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

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

The Trolls of Rotland v Laura Norder

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia – many thanks

Trolls of Rotland.v Laura Norder

Once upon a time, deep in a rural rut
warped by time, there were few trains, no buses,
public amenities withered and died.
A small rural town teetered on the brink.
The trolls who governed, this rural outpost,
made sure they had things sewn up to suit themselves.
“Stuff the poor, sod the peasants, we’ll get rich
on the backs of the apathetic voters.
We’ll sew up the local press, get the police
isolated from reality AND
Persecute anyone who tells our story.
We’ll divorce ourselves from political
Reality, ensure we have truly biased
Supremacy, ask for the highest rates
Make sure all contracts go to our brethren.”
So the trolls banded together against
the forces of fairness and Laura Norder.
They got a great big cloth and began sewing,
Finally they had it all stitched up.
Ricardo Blanco was given a job.
Poor little Ricardo tried to do his best
But in every school test he was behind
the rest. The trolls were very impressed.
A man without a brain, was what they needed.
Ricardo was paid thirty thousand pounds
It became clear he really hadn’t a brain,
Not even a single cell organism
could be found on any scan, nor even a
scintilla of moral probity
could be detected in the recesses
of his cranial cavity but the man
had oodles of loyalty, unquestioning
Fealty to troll like supremacy.
The Town Council were deeply satisfied
Mr Peek a Boo held the legal keys
And could be relied on to bend the law.
It all became so bent that anything
which had the crookedest bend could be said
to be straight. All the trolls got together
And nodded in unison their chorus
Melodically sung throughout the rural rot:

“We are Lions, we are circles, we are
on the Square, and squaddies once, shoulder to
Shoulder do our best to squish opponents.
Over ethanol we meet in the bar,
Determined to mar, we’ll feather and tar
Critics who gainsay us. Better by far to
join us,” they coo, “gangs of miscreants do.
We’ll pay obeisance on Remembrance Day
And subvert the cause for which these heroes
gave away their lives for democracy.
We’ll harry and hound right into the ground
Anyone who reveals our sins
For Laura Norder we don’t give two pins.
No Sunday buses, no morning trains,
We get in our cars, humanity drains
as we drive through the lanes, we take no blame
Hypocrisy is our middle name
We really have no sense of shame.”

The trolls were so used to getting away
with all their shenanigans. They’d clearly
got blue rosettes and joined the nasty party.
They ran their little cold club ruthlessly;
no one else would ever get voted into
Power. ‘We are invincible,’ they chortled.
“Anyone who opposes us is an
idiot – idealism won’t be
tolerated. They’re just idiot boys.”
Until an idiot boy with a camera
started taking pictures of the trolls,.
Ethanol in hand in front of the bandstand.
“Stop that idiot boy,” they begged Mr Peek a Boo.
Holding the legal keys in his right hand
And a mouse in his left hand Peek a Boo
Wrote to Flick’r and got his account closed.
Satisfied and rather smug the trolls
Claimed justice had been done, but to
add to the spice of life and have some fun
they developed an obsession with mouses.
on the internet the louses dosed with
Ethanolic souses pursued their quarry
Round the houses. So the idiot boy
took photos morning, noon and night – always.
Pictures of trolls parking illegally,
Legless with bottles their troll like tottles
along the road in ‘designated’ places,
were published on the boy’s blogging website
The idiot boy got himself voted
onto the Council. Something just had to
be done. So Mrs Joyless Curse and Mr
Jimbo Harass, son of a Commando,
Paulo Bitchio, or so Bitchio
claimed as he waddled with medals on his
ever so wide breasts, the result of
imbibing too much sauce with his bisto;
Mr Carlo Haugh Waugh, lardyboy and
Mr Alfredo photoshop Al’ DO EE
Ran a war of attrition – “He’s gay” they
shouted. “I’m out and proud” said the boy.
Then they started a vicious rumour knowing
it to be untrue, they deliberately blew
a nasty whisper far and wide, they failed
to get the rumour to gain currency
Which they wouldn’t deny at all when I
questioned them in their den, so in civil
Law they’d opened the door to a guilty
judgement on their rumour mongering intent.
In a bit of a fix the tortured trolls
Decided to recruit top cat onto
the Council. “We need some good publicity,”
They bleated lamely: “You’re our media star.
Get the papers to be our char, publish
only the best.” Well top cat hadn’t pickled
his brains in alcohol and was happy
to oblige. He polished up their image
so carefully they made him the Tzar.
of the council’s woolly thinking brigade.
The trolls wrote dozens of emails and postings.
When the idiot boy accused them of
doing so, Ricardo Blanco denied it
Mr Peek a Boo ensured it was never
investigated. Instead they oilily
wheeled out The Data Protection Act.
Never mind that the postings were made
at nine o’clock at night from the council’s
own chamber. The police refused to take
any action. The trolls began to muddy
the water and bake a fake cake which smelled
of hake. “Smoke and mirrors man, we’ll make
a false claim – someone’s stolen our laptop.
It wasn’t me, I didn’t make the posting
I wasn’t in the Council at twelve noon
Nor in Leicester later. The boy’s a loon
It’s us against him. We’ll make out he’s dim.
We’ve all got cast iron alibis, test us.”
So once again they raised their glasses
Pickled their brains and went back to their mouses.
There ain’t no justice until we vote out
all these louses. Trolls screamed: “Stop your grouses.
We’ve sewn up all the election polls.”
Can anyone defeat, or even eat, the trolls?
Look forward to another instalment
Of the shenanigans of the drollest trolls.

Some odd retail voting on Tocess proposed planning permission.
But that’s another story…

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?

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?

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/

Oakham Town Council co-options - 16th June 2010

Present: Cllrs Joyce Lucas; Charles Haworth; Alf Dewis; George Swiffin; Alan Walters; Martin Brookes and Chairman and Mayor – Sharon Spencer.

Candidates in order of interview: Linda Grey; Helen Pender; Tor Clarke and Fiona Arnold.

The following Councillors cast two votes each in favour of Mrs Linda Grey and Tor Clarke: Cllrs Alf Dewis; Charles Haworth; Joyce Lucas; George Swiffin; Alan Walters.

When told of the vote by the Chairman, Sharon Spencer, she also said that Martin Brookes and she did not vote since they each knew one of the candidates. This prompted me to ask if I was sleeping with (openly gay) Cllr Brookes, since Linda Grey had admitted to me two weeks earlier that she was a friend of both Alf Dewis and Joyce Lucas. In fact I hear from Martin’s blog that she also admitted this as she was introduced at her interview. However Joyce Lucas wisely shut her up.

Oakham is a town of 10,000 people, a very small community. It is unlikely that the five Councillors who voted did not know at least one of the candidates. What cloistered lives these five must lead.

By a happy coincidence the five Councillors, who did vote, roared in unison like unanimous lions in favour of Linda Grey and Tor Clarke.

Martin’s comment to me after the meeting was that I had not pulled my punches when telling the Council of its failings. This was the only opportunity I would get to be heard and it is important to make the most of opportunities when they arise. The Town Clerk said that everyone else was interviewed for a quarter of an hour. My interview lasted half an hour.

Cllr Dewis listened as I told the meeting that Plato believed that Tyranny and Anarchy replaced democracy when democracy fails. However I am not sure he is capable of understanding the depths to which he is bringing this Council by riding rough shod over Standing Orders.

The public were ejected when the five Parish Councillors voted. Martin Brookes had proposed, I am told by other members of the public, that the public be excluded for the discussion. Needless to say, since it was proposed by Cllr Martin Brookes, no one would second his proposal. A few seconds later Cllr Dewis suggested the public be excluded. No one seconded his proposal either, but it was put to the vote and carried. One shakes ones head in despair at this point. You can’t surely have a motion to exclude the public, which receives no support, and then revive exactly the same motion again, which again receives no seconder, and then put the motion to the vote.

Oh yes you can, but only on Oakham Parish Council where Standing Orders don’t apply. It seems my small opportunity to educate Cllr Dewis had fallen on deaf ears. Heigh Ho! Why can’t I learn that casting pearls before swine is always a vain exercise?

As we left the building Martin was locked out of the Council Chamber and office. It became clear that some Councillors were holding an informal discussion from which they wished to exclude Martin Brookes. Quelle suprise?

The outcome was predictable (see Martin Brookes’ blog posted before the meeting). Martin expressed great regret that he hadn’t placed a bet with William Hill as he left the Council Chamber. I couldn’t help thinking that if he had he might have been arrested and charged with fraud.

Lest we forget, at the last Council meeting Cllr Alf Dewis assured us that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth would serve on the Police Joint Action Group, since membership of this group is in future to be ‘by invitation only.’

My congratulations go to Tor Clarke and Linda Grey along with my fervent hopes that they might bring some sanity to this Council. Chris Hilton, Martin Brookes and I raised our glasses in a toast to Oakham Town Council in the Hornblower afterwards. No doubt there will be a celebratory dinner for Lions and their spouses too in the very near future … so perhaps collective sanity on Oakham Town Council is a vain hope.

Report of Oakham Town Council Meeting 7th June 2010

REPORT OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 7TH JUNE 2010

I must confess to a great deal of confusion. Bullying of Martin Brookes was somewhat muted.

Why?

This meeting was attended by a member of the Standards Committee for the second time – so Councillors were on their best behaviour.

So, one would think that the rules and regulations would be scrupulously followed too – wouldn’t one?

Cllr Jan Fillingham, not having attended a Council meeting since 16 December (although her rather florid signature is also absent from the attendance register on that date – this is said to be an ‘oversight’) was item number 1 ii on the agenda viz:

1. Ii To approve the absence of Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham since December 16th 2009 from meetings of the Council and its Committees on the grounds of ill health.

Oddly at the Annual meeting on 12th May we had been told that Mrs Fillingham had now recovered. Does this illness come and go? Or do members of the Council suffer from terminal amnesia?

We had been told by Cllr Haworth, via email, that Cllr Fillingham’s tired and emotional state at Remembrance Sunday Service last November was due to her medication. Yet Cllr Fillingham in her Annual report says that she was diagnosed in January 2010. Do Councillors need a calendar of events and a prompt in the wings to remind them what they have asserted? I had seen Cllr Fillingham looking her usual impeccably turned out self in the High Street as I emerged with my bag full of medication the previous week and luckily I was able to remind Councillors of the announcement of her recovery on 12th May.

Ex Councillor Kelly attended and had clearly failed to understand the terms of the ‘six months’ rule.’ He asked why Councillors, who gave their apologies religiously at every meeting for longer than six months, were thought to be in danger of losing their seats. Although I am told Cllr Kelly does read my blog (see 26 May Six Months’ Rule blog) he clearly failed to understand it. I will just refer him back to: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Section 85 and recommend that he finds someone with either a level of reasonable literacy or intellectual ability to translate this into a monosyllabic explanation.

No one seems to understand the idea that if one cannot carry out one's duties as a Councillor for longer than six months there should be some code of honour to suggest that one should allow the electors to be properly represented. However that idea goes against the more prevalent idea of an exclusive club of like minded people supporting one another through thick and thin. The code of Omerta till rules among this coterie of Councillors.

Under Item 3 Cllr Dewis stood up and asked why Cllr Brookes had failed to ascertain the situation on the boards around the bandstand. At the last meeting Cllr Brookes had asked that the boards around the bandstand be preserved. The Chairman, Cllr Haworth, then suggested that Cllr Brookes have precisely one week, whilst banned from visiting the Town Clerk to ascertain whether a friend of the Town Clerk might be in a position to take these boards. Clrr Brookes explained at the last meeting that he could not do this, particularly since Cllr Dewis and Haworth had banned him from talking or communicating with the Town Clerk. It was finally decided that the Town Clerk would carry out the research on what to do with these boards. However Cllr Dewis never lets the facts get in the way of a dig at Cllr Brookes and was happy to indulge in total amnesia about what had been decided at the last meeting.

Perhaps we should have the water tested at Victoria Hall. A worrying amount of amnesia seems far too prevalent amongst Councillors.

Item 11 – REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES raised some eyebrows amongst the three members of the public observing the Council meeting. At first it began to look as though Cllr Brookes would not be allowed to serve on any of these Committees. Cllr Brookes proposed himself to the first five committees and received absolutely no seconder whatsoever. It all began to look a little like the vendetta it is. Item 11(v) needed three members as trustees of the Victoria Hall. Cllr Fillingham and Cllr Dodds are on this committee.

The Town Clerk In his eagerness to ensure Cllr Dewis was voted onto this committee ruled rather oddly that he would only take one nomination at a time. The correct procedure would have been to accept all nominations and then had an election. But why would Oakham Town Council want to deviate into the territory of correct procedures? Instead Richard White said: ‘Uh one at a time please.’ So ruling that Cllr Dewis would be voted onto the board of Trustees and further nominations made after he had been voted in. Cllr Dodds said she would like to continue to serve as a trustee of the Victoria Hall and was duly voted in. Cllr Haworth, eager to ensure that Cllr Brookes was edged out immediately proposed himself. So instead of having to vote for four candidates for three positions, members were asked to elect Cllrs Dewis and Dodds and then have a vote between two candidates for one position. Highly irregular and rather against Standing Orders, but never mind we don’t seem to take much notice of regulations on OTC.

Remember the Standards Committee representative sitting in the public seats? As I said Councillors were on their best behaviour. This then begs the question: Are Councillors so politically ignorant as to fail to understand their highly irregular behaviour? Or did they think that the three members of the public attending the meeting would be so thick that they wouldn’t understand this finesse? Furthermore did they think that a member of the Standards Committee would be able to overlook this irregularity? I rather think they are or did. Hence my confusion – I simply can’t decide whether the Council and the Town Clerk are irremedially politically ill educated or whether they think others are even thicker than they are and won’t notice these sorts of irregularities. Would someone please let me know?

Under 11 (vi) Cllr Lucas refused to serve on the Oakham Festival Committee, reasoning that this Committee met on a Wednesday and this often clashed with Town Council meetings. Having spotted the Standards Committee representative in the public seats a small confab took place and, if only to ensure that Cllr Brookes was not edged out of every committee, he was voted onto the Festival Committee. I rather think the Wednesday clash and the prospect of Cllr Brookes being unable to attend one meeting or the other might have recommended him for the position.

But ... it gets worse! Item 11 (ix): Police Joint Action Group. Cllr Dewis stood up and, in his usual confident manner, assured the meeting that elections were no longer valid since the police wanted representation on this committee to be ‘by invitation only.’

It beggared belief. In what Universe do the police decide which Councillors oversee their activities on the Joint Action Group? The face of the Standards Officer was a picture, my chin hit the floor with a bump. Eyeing the consternation in the public seats the Town Clerk said he would come back to the meeting on the situation and let us know. Why didn’t the Town Clerk have the training, common sense or insight to know that this is entirely unacceptable and say so? Why didn't any other Councillor tell us how odd this assertion was? Code of Omerta ... again?

I rather think this constitutes proof positive that this little club of Councillors are well past their sell by date. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman made no effort to rule Cllr Dewis out of order when he asserted that he, Cllr Lucas and Cllr Haworth were those invited to serve on this committee ‘by invitation’ – although we only have Cllr Dewis’ word on this. Surely this cosy little coterie, or tyrannical triumvirate, should all be ruled off the Police Joint Action Group? One cannot have Councillors believing that democracy, police oversight and elections may be over ruled by a tyrranical police force eager to ensure that those prepared to sing from their hymn sheet should serve on the Joint Action Group, surely??????????

Cllr Brookes, with an eye on the accounts, then begged the question as to why the Town Council had approved expenditure of only £38.00 for signage to the new public loos, yet he now saw that we had paid around £125.40. He also asked why the Churches together had said they did not need electricity at the bandstand, yet used electricity. Cllr Brookes on both points said that the Council had approved expenditure or authorised use of the bandstand on certain terms and those terms were overturned with no reference back to the Council. Other Councillors treated Cllr Brookes as if he were a trouble maker. Cllr Dodds said that one shouldn’t worry about a trivial matter like a small amount of electricity – ‘the important thing was did people enjoy theirselves.’!!! The Town Clerk in his usual effort to evade the truth read from a previous bill to show that 38p’s worth of electricity had been used. However this bill did not cover the period Cllr Brookes was referring to, which the Town Clerk failed to acknowledge and Cllr Brookes had to point out this attempt at a finesse on the truth. Luckily the man from Standards understood why Cllr Brookes had asked these questions.

Is it too much to hope that RCC finally realise what a shower this Council is and call for it to be abolished? At the very least we deserve a full procedural audit – surely?

Finally could I ask the press to desist from making broadcasts or printing items on Oakham Town Council without doing their own independent newsgathering. If the radio station can't be bothered to send a reporter to the meetings and the local paper can't be bothered to send anyone other than Jim Harrison, who has a rather poisonous axe to grind, then they should not make inaccurate broadcasts. News gathering does not mean gleaning poisonous gossip from Cllrs Haworth, Lucas, Dewis, ex Councillor Jim Harrison et al and then publishing their scurrilous stories. Journalism demands a bit more effort. Without a free press (or the fifth estate if you will) we are enslaved to the tyrants who would trample democracy into an early grave.

Cllr Martin Brookes arrested?

Martin Brookes was arrested yesterday. Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go figure.

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

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

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


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

Date: 07 May 2010

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

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

A man was arrested at the scene.

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

"We have laws to be preserved."

The man has been bailed pending further inquiries

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

FACTS

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

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

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

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

Council meeting 5th May - seat vacant - denied by Councillors

EXTRA COUNCIL MEETING – ITEMS 1 and 2.

The Extra Meeting of Oakham Parish Council took place last night. The Agenda was given to members’ of the public attending. Since the Clerk has been off ‘ill’ the public have been treated with greater respect under the aegis of the Assistant Clerk. She should, in my opinion, be offered training and the full time position of Clerk. Her ability to tread a non-partisan very thin line, in stressful circumstances, is to be commended.

Previously, retired ex-Councillors and their mates have had copies of the Agenda and the rest of the public has been in absolute ignorance of the agenda, bar the posting outside Vicky Hall. It is refreshing to be able to have a copy of the agenda supplied to one in the meeting. My thanks and congratulations go to the Assistant Clerk, Alison, for providing agendas to the general public, rather than just to the favoured few. The Agenda looked innocent enough, but what a surprise – or was it?

AN EXTRA MEETING OF
OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY 5TH MAY 2010
7.00 PM AT THE OFFICES OF OALHAM TOWN COUNCIL,
VICTORIA HALLM 30 HIGH STREET OAKHAM

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES
To receive and accept apologies for absence

2. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS
To answer questions previously notified to the Clerk under Standing Order 23

3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*

4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK

5. STAFFING MATTERS


Martin Brookes had asked 17 questions and, presumably, it was decided by the powers that be that they did not want these questions to be given a public airing at the full public meeting on Wednesday 12th May at 6 pm in the Victoria Hall. One of the questions pertained to the non-attendance of Council members. The Clerk had originally told Martin Brookes that Council members could stay away indefinitely provided they gave their apologies. This was repeated at the meeting last night. I had been in touch with RCC and ascertained this is not the case. Even if apologies are given members may only stay away for six months, after that their seat falls vacant. Quite rightly so, since a Councillor cannot effectively represent his or her electors if they refuse to attend, or are prevented from attending Council meetings through illness. I also understand that Mayor Fillingham is in receipt of an ex-gratia payment of £2,500 for the year from rate payers. This payment has not been suspended whilst she has failed to attend full Council meetings. Politicians are regularly expected to resign on the basis of ‘ill health’ in every other Council bar Oakham Town Council. Nevertheless the Chairman assured Councillor Brookes that Councillors may stay away indefinitely without relinquishing their Council seat, provided apologies are given. Mr Pook of RCC tells me that the seat falls vacant after six months. Cllr Swiffin’s seat is therefore vacant, whatever Councillors may claim. Martin Brookes asked whether this meant that a Councillor could get elected and stay away for his or her entire term of office without being made to relinquish their seat. As usual his verbal questions were ignored whilst the Chairman read out answers to Martin Brookes’ questions.

Interestingly the Agenda for the full Council Meeting to be held on Wednesday 12th May 2010 at 6pm in the Victoria Hall, has a report to be given by Cllr Mayor Jan Fillingham. So there may be a lingering doubt amongst some Council members as to the legality of their decision tonight.

This being Cllr Swiffin’s sixth absence, his seat has become vacant. However the Council refused to accept this, despite Cllr Brookes’ reasonable remonstrations. Cllr Brookes has researched the law and Cllr Brookes is correct. If the Standing Orders are treated in such a cavalier fashion it is time that the Council is fully audited and the rules applied by force if necessary.

I will publish the report of items three to five on another blog today.

Attendance record of Cllrs Swiffin and Fillingham:

FULL COUNCIL MEETING

7 Oct 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

4 Nov 2009 Fillingham - absent
Swiffin - present

2 Dec 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

13 Jan 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 Feb 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin – absent

7 April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

5 May 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent


PLANNING & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE MEETING

21 October 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

18 November 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

27 January 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 February 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.