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

Harriers put on a showy goodbye

As Japanese say 'Hai' to our Harriers.



Photograph supplied by kind permission of Martin Brookes - if only I had the technical know-how to upload it - heigh ho!

On Wednesday RAF pilots put on a show stopping display, despite the low cloud cover over RAF Cottesmore. It is rumoured that our Harrier jets have been sold to the Japanese. So possibly they may yet be used as a first line of defence against Chinese military might. Although the Chinese onslaught is as yet limited to commercial warfare, predominantly in Africa.

Whilst an assortment of supposed ‘dignitaries’ assembled at the main gate to RAF Cottesmore, before being waved through by MoD policemen – no doubt to partake of some yummy scrummy military rations and the odd tot, or not so odd tot of ethanol, the rest of us assembled at crash gate one and made our way through muddy fields. Enthusiasts with long lens cameras came from Germany, Devon, Scotland, Tynemouth, Cheshire and of course good old Oakham.

RAF Cottesmore was first mooted in 1936 and referred to as ‘The Thistleton Site.’ It became operational in 1938 under Wing Commander H V Drew OBE AFC. By 1943 we had 3,700 U S Airmen stationed at Cottesmore – all determined to be as hospitable as war time rationing and American supply chains allowed. Exton Hall was requisitioned for the burgeoning accommodation needs at the base. In 1999, after our airbase in Germany closed, the Harriers were stationed at Cottesmore. Cottesmore is the second highest air base in the country at around 425 ft above sea level. On Wednesday 15 December 2010 the cloud cover was disappointing. Nevertheless the RAF put on a show of magnificent proportions, hovering, flying in formations of four, peeling off with precision. The RAF, in a spirit of egality, ensured that the assembled photographers at crash gate one got a fantastic display.

My father did his National Service in the RAF and had fond memories of his two years of service prior to going to University. He was eventually posted to Cranwell and got his wings in a Tiger Moth, in which his instructor had told him to simulate a stalled landing. Unfortunately he didn’t hear the word ‘simulate’ and so stalled the plane before taking it in to land. He couldn’t understand why the instructor’s knuckles had turned white.

What will happen to Cottesmore now? There are rumours; rumours that the Air Tattoo at Fairford will come to Cottesmore in 2012; rumours that it will be turned into an immigration centre to house families and children of detained immigrants awaiting the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decisions; rumours that the bully boys of the army and their blinkered commanders will take over the base; pressure from a local Councillor to turn it into a commercial airport. The truth is no one knows. What we do know is that if nothing comes into the base Cottesmore and Oakham will become a ghost town, house prices will plummet and we will be yet another rural backwater with no local economy to sustain us. Perhaps then we might get a change of political leadership. Every cloud …

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…

IS COURTS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT DOOLALLY?

A few months ago, in broad daylight, I witnessed a crime, directed at me by a stranger. Having taken the man’s number plate, I reported the crime to the police. I was termed ‘victim, number one.’ Two weeks later a woman, collecting her children from a dance group, with her three-year-old strapped in the back of her car, was subjected to the same crime. She was termed ‘victim, number two.’

Kent Police pursued the criminal, brought him to justice and did all that could reasonably be expected of an efficient police force; somewhat putting Leicestershire and Rutland Police in the shade by comparison. [See previous post and Sergeant Collyer’s (or is that Collier’s?) failure to put an end to months of nightmare I have suffered on Martin Brookes’ blog; perpetrated by a bunch of bunny boiling Oakham Parish Councillors or their friends, some of whom appear to have mental health issues associated with alcohol consumption and possibly the armed services, and a biscuit taking, pill popping, serially stalking, sociopathic Parish Councillor in Exton.]

The man entered a guilty plea in Court three weeks earlier and was due to be sentenced on 2nd November. The Probation Service was asked to submit a pre- sentencing report. Having attended the initial hearing I presumed I would be able to ring the court to find out what sentence he received, so did not attend the hearing at which he was sentenced.

I telephoned the Court Service, in Maidstone, on 3rd November and was told that they could not tell me what sentence had been handed down to this criminal.

Why, you may ask?

The Court Service cited ‘THE DATA PROTECTION ACT.’

This had been a public trial in a public court, which the press were entitled to attend and report. However, in their wisdom, the Court had changed the venue for both hearings at the last minute to a more private court-room in the complex. The press missed the sentencing of the criminal, so were unable to tell me what had happened. The Court Service then decided, under the DATA PROTECTION ACT, that I could not be told what sentence this criminal had received. Needless to say I told the person I spoke to, twice, at the Court Service that this was utter rubbish and that the point of public trials was to ensure that justice was seen to be done.

Kent Police were finally able to ascertain that the criminal received 150 hours Community Service over one year; a year’s Supervision Order and registration on the SOR for five years. My deepest thanks go to Kent Police for taking this case to a successful conclusion.

However for the Court Service to tell a ‘victim’ (twice) that they are not entitled to know what sentence the perpetrator of the crime against them receives, erroneously citing the DATA PROTECTION ACT, is frankly deeply shocking. I told the Court Service in Maidstone I would be blogging this. I understand, from the woman I spoke to, that this decision had been made by the Clerks’ to the Courts.

When such legislative illiteracy exists amongst the supposedly legally qualified Clerks, then what hope do we have of gaining a semblance of transparent justice?

Are those who wield power becoming collectively doolally?

Andy Coulson, The News of the World and Sgt Roy Collier 1701 Oakham Police Station

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jul/25/private-investigators-coulson-mi5

I wrote the following letter to the Guardian on this story over a year ago.

My letter said:
• The Guardian, Saturday 25 July 2009
It is a distraction to focus on the spying activities of the News of the World and the testimony of Andy Coulson while he worked at the News of the World (Andy Coulson tells MPs 'things went badly wrong' at News of the World, 22 July). A wider investigation of the activities of private investigators may well show that these sorts of services are offered by a plethora of companies, usually owned by ex-special branch or retired secret services personnel who believe themselves to be above the law. These companies are not properly policed or regulated.
An ex-special branch officer may feel his contacts within his local police force will make his activities subject to the most benign interpretation. He may employ moonlighting serving officers who allow him access to current intelligence. He will then also be assiduous in recruiting ex-SIS, MI5, GCHQ, SAS or SBS personnel whose contacts extend well beyond local boundaries to ensure utter immunity from the rule of law. The growing tendency for the security services to turn to these sorts of privatised companies, to ensure absolute deniability, is also worrying.
If one considers the profitable activities of companies like QinetiQ, Blackwater, Sandline International and myriad similar companies, their dominance in providing these sorts of less well advertised services in trouble hotspots all over the world and at home, one cannot but surmise that industrial and personal spying on largely innocent people has been turned into a very lucrative industry.
It's time that we turned the spotlight on all the amoral private investigators who operate with impunity outside the rule of law.
Helen Pender
Oakham, Rutland
This article appeared on p33 of the Main section section of the Guardian on Saturday 25 July 2009. It was published on guardian.co.uk at 00.06 BST on Saturday 25 July 2009.

When I Googled Private Investigators in Oakham and Leicestershire I found seven companies listed. This list is clearly not definitive since Nigel Bullock, who has recruits from Leicestershire police, one of whom has assured me he was working under cover at a local company, is not listed in these companies. If over seven private investigators are gaining a good living in the local area then it is evident that more needs to be done to police the ex-policemen who seem to feel they are above the rule of law.

I have recently complained to Inspector Monks at Oakham police station that my email accounts appear to have been hacked and hijacked. One of the addresses – last used at around the time of the 2005 General Election: corruptionstinks@yahoo.co.uk appears to be used on another blog to post fraudulent comments, supposedly from me. The account would not open using my usual passwords used at the time and I haven’t used this account for several years. More worryingly a current address: penderh@yahoo.co.uk also seems to have been used to post yet more comments on the same blog. I have only made two posts on that blog in the last two months. Yet there appear to be a plethora of posts in different styles. I made two comments on that blog on 3 July and another two on 31 August using my email account penderh@yahoo.co.uk. The two send on 3 July were to wish Martin well on his trip to Gay Pride and on 31 August I posted a comment about Burley on the Hill, one time residence of Asil Nadir and a disclaimer saying I had made no other comments anonymously on his blog, despite my name being signed to them. I will not use this account to send out emails again, since the security is clearly breached. So any email emanating from me from either of those accounts should be immediately deleted and binned without opening.

Sgt Roy Collier telephoned me following my letter of complaint about this hacking to Inspector Monks at Oakham Police Station. He said he was a guardian of public funds and would not waste funds in finding out who had breached my privacy and hacked into my email accounts. I asked him for a letter confirming this. Sgt Collier declined to send me a letter, saying it would be a waste of his time and a waste of funds. I suggested that implied a lack of confidence in his own decision and went on to ask: ‘Are you standing on the square on this one?’ His reply was ‘Yes.’ Say no more. He went on to say that if he could offer any police assistance for other complaints he would be happy to do so.

However Oakham Police are happy, according to Martin Brookes’ blog to try to issue harassment notices brought by local Councillors and their chums when mentioned on Martin Brookes’ blog. Does this not strike you as double standards?

Bloggers blog because that is the last resort in a country whose press has given up free speech or oversight of democracy. We bloggers are the last bastion of vigilance over an increasingly out of control establishment intent on wielding power without accountability.

If the News of The World, and possibly Andy Coulson, the ex-editor of the News of the World at the time of the hacking debacle, now Director of Communication for David Cameron’s Conservative Party, according to the New York Times, are immune from proper investigation then we do not live in a democracy with functioning institutions. We lesser mortals, faced with the same degree of intrusion, are defenceless hostages to fortune as criminal forces successfully hijack our email accounts. When it is a possibility that Private Investigation companies may be supplying the information to hack into those private accounts and those ex-police Private Investigators are immune from the rule of law then it surely begins to look as if we are living in an establishment anarchy.

If the price of democracy is eternal vigilance, and those who exercise vigilance through free speech are hacked, harried and hijacked, it makes a nonsense of our claim to be a fully functioning democracy. Our efforts to deliver democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to show that those in power do not really understand the concept of democracy. When our Private Investigation companies are above the rule of law and conspire with those in power to undermine the very institutions which ensure democratic power, then we are in very deep water. The canals and waterways of public life appear to be infested with a noxious pollution and there does not appear to be any political will to address the problem. The powerful will always subvert institutions in their pursuit of power. An unchecked’Will to Power’ will always result in anarchy. We need to understand that we enable this sort of corruption to continue if we fail to deal with it adequately.

Notes:

The New York Times reports that Andy Coulson, ex-editor of The News Of The World, is implicated in the bugging of senior members of the Labour Cabinet, as well as members of the Royal Family. Full story in the New York Times – URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html?_r=1

The URL for the Guardian story is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-allegations

Town Council Meeting – Wednesday 8 September 2010

Town Council Meeting – Wednesday 8 September 2010
As usual no members of the press were present. However we heard from Cllr Tor Clarke that members of the press no longer attend Town Council or County Council meetings due to ‘economic restrictions.’
The Council resolved to appoint a Communications Tzar to communicate with the local press. Sounds like something from Cold War Russia – doesn’t it? Pravda eat your heart out. So there you have it a Councillor is to be relied upon to be the official spokesperson of all proceedings on Oakham Town Council and the press will not or cannot be bothered to ascertain what is really happening. No doubt the Communications Tzar will fail to report on matters like the auditor’s ‘qualified’ approval of the Town Councils accounts – as reported to Town Councillors on 8 September 2010.
If one hasn’t a free press or even an energetic enough press to report on the Council proceedings it falls to us poor squibs on blogs to do so. However the Town Councillors are so anti freedom of speech that they will do their utmost, and I rather think this might mean harassment of their critics, to such an extent that they or their chums are willing to hack into email accounts.
The price of democracy is vigilance, if the press are not willing to exercise that vigilance then it is up to the blogosphere to do so. However those of us who do blog need to be protected from malicious hackers who try to subvert freedom of speech.