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?
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
Thursday, 6 May 2010
After the council meeting on 5th May 2010
AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MAY 2010. - WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
Some very offensive material using my private name, which for very good reasons of self-protection, having taught some dangerous prisoners at one stage in my life, I do not use on the internet, had been published in my name.
The published material contained a gratuitously insulting text and then two photographs of the rear of a man’s behind with the cheeks pulled apart, one with a carrot stuck up it in glorious technicolour.
The then Rutland Chat Forum, which seemed to have at the very least one or two Councillors, or close friends of Councillors, contributing some rather offensive material about Martin Brookes and others, had continued to publish tasteless material without let or hindrance. I went to see Richard White the Town Clerk after I’d seen the very offensive material published in my private name.
Richard White claimed that whatever Councillors did in their private time was purely private and nothing to do with their duties as public servants. The Town Clerk admitted he was aware of the material. Feeling that something more might be known by the Town Clerk about the material, I extracted two hairs from my head and left them on his desk, saying: ‘If you want to split hairs, knock yourself out.’
Last night I copied the offensive material in order to show the substance of my complaint and delivered a copy to some Councillors. There are I believe some Councillors, with a modicum of morality, who would find the material offensive rather than funny. On the back of the photocopy I wrote:
‘This offensive material, purporting to be from me to Martin Brookes, was posted on the internet.
Under the Freedom of Information Act I require all references (in hard copy) made about me on Council Computers to be furnished to me within 21 days.’
The offensive material was published on Flick’r under the URL:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmamacass/ The Flick’r account was set up a full month before the pictures were published. Martin only ever published pictures in the public interest and in good taste. Yet Councillors and Council Officers were able to close his Flick’r Accounts. To my knowledge no efforts were made to close the ‘bigmamacass’ account, but perhaps a search of the Council computers will tell me something different.
I very much hope that this material and other references to me are searched for on all Council computers, both new and old, before the Town Clerk returns to work.
But perhaps it is too much to hope for a little justice and transparency and some interesting times ahead. After witnessing some of what was said last night the mood of the Council appears to be to protect employees at the cost of democracy, public accountability and to protect the privacy of Councillors no matter what they do, rather than arrest and prosecute the constant victimisation of Martin Brookes.
The next council meeting will be held in the Victoria Hall on Wednesday 12th May at 6pm. This is a general meeting and there will be ample room for the public to attend.
Some very offensive material using my private name, which for very good reasons of self-protection, having taught some dangerous prisoners at one stage in my life, I do not use on the internet, had been published in my name.
The published material contained a gratuitously insulting text and then two photographs of the rear of a man’s behind with the cheeks pulled apart, one with a carrot stuck up it in glorious technicolour.
The then Rutland Chat Forum, which seemed to have at the very least one or two Councillors, or close friends of Councillors, contributing some rather offensive material about Martin Brookes and others, had continued to publish tasteless material without let or hindrance. I went to see Richard White the Town Clerk after I’d seen the very offensive material published in my private name.
Richard White claimed that whatever Councillors did in their private time was purely private and nothing to do with their duties as public servants. The Town Clerk admitted he was aware of the material. Feeling that something more might be known by the Town Clerk about the material, I extracted two hairs from my head and left them on his desk, saying: ‘If you want to split hairs, knock yourself out.’
Last night I copied the offensive material in order to show the substance of my complaint and delivered a copy to some Councillors. There are I believe some Councillors, with a modicum of morality, who would find the material offensive rather than funny. On the back of the photocopy I wrote:
‘This offensive material, purporting to be from me to Martin Brookes, was posted on the internet.
Under the Freedom of Information Act I require all references (in hard copy) made about me on Council Computers to be furnished to me within 21 days.’
The offensive material was published on Flick’r under the URL:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmamacass/ The Flick’r account was set up a full month before the pictures were published. Martin only ever published pictures in the public interest and in good taste. Yet Councillors and Council Officers were able to close his Flick’r Accounts. To my knowledge no efforts were made to close the ‘bigmamacass’ account, but perhaps a search of the Council computers will tell me something different.
I very much hope that this material and other references to me are searched for on all Council computers, both new and old, before the Town Clerk returns to work.
But perhaps it is too much to hope for a little justice and transparency and some interesting times ahead. After witnessing some of what was said last night the mood of the Council appears to be to protect employees at the cost of democracy, public accountability and to protect the privacy of Councillors no matter what they do, rather than arrest and prosecute the constant victimisation of Martin Brookes.
The next council meeting will be held in the Victoria Hall on Wednesday 12th May at 6pm. This is a general meeting and there will be ample room for the public to attend.
Police called to parish council meeting 5th May 2010 - exclusion of the public.
CONTRARY TO THE RUMOURS WHICH MAY BE CIRCULATING - NO ARRESTS WERE MADE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MARY 2010.
Report on items 3 – 5
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 has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.
When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.
I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.
Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.
When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!
This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.
The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.
It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?
Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.
Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.
I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.
If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.
THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.
Report on items 3 – 5
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 has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.
When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.
I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.
Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.
When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!
This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.
The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.
It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?
Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.
Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.
I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.
If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.
THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
