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
Showing posts with label Oakham parish Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oakham parish Council. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 February 2011
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!
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
