Thursday, January 31, 2013

Rutland Resident, Letter to, Ian Hislop, Private Eye, RTutland County Council, Anti Corruption Party

Rutland Resident
c/o Catch 22, George Orwell Way, Feudal Rutland
Ian Hislop Esq
The Editor
Letters Page
80 Bond Street
London W1S 1SB


You report that Helen Briggs CEO of Rutland County Council (“Rotten Boroughs” Eyes passim 1329 & 1332) appears to be so traumatised by three Rutland Anti-Corruption Group Councillors’ 22 FOI questions, since May 2011, that she has been authorised to complain to Leicestershire police and a slush fund of £90,000 put aside to seek an injunction to stop democratically elected Councillors asking future questions. Since the local papers merely print regurgitated Rutland County Council press releases would you mind asking:

Why has Rutland County Council’s CEO, Helen Briggs elected to be the Rutland Anti-Corruption Councillors’ “single point of contact” for all future questions? Is she a glutton for punishment? Does she enjoy being harassed? Or should she reconsider her position as Chief Executive and hand over to someone who understands democratic processes and that questions deserve answers, especially if asked by those elected to public office?

Yours in deep admiration and gratitude,

Rutland Resident

P.S. Without Private Eye these three Councillors, who do an excellent job in holding the recalcitrant and overly taciturn ruling party to account, would have been silenced. Alan Duncan MP received front page coverage in the local papers (17/18 January) when he castigated them and asked them to resign. He said he’d prefer to have Socialists elected instead! The only Socialist remains in the closet fearing to publicise his allegiance, he speaks against the Ruling Tories and almost always votes with them. The climate of secrecy is endemic in the gold fish bowl of Rutland. Thank you a thousand times.

Councillor Parsons, Conservative Chairman, Rutland County Council, Open Letter and Questions From Member of Public who attended Special Anti Corruption Meeting

Open Letter to Mr ~Parsons
By Hand 16 January 2013

Dear Mr Parsons

I have asked a few questions, which I should be most grateful if you could answer.

The RACG were being falsely and wrongly accused and incited into calling other Councillors ‘corrupt, whilst I knew that they had been called ‘corrupt’ at a meeting I attended. These comments directed at the RACG Councillors never seem to have been recorded in the minutes of meetings. I also knew that another Councillor had told me his fellow Councillors were corrupt – in some depth and at some length. That Councillor was smirking his way through the meeting with evident delight at the inquisition the RACG Councillors were facing, knowing full well that he himself was not innocent of libel against his current and former colleagues. During the October Council meeting RACG Councillors had been called corrupt by a number of Councillors and these accusations have never been recorded. The hypocrisy in cherry picking the rules to apply unevenly and the climate of bullying was intolerable.

Cllr Walters had just asked a question of the RACG Councillors. I felt that a huge effort was being made to trap Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright into saying something libellous about other Councillors in the meeting in order to build a climate and case for acceptance of legal action. I interpreted the silence of the three Councillors, under attack at the meeting on 10th January, to be wisely taciturn since they are not covered by any privilege in the Council Chamber. It was quite clear from the outset that the Council felt it had taken legal advice and was going to act, whatever the reservations of other counsels, like the New Statesman, might be – as Mr Keith Peter Lucas admitted in answer to my questions. So frankly the discussion appeared to be a fruitless exercise of school ground bullying and I was deeply disappointed by the manner in which you chaired the meeting.

Despite the dignified way in which the RAC Group behaved, at no time did I feel that the rules were being applied even-handedly. A number of other Councillors had made what appeared to me to be libellous or defamatory statements about members of the RAC Group. You, as Chairman of the meeting did not stop those Councillors very personal attacks on the RACG Councillors. Nor, once again, were the Standing Orders fairly or evenly applied. The rules as regards Points of Information, deferring, conferring and the recording of minutes of previous meetings appear to be unilaterally altered when members of the RAC Group wished to participate.

I also note the three RACG Councillors were called ‘corrupt’ by members of the Council at the October meeting and the November meeting. Yet the minutes fail to record these comments. Why? In the October meeting the RAC Group removed themselves from the meeting. The defamatory statements made against them were never properly recorded, or indeed recorded at all, in the minutes. Why? Surely it is only fair to allow them to see what was said in the October meeting of the full Council meeting? I do hope that the minutes are better kept for the meeting of 10th January. I certainly heard them being called ‘Liars’ and a bastardised and inaccurate version of a court case Mr Gale won twenty years ago against RCC being peddled by another Councillor.

Both Cllrs Gale and Richardson wanted to make points of information in the meeting. In the past points of information have been made in open session to the full meeting. Why did you demand they were made privately to you this time?

The Bevan Brittan solicitor, sitting oddly on the top table, then joined the discussion with Cllr Gale. Keith Peter Lucas is supposedly a local government expert; should he not have known he was not an employee of RCC and have sat elsewhere. Surely you know Mr Lucas wasn’t an employee but a consultant and should therefore have been sitting to one side? How had the Standing Orders changed to make points of information a matter for private discussion with you involving consultants?

At the meeting on 10th January you first stated that Cllr Walters could not ask the RAC Councillors a question and then, with little or no explanation you agreed he could. You asked Cllrs Gale and Richardson to come up and see you privately. You then ruled that they should take the bait being dangled before them and answer the question put by Cllr Walters. What made you change your mind?

When Cllr Gale asked to defer to Cllr Richardson you ruled that he could not. Then when Cllr Gale asked if he could confer with his colleague you ruled that he could not do that either. Yet you allow Cllr Begy to defer to Cllr King several times in the meetings. You also allowed, without demur, Mrs Briggs to defer to Keith Peter Lucas to answer my question. Why? What Standing Orders were you following to reach two diametrically opposed rulings?

Do you not think that perhaps an apology is due from you to the three RACG Councillors for your failure to stop personal and defamatory assaults, and for the uneven application of Standing Orders and recording of meetings?

I have a number of other questions which I should also like answered and enclose them on the attached sheet. If you give the full text the number of the rule or Standing Order and place where it is to be found, so that I can verify it, that would be wonderful. Due to the hacking I have suffered my access to the internet is very limited. I am also told that the RCC website is impossible to navigate.

Yours sincerely

Questions to The Chairman of RCC, Mr Parsons

1. What in the Standing Orders gave you the authority to neither allow the RAC Group to defer nor confer? I have already noted, in my letter, that whatever rule you were acting under did not apply to others in the Council Chamber. What Standing Orders, precisely, and in full, were you following when you took these different decisions?

2. Both Cllrs Gale and Richardson wanted to make points of information in the meeting. In the past points of information have been made in open session to the full meeting. Why did you demand they were made privately to you?

3. The Bevan Brittan solicitor, sitting oddly on the top table, then joined the discussion with Cllr Gale. Keith Peter Lucas is supposedly a local government expert; should he not have known he was not an employee of RCC and should he not have sat elsewhere?

4. Surely you know Mr Lucas wasn’t an employee but a consultant and should therefore have been sitting to one side? How had the Standing Orders changed to make points of information a matter for private discussion with you involving consultants?

5. I also note the three RACG Councillors were called ‘corrupt’ by members of the Council at the October meeting and the November meeting. Yet the minutes fail to record these libellous comments. Why?

6. You allowed Messrs Begy, King and Baines to over-run substantially on the allotted time of 5 minutes, yet did nothing to cut them off. Why? Will the minutes reflect the amount of time which Councillors over-ran their allotted time? Do you not consider it an unforgivable lapse on your part that they were allowed to continue speaking well after their allotted time?

7. I feel that had some of the statements made, both on 10th January and in the October and November meetings been made against fellow councillors by Cllrs Wainwright, Gale and Richardson and directed at their fellow Councillors then you would have asked for them to be retracted and RCC would be suing for libel and defamation with enthusiasm and alacrity. The minutes would have shown the comments made in October and November in full had the RACG made them. Since, as Chairman of the meeting, these are your minutes, should you not perhaps be more vigilant and even-handed in the production of your minutes?

8. Will the minutes of 10th January reflect the way in which Councillors spoke against Cllrs Richardson, Wainwright and Gale? Among others Mr Baines first very personal attack was noted by the man sitting next to me and frankly if those comments are not in the minutes this time it will bring the processes of RCC recordings and production of minutes of meetings into some disrepute. Are you aware that as Chairman the minutes of the meetings are within your aegis and area of control and responsibility?

9. If Councillors are under personal attack by the rest of the Council should they not be given extra time to defend their position?

10. The sole intention of this meeting was to test and use the Localism Act to prevent opposition Councillors voicing their opinions and asking questions in opposition. Frankly 22 FOI questions since May 2011 does not seem unduly excessive. Can you tell me what number of questions other opposition groups have asked on other Councils? Let’s say Haringay, Islington, Yorkshire, Liverpool and Newcastle could be used for comparison purposes. If your interpretation of the Localism Act is allowed to stand it will gag every opposition group in the country. Surely such gagging legislation cannot be right in a democratic society? Will you seek proper direction from the Minister responsible for this portfolio and his civil servants if this was their intention in bringing in the Localism Act?

11. Will you seek to let all members know, without exception, that the Standing Orders will be applied in an even-handed manner in future?

12. The questions I asked at the meeting on 10th January were not properly answered. A degree of obfuscation was evident. Do I have to resort to asking them once again under FOI conditions to get clearer answers?

13. Will you admit your serious lapses at previous council meetings and make a full apology to RACG Councillors in writing, as I have done to you?

The death of Council Employee, Aman Mehra, Helen Briggs and Rutland Anti Corruption Party

The death of Council Employee, Aman Mehra, Helen Briggs and Rutland Anti Corruption Party

Oh! Scandals

Oakham Town Council pays £2000 for this circle of grit

Oakham Town Council pays £2000 for this circle of grit

The circle of grit/stones was put down at Royce Recreation Grounds
after a resident complain the entrance to the play area was muddy.

The Town Clerk said there was some spare so the contractor
spread it over the outside path which he believes belongs
to Spire Homes.

This is a typical example of how in these difficult times Oakham
Town Council does not worry how it spends tax payers money.

Security Padlock with built in Alarm, Oakham Police

Oakham Police have a heavy duty padlock on sale at Oakham
Police Station.

The  padlock has a built in alarm which is activated by movement.

It is ideal for fuel tank cap and shed doors.

The cost is less than £10

Oakham Town Clerk Buys more ugly signs for Royce Recreation Ground, Oakham, Rutland

Oakham Town Clerk Buys more ugly signs for  Royce Recreation Ground, Oakham, Rutland

Cllr Joyce Lucas said the recent expenditure was a waste  of money.

Oakham Town clerk Wastes Thousands On Two New Benches at Royce Recreation Ground, Oakham, Rutland

Oakham Town clerk Wastes Thousands On Two New  Benches at Royce Recreation Ground, Oakham, Rutland.

The Clerk decided to add to the many benches that are already available for the public to use.

Cllr Joyce Lucas had a moment and suggested the expenditure was a waste of money.

Interestingly at a recent audit of one of the councils worst play areas, neglected for years, Willow Brook
the only recommendation he has made is some tree works?

Disabled Access into the New Royce Recreation Ground Play area to be rectified by Oakham Town Council

Disabled  Access into the New Royce Recreation Ground Play area to be rectified by Oakham Town Council

Oakham Town Council borrowed £50,000 for a super new playground last year, it contains  play equipment
for disabled children  and those who use wheel chairs, if they can get in to use it.

When the gate was installed it was hung on the wrong side.

The council says the path will be widened so that wheel chair users don't get stuck in the mud.

I raised the issue of the spring on the gate, It close very quickly, I watched mothers struggling
with push chairs, So I can only imagine the difficulty a young person in a wheel chair would suffer.

Valentine's Crafty Supper, Buttercross House, Oakham, Rutland

Valentine's Day at Buttercross House 2013

Valentine's Crafty Supper
Thursday 14th February
Fancy something a little different this Valentine's Day? Join us at Buttercross House for a Crafty Supper!
We will transform out lovely shop in to a beautiful dining area, serving delicious food and providing handmade entertainment.
Four tasty courses plus coffee and chocolates and fun, easy, mini craft projects to take home, made by you!
Char grilled Vegetable Salad
Cannellini Bean Puree, Basil Oil & Parmesan Croutons


Warm Spinach & King Prawn Tartlet


Breast of Chicken
Oyster & Shitake Mushroom Tagliatelle


Chocolate Sharing Plate


Coffee & Chocolates

£28.00 per person

We don't have a licence so bring your own booze! No corkage fee.
To book a table please contact Sarah on 01572 755597 or
We also have lots of lovely Valentine's gifts in stock. Hand poured candles, beautiful books, hand crafted jewelry, the list goes on!
Not forgetting beautiful handmade cards and gift wrap. Pop in to the shop to have a look!
'Like' Buttercross House on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter @ButtercrossHous for more updates and photos.

any jobs in Oakham (within 10 miles) 31st January 2013

any jobs in Oakham (within 10 miles) 31st January 2013

OSR Recruitment  2 reviews - Wymondham
Must be available for shift work Monday to Friday. Due to the volume of applications we receive on a daily basis, if you haven’t heard from us within 4 working... £6.19 - £6.39 an hour
Easily apply to this job
OSR Recruitment - 11:16

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Oakham
You will the first point of call when clients ring the office. Administration experience to a high standard. Good communicator.... £8 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:26

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust - Wing
Gary Slevin on 07958464195 or Sharon French on 07932821924. Therefore, if you intend to apply for this post, you are advised not to delay submitting your... £14,153 - £17,253 a year
NHS Jobs - 16:10

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
IMMEDIATE START CNC PROGRAMMER/OPERATOR MELTON MOWBRAY £25k £35kDependant upon experienceMy client in Leicester is seeking a CNC Programmer on a temporary or... £25,000 - £35,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 14:03

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Oakham
We need you to be a talented recruiter with proven success within a fast paced recruiting environment. Ideally you will have proven experience within an... £20,000 - £28,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 14:11

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
You will be a key user of the internal HR system providing any help and guidance for staff, updating processes and personnel files. within an HR environment.... £9 - £10 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:37

JobsToday (Peterborough) Enhanced - Rutland
An excellent opportunity to work at Uppingham School, founded in 1584, one of Britain's leading co-educational independent boarding schools....
Jobsite UK - 14:44

JT Recruit LTD - Melton Mowbray
You will be dealing with manufacturers and suppliers on a daily basis. The successful candidate will be enthusiastic and self-motivated, a team player with good... £6.50 - £8.00 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 14:10

We are currently seeking an experienced Team Leader to join our client on a temp to perm basis. Own transport is desirable due to location.... £7.50 - £8.00 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:47

You will be assisting duct fitters/erectors on a commercial site. To apply please contact Jordan Dack directly. 50 per week Monday to Friday 7.30am - 5.30pm.... £7.25 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:32

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
Someone who can motivate the team to exceed themselves and meet targets. The role itself will be based within an abattoir so it would involve the loading of... £8 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 14:14

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
Our client based in the Melton Mowbray area, around a 30 minute drive from Leicester, have come to us with a requirement for a Logistics Planner to join their... £15,000 - £16,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:32

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Oakham
£32,000 to £40,000 Contributory PensionAlternative Titles Electronics Engineer, Design Engineer, PCB Engineer, design for manufacture, Hardware Design Engineer,... £32,000 - £40,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 14:05

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
Maufacturing Company in Melton Mowbray require Team LeaderEffective resource planning of required products for all cells 25/30 staff in respect of labour,... £18,000 - £20,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:27

Barker Ross Recruitment - Oakham
Barker Ross are currently searching for a Gang of 4 Concrete finishers to work on a job in the Leicestershire area for a local contractor.... £10 - £11 an hour
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:46

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
A Qualified Teacher with Social and Emotional Behavioural Difficulties experience is required by a SEN School in the area.... £110 - £160 a day
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:35

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
A fantastic SEN School requires a TeamTeach trained LSA to work with a child with Autism on a one to one basis this is a fantastic School, with a friendly and... £45 - £60 a day
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 13:35

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Oakham
Excellent opportunity for a technically competent and influential HR Manager to join a growing and successful business.... £45,000 - £48,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:35

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
Laboratory Team Leader Leicestershire to £39,000Research Scientist with management experience wanted for a pivotal role in this global centre for scientific... £34,000 - £39,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:26

CV Library (Job Warehouse Only) - Melton Mowbray
Project Engineer FMCG Food £34 £39k LeicestershireEngineer a new career with this leading blue chip Experienced, talented and ambitious Control Engineers,... £34,000 - £39,000 a year
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 7:26

This vacancy was placed on - Melton Mowbray
Ambition and determination. Eagerness to Learn and work hard. A burning desire to achieve an excellent income....
Jobs Today - 19-Jan

Castlebeck - Melton Mowbray
To encourage the service users to develop and maintain skills. Complete and maintain all relevant documentation. 22 days annual leave plus bank holidays.... £14,731 - £17,776 a year
Castlebeck - 17-Jan

Premier Inn - Corby
Premier inn are looking for a cluster maintenance team member to provide basic maintenance on 3 sites corby/kettering/market harborough, all tools are provided....
Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch - 15-Jan

Oakham Town Council Planning Meeting Report 30th January 2013

Oakham Town Council
Victoria Hall, 39 High Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6AH
Telephone: 01572 723627      



APOLOGIES - were received for absence and accepted Cllr Guthrie


Members are asked to declare, if required:

(i) Any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest they may have in respect to items on the agenda
(ii) Any other interest they may have in respect to items on the agenda
Members are also reminded to inform the Clerk of any changes in their Register of Members’

John Nowell declared item 8 (i)
Alf Dewis declared item 8 (i) both connected to The Oakham Town Partnership

3. MINUTES  (Appendix A)

Cllrs confirmed the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Parks Committee held on
Wednesday November 28th 2012

none were asked

no members reports 

6. CLERK’S REPORT – For information only
To receive a report from the Clerk

A very short report saying the path to the new children's play area at Royce Recreation Ground will be altered for disabled access, due to the gate  being fitted the wrong way.


I gave a deputation about the wrong town partnership signs.

I then mentioned my concerns regarding the Horse Shoe Pub and loop wholes in planning law highlighted by CAMERA.

I also asked if the council would consider asking Jeakins Wear to improve the screening of their proposed site. 

To consider the following applications received to date and to make recommendations
or observations thereon to Rutland County Council:

(i) APP/2012/0849/NT (ADV)           Cllr John Nowell, Oakham Town Partnership
Erection of 1 No. Information Board (2m x 1m) 1 metre above ground level
Land near Junction of Hambleton Lane and Stamford Road

A photograph was handed around to councillors and the application was approved

(ii) APP/2012/0932/EZE (HSE) Mr L Nguyen
Construction of a single storey side extension to the north elevation of the
dwellinghouse and garage conversion
1 Don Close

Councillors rejected this application saying the plans were incomplete referring to a window not mentioned in the plans submitted.

(iii) APP/2012/0944/EZE (HSE) Mr B Jolly
Construction of a bay window extension to the side (east) elevation of the
dwellinghouse.  Reposition of 1.8 metre fence to match existing fence to the side (east)
of the dwellinghouse
1 Tabberer Close


(iv) APP/2012/0945/APB (FUL) Mr James Phillips
Proposed extension to front (east) and rear (west) elevation of A4 unit and change
of use at first floor from C3 to A4 classification
The Horseshoe 83 Braunston Road

rejected after comments about future use of property. Cllrs at one point wanted to defer to seek more information, they were reminded they were to consider the plans in front of them and not rumours about future use.

Cllr Lucas pointed out Mr Birches lives next door? and the extension was to big.

the application was rejected because it was to big for a pub and a pub that was already struggling

(v) APP/2012/0947/APB (PTA) Mr Kenneth Beaton
Fell 1 No. Lime tree
8 Stamford Road

Cllr Lucas complimented the author of the tree report the best she had ever seen for a tree.

It was then proposed the  tree was cut down an d replaced with a Oak Tree, Cllr Dodds woke up and objected to the resident being told to plant a Oak tree. at this point  Cllr lucas showed her true colours and
attacked Cllr Dodds and went on and on about it was the resident who suggested a Oak tree was planted.

The issue here is both Councillors hate each other and Cllr Dodds does not read any council documents
if she did she would not lay herself open to attack by the awful Councillor Lucas.

(vi) APP/2013/0016/DTR (LBA) Mr Lewis Hopcroft/RCC
Construction of steel fire escape following removal of existing.  Alterations to 2
nd Floor doorway with associated groundworks
Catmose House, Catmose Street


(vii) APP/2013/0004/HN (MAJR) Jeakins Weir Ltd
Proposed housing development and associated works including provision of access  
onto Uppingham Road
Land West of Uppingham Road

Although one can not predict the outcome of this application before it comes before Rutland County Council

You would expect Oakham Town Council to put forward some comment.

Last night they had that opportunity and they rejected it.

Once again this highlights the pointless purpose of this council.

We all know the outline planning application ended up at appeal and Jeakins Weir Ltd won

The appeal costs to residents and the County Council was a fortune.

So I assume it is highly unlikely that the full application will not be turned down.

The full application gave the Town Council a chance to comment on the plans and requests modification if needed.

They chose not to do any of that. One plan was displayed on the screen and the Clerk said this was a low density build considering the size of the site. No other details relating to the plans were shown.

Cllr Charles Haworth foolishly suggested that the planning application had been taken out of their hands by the planning inspectorate and for that reason, he proposed the council ignored the application and made no comment.

That proposal fell.

The Clerk was then questioned by Cllr Maureen Dodds who asked on what grounds did we reject the outline plans in 2010?  The Clerk responded I don't know.

Cllr Lockett then proposed the council should refuse the application for the same reasons they gave in 2010.

This was approved despite most of those reason being proved to be unlawful at the planning inspectorates appeal.

If Jeakins Wear had been present at the meeting I think they would have departed with a smile on their face.

This Town Council has no interest in the concerns of residents and their handling of this application showed 
them as the fools they are.

There was one councillor who made a attempt to include a comment regarding the screening of the site, Cllr Jayne Woodcock was told she was to late to include that comment before the second proposal was tabled and accepted.

It is my view Oakham Town Council failed to consider this application in accordance with planning laws.

And as a resident I feel the councils handling of this application marked major, was a disgrace

(viii) APP/2013/0013/APB (HSE) Alan Cushing
Construction of garage following demolition of existing.
Construction of a single storey rear extension to the west elevation of the dwellinghouse
171 Brooke Road

Approved  Subject to the next door neighbour not losing light a request from Cllr Dewis.