the few occasions the press have attended the business of the evening has been better conducted. Unfortunately the press rely on regurgitated Council press releases, via the Journalism Lecturer, Cllr Tor Clark, to report the news in Oakham. You’d think Mr Clark’s journalistic grasp of correct democratic procedures might make him something of a stickler for accountability to the public. Wouldn’t you?
2,394
Saturday, 29 January 2011
High Sheriff's certificate for 'Services to the Community'
On the Oakham Parish Council notice board, outside Victoria Hall is an item on the agenda for next Wednesday. It seems the High Sheriff has asked for two nominations to award certificates to ordinary citizens of Oakham for 'Services to the Community.'
Unfortunately the High Sheriff appears to be relying on local Councillors to forward the names of two nominees to him, rather than accept all nominations direct. This item will come up for discussion at Wednesday's meeting - 2nd February.
If you know anyone worth nominating it might be an idea to register your interest and write to the local Council at the Victoria Hall, or even deliver a nomi9nation in good time, prior to Wednesday's meeting. The deadline for doing so may be before the meeting.
Please nominate someone you think really deserves this certificate!
Unfortunately the High Sheriff appears to be relying on local Councillors to forward the names of two nominees to him, rather than accept all nominations direct. This item will come up for discussion at Wednesday's meeting - 2nd February.
If you know anyone worth nominating it might be an idea to register your interest and write to the local Council at the Victoria Hall, or even deliver a nomi9nation in good time, prior to Wednesday's meeting. The deadline for doing so may be before the meeting.
Please nominate someone you think really deserves this certificate!
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Public Meeting report - 19 January 2011
The public Consultancy Meeting on the RCC Budget took place last night. Around fifty local residents attended and about 16 Councillors and staff were in attendance. Rutland spends around M£30 each year – a drop in the ocean in comparison to other Unitary Authorities, like Peterborough. RCC had invited Rob Pisani of Rutland Radio to take the microphone.
One often wonders at the lack of unbiased press coverage of local government affairs on Radio and in the local papers. To have a presenter, whose day job is primarily on Rutland Radio, effectively directing the proceedings; asking questions submitted by the public, which, apart from a couple of exceptions, had to be submitted in advance; leads one to suspect that the role of the local press is far too close to government to be entirely healthy.
A supplementary question about transparent public accountability in open, rather than closed, Council meetings on .106 planning decisions was glossed over by Rob Pisani, who moved on to the next question without asking Councillors to give an answer.
We, the public, were asked to vote on which two, of seven, areas of local government we would wish to impose financial cuts. The choice was a farce; this was merely a public relations initiative, notable only for its incompetence and woolly thinking.
For instance if one looked at some of the spending on culture over the last year one might choose to cut the initiative which sent some lucky Rutland residents to the Curve Theatre in Leicester. However choosing to cut the culture budget in its entirety was one of only seven options offered to us, the public. Should we choose to cut the culture budget our libraries will have reduced opening hours and fewer (not less as Roger Begy stated) staff. The public vote was not worth voting on and most thinking members of the audience declined to participate in this farce.
The financial presentation was poor. We were told that if we build more housing we will get a Central Government grant. That grant was given as around £600,000 gross. What was not taken into account was that more housing, provided it is filled given our poor public transport services, will require more education, healthcare and social services expenditure. So the net cost of building many more houses had not been properly calculated. We were being asked to make crude decisions based upon faulty figures.
Had we been given 320 projects on which money is to be spent; given more accurate financial data and been a Greek style democratic process we might have been able to vote with some perception. As it was I do hope that RCC does not think that, of the fifty residents attending, there is anything like ‘the people have spoken’ in the farce of a vote in which we were being asked to participate. For those unable to attend last night’s meeting, Roger Begy will be outside Tesco and the Co-op on Saturday morning and others will be in Uppingham. Please do bear in mind that your local elections are coming up in May and that this exercise is not really about anything more than a rough and ready attempt at early electioneering. Thoughtful disinterested people with something to offer, other than self-interest, are urged to stand in those elections. It is time we had a democratic coup; it is more than time to replace the veterans who have so ably messed up our County. This rump has sat too long.
When it was pointed out that we are spending just over M£30 this financial year, an election year for the Council, which reduced to just over M£28 for the following two financial years and increases to M£32 in 2015, another election year, Roger Begy, leader of the Council became quite heated in his condemnation of the questioner. However I was very impressed that he was able, through the red mist, to remember my name.
One often wonders at the lack of unbiased press coverage of local government affairs on Radio and in the local papers. To have a presenter, whose day job is primarily on Rutland Radio, effectively directing the proceedings; asking questions submitted by the public, which, apart from a couple of exceptions, had to be submitted in advance; leads one to suspect that the role of the local press is far too close to government to be entirely healthy.
A supplementary question about transparent public accountability in open, rather than closed, Council meetings on .106 planning decisions was glossed over by Rob Pisani, who moved on to the next question without asking Councillors to give an answer.
We, the public, were asked to vote on which two, of seven, areas of local government we would wish to impose financial cuts. The choice was a farce; this was merely a public relations initiative, notable only for its incompetence and woolly thinking.
For instance if one looked at some of the spending on culture over the last year one might choose to cut the initiative which sent some lucky Rutland residents to the Curve Theatre in Leicester. However choosing to cut the culture budget in its entirety was one of only seven options offered to us, the public. Should we choose to cut the culture budget our libraries will have reduced opening hours and fewer (not less as Roger Begy stated) staff. The public vote was not worth voting on and most thinking members of the audience declined to participate in this farce.
The financial presentation was poor. We were told that if we build more housing we will get a Central Government grant. That grant was given as around £600,000 gross. What was not taken into account was that more housing, provided it is filled given our poor public transport services, will require more education, healthcare and social services expenditure. So the net cost of building many more houses had not been properly calculated. We were being asked to make crude decisions based upon faulty figures.
Had we been given 320 projects on which money is to be spent; given more accurate financial data and been a Greek style democratic process we might have been able to vote with some perception. As it was I do hope that RCC does not think that, of the fifty residents attending, there is anything like ‘the people have spoken’ in the farce of a vote in which we were being asked to participate. For those unable to attend last night’s meeting, Roger Begy will be outside Tesco and the Co-op on Saturday morning and others will be in Uppingham. Please do bear in mind that your local elections are coming up in May and that this exercise is not really about anything more than a rough and ready attempt at early electioneering. Thoughtful disinterested people with something to offer, other than self-interest, are urged to stand in those elections. It is time we had a democratic coup; it is more than time to replace the veterans who have so ably messed up our County. This rump has sat too long.
When it was pointed out that we are spending just over M£30 this financial year, an election year for the Council, which reduced to just over M£28 for the following two financial years and increases to M£32 in 2015, another election year, Roger Begy, leader of the Council became quite heated in his condemnation of the questioner. However I was very impressed that he was able, through the red mist, to remember my name.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Are Standards slipping? Or is it an unstoppable landslide to utter corruption?
This sad and sorry tale of a lack of justice needs wider dissemination - I merely give you a taste of some of the email correspondence about a vicious, malicious and dangerous rumour of such untruth that the perpetrators should rightly face the full censure of all the public. Unfortunately in Oakham there is no justice, the police appear to be in the pockets of local Councillors and their henchmen and will only prosecute those whom these henchmen wish to persecute. I fear - bearing in mind Julian Assange that: 'It's the same the whole world over, ain't it all a bleeding shame. It's the rich what get's the money and the poor what gets the blame.' We live in a world of cruel irony where some of the internet bodies who are now refusing to accept money on behalf of Wikileaks continue to accept monies on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan. I can't say that I will shed any tears over the abolition of Standards for England, but it is time that we who are prepared to witness the irregularities in local politics have some sort of redress when the gang like thugs of local government embrace anarchy. These are a small selection of emails which tell this sad and sorry story of the betrayal of justice.
Re: Standards result
From: Helen Pender View Contact
To: Martin Brookes;
Martin
In reply to your email about the lack of justice you have received. I enclose at the bottom of these emails Geoffrey Pook's reply to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. My thoughts are these:
Jo Dickinson told us both, separately, what Joyce Lucas had said to her at Royce's Opening Day. Joyce Lucas has failed to deny this, and in civil law this could be said to be an admission of her guilt. However Jo Dickinson is clearly petrified of giving evidence; with good reason it seems bearing in mind the vicious comments posted on your blog in my name and the pornographic pictures posted in my name on your Flick'r site. It was clear when I went to see Richard about those pictures that he did know who had posted them or he knew how to get a message to those who had posted them. If the police had investigated that this would not have escalated to the extent that it has.
Jim Harrison virtually called you the same vicious epithet on his blog 'Jim's Teabreak.' Children living in the same roads as some Councillors and ex-Councillors have ridden past us when out and about calling out this epithet on their lips, gained no doubt through malicious vindictive and criminal gossip. The fact is that a gang culture operates locally and local councillors and their henchmen behave like gang members. Corruption is something these people revel in and even boast of. Although they pretend to pay obeisance to fallen heroes who fought and died for out freedoms during the Second World War, these people are actually intent on destroying both democracy and freedom.
They behave with impunity and even boast on your comments that Geoffrey Pook, the police et al will protect them when they do commit crimes or even sins - the law is not even handed in Oakham and frankly just because they wear suits and not hoodies does not make these thugs any the less dangerous.
Unfortunately there is no justice - no avenue of redress and this definitely is against European law, but when the law is held in such contempt as it is in Oakham one cannot expect this blinkered incestuous community of self-appointing politicians to behave any more scrupulously than the most corrupt Iron Curtain communities of yesteryear. There is no free press, there is no even handed police force willing to investigate crimes against thee and me. Without these checks and balances to power there will continue to be no justice.
As I said earlier, just because these particular gang members wear suits and not hoodies does not make them any more respectable than common hoodlums intent on anarchy.
Helen
From: Martin Brookes
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 21:45:39
Subject:
Councillor Joyce Lucas Oakham Town Council Standards For England
For Various Reasons I can only publish this the law prevents openness when it comes to local government.
I will ask Cllr Lucas to consider this, you harp on about you Christian kindness, if this is true then name those in Rutland County Councils Chamber who you say call me a paedophile.
Case no: Sfe-000022
Member: Councillor Joyce Lucas
Authority: Oakham Town Council
Principal
authority: Rutland District Council
Allegation: The member failed to treat others with respect
Date Received: 20 August 2010
Date
investigation
completed: 20 December 2010
Outcome: The ethical standards officer found that the member did not breach the code of conduct.
Summary:
It was alleged that Councillor Lucas described a fellow councillor as a paedophile when talking to a member of the public at a Council organised event. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Councillor Lucas acted in the manner alleged and therefore that there has been no failure on Councillor Lucas' part to comply with Oakham Town Council's code of conduct.
My summary: I hope your God forgives you! for your lies and the fear you have placed upon my friend who would not give a statement. Who still describes you as a liar. A true statement and not as half as bad as what you call me along with others. I beginning to like what the young folk call you. How is your broom stick?
Please remember the words I was parked illegally are quite significant laws do apply to all of us you are not exempt
Read More: http://martinbrookes.blogspot.com/
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Geoffrey Pook
To: Helen Pender
Cc: "hxxxxxxx; FOI
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 17:12:34
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request - Internet Activity
Hello Ms Pender.
In accordance with section 1 Freedom of Information Act 2000, the responses to your specific questions are as follows:-
Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes's blog? - The Council does not hold that information. As far as I am aware, you are the only person who has asserted that comments have been posted via the Council's wireless network router available in the general area of the Council Chamber at this approximate time. Mr Brookes himself asserted that his blog had been accessed in this way on one particular evening, but not that any comments had been posted.
In any event, it has not been possible to identify any individual who accessed the blog via this public router.
Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? - The Council does not hold that information. Again, you do not specify a date and the reference to "similar" comments does not sit easily with the first request which does not appear to have involved any comments.
Mr Brookes referred to us one particular occasion when he traced a posting to Oakham Library's public access internet router. The information as to who had requested use of the 20 PCs on the day in question was inconclusive.
I should like to comment on your paragraph numbered 4: Mr Brookes was not able to access the internet on his own equipment on at least two occasions which he has mentioned. That does not amount to proof of the range of the public connection. Indeed, the Council's IT team has established that access is possible from an area outside the meetings rooms' part of the Council offices; it depends on the machine being used. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that any access was gained externally to the building, but I am trying to illustrate that there are uncertainties going beyond the difficulties of identifying a particular machine or user.
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to:-
Monitoring Officer, Rutland County Council, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland
LE15 6HP
Telephone: 01572 722577 e-mail: foi@rutland.gov.uk
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-
The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45 Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Regards
Geoff Pook
Head of Corporate Governance
Rutland County Council
Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP
From: Helen Pender [mailto:pxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 November 2010 12:51
To: Geoffrey Pook
Subject: Re: Internet Activity
Dear Mr Pook
Do stop dissembling. I am now formally making a request, under the Freedom of Information Act.
Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes' blog? Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? Since Council facilities were used, after opening hours, at 9pm at night, my request properly falls under the Freedom of Information Act.
Disingenuously trying to pull the threadbare covers of the Data Protection Act around the questionable activities of those with access to the Council Chamber is not going to work. From your actions it now appears that protecting the guilty is an accepted part of the duties of Council officials in Rutland. Your collusion in protecting the guilty now makes your own position untenable. I require this information forthwith.
The Council does hold the information – you were supplied with all necessary information by Martin Brookes - you have the means to ascertain who was logged onto Council computers at 9pm at night. Whether or not you have chosen to ascertain this information is irrelevant. You are now being asked to do so and I have a right to ensure you provide me with this information. So find out and tell me who it was.
The police appear to be happy not to pursue crimes when committed by local Councillors, so that avenue is now closed. The only avenue of justice is now to be furnished with the information and make my own arrangements for seeking redress. Under the Human Rights Act one has a right to seek redress. (See recent Court Reports - Europe)
Whether or not I am an aggrieved party I still have a right to this information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
You disingenuously assert: “. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.” Mr Brookes has now proved that it is only possible to use the Council’s computer link when in a Councillor’s or Officer’s chair within the Council Chamber. He assures me that the computer access was not available at the time from anywhere other than a very limited area within the Council Chamber. Your hint that someone skulking in the car park may have posted the comments is designed to deliberately mislead.
I think you are aware that members of the public sitting in public seating would not be able to access the Council’s internet system from the public seating area. Talk about smoke and mirrors! It won’t work.
I asked Local Councillors asked the following question on 24 June: “I have been told in the strictest confidence that Cllr Joyce Lucas told a member of the public that Cllr Brookes was a paedophile at the opening of Royce's recreation ground. I hope this is not true?” Since then no one has issued a denial – which you may remember from your legal training is tantamount to an admission of guilt in Civil Law. About a week later a number of tasteless posts were repeatedly made on Martin Brooke’s blog, purporting to be written by me. They were not written by me. If the calculation is beyond your remediably challenged arithmetical skills I suggest you re-engage your brain once more or stop associating with brainless Councillors. You are not stupid, please don’t behave as if I am. The circumstantial evidence points to local Councillors and the only reason we can’t get hard evidence is because you refuse to supply it.
As for your very subtle slur, once again proving your linguistic competence and ability to exploit every legal finesse, I am sure you know that I have cancelled my access to Oakham library computers for the last several months and I do not have a personal I P address, since I rely wholly on library computers. I am tired of proving my innocence only for you to ensure the perpetrators have further opportunities to bandy cowardly and tasteless comments in my name.
Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant questions. I am entitled to this information and you have a duty to give it to me. I repeat: Under the Freedom of Information Act who posted those comments using Council facilities to do so? All you have to do is ask your I T people. Why are you being so abnormally shy about talking to your colleagues?
Yours
Helen Pender
Re: Standards result
From: Helen Pender
To: Martin Brookes;
Martin
In reply to your email about the lack of justice you have received. I enclose at the bottom of these emails Geoffrey Pook's reply to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. My thoughts are these:
Jo Dickinson told us both, separately, what Joyce Lucas had said to her at Royce's Opening Day. Joyce Lucas has failed to deny this, and in civil law this could be said to be an admission of her guilt. However Jo Dickinson is clearly petrified of giving evidence; with good reason it seems bearing in mind the vicious comments posted on your blog in my name and the pornographic pictures posted in my name on your Flick'r site. It was clear when I went to see Richard about those pictures that he did know who had posted them or he knew how to get a message to those who had posted them. If the police had investigated that this would not have escalated to the extent that it has.
Jim Harrison virtually called you the same vicious epithet on his blog 'Jim's Teabreak.' Children living in the same roads as some Councillors and ex-Councillors have ridden past us when out and about calling out this epithet on their lips, gained no doubt through malicious vindictive and criminal gossip. The fact is that a gang culture operates locally and local councillors and their henchmen behave like gang members. Corruption is something these people revel in and even boast of. Although they pretend to pay obeisance to fallen heroes who fought and died for out freedoms during the Second World War, these people are actually intent on destroying both democracy and freedom.
They behave with impunity and even boast on your comments that Geoffrey Pook, the police et al will protect them when they do commit crimes or even sins - the law is not even handed in Oakham and frankly just because they wear suits and not hoodies does not make these thugs any the less dangerous.
Unfortunately there is no justice - no avenue of redress and this definitely is against European law, but when the law is held in such contempt as it is in Oakham one cannot expect this blinkered incestuous community of self-appointing politicians to behave any more scrupulously than the most corrupt Iron Curtain communities of yesteryear. There is no free press, there is no even handed police force willing to investigate crimes against thee and me. Without these checks and balances to power there will continue to be no justice.
As I said earlier, just because these particular gang members wear suits and not hoodies does not make them any more respectable than common hoodlums intent on anarchy.
Helen
From: Martin Brookes
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 21:45:39
Subject:
Councillor Joyce Lucas Oakham Town Council Standards For England
For Various Reasons I can only publish this the law prevents openness when it comes to local government.
I will ask Cllr Lucas to consider this, you harp on about you Christian kindness, if this is true then name those in Rutland County Councils Chamber who you say call me a paedophile.
Case no: Sfe-000022
Member: Councillor Joyce Lucas
Authority: Oakham Town Council
Principal
authority: Rutland District Council
Allegation: The member failed to treat others with respect
Date Received: 20 August 2010
Date
investigation
completed: 20 December 2010
Outcome: The ethical standards officer found that the member did not breach the code of conduct.
Summary:
It was alleged that Councillor Lucas described a fellow councillor as a paedophile when talking to a member of the public at a Council organised event. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Councillor Lucas acted in the manner alleged and therefore that there has been no failure on Councillor Lucas' part to comply with Oakham Town Council's code of conduct.
My summary: I hope your God forgives you! for your lies and the fear you have placed upon my friend who would not give a statement. Who still describes you as a liar. A true statement and not as half as bad as what you call me along with others. I beginning to like what the young folk call you. How is your broom stick?
Please remember the words I was parked illegally are quite significant laws do apply to all of us you are not exempt
Read More: http://martinbrookes.blogspot.com/
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Geoffrey Pook
To: Helen Pender
Cc: "hxxxxxxx; FOI
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 17:12:34
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request - Internet Activity
Hello Ms Pender.
In accordance with section 1 Freedom of Information Act 2000, the responses to your specific questions are as follows:-
Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes's blog? - The Council does not hold that information. As far as I am aware, you are the only person who has asserted that comments have been posted via the Council's wireless network router available in the general area of the Council Chamber at this approximate time. Mr Brookes himself asserted that his blog had been accessed in this way on one particular evening, but not that any comments had been posted.
In any event, it has not been possible to identify any individual who accessed the blog via this public router.
Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? - The Council does not hold that information. Again, you do not specify a date and the reference to "similar" comments does not sit easily with the first request which does not appear to have involved any comments.
Mr Brookes referred to us one particular occasion when he traced a posting to Oakham Library's public access internet router. The information as to who had requested use of the 20 PCs on the day in question was inconclusive.
I should like to comment on your paragraph numbered 4: Mr Brookes was not able to access the internet on his own equipment on at least two occasions which he has mentioned. That does not amount to proof of the range of the public connection. Indeed, the Council's IT team has established that access is possible from an area outside the meetings rooms' part of the Council offices; it depends on the machine being used. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that any access was gained externally to the building, but I am trying to illustrate that there are uncertainties going beyond the difficulties of identifying a particular machine or user.
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to:-
Monitoring Officer, Rutland County Council, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland
LE15 6HP
Telephone: 01572 722577 e-mail: foi@rutland.gov.uk
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-
The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45 Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Regards
Geoff Pook
Head of Corporate Governance
Rutland County Council
Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP
From: Helen Pender [mailto:pxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 November 2010 12:51
To: Geoffrey Pook
Subject: Re: Internet Activity
Dear Mr Pook
Do stop dissembling. I am now formally making a request, under the Freedom of Information Act.
Who used the internet link in the Council Chamber at 9pm at night to make a comment on Martin Brookes' blog? Who used the library computer to make similar tasteless comments? Since Council facilities were used, after opening hours, at 9pm at night, my request properly falls under the Freedom of Information Act.
Disingenuously trying to pull the threadbare covers of the Data Protection Act around the questionable activities of those with access to the Council Chamber is not going to work. From your actions it now appears that protecting the guilty is an accepted part of the duties of Council officials in Rutland. Your collusion in protecting the guilty now makes your own position untenable. I require this information forthwith.
The Council does hold the information – you were supplied with all necessary information by Martin Brookes - you have the means to ascertain who was logged onto Council computers at 9pm at night. Whether or not you have chosen to ascertain this information is irrelevant. You are now being asked to do so and I have a right to ensure you provide me with this information. So find out and tell me who it was.
The police appear to be happy not to pursue crimes when committed by local Councillors, so that avenue is now closed. The only avenue of justice is now to be furnished with the information and make my own arrangements for seeking redress. Under the Human Rights Act one has a right to seek redress. (See recent Court Reports - Europe)
Whether or not I am an aggrieved party I still have a right to this information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
You disingenuously assert: “. What comments were posted at 9.00 pm from Council computers? We have received an assertion (which may well be correct) that Mr Brookes's blog was accessed one evening by someone using or purporting to use the Council's wireless internet router, which is available to be accessed by anyone in the general area of the Council Chamber. I am not aware of any comment posted on that occasion.” Mr Brookes has now proved that it is only possible to use the Council’s computer link when in a Councillor’s or Officer’s chair within the Council Chamber. He assures me that the computer access was not available at the time from anywhere other than a very limited area within the Council Chamber. Your hint that someone skulking in the car park may have posted the comments is designed to deliberately mislead.
I think you are aware that members of the public sitting in public seating would not be able to access the Council’s internet system from the public seating area. Talk about smoke and mirrors! It won’t work.
I asked Local Councillors asked the following question on 24 June: “I have been told in the strictest confidence that Cllr Joyce Lucas told a member of the public that Cllr Brookes was a paedophile at the opening of Royce's recreation ground. I hope this is not true?” Since then no one has issued a denial – which you may remember from your legal training is tantamount to an admission of guilt in Civil Law. About a week later a number of tasteless posts were repeatedly made on Martin Brooke’s blog, purporting to be written by me. They were not written by me. If the calculation is beyond your remediably challenged arithmetical skills I suggest you re-engage your brain once more or stop associating with brainless Councillors. You are not stupid, please don’t behave as if I am. The circumstantial evidence points to local Councillors and the only reason we can’t get hard evidence is because you refuse to supply it.
As for your very subtle slur, once again proving your linguistic competence and ability to exploit every legal finesse, I am sure you know that I have cancelled my access to Oakham library computers for the last several months and I do not have a personal I P address, since I rely wholly on library computers. I am tired of proving my innocence only for you to ensure the perpetrators have further opportunities to bandy cowardly and tasteless comments in my name.
Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant questions. I am entitled to this information and you have a duty to give it to me. I repeat: Under the Freedom of Information Act who posted those comments using Council facilities to do so? All you have to do is ask your I T people. Why are you being so abnormally shy about talking to your colleagues?
Yours
Helen Pender
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, 4 August 2010
Town Council Meeting 4 August 2010
At the Town / Parish Council meeting tonight item 15 (b) on the agenda reads:
15 Representatives on outside bodies: ...
(b) To confirm representatives on the Police Joint Action Group (JAG)
This item was brought up a couple of months ago. Rather alarmingly Cllr Dewis said that membership of this Committee was 'by invitation only.'
The Council will also discuss my complaint against the Town Clerk's silly allegation of bullying - item 25 - but as usual the public will be excluded. I have been told the matters raised 'have been addressed.'
Somehow I doubt this Parish Council is capable of addressing the matter adquately. The fact remains that Richard White was manipulated by Cllr Dewis into pursuing his spurious complaint of bullying against Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis attempted to use Richard White's complaint as a means to ensuring that Martin Brookes was unable to carry out his duties as a Councillor. Martin Brookes has since resigned, blaming me for bringing to the Council's attention a highly incendiary allegation that a Councillor accused him of being a paedophile. The person who told me this, in the strictest of confidences, remains far too frightened to make her allegation publicly. Which brings into question what sort of power local Councillors might wield? I might say that if this allegation was made it was unkind, criminal and severely dangerous. In my opinion if the allegation was made it amounts to an attempt to seriously harm Martin Brookes. That is a criminal offence.
Richard White appeared to believe that any criticism of his capabilities as a Town Clerk was tantamount to bullying, whereas in fact the criticism was justified and wholly appropriate. Richard White issued inaccurate advice to Councillors on the 'six-month rule.' He seemed to feel that any demand that Standing Orders are adhered to as particularly picky and unnecessary. Since then he has managed to form a basic understanding of Standing Orders, but is still intellectually incapable of grasping the need to keep his distance from the internecine politics of vendettas pursued by local Councillors. Richard White's inability to do the job adequately has led to some levels of stress, but that is not a fault of the job. I would suggest it is a fault of Richard White's rather limited intellectual and administrative capabilities. Any crisis of confidence the Town Clerk has faced might sadly be wholly justified.
The breathtaking way in which item 15 (b) has been listed for tonight's meeting is evidence that, yet again, the Town Clerk is prepared to bend to the will of local Councillors. I was at the meeting when Cllr Dewis stated that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was 'by invitation only.' At no point were representatives voted onto this Committee. Yet the Town Clerk's agenda states: 'To confirm representatives to the JAG.' What the hell does that mean? Who is confirming what to whom? They are either elected or not. What sort of finesse is this intended to be?
No wonder the local police are suffering a lack of public confidence. When the three Town Councillors who represent locals can be described as:
Charles Haworth - aka 'lardboy' on the world wide web - who has posted criminally tasteless material in the belief that it constitutes humour. I had two bare behinds posted in my name on the internet last year. When I complained to the Police they did absolutely nothing to ascertain who posted this material and instead arrested Martin Brookes when he ill advisedly posted a copy on a noticeboard. Such double standards on the part of the police certainly need oversight and I would suggest that Charles Haworth, Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Joyce Lucas are the least likely candidates to ensure that public confidence in the police is enhanced.
Cllr Dewis called the police to throw me out of a Council meeting when the Standing Orders had not been complied with and then proceeded to bully Martin Brookes mercilessly for the rest of the meeting. Cllr Dewis pretends to know the law. In truth Cllr Alf Dewis knows damn all, but is prepared to subvert any situation and use his contacts and influence to bring the democratic process down to a tyrannical level of abuse.
Cllr Joyce Lucas was asked if she had said that Martin Brookes was a paedophile. I wonder if she knows that her lack of denial is, in civil law, tantamount to an admission of guilt. I have yet to see either in letter form or minuted form a denial by Cllr Joyce Lucas and begin to wonder what the reason might be?
A few anonymous postings were made in my name of Martin Brookes' blog. I certainly never made any anonymous postings and one in particular was in the worst possible taste and highly dubious, or even offensive. Should I complain to the police? I suspect that there is no point, particularly since Cllrs Lucas, Haworth and Dewis are to remain our representatives on the Police Joint Action Group.
Let's hope that these dinosaurs of local government do not stand for re-election next year. In the meantime does anyone know the procedure for abolishing a local Parish Council?
15 Representatives on outside bodies: ...
(b) To confirm representatives on the Police Joint Action Group (JAG)
This item was brought up a couple of months ago. Rather alarmingly Cllr Dewis said that membership of this Committee was 'by invitation only.'
The Council will also discuss my complaint against the Town Clerk's silly allegation of bullying - item 25 - but as usual the public will be excluded. I have been told the matters raised 'have been addressed.'
Somehow I doubt this Parish Council is capable of addressing the matter adquately. The fact remains that Richard White was manipulated by Cllr Dewis into pursuing his spurious complaint of bullying against Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis attempted to use Richard White's complaint as a means to ensuring that Martin Brookes was unable to carry out his duties as a Councillor. Martin Brookes has since resigned, blaming me for bringing to the Council's attention a highly incendiary allegation that a Councillor accused him of being a paedophile. The person who told me this, in the strictest of confidences, remains far too frightened to make her allegation publicly. Which brings into question what sort of power local Councillors might wield? I might say that if this allegation was made it was unkind, criminal and severely dangerous. In my opinion if the allegation was made it amounts to an attempt to seriously harm Martin Brookes. That is a criminal offence.
Richard White appeared to believe that any criticism of his capabilities as a Town Clerk was tantamount to bullying, whereas in fact the criticism was justified and wholly appropriate. Richard White issued inaccurate advice to Councillors on the 'six-month rule.' He seemed to feel that any demand that Standing Orders are adhered to as particularly picky and unnecessary. Since then he has managed to form a basic understanding of Standing Orders, but is still intellectually incapable of grasping the need to keep his distance from the internecine politics of vendettas pursued by local Councillors. Richard White's inability to do the job adequately has led to some levels of stress, but that is not a fault of the job. I would suggest it is a fault of Richard White's rather limited intellectual and administrative capabilities. Any crisis of confidence the Town Clerk has faced might sadly be wholly justified.
The breathtaking way in which item 15 (b) has been listed for tonight's meeting is evidence that, yet again, the Town Clerk is prepared to bend to the will of local Councillors. I was at the meeting when Cllr Dewis stated that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was 'by invitation only.' At no point were representatives voted onto this Committee. Yet the Town Clerk's agenda states: 'To confirm representatives to the JAG.' What the hell does that mean? Who is confirming what to whom? They are either elected or not. What sort of finesse is this intended to be?
No wonder the local police are suffering a lack of public confidence. When the three Town Councillors who represent locals can be described as:
Charles Haworth - aka 'lardboy' on the world wide web - who has posted criminally tasteless material in the belief that it constitutes humour. I had two bare behinds posted in my name on the internet last year. When I complained to the Police they did absolutely nothing to ascertain who posted this material and instead arrested Martin Brookes when he ill advisedly posted a copy on a noticeboard. Such double standards on the part of the police certainly need oversight and I would suggest that Charles Haworth, Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Joyce Lucas are the least likely candidates to ensure that public confidence in the police is enhanced.
Cllr Dewis called the police to throw me out of a Council meeting when the Standing Orders had not been complied with and then proceeded to bully Martin Brookes mercilessly for the rest of the meeting. Cllr Dewis pretends to know the law. In truth Cllr Alf Dewis knows damn all, but is prepared to subvert any situation and use his contacts and influence to bring the democratic process down to a tyrannical level of abuse.
Cllr Joyce Lucas was asked if she had said that Martin Brookes was a paedophile. I wonder if she knows that her lack of denial is, in civil law, tantamount to an admission of guilt. I have yet to see either in letter form or minuted form a denial by Cllr Joyce Lucas and begin to wonder what the reason might be?
A few anonymous postings were made in my name of Martin Brookes' blog. I certainly never made any anonymous postings and one in particular was in the worst possible taste and highly dubious, or even offensive. Should I complain to the police? I suspect that there is no point, particularly since Cllrs Lucas, Haworth and Dewis are to remain our representatives on the Police Joint Action Group.
Let's hope that these dinosaurs of local government do not stand for re-election next year. In the meantime does anyone know the procedure for abolishing a local Parish Council?
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Complaint Against Town Clerk - response in full:
Letter Received from Town Council
I have received the following letter from Oakham Town Council in response to my complaints against the Town Clerk’s inability to be professional and competent, signed by the Mayor:
“Complaints Against the Town Clerk
I refer to your complaints against the Town clerk in your communication dated 26/06/10. Firstly let me apologise for taking my time in replying to you, but I am sure you will appreciate there were a lot of issues to be looked into.
In accordance with the Councils complaints Procedure sections 4 and 5, (detailed on the attached Appendix), I have considered all the issues you raised and discussed them all in detail with the Clerk. As a result of this I am satisfied that all matters you raised have been addressed and any necessary actions are being undertaken.
I will be reporting details of this complaint to the next Full Council Meeting.
Under section 6 of the Complaints Procedure if you are not satisfied with this response you are entitled to ask me to bring your complaint to the Full Council for full discussion. Please notify me in writing if this is the case, stating which parts of the complaint you wish to be brought to the Full Council.”
You will note that although it is claimed the matter has “been addressed” I am given no details of how this has been resolved.
I hear through rumour that the Town Clerk is to undergo further training. My confidence in the Town Council’s dysfunctional governance leads me to suppose that this is merely a sop and that the Town Clerk is irremediably incapable.
I have yet to receive any written denial of the slanderous rumour perpetrated against a Councillor. This matter is far more worrying and leads one to surmise that hushing up, covering up and an inability to address real problems is an endemic problem throughout the whole parish Council.
Until local citizens take it upon themselves to stand for election to get rid of the problems on Oakham Town Council there can be no resolution to the dysfunctional governance of this rump of a diseased local Government body. Contrary to rumours circulating I shall not be standing for election. I have seen how the whispering campaign and outright bullying of one Councillor has been conducted and have no wish to sit alone facing this diseased rump of local Government. Having said that I do have some respect for the Mayor, but feel that without a dedicated cadre of colleagues this Council will rumble on ineffectively and dysfunctionally forvever.
I have received the following letter from Oakham Town Council in response to my complaints against the Town Clerk’s inability to be professional and competent, signed by the Mayor:
“Complaints Against the Town Clerk
I refer to your complaints against the Town clerk in your communication dated 26/06/10. Firstly let me apologise for taking my time in replying to you, but I am sure you will appreciate there were a lot of issues to be looked into.
In accordance with the Councils complaints Procedure sections 4 and 5, (detailed on the attached Appendix), I have considered all the issues you raised and discussed them all in detail with the Clerk. As a result of this I am satisfied that all matters you raised have been addressed and any necessary actions are being undertaken.
I will be reporting details of this complaint to the next Full Council Meeting.
Under section 6 of the Complaints Procedure if you are not satisfied with this response you are entitled to ask me to bring your complaint to the Full Council for full discussion. Please notify me in writing if this is the case, stating which parts of the complaint you wish to be brought to the Full Council.”
You will note that although it is claimed the matter has “been addressed” I am given no details of how this has been resolved.
I hear through rumour that the Town Clerk is to undergo further training. My confidence in the Town Council’s dysfunctional governance leads me to suppose that this is merely a sop and that the Town Clerk is irremediably incapable.
I have yet to receive any written denial of the slanderous rumour perpetrated against a Councillor. This matter is far more worrying and leads one to surmise that hushing up, covering up and an inability to address real problems is an endemic problem throughout the whole parish Council.
Until local citizens take it upon themselves to stand for election to get rid of the problems on Oakham Town Council there can be no resolution to the dysfunctional governance of this rump of a diseased local Government body. Contrary to rumours circulating I shall not be standing for election. I have seen how the whispering campaign and outright bullying of one Councillor has been conducted and have no wish to sit alone facing this diseased rump of local Government. Having said that I do have some respect for the Mayor, but feel that without a dedicated cadre of colleagues this Council will rumble on ineffectively and dysfunctionally forvever.
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/
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.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
The nettle bouquet goes to ... Cllr Alf Dewis
IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
TO HARASS CLLR MARTIN BROOKES.
In his bid to be seen as an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has led the attack on Martin Brookes. Using the Town Clerk’s allegation of, as yet unsubstantiated and undisclosed, bullying against Cllr Brookes. This issue has seen the Council being asked to vote to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council Offices; from communicating with the Town Clerk, Richard White, or his Assistant, Allison Greaves, either by email; telephone; letter or in person. When this motion was rejected on 5th May 2010 another, slightly watered down, motion was immediately put to the Council - in direct contravention of Standing Order 35 – viz:
(a) A decision (whether affirmative or negative) of the Council shall not be
debated by Council within six months save by special resolution, the written notice whereof shall bear the names of at least five members of the Council.
(b) When a special resolution or any other resolution moved under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Order has been disposed of, no similar resolution may be moved within a further six months.
That motion is null and void, since the previous motion was rejected.
However, once more in contravention of Standing Order 35 yet another motion is being put to the Council this evening (26th May 2010).
Cllr Brookes was asked if he would be prepared to undergo mediation. Since he still does not know of what he is accused, he cannot reply to the allegation with any real insight, other than to reject the allegation.
This is all becoming a bit fantastical; rather like a Kafka novel. In effect what the Council is saying is:
“You are accused of bullying the Town Clerk, Richard White. We are not prepared to tell you what the allegation is and we are banning you from carrying out your duties as a Councillor. Richard White will have a curtain over the glass of his office door so he cannot see you when you do visit the Council Office, he will not reply to your telephone calls, emails or letters, although paradoxically he will email you. We would like you to agree to mediation under the auspices of the staff committee, made up of Councillors many of whom have made your life unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. No, we are not prepared to ask ACAS to mediate on grounds of cost and we also reject your suggestion that Richard White’s Union undertake mediation. You are guilty without trial or investigation and we will take another stab at making it impossible for you to function as a public representative yet again tonight (26th May) in direct contravention of Standing Order 35. We have found you guilty, but we will not tell you precisely what you are accused of doing.”
In his bid to pursue this vendetta on behalf of Council members, Cllr Alf Dewis is claiming to be an expert in employment law. Making a bid to be seen as an Alpha Male leading the pack against Cllr Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis has messed up time and time again. Claiming to know the law and being an acute ignoramus of the laws of Local Government, he is, quite illegally, attempting to right the mistakes he has made at a meeting on 5th May, by yet again ignoring Standing Orders.
I would suggest that all Cllr Alf Dewis has achieved is to prove to me, and any disinterested onlooker, that he is no Alpha Male but is instead a supreme and absolute ignoramus in the law on this matter. He has mired the Council in an illegal and ill-considered vendetta against Cllr Martin Brookes.
Far from being an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has only proved himself to be an Alpha Prat.
Note: Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER 40
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
England and Wales
Section
1. Prohibition of harassment.
2. Offence of harassment.
3. Civil remedy.
4. Putting people in fear of violence.
5. Restraining orders.
6. Limitation.
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/pdf/ukpga_19970040_en.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
