Monday, 31 May 2010
Oakham Town Council Town Clerk Richard White
Richard White’s letter, with my comments in red
To Assist the staffing committee before they meet on Thursday. Interestingly the notice appeared in the notice board Saturday. It is still not 3 clear working days notice of a meeting, as required by the Act, but nether mind, those sorts of rules don’t apply to Oakham Town Council.
I wish to publish the following response to Mr White’s Letter. I apologise if it seems a little too long, but I have included the text from Mr Whites letter.
Addressed to Cllr Mrs Sharon Spencer Chairman of Oakham Town Council.
I believe it is in the public interest to make this letter and my comments public. Particularly since I believe that this complaint is yet another tactic devised to make it impossible to be a truly representative Councillor. The use of The Town Clerk’s allegation of bullying against me is, I believe, being used to bully, harass and intimidate me and ensure that I am unable to be a representative Councillor.
It is disgraceful that this man, who earns around £30,000 of tax payers’ money is behaving in this manner and now holds members responsible for his toilets of £15,000 over the contract for the new public loos, by suggesting it is The Town Council’s fault for not asking him to arrange a contract between Oakham Town Council and Rutland County Council District Council.
I have nothing to lose from this sorry episode and would rather be serving the public and not fighting silly battles dreamt up by Town Council members past and present, just because they choose not to like me and support the Town Clerk’s incompetence. Whether it’s when he forgets to ask for an extension from RCC planning, so we can consider a planning application for the one he forgot to show us at a previous planning meeting, or speaking to the BBC with out the Council’s consent, not to forgetting when he decided not to show us a consultation document from Rutland County Council. In that case he had to ask for a time extension and at the end of it I saw the biggest load of rubbish included in the RCC cabinet agenda, which raised serious questions about the competence of both the Town Council and the Town Clerk.
If my actions show the farce this council is then perhaps I am doing a great public service, since we have tolerated incompetence for far too long. After the Tesco meeting on 26th May ‘farce’ has been used by the public to describe the proceedings of the Town Council’s meeting.
Below is a copy of a letter from the Town Clerk dated 18th May 2010. Yet oddly the Council had discussed his bullying allegation against me on 5th May.
18th May 2010
Dear Sharon,
Private and confidential and without prejudice
Following my initial letter to the then chairman of the Council, Cllr Mrs Jan Fillingham, stating my grievance against Cllr Brookes, I would like to add the details. These are to be distributed to members of the Grievance Panel only if necessary as you are aware I stated that I would be prepared to enter into a conciliation process to try and resolve the issue. I would also like a copy forwarded to Cllr Brookes so he is aware of the issues.
This explains why I have not received a copy of the original letter or does it? Despite repeated requests I have yet to receive the original letter from the Town Clerk to Mrs Fillingham. I wonder if Cllr Fillingham might be keeping it under her vodka bottle at home.
I also agreed to conciliation by ACAS or Mr White’s Union, if needed, but I have since been told by Cllr Sharon Spencer hat the Council can not afford the fees and does not want this issue to go as far as Mr Whites union. What do they want? I don’t think Mr White would have a leg to stand on if he tried to sue the Town Council. The Town Council, many of whom have launched very personal attacks on me appear to want the Council’s staffing committee to deal with a matter they are clearly not qualified to deal with by reason of their continued personal harassment against me.
He then goes on to say: I apologise for the fact that this has taken some time to get to you but it is only now that I have felt capable of visiting the various online posts that caused me to be signed off work
Oh dear, at least I did not refer to him as a Fuckwit as ‘Lardboy,’ aka Cllr Haworth, referred to me in his Chat Forum. I have also been subjected to other tasteless abuse and constant ridicule and bullying over the past year by Tim Humphrey’s forum members. He is the son of an ex-Councillor and then there was Doris Cook, Community Street Warden, employed by Melton Borough Council, who said they would investigate but have not done so. It seems it is acceptable for a person in that role to wish people were dead and the only reason they are ‘still alive is because it is illegal to kill them.’ Ex-Cllr’s Kelly and Beech have both been bullies and thugs and not forgetting ex-Cllr Mr Harrison involvement and his very recent Blog he is a very nasty man who has the press on his side as a freelance photographer for the local paper! (see www.helepender.blogspot.com) I complained about him when he was a Councillor last year and RCC Standards did nothing, he provided edited photographs of me so the forum could bully and ridicule me. I was a member of the public at the time and just because I made a complaint against the then drunk of a mayor, drinking in Cutts Close after she had bragged that she had been instrumental in making Cutts Close a ‘Designated Area’ and banned drinking in the Park! He said sorry when he was caught and it was finally proven without any doubt that it was him. His blog now proves what an empty apology that was
Mr White then goes on to The grievance relates to the following posts made online by Cllr Brookes since his election as a Town Councillor.
Saturday March 20th 2010
The blog is titled “Oakham Town Council resignations”
Cllr Brookes states that “the Town Clerk is fully aware of those involved, these people have bullied him to the extent he accuses me of bringing misery to Oakham families last week….etc”.
I have no idea who is involved in an online chat forum that contained a number of offensive messages directed at Mr Brookes as he was when these messages appeared. Cllr Brookes has been repeatedly told this but continues to believe that I was somehow involved. I would also like to state that, up until now, I have never felt that I have been bullied by any member of the Town Council, past or present or by any other person.
I have never accused Cllr Brookes of bringing misery to families. However, I did point out to him that a post he made containing completely wrong information relating to the wife of a well respected member of the community had caused them both considerable distress the blog was subsequently removed.
I often visited Mr White regarding the Rutland Chat Forum posts as a member of the public and then as a Councillor to discuss the Planet Neptune Blog. This was set up by Tim Humphreys after I exposed his members on my blog in the hope of shutting the sick vile nasty people up. Mr White would state: “Leave it with me,” many times. Posts I objected to were very quickly removed after my visits, so it is not surprising I suggest Mr White is involved. Also the failure of Oakham Town Council to respond to my freedom of information request is very clear he knows more than he admits. If the Council had done their statutory duty and provided me with copies of correspondence and emails referring to me then I might have been able to ascertain what the real state of affairs is. That they have not done so is a breach of the law. As for the Town Clerk’s denial of bullying that is his view. But it is my view he is, or was, being bullied or at the very least manipulated by ex-Councillors. My publishing this view does not mean I am bullying Mr White. I have been subjected to bullying from ex Cllr’s Beech, Kelly and Harrison and when I am told by Mr White, before the first meeting I attended, Mr Beech had popped in and asked him what he is going to do get rid of Cllr Brookes, it is hardly surprising. I believe Mr White is being bullied or manipulated by this man. He also warned me to watch out for Mr Beech at the meeting because Mr Beech had complained about five members of the Council for talking to during a presentation he made to obtain £12,000 from the council for a new boys’ club. I am pleased the council turned this application down because they did decide without a vote not to pay any grants to any organisation except Oakham in Bloom and The Carnival in which they hold a considerable interest. Also Mr White falsely accused me after my election of writing a false letter written by Nick and published in the Rutland times with no checks by the paper had brought misery to a lot of families in Oakham. He obviously denies this as he does not want to become an outcast like some of the ex Councillors feel now. I refer to bully Harrison’s email when he says just that. The history of Oakham town council shows this to be true the families or ‘firm?’ has always consisted of a very few rotten Conservative families who have always bullied people. I can only suggest it due to the bullying they were subjected to as part of their military careers. As W H Auden said: ‘those to whom evil is done do evil in return.’ I am surprised our MP puts up with them no wonder he flew out the country last week to take up his new job
As for my post containing the wrong info that was removed, this after I found the information received from a member of the public was wrong, I now wonder if I was deliberately misled? I met the people mentioned and also said sorry for my post. I understand when this man was the Town Clerk he was the last qualified person to do the job well, maybe he can come back and help us out?
He further states “I am locked out of the office”. This is absolute nonsense as Cllr Brookes is a frequent visitor and is given considerable amounts of my time to discuss various issues.
Now did I imagine the lock that is newly fitted to the office door from the Council Chamber? Each time I visit the chamber it is locked! and if I visit the reception the internal office door is shut in my face. No, I don’t think so and If I remember correctly at the planning meeting Cllr Joyce Lucas said the public did not need to know about my restricted access to the offices, even though this affects me carrying out my duties. So I don’t think I have imagined it.
Just like I imagine Mr White frequently told me I should keep my head down because some people would like to shoot it off!
He then goes onto
Friday 26th March 2010
The Blog is tilted “Oakham Town Council”
In this blog Cllr Brookes states that I told him to do as he was told and that British law does not govern what happens in the Council chamber. I completely deny making that statement.
As Mandy Rice Davis said: ‘Well he would say that wouldn’t he.’ Of course he does, he needs reminding I was objecting to the new notices asking the public not to pass notes to Councillors during meetings and the threat of exclusion of any councillor who accepted a note from a person they serve during a meeting. This had not been decided at full council and was yet another example of the Oakham Town Club he runs.
then he goes onto
Monday 29th March 2010
The blog titled “Oakham Bandstand”
This blog relates to the contract for the renovations of Oakham bandstand Cllr Brookes states that “members will remember the Town Clerk reporting this tile was no longer manufactured”
This is completely incorrect.
I said that the pitch of the roof was to shallow for the existing tiles. Members had been informed that the Conservation Officer had stated that he would not allow the pitch of the roof to be increased.
The statement about the conservation officer is completely true. This is why we were given no choice and had to go with the high priced cedar tiles. I can clearly remember asking why we could not use the same tiles in a cheaper option and being told they could not be purchased, this is why I waited to obtain a sample and went to the trouble of finding a quote?
And he goes on
Wednesday 7th April
The blog is titled “Oakham Town Council”
Cllr Brookes has asked a number of questions relating to the Council’s accounts. As e-mails show, I made an effort to explain some points to Cllr Brookes prior to the meeting. The questions were subsequently answered fully at the meeting anyway. The posting made by Cllr Brookes in which he states that he had shown my responses to “an experienced London accountant “ who described the responses as “shocking” is almost beyond belief. The fact that a genuine attempt to provide further information to a councillor was then passed on to a third party (the “ experienced London accountant” who is, unsurprisingly, not named) and that their response was then made public caused considerable distress prior to a full meeting of the Council.
I believe that in this case Cllr Brookes abused his position as a Councillor by passing my responses on which he would not have got if he was not a Councillor in the first place.
This is very shocking because in this statement Mr White suggests? he would not answer questions relating to public accounts. If a member of the public exercised their right to ask questions relating to the accounts.
The role of a Councillor is to scrutinise accounts on behalf of the public he represents. If I need informal expert opinion to do so that is surely acceptable? The accountant mentioned that he has letters after his name, unlike Mr White. I left those letters for Mr White to see so that he could see the accountant was fully qualified to make his assumption. Approaching a third party as a person who is eminently qualified does not abuse my position as a councillor, in fact it enhances it! I did not give his name because I had not been able to seek his consent as he was rather busy working at Scotland Yard at the time. Mr White appears to spend a great deal of his day looking at my blog and calling people and moaning. I question the need to have my blog and facebook forum page listed favourites on his office PC. If the Council require I can provide the following information how many times a user of that PC has visited my Blog and forum and how long is spent viewing the stats tools are wonderful we could provide them to a tribunal if needed the constant uses of the Tax payer’s money for this purpose is surely gross misconduct and would be in any other company.
Now I guess the council will purchase software to bock the IP address and provider info. Something ex Cllr Beech should have done!)
And he keeps going on
Monday 12th April 2010
This blog is headed “Oakham Town Council Clerk decides all Council matters are now private and confidential.”
This stems from a long conversation in the Town Council offices during which I expressed concern that anything that was discussed with Cllr Brookes would subsequently appear on his blog.
This does not justify everything should be marked in such a way. Also this shows clearly the disrespectful way in which Mr White speaks to me. Of course I have lodged complaints and absolutely no action has been taken. This blog is the only way to resolve issues, all other avenues having proved fruitless.
He than goes on to say
As members are aware the universal marking of all communications as “Private and Confidential” has not happened.
I am pleased he chose the sensible option although they thought to do it in the first place clearly shows they preferred secretive nature of Oakham Town Council. He did start this scheme with the draft letter to the Rutland Times. When he completely messed up the Cottesmore issue. By speaking to the BBC and they blamed us for the cancellation of the Cottesmore closure protest march. That has caused the council more damage than any of my blogging.
He then says The blog continues “As we all know when the press and public were kicked out of the meeting to discuss the bandstand, the Clerk then informed us, but not the press and public, that they could apply for the information under the Freedom or Information Act”
It is down to members as to whether the press and public are excluded and to say they were “kicked out” is a complete misrepresentation of the process involved
So how is this bullying the Clerk this my view of events. The exclusion the public who wanted to stay was unnecessary.
He continues: ‘The issue relating to disclosure of such material was detailed in a report earlier in the meeting.
This part of the meeting was public and that report is also in the minutes of the meeting.’
(this report was circulated to the public and minutes are only made public some weeks later)
It followed a seminar at the Practitioner’s Conference I attended in which it was stated that information relating to contracts could be considered privately but might also have to be disclosed under FOI. I relayed this to the meeting and also that information Commissioner’s Office would be asked for guidance as to whether the material could be released if any such request was received.
(So what is the problem? I let the public know the Council may be forced to be open! In my experience FOI requests are ignored by OTC.)
This is next section is most annoying the Town Clerk should know, he has a legal responsibility to ensure contracts are in place for any building project and to suggest the Councillors are to blame is pure incompetence. It is commonly known it is the Town Clerk’s role to implement contracts and not councillors. I suggest Mr White consults the National Association of Local Councils. His failure to implement a contract is gross misconduct and I suggest this is grounds to ask for Mr White’s resignation, It is also interesting to read the person employed by RCC is absent from work. Is Mr White not breaching this man’s confidential status by letting us know he is off? Or do we only have to take into account Mr White’s sensitivity on this sort of matter?
He says The blog continues, “private and confidential should not be used as in the case to cover up a loss of £15,000 of public money, because the Town Clerk did not check contracts correctly”
This relates to a communication sent out, which was marked Private and Confidential, regarding an invoice received from Rutland County Council for £55,00 as the Town Council’s contribution to the construction of the new toilet facility.
I think the Tax payer may not be aware although the Town paid half the cost and now lease the whole toilet block from RCC, pay full business rates and the full cleaning bills.
He then states Longer standing members were aware that this was not the sum agreed with RCC and that at no point subsequently had Oakham Town Council received any notification that its contribution would be increased.
(I think common sense should tell Mr White a builder’s quote would not be valid for 3 years)
Members were informed that the invoice had been queried . Due to the fact that both I and the relevant officer at Rutland County Council have been absent from work the issue is still under investigation.
(A lot of them are often absent)
(Here comes the most shocking part)
I have not been able to check contracts for the simple reason that the Council never requested one.
(for this reason alone the clerk should resign and Oakham Town Council should not pay this invoice. It shows the total lack of concern to protect Council Tax Payers’ money. If there is no contract between OTC and RCC then we cannot pay the money let alone the extra £15,000. I would also like to know how the council members approved the work with no contract in place. They should also resign or is it case of: ‘Oh it only £55,000 of Tax payers money it does not matter where it is spent.’
And there is more
Monday 26th April
The Blog titled “Oakham Town Councillor’s question for the next meeting”
In this Cllr Brookes states that my pay rise is “disgustingly high” This phrase has subsequently been repeated with the additional statement that I have been awarded a 10% pay rise. This is completely untrue. Members agreed to a one point incremental increase as per my contract following a recommendation by the Staffing Committee.
(A staffing committee made up his friends at the time mainly ex Cllr’s and now of course Cllr Dewis as Chairman. Mr White has never explained his contract nor has any other member of the council explained it to me just like the assistant clerks, I am excluded from any of its content. As an elected Councillor I am entitled to this information this right is ignored, so I blog it. As for the 10% pay rise that was a rough guess after looking at the schedule of payments in the accounts that can be inspected by the public at anytime. Up to the 15th March the Clerk was paid each month £2,040.47 after this he is paid considerably more. If the amount of increase was 10% it would be around £2,244.51 the actual payment is considerably higher. If one is excluded from information, which one should have access to, then the only way to make that deficit of information good is to blog and try to get the information by other means. The new take home pay is greater than 10% so perhaps to say it is disgusting is not OTT. Particularly when we have people losing their jobs and homes at a time when the increasingly poorer tax payer is expected to foot this wage bill. This is Oakham, with a population of 10,000, not a city. My calculator suggests the take home pay has increased to 25% +). However without being given access to the information I cannot find out what the local tax payer is paying.
(A member of the public thought we were paying Mr White to have an extended holiday over the last month they told me he had tree surgeons kill all the trees in his garden and he has worked hard renovating the whole garden. The Saturday I called around to see Mr White he was happy to speak to me about the bandstand site break in after Cllr Dewis told me he was not interested in the breaking and entering of the bandstand site. I, reluctantly, thought the matter was serious enough to speak to Mr White, he told me it was O.K. to speak to him outside work. I find this strange. If he is stressed because of me why would this be OK outside work but not at work. Unless of course the Town Clerk’s allegation against me is something he is being reluctantly encouraged to make to meet a political agenda. I feel Mr White is supporting Cllr Dewis and his thugs with his campaign of bullying against me. Mr White needs to get on with the job he is paid to do and not involve himself with the Conservatives who largely make up the Town Council. As Ms May observed, this does tend to be the ‘nasty Party.’ I have no political allegiances and am truly independent.
When this was approved Cllr Brookes was not yet a member of the Council. My contract of employment was explained to Cllr Brookes at some length when he called into the Town Council offices. This information was given freely because Cllr Brookes is a member of the Council and such is my employer.
(this line is important because Mr White has always denied that I was his employer)
The information would not have been given to a member of the public. So why does he then feel that it is appropriate for such a private document to be discussed in such a public manner?
(I have never seen Mr Whites Contract of Employment and to be fair, until last week I have never requested to see it, although I would like to know precisely what he is being paid. Although it does not surprise me he does not want the public to see his contract. After he told me about his pension arrangements, The Local Government Act only permits Councils to contribute into the local government pension schemes, Mr White chose not to join this scheme, it is illegal for the Town Council to pay into a private scheme so they give Mr White a payment to cover this ‘loss,’ in his own words, the figure is around £5,000 a year. Mr Pook at RCC Legal Department says this may not be wrong. If that is the case I suggest anyone who is lucky enough to have a company pension scheme these days asks their employer to stop paying into to it and pay them the money instead, I don’t think you will get much joy there. Maybe RCC staff should give it a try.)
Once again, this is an example of Cllr Brookes abusing his position as a councillor and also disclosing confidential information.
(how is that so I have not been shown any confidential documents so I have not abused my position as a Councillor. I share the pension matter as I believe it is in the tax payers’ interest to expose this illegal use of tax payer’s money. This anomalous state of affairs regarding Richard White’s pension is specifically precluded by legislation, notwithstanding Mr Pook’s rather hazy direction. Perhaps we should also take a closer look at his expenses. I notice from the schedule of payments these can be as much as I have to live on as a job seeker.)
(How Can Mr White complain about me publishing a question - the very same questions the Council publishes along with answers in its minutes, which are a public document?)
Tuesday 27th April
Cllr Brookes says “The Town Clerk is taking sick leave it is looking highly likely this could be long term” My personal health is a matter between myself and my employers, namely Oakham Town Council and I feel it is completely inappropriate for it to be revealed to the wider public.
Why? Mr White is employed by the public. This complaint against me is not justified, in fact it has elements which are politically inspired by members of the Council who are predominantly Tory. I did not disclose his Medical condition if I had stated he was brain damaged that may have given him reason to complain.
Thursday 29th April
This blog is titled “Oakham Town Council extra meeting”
“it is looking more likely the Town Clerk has taken long term sick route or he has resigned who knows? Not me I am Only a Councillor”
Once more I consider this to be highly inappropriate I contacted the head of legal services at RCC regarding this post. He agreed that the post was not appropriate and contact Cllr Brookes asking for this to be removed.
To my knowledge this was ignored.
(I was not asked to remove the post it was suggest I did not published the clerk’s medical condition as I had not done this I decided the post was O.K. After all I had only posted my speculation based on the agenda content. All other Councillors knew the reason for Mr White’s absence before this meeting, I was only told as I turned up. I have an independent witness who is willing to testify that Cllrs Haworth and Dewis appeared to try to use this complaint in order to ensure I could no longer be a representative Councillor. The Clerk’s complaint had not been investigated, action was being taken against me without disclosing what the Clerk’s complaint was and when I asked at the meeting what the state of the Clerk’s health was I was told that question was not suitable for discussion. So to have an ‘in camera’ meeting, supposedly to protect the Clerk’s privacy was unnecessary, since at no point did the meeting allow discussion of the Clerk’s reason for his absence. At this meeting the six-month rule was broken regarding proposals, by discussing and voting twice on my exclusion from the Council offices, when the first proposal was rejected - (Standing Order 35.) After the second proposal was put by Cllr Dewis and (illegally) passed, Mr Dewis succeeded in obstructing me by restricting my access to the Council office. Cllr Joyce Lucas gave me the most revolting and disgusting kiss after members forced me to sit and listen to them accusing me of being a bully. This kiss came at the end of a meeting in which she had said at the beginning: ‘It’s Councillor Lucas to you, not Joyce.’ Cllr Charles Haworth suggested I could go on and bully the Assistant Clerk Allison Greaves, whom I have a very cordial and friendly relationship with. When I objected by calling him nasty Cllr Dewis tried to call for a vote to exclude me in the same way he shamefully threatened me with a vote of ‘co confidence’ in front of the large group of public who attended the planning meeting last week(26 May).
He then goes onto
The blog is titled “Oakham Town Council Audit”
In this Cllr Brookes states that “I had concerns regarding the award of a £30,000 contract. The contract had only two tenders invited by the Town Clerk both almost the same and one not itemised.”
Oh yes, I remember this my first meeting It was suggested by a member at this meeting I did not raise my concerns so I used my blog and reported that member to standards.
He continues,
As members were, four companies were invited to tender and these companies were approved by Council at a previous meeting. Adverts were also placed in the local press.
(One small advert placed in the Rutland Times, more people read my blog than they do that paper, it’s so bad even I can correct its mistakes)
he goes on the Town Council notice boards and on its website. The council only received two tenders
(The law requires three but then the law does not apply to this council. Surely the parish council ought to have sought another tender?)
The Clerk checked with two other companies invited and they both confirmed that they had received the invitation to tender. That they chose not to tender was a matter for them and not the council.
(I am no expert but does the clerk normally write in the third person? This bears out my conjecture that this letter was written in order to pursue a vendetta against me, rather than address any real concerns of the town clerk. I suggest the Clerk did not write this letter and it is the work of another person with a hidden agenda. Surely the writer would use ‘I’ not ‘the Clerk’)
Anyway he then goes onto a visit I made to his office regarding information I received and he reacted in a very threatening if not disturbing manner.
Cllr Brookes continues, “After this I received an e-mail from a member of the public. I have shared this with the Town clerk. He is very angry and on three times he has demanded I give him details of the sender (once in his words, I am asking nicely). It is clear the author of the e-mail knows the Town Clerk, the Town Clerk’s over reaction suggests to me he has something to hide”
(the next section I will leave out because it contains details of Mr White’s personal family background and this is not about Mr White’s family. I will stress I refused to give the details of the sender because it could have been a made up name, could have been deliberately sent to me as false information, which I needed to check or an innocent person could have been subjected to the anger of Mr White. As was the case of the respectable family he mentioned earlier in his letter. The person surely does know his family to be able to provide so much detail and history. I did not know anything about them before I had received the e-mail. I often receive emails from the public I can’t act on because they wont give their name and address. Recently I received an email to tell me they can’t understand why Cllr Alf Dewis is homophobic after all his daughter is divorced and apparently bats first on the LGBT wicket, perhaps he objects? I am not saying it’s true. But it could explain his bitterness towards me. If the author of that e-mail is correct)
in summary Mr White goes on to say:
As members are aware I was signed off by my GP for two weeks because of stress at work and returned to work on Monday 17th 2010. This entirely stems from the activities of Cllr Brookes. No other member is implicated. Cllr Brookes is evidently of the view that the role of the Town Clerk is an easy target for his malicious and wilfully incorrect statements. Since his election he has constantly sought to undermine me through his blog and has twisted the truth on many occasions to further this aim.
Cllr Brookes has repeatedly stated that his blog is private yet he continued to post information that was only obtained because of his privileged position as a member of the Oakham Town Council
(I am sorry privileged! This is a joke they won’t even tell me how much the assistant clerk is paid in a private meeting and I am still waiting to receive the requested appendices from the last staffing meeting). Furthermore the Clerk was insistent when very personal attacks were made against me by members of the then Council that their comments on the Chat Forum were conducted in their private capacity.
he goes on This was either through conversations with myself in the office or via e-mails sent to me by members. This is compounded by the fact that his version this information is frequently, as identified above, both misleading and inaccurate and in some case a gross intrusion into my private life.
(that reminds me of the time old mum and dad sorry Cllr’s Dewis and Lucas reprimanded me for holding my birthday party in a gay bar. Although both now deny this Cllr Lucas confirmed to a friend that she had discussed this with me and said: ‘Well - it had to be said.’ I did not realise how bigoted people could be in 2010 now that is a gross intrusion into my private life by Councillors)
Cllr Brookes has also been given a copy of Standards for England’s Guidance on the use of the internet by Councillors. Perhaps he should read it.
(Well to be exact he removed it from a report prepared by Mr Pook attached to a Standard Meeting Agenda and I did read the guidance and I don’t breach anything because the blog is my private blog. I was frequently told, when facing an onslaught of attack by local Councillors and their chums on the Rutland Chat Forum by the Town Clerk that what Councillors published in their private capacity was ‘private.’ There is so much one can do in their private life you can get blind drunk and cause a disturbance outside a night club. Of course my blog could not be considered anything like that sort of behaviour. Mr White always told me the Cllr’s who were members of the forum were acting in their private capacity. These Chat Forum comments were very nasty. Although the Clerk agreed that the content was nasty he told me not to look. So I stopped. The filth and offensive material was then posted on my flickr site and on my new forum. Since I was able to identify at least one Council member they started to behave, except for the hate mail, delivered through my door and porn sent via the mail and on my Flickr site. Cllr Fillingham’s friend then physically assaulted me, Ex Cllr Jim Harrison set up his own blog to attack me. I looked once but don’t bother now so maybe if Mr White does not like my blog then he too should not look at it)
My accusations of bullying stem only from Cllr Brookes online activities and I must state that I have never felt intimidated by Cllr Brookes whilst he is in the office.
(if this is the case why is Cllr Dewis so hell bent on excluding me from the office and obstructing my work as a councillor? He and other councillors often have the freedom of the office. I must say I often feel intimidated after a visit to the office.)
He then goes on to however, it is my view that these very frequent and, occasionally, lengthy visits to the office have obviously been with the ultimate purpose of obtaining information that can be used against me.
(I will use one word to describe that last sentence: ‘paranoia.’ If the Town Clerk were not so busy engaging in games against me with current and ex-councillors he would perhaps have been able to carry out his duties more effectively too.)
I believe that there is a clear and sustained pattern of harassment and bullying online and that it is in clear contravention of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1984 and the various Employment Acts.
(I suggest Mr White contacts his union and stops taking advice from Cllr Alf Dewis. And as his employer I suggest we don’t wish to contravene Mr Whites Health and Safety at Work Act 1984 and we block all access to social networking and blogs on from the Council’s computers. Job Links and the employment service use a very simple piece of software to block access.)
Mr White refers to my aims. Well at least I have some, unlike the council who said they don’t, in answer to one of my recent questions
My aim is stop the council looking like the farce it showed itself to be before the general public on 26th May. Members of the public were so shocked at proceedings which they witnessed in the Council Chamber last week that it was described as a ‘farce’ - their words not mine.
If the Council can’t change then it should go, I have made no secret of that.
The assistant Clerk observed quite kindly the other day that I appear to want to carry out my role as a councillor, but because I get stopped in my tracks I get angry and seem intent on destroying the council. I think that clearly shows my aim. If I can’t carry out my duties to serve my ward then I will seek the abolition of this parish council.
What I find shocking is the hold embedded Councillors seem to have over the community. One resident and trader told me after last week’s meeting (26 May) what a farce it was, ‘I am going to write to the paper, but I have to be careful because, you only have to walk into my shop and I will lose 20 customers.’
I hope the residents of Penn Street and Brook Road do write to the paper with their views and the paper prints them before Cllr Lucas asks Gary not to publish.
Of course they can always send them to me and I can publish them on my blog, they will get more exposure.
Just to finish many thanks to Councillor Lucas for blocking my recent job application. I heard that an email I’d sent applying for a shop manager’s job, on the site of the old public toilets, had never been received by the person in charge of engaging new staff. I was then told that an email had been sent inviting me for interview – that email was never received.
Yes I am getting used to the fact, Cllr Lucas meant what she said to me last year: “You will never work in Rutland”
Just for the public record I don’t get paid a penny for being a Councillor and my sole aim is to protect the council tax payers’ money. Here in Rutland the Council Tax bill is the highest in the England. The people of Oakham entrust this Town Council with its money, not by choice, they pay the highest parish contribution in Rutland. 65% is spent on administration.
This year a budget has been set for Salaries and National Insurance of £48,000. Even if this figure includes the employer’s contributions and The Assistant Clerks Salary the budget is pure fantasy.
Welcome to the Oakham and Rutland News blog! I'm Martin Brookes, your Community Editor, excited to bring you the latest updates from the vibrant heart of Oakham and Rutland. Our new local news website is your go-to source for comprehensive coverage of everything happening in our community. From breaking news and local events to community spotlights and personal reflections, we've got you covered.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Oakham Town Council Staffing Committee
Oakham Town Council Staffing Committee
Snow White (name changed so the Tax payer does not have to pay for anymore days off sick)
Snow White says “My accusations of bullying stem only from Cllr Brookes online activities and I must state I have never felt intimidated by Cllr Brookes whilst he is in the office”
If this is the case why does Cllr Alf Dewis suggest otherwise and ban me from the council office when Snow White is at work?
Is it Because? Cllr Alf Dewis and others are determined to exclude me from council activities.
I can not understand why.
I don’t consider blogging bullying and unlike Snow Whites friends over the past year my blogs have never been personal attacks like those of former Councillors have posted against me. I have complained about those for over a year and Snow White told me not to read them, or leave it with me. So Snow White the answer is simple don’t read mine and don’t waist tax payers money and get on with the job you are highly paid to do. I believe your job alone costs each Oakham Tax payer £3 .
Cllr Dewis and others do not want the Tax Payer to know what a sham the council is!
I think it is a bit late for that the public saw plenty evidence of that at last weeks planning meeting.
Members of the public have approached me to say what a farce the council is and have been very supportive towards me and disapprove in the way I am treated by the Mother and Father of the Council!
Apart from farce spitting image comes up a lot.
This Thursday 3rd June 2010 at 7pm will see another farce. The Staffing Committee meeting chaired by the Cllr Alf Dewis Bully and Thug. He was sacked by RCC for the same behaviour.
This meeting is being held after last weeks meeting was adjourned after Cllr Sharon Spencer objected to the meeting continuing because Cllr Mark Woodcock was absent and other issues, she departed and the committee fell below a quorum.
Although the rules strictly prohibit Councillors seeking or discussing promotion it was very clear members knew Cllr Woodcock would accept the role as Vice Chair.
Cllr Maureen Dodds proposed herself, no one would second her, poor Duchess that is the name I often hear used by other Councillors.
When the meeting continues of Thursday Oakham Town Council Staffing Committee will elect Cllr Mark Woodcock as vice chair.
At Item 5 (i) The Committee will decide to exclude the public and press this is probably a good move because they don’t want to the show the public how foolish they are. (I hope they quote the correct act)
(ii) this one is interesting because they will decide weather to exclude members of the council who are not members of the committee. This means me.
There is no act than can apply to me. I am told I can exclude myself by declaring an interest. As I am not a member of this committee and can not influence the outcome I will be staying as I feel it is in my interest, The Councils actions are preventing me from carrying out my duties effectively.
They claim to have a grievance procedure they don’t I wrote to complain about the bullying Councillor Alf Dewis has subjected me too and my letter has not been acknowledged.
Standing orders state the public has a right to deputations at any of The Councils meetings once again in breach of The Town Councils Standing Orders this item has been removed from the Agenda. A member of the public has asked me why?
I refer to Snow Whites statement Oakham Town Council is like a football club we decided the rules and you obey them! This was said after they tried to ban members of the public passing notes with out a full vote.
Snow White (name changed so the Tax payer does not have to pay for anymore days off sick)
Snow White says “My accusations of bullying stem only from Cllr Brookes online activities and I must state I have never felt intimidated by Cllr Brookes whilst he is in the office”
If this is the case why does Cllr Alf Dewis suggest otherwise and ban me from the council office when Snow White is at work?
Is it Because? Cllr Alf Dewis and others are determined to exclude me from council activities.
I can not understand why.
I don’t consider blogging bullying and unlike Snow Whites friends over the past year my blogs have never been personal attacks like those of former Councillors have posted against me. I have complained about those for over a year and Snow White told me not to read them, or leave it with me. So Snow White the answer is simple don’t read mine and don’t waist tax payers money and get on with the job you are highly paid to do. I believe your job alone costs each Oakham Tax payer £3 .
Cllr Dewis and others do not want the Tax Payer to know what a sham the council is!
I think it is a bit late for that the public saw plenty evidence of that at last weeks planning meeting.
Members of the public have approached me to say what a farce the council is and have been very supportive towards me and disapprove in the way I am treated by the Mother and Father of the Council!
Apart from farce spitting image comes up a lot.
This Thursday 3rd June 2010 at 7pm will see another farce. The Staffing Committee meeting chaired by the Cllr Alf Dewis Bully and Thug. He was sacked by RCC for the same behaviour.
This meeting is being held after last weeks meeting was adjourned after Cllr Sharon Spencer objected to the meeting continuing because Cllr Mark Woodcock was absent and other issues, she departed and the committee fell below a quorum.
Although the rules strictly prohibit Councillors seeking or discussing promotion it was very clear members knew Cllr Woodcock would accept the role as Vice Chair.
Cllr Maureen Dodds proposed herself, no one would second her, poor Duchess that is the name I often hear used by other Councillors.
When the meeting continues of Thursday Oakham Town Council Staffing Committee will elect Cllr Mark Woodcock as vice chair.
At Item 5 (i) The Committee will decide to exclude the public and press this is probably a good move because they don’t want to the show the public how foolish they are. (I hope they quote the correct act)
(ii) this one is interesting because they will decide weather to exclude members of the council who are not members of the committee. This means me.
There is no act than can apply to me. I am told I can exclude myself by declaring an interest. As I am not a member of this committee and can not influence the outcome I will be staying as I feel it is in my interest, The Councils actions are preventing me from carrying out my duties effectively.
They claim to have a grievance procedure they don’t I wrote to complain about the bullying Councillor Alf Dewis has subjected me too and my letter has not been acknowledged.
Standing orders state the public has a right to deputations at any of The Councils meetings once again in breach of The Town Councils Standing Orders this item has been removed from the Agenda. A member of the public has asked me why?
I refer to Snow Whites statement Oakham Town Council is like a football club we decided the rules and you obey them! This was said after they tried to ban members of the public passing notes with out a full vote.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Toy Story Oakham
Oakham Toy Story
Toys do come out and play at night.
I spotted Buzz and Tigger
drawing their pocket money from
Barclays Cash Machine last night.
Scarlet Sky Mill Street Oakham Raided
Scarlet Sky Mill Street Oakham,
designer high priced children’s clothes store attacked by raiders.
Other High Price stores in Mill Street Oakham
have resorted to removing high value stock such as
CREW and GANT from their premises at closing time.
I am not sure why the villains bother once you take into
consideration the Oakham exchange rate
the items are not worth as much as they appear.
Another Oakham Litter Bin destroyed by fire.
Another Oakham Litter Bin destroyed by fire.
A third bin in less than a week has been fire damaged in Cutts Close Oakham.
Each bin costs Oakham Town Council £1,000 of Tax Payers Money.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Rutland County Council Standards committee
A special meeting of Rutland Councils standards committee is to be held next Thursday 7pm at the drawing room, Catmose College, Oakham. This is due to a high volume of complaint made against Councillors.
The press and public are likey to be excluded.
A little bird tells me there may also be a special Oakham Town Council staffing committee meeting on the 3 or 8 June 2010 as soon as notice of this is given I will post details.
The press and public are likey to be excluded.
A little bird tells me there may also be a special Oakham Town Council staffing committee meeting on the 3 or 8 June 2010 as soon as notice of this is given I will post details.
Neil and Haley Rose Wedding Oakham
.JPG)
Wedding of Neil Rose to Haley Pitt
If you are wondering why?
Willow Stores
was
Closed today
this is why.
A proud day for
Willow Stores
owners
Roy Pitt and Joy Pitt.
The ceremony was conducted at the Grand Hall of Oakham Castle.
A reception followed at Greatham Valley.
Congratulations
Mr & Mrs Rose
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Move from Oakham?
At a recent visit to Oakham Town Council
I was asked if I had ever thought of moving away from
Oakham???
If anyone would like to buy my home and cover cost £165,000
should cover a move, I might consider it!
Sainsbury New plans for Oakham
• A 30,021sq ft (2,789sq m) sales area
• A wide range of popular Sainsbury's food products
• A limited range of non-food items
• A bakery and other fresh food counters
• A customer café
• Customer toilets with disabled and parent/child facilities
• A 246 space car park with dedicated disabled and parent/child spaces
• Covered cycle hoops and motorcycle parking
• A pick-up/drop-off point near the store entrance
• Shopfront trolley storage
• Cash machines
• A 4-pump petrol station and car wash
• A recycling centre
• Sympathetic landscaping
Site Plan http://www.sainsburys-oakham.co.uk/siteplan.html
your views http://www.sainsburys-oakham.co.uk/
Oakham Town Council
Dear Oakham Town Council
Yesterday I visited the office to speak to the Internal Auditor. It is my view this man is not independent of the council, I come to this conclusion because of answer given to me.
For example this man told me the Accounts do not have to be made up to the 31st March. He stated accounts can be completed by July or August despite me seeing the form from the Audit Commission stating very clearly accounts must be returned to them early June 2010
Once again the Town Clerk Richard White took the phone calling members to let them know a Councillor was in the office exercising his right to see the account and speak with the Auditor.
(Parish council accounts must be open to inspection by any member of the council at all reasonable times without payment. Obstruction of such inspection is punishable with a fine not exceeding level one on the standard scale)
(The accounts must be made up to the 31st March in year and must be prepared in compliance with the 2003 regulations.)
The Town Clerk has to work hard this week to comply with these regulations so he does not miss the deadline for returns next week.
So for this reason members should not accept the Chairman’s request to give the Clerk an extra month to complete his work.
Letter of grievance, I made many requests to see Richards Whites original letter I am still obstructed form seeing this document. They other evening I was handed a letter dated 18 May 2010. This date is much later than the original letter and was returned to the council for that reason. I would like to mention I read the first paragraph and glanced through the rest before returning it.
The first paragraph contains the first of many lies. After the publication of the letter in the Rutland Times, said to be written by Tim Humphrey the son of a former Cllr and friend of Mr White and other members. I received a phone call a very angry phone call from former Cllr Humphrey. After this call I visited Richard White and he did state a lot of families in Oakham had been very upset by the publication of the letter. Why does he need to lie about that? We now all know this letter was sent by Nick because of the bullying Tim Humphreys was supporting through hosting the Rutland Chat forum.
And his recent anger with Cllr Charles Haworth for making sexual advances towards him.
Mr White says I undermine him; this is not true I wish for him to earn his money like all the tax payers who work hard to contribute towards his high salary.
I don’t want to be shouted at for asking question.
Many members of the public have spoken to me since Wednesdays planning meeting.
They have used the word Farce, the Parish Council of the Vicar of Dibley to describe the Town Council.
It is my understanding letters are on their way to the Rutland Times.
Cllr Lucas opening address keep it short because we don’t want to be here to midnight was not appreciated and her suggestion the public could not ask questions was very inappropriate.
The bullying I am subjected to was made very clear to the public when Cllr Joyce Lucas said the public did not need to know a Councillor is restricted from visiting the office and receiving information.
Apart from the question is Cllr Joyce Lucas mentally ill? Members of the public have since asked if Cllr Joyce Lucas and Cllr Alf Dewis are my parents. As they both treated me like a child constantly attempting to silence me and telling me to shut up when I had valid points to make.
It was brought to my attention after the meeting a Standard Officer was observing the meeting. Now I know why Cllr Joyce Lucas was buttering the gentleman up.
If he is honest he will report back what a sham Oakham Town Council is, not what Cllr Joyce Lucas asks him to report next time she meets him at the Standards Committee of which laughingly she is a member. This is the biggest joke in local government self monitoring.
At later meeting it became clear the restriction Oakham Town Council places on me is obstructing my work as a councillor.
My email questions were lost and a simple request became a big issue at the parks and recreation committee. This won’t happen again because I will ignore the resolution. How does Cllr Alf Dewis expect to enforce his daft resolution, when clearly the Town Clerk has stated he has no problem with my presence.
Cllr Alf Dewis is a bully. This was obvious when he was sacked from RCC he is not a suitable man to chair the Staffing Committee if the Council wants to end up in court let him continue his good work. Remember we don’t have the money to pay out like RCC did.
At the last staffing committee meeting a member of the public pointed out to me a standing order was breached deputations from the public had been removed form the agenda.
Although the local government act does not allow members of the public to speak at any council meeting our standing orders allow this at all Town Council Meetings.
Also at Wednesdays planning meeting 3 former Councillors were present. One asked me if we have had any training? My reply is no. He was surprised none of the new councillors including myself, had not received even the basic training. Even more surprised to see Councillor with not training were now chairing meetings.
It does not surprise me bigoted people don’t think they know best and don’t need training even though this has been a serious cause for concern after external audits.
Sorry to hear the Town Clerk has gone of sick again today, I hope he is well to enjoy his holiday next week.
From
Martin Brookes
Yesterday I visited the office to speak to the Internal Auditor. It is my view this man is not independent of the council, I come to this conclusion because of answer given to me.
For example this man told me the Accounts do not have to be made up to the 31st March. He stated accounts can be completed by July or August despite me seeing the form from the Audit Commission stating very clearly accounts must be returned to them early June 2010
Once again the Town Clerk Richard White took the phone calling members to let them know a Councillor was in the office exercising his right to see the account and speak with the Auditor.
(Parish council accounts must be open to inspection by any member of the council at all reasonable times without payment. Obstruction of such inspection is punishable with a fine not exceeding level one on the standard scale)
(The accounts must be made up to the 31st March in year and must be prepared in compliance with the 2003 regulations.)
The Town Clerk has to work hard this week to comply with these regulations so he does not miss the deadline for returns next week.
So for this reason members should not accept the Chairman’s request to give the Clerk an extra month to complete his work.
Letter of grievance, I made many requests to see Richards Whites original letter I am still obstructed form seeing this document. They other evening I was handed a letter dated 18 May 2010. This date is much later than the original letter and was returned to the council for that reason. I would like to mention I read the first paragraph and glanced through the rest before returning it.
The first paragraph contains the first of many lies. After the publication of the letter in the Rutland Times, said to be written by Tim Humphrey the son of a former Cllr and friend of Mr White and other members. I received a phone call a very angry phone call from former Cllr Humphrey. After this call I visited Richard White and he did state a lot of families in Oakham had been very upset by the publication of the letter. Why does he need to lie about that? We now all know this letter was sent by Nick because of the bullying Tim Humphreys was supporting through hosting the Rutland Chat forum.
And his recent anger with Cllr Charles Haworth for making sexual advances towards him.
Mr White says I undermine him; this is not true I wish for him to earn his money like all the tax payers who work hard to contribute towards his high salary.
I don’t want to be shouted at for asking question.
Many members of the public have spoken to me since Wednesdays planning meeting.
They have used the word Farce, the Parish Council of the Vicar of Dibley to describe the Town Council.
It is my understanding letters are on their way to the Rutland Times.
Cllr Lucas opening address keep it short because we don’t want to be here to midnight was not appreciated and her suggestion the public could not ask questions was very inappropriate.
The bullying I am subjected to was made very clear to the public when Cllr Joyce Lucas said the public did not need to know a Councillor is restricted from visiting the office and receiving information.
Apart from the question is Cllr Joyce Lucas mentally ill? Members of the public have since asked if Cllr Joyce Lucas and Cllr Alf Dewis are my parents. As they both treated me like a child constantly attempting to silence me and telling me to shut up when I had valid points to make.
It was brought to my attention after the meeting a Standard Officer was observing the meeting. Now I know why Cllr Joyce Lucas was buttering the gentleman up.
If he is honest he will report back what a sham Oakham Town Council is, not what Cllr Joyce Lucas asks him to report next time she meets him at the Standards Committee of which laughingly she is a member. This is the biggest joke in local government self monitoring.
At later meeting it became clear the restriction Oakham Town Council places on me is obstructing my work as a councillor.
My email questions were lost and a simple request became a big issue at the parks and recreation committee. This won’t happen again because I will ignore the resolution. How does Cllr Alf Dewis expect to enforce his daft resolution, when clearly the Town Clerk has stated he has no problem with my presence.
Cllr Alf Dewis is a bully. This was obvious when he was sacked from RCC he is not a suitable man to chair the Staffing Committee if the Council wants to end up in court let him continue his good work. Remember we don’t have the money to pay out like RCC did.
At the last staffing committee meeting a member of the public pointed out to me a standing order was breached deputations from the public had been removed form the agenda.
Although the local government act does not allow members of the public to speak at any council meeting our standing orders allow this at all Town Council Meetings.
Also at Wednesdays planning meeting 3 former Councillors were present. One asked me if we have had any training? My reply is no. He was surprised none of the new councillors including myself, had not received even the basic training. Even more surprised to see Councillor with not training were now chairing meetings.
It does not surprise me bigoted people don’t think they know best and don’t need training even though this has been a serious cause for concern after external audits.
Sorry to hear the Town Clerk has gone of sick again today, I hope he is well to enjoy his holiday next week.
From
Martin Brookes
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tesco Oakham Planning
Oakham Town Council meeting turned into a farce last night.
The Town Council did not prepare for the huge turn out despite me telling them to expect public attendance.
I was asked why I had invited people. Silly me I forgot Oakham Town Council is not a council that serves its public.
Amongst the confusion, I think Oakham Town Council decided against the expansion plan.
I know we decided to object to the demolition of the house in Penn Street.
The Town Council did not prepare for the huge turn out despite me telling them to expect public attendance.
I was asked why I had invited people. Silly me I forgot Oakham Town Council is not a council that serves its public.
Amongst the confusion, I think Oakham Town Council decided against the expansion plan.
I know we decided to object to the demolition of the house in Penn Street.
Standards complaint Cllr Joyce Lucas
26th May 2010
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Joyce Lucas Chair of Planning and General Purposes Committee,
Item 9 Deputations from the public.
At the start of this item Cllr Lucas addressed the public, she misinformed the public, she told the public they could only make a statement about Tesco and could not ask questions because we did not want this to go on until midnight. She showed total contempt towards members of the public and myself.
I corrected her statement and informed members of the standing order that allows us to grant an extension to deputations if required and questions could be asked on any itemon the aganda.
During the deputations Cllr Lucas constantly refused my requests to ask questions or clarify points with the public. At one point she asked former Cllr Kelly to clarify a point another member of public had made.
At Item 10 (i) Cllr Lucas constantly interrupted me as I attempted to read a short statement. She told me to shut up the public did not need to know I was banned from the office and important documents relating to the Tesco application had not been sent to me or that Richard White had emailed me and all other members earlier that day to let us know he had received a high volume of emails from the public. He requested members visit the office to view before meeting knowing I am banned from visiting. So I decided I had not received all the information required to make an informed decision. She told me this was totally irrelavent
After item 10 (ii) of the Agenda had concluded The meeting fell into total chaos for about 10-15 minutes at no point did the Chairman Joyce Lucas attempted to restore order.
The conduct of Cllr Joyce Lucas as Chairman of this Committee brought the council into serious disrepute.
As members of the public departed many suggested she might have a mental illness.
I felt as if she conducted the meeting as if it was one of her garden parties and certainly not a formal council meeting
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Joyce Lucas Chair of Planning and General Purposes Committee,
Item 9 Deputations from the public.
At the start of this item Cllr Lucas addressed the public, she misinformed the public, she told the public they could only make a statement about Tesco and could not ask questions because we did not want this to go on until midnight. She showed total contempt towards members of the public and myself.
I corrected her statement and informed members of the standing order that allows us to grant an extension to deputations if required and questions could be asked on any itemon the aganda.
During the deputations Cllr Lucas constantly refused my requests to ask questions or clarify points with the public. At one point she asked former Cllr Kelly to clarify a point another member of public had made.
At Item 10 (i) Cllr Lucas constantly interrupted me as I attempted to read a short statement. She told me to shut up the public did not need to know I was banned from the office and important documents relating to the Tesco application had not been sent to me or that Richard White had emailed me and all other members earlier that day to let us know he had received a high volume of emails from the public. He requested members visit the office to view before meeting knowing I am banned from visiting. So I decided I had not received all the information required to make an informed decision. She told me this was totally irrelavent
After item 10 (ii) of the Agenda had concluded The meeting fell into total chaos for about 10-15 minutes at no point did the Chairman Joyce Lucas attempted to restore order.
The conduct of Cllr Joyce Lucas as Chairman of this Committee brought the council into serious disrepute.
As members of the public departed many suggested she might have a mental illness.
I felt as if she conducted the meeting as if it was one of her garden parties and certainly not a formal council meeting
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Standards complaint Cllr Alf Dewis
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Alf Dewis,
After item 10 (ii) of the Agenda had concluded The meeting fell into total chaos for about 10-15 minutes at no point did the Chairman Joyce Lucas attempted to restore order.
Cllr Alf Dewis a female member of the public took a seat next to him and they entered both entered into a long conversation.
Eventually most of the public departed. Cllr Dewis behaviour brought the Council into disrepute and to think at the point of public deputations he attempted to call for a vote to have me excluded from the meeting for wishing to explain something to member of public, The member of the public had wrongly stated Rutland County DC councillors don’t live in the town and were not interested in local business as we know many live in the town and own business’s within the town. She also said there were no signs directing people to the Westgate car park there are at least two.
My attempt to relay this to the member if public may have been a small breach because it was not a question it would certainly would not have contributed to the disruption of the meeting in the way Cllr Dewis did by holding a lengthy private conversation during the meeting
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Alf Dewis,
After item 10 (ii) of the Agenda had concluded The meeting fell into total chaos for about 10-15 minutes at no point did the Chairman Joyce Lucas attempted to restore order.
Cllr Alf Dewis a female member of the public took a seat next to him and they entered both entered into a long conversation.
Eventually most of the public departed. Cllr Dewis behaviour brought the Council into disrepute and to think at the point of public deputations he attempted to call for a vote to have me excluded from the meeting for wishing to explain something to member of public, The member of the public had wrongly stated Rutland County DC councillors don’t live in the town and were not interested in local business as we know many live in the town and own business’s within the town. She also said there were no signs directing people to the Westgate car park there are at least two.
My attempt to relay this to the member if public may have been a small breach because it was not a question it would certainly would not have contributed to the disruption of the meeting in the way Cllr Dewis did by holding a lengthy private conversation during the meeting
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Standards complaint Town Clerk Richard White
26th May 2010
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Town Clerk Richard White,
At the meeting of parks and recreation committee Wednesday 26th May 2010
The Clerk failed to present my questions relating to the bandstand and the wooded panel that the tax payer has purchased for nearly £2500
My questions were previously notified to the Clerk under well within the terms of standing Order 23
I was shown a print out of my questions five minutes before the meeting and was told they would not be included because they were lost in the system.
At the same meeting Cllr Joyce Lucas mentioned she had forgotten to present her questions. I asked if she could present them now and she was granted permission to present her questions verbally not written as required by standing order 23.
She was given an answer this is another example of the clerks and councils intent to obstruct my work as a Councillor.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Town Clerk Richard White,
At the meeting of parks and recreation committee Wednesday 26th May 2010
The Clerk failed to present my questions relating to the bandstand and the wooded panel that the tax payer has purchased for nearly £2500
My questions were previously notified to the Clerk under well within the terms of standing Order 23
I was shown a print out of my questions five minutes before the meeting and was told they would not be included because they were lost in the system.
At the same meeting Cllr Joyce Lucas mentioned she had forgotten to present her questions. I asked if she could present them now and she was granted permission to present her questions verbally not written as required by standing order 23.
She was given an answer this is another example of the clerks and councils intent to obstruct my work as a Councillor.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Standards complaint Cllr Charles Haworth
26th May 2010
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Charles Haworth,
At the meeting of parks and recreation committee Wednesday 26th May 2010
Cllr Charles Haworth refused to allow me as a Councillor to make a proposal relating to agenda item:
10. Cutts Close
To consider any issues raised and to make appropriate decisions thereon.
To include:
(i) To decide on a colour for the iron work on the bandstand.
When I made several attempts to propose a vote Cllr Haworth refused to listen to my proposal and insisted time have moved things on because the matter had previously been decided outside the meeting.
His refusal to allow me to make a proposal is a clear breach of his new position as chairman of this committee, Also a breach of my rights as a councillor according to the local government act.
This is another example of the councils intent to obstruct my work as a Councillor.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Dear Mr Pook
Re: Standards complaint Cllr Charles Haworth,
At the meeting of parks and recreation committee Wednesday 26th May 2010
Cllr Charles Haworth refused to allow me as a Councillor to make a proposal relating to agenda item:
10. Cutts Close
To consider any issues raised and to make appropriate decisions thereon.
To include:
(i) To decide on a colour for the iron work on the bandstand.
When I made several attempts to propose a vote Cllr Haworth refused to listen to my proposal and insisted time have moved things on because the matter had previously been decided outside the meeting.
His refusal to allow me to make a proposal is a clear breach of his new position as chairman of this committee, Also a breach of my rights as a councillor according to the local government act.
This is another example of the councils intent to obstruct my work as a Councillor.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Cllr Alf Dewis Assault
Dear Mr Pook
Standards Complaint Cllr Alf Dewis
At 6.15pm last night I entered the council office Councillor Alf Dewis stood in my way and touched my left shoulder. what right does he have to obstruct a Cllr going to the chamber.
He said I would not go through there if I was you! He said Richard White the town clerk was this in the building.
Cllr Alf Dewis has not right to obstruct me
His touching me is considered common assault and I am reporting this to the police.
For interest Mr White could be heard saying he had no problem with my presence.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Standards Complaint Cllr Alf Dewis
At 6.15pm last night I entered the council office Councillor Alf Dewis stood in my way and touched my left shoulder. what right does he have to obstruct a Cllr going to the chamber.
He said I would not go through there if I was you! He said Richard White the town clerk was this in the building.
Cllr Alf Dewis has not right to obstruct me
His touching me is considered common assault and I am reporting this to the police.
For interest Mr White could be heard saying he had no problem with my presence.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr Martin Brookes
Cllr Alf Dewis Thug is appointed Chairman of Staffing Committee
Cllr Alf Dewis a bully and thug was appointment as Chairman of Oakham Town Council Staffing Committee.
Cllr Dewis is an expert when it comes to employment issues. He was sacked for bullying a member of staff at Rutland County Council DC.
He sacked a member of staff whilst they were off sick and lost the Council a huge amount of money.
I am sure Cllr Dewis will be a great asset to Oakham Town Council.
Cllr Dewis is an expert when it comes to employment issues. He was sacked for bullying a member of staff at Rutland County Council DC.
He sacked a member of staff whilst they were off sick and lost the Council a huge amount of money.
I am sure Cllr Dewis will be a great asset to Oakham Town Council.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Cllr Alf Dewis
Helen Penders Blog
http://helenpender.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-cllr-alf-dewis-going-to-be-given.html
Thank you Helen
The nettle bouquet goes to ... Cllr Alf Dewis
IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
TO HARASS CLLR MARTIN BROOKES.
In his bid to be seen as an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has led the attack on Martin Brookes. Using the Town Clerk’s allegation of, as yet unsubstantiated and undisclosed, bullying against Cllr Brookes. This issue has seen the Council being asked to vote to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council Offices; from communicating with the Town Clerk, Richard White, or his Assistant, Allison Greaves, either by email; telephone; letter or in person. When this motion was rejected on 5th May 2010 another, slightly watered down, motion was immediately put to the Council - in direct contravention of Standing Order 35 – viz:
(a) A decision (whether affirmative or negative) of the Council shall not be
debated by Council within six months save by special resolution, the written notice whereof shall bear the names of at least five members of the Council.
(b) When a special resolution or any other resolution moved under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Order has been disposed of, no similar resolution may be moved within a further six months.
That motion is null and void, since the previous motion was rejected.
However, once more in contravention of Standing Order 35 yet another motion is being put to the Council this evening (26th May 2010).
Cllr Brookes was asked if he would be prepared to undergo mediation. Since he still does not know of what he is accused, he cannot reply to the allegation with any real insight, other than to reject the allegation.
This is all becoming a bit fantastical; rather like a Kafka novel. In effect what the Council is saying is:
“You are accused of bullying the Town Clerk, Richard White. We are not prepared to tell you what the allegation is and we are banning you from carrying out your duties as a Councillor. Richard White will have a curtain over the glass of his office door so he cannot see you when you do visit the Council Office, he will not reply to your telephone calls, emails or letters, although paradoxically he will email you. We would like you to agree to mediation under the auspices of the staff committee, made up of Councillors many of whom have made your life unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. No, we are not prepared to ask ACAS to mediate on grounds of cost and we also reject your suggestion that Richard White’s Union undertake mediation. You are guilty without trial or investigation and we will take another stab at making it impossible for you to function as a public representative yet again tonight (26th May) in direct contravention of Standing Order 35. We have found you guilty, but we will not tell you precisely what you are accused of doing.”
In his bid to pursue this vendetta on behalf of Council members, Cllr Alf Dewis is claiming to be an expert in employment law. Making a bid to be seen as an Alpha Male leading the pack against Cllr Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis has messed up time and time again. Claiming to know the law and being an acute ignoramus of the laws of Local Government, he is, quite illegally, attempting to right the mistakes he has made at a meeting on 5th May, by yet again ignoring Standing Orders.
I would suggest that all Cllr Alf Dewis has achieved is to prove to me, and any disinterested onlooker, that he is no Alpha Male but is instead a supreme and absolute ignoramus in the law on this matter. He has mired the Council in an illegal and ill-considered vendetta against Cllr Martin Brookes.
Far from being an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has only proved himself to be an Alpha Prat.
Note: Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER 40
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
England and Wales
Section
1. Prohibition of harassment.
2. Offence of harassment.
3. Civil remedy.
4. Putting people in fear of violence.
5. Restraining orders.
6. Limitation.
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/pdf/ukpga_19970040_en.pdf
http://helenpender.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-cllr-alf-dewis-going-to-be-given.html
Thank you Helen
The nettle bouquet goes to ... Cllr Alf Dewis
IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
TO HARASS CLLR MARTIN BROOKES.
In his bid to be seen as an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has led the attack on Martin Brookes. Using the Town Clerk’s allegation of, as yet unsubstantiated and undisclosed, bullying against Cllr Brookes. This issue has seen the Council being asked to vote to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council Offices; from communicating with the Town Clerk, Richard White, or his Assistant, Allison Greaves, either by email; telephone; letter or in person. When this motion was rejected on 5th May 2010 another, slightly watered down, motion was immediately put to the Council - in direct contravention of Standing Order 35 – viz:
(a) A decision (whether affirmative or negative) of the Council shall not be
debated by Council within six months save by special resolution, the written notice whereof shall bear the names of at least five members of the Council.
(b) When a special resolution or any other resolution moved under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Order has been disposed of, no similar resolution may be moved within a further six months.
That motion is null and void, since the previous motion was rejected.
However, once more in contravention of Standing Order 35 yet another motion is being put to the Council this evening (26th May 2010).
Cllr Brookes was asked if he would be prepared to undergo mediation. Since he still does not know of what he is accused, he cannot reply to the allegation with any real insight, other than to reject the allegation.
This is all becoming a bit fantastical; rather like a Kafka novel. In effect what the Council is saying is:
“You are accused of bullying the Town Clerk, Richard White. We are not prepared to tell you what the allegation is and we are banning you from carrying out your duties as a Councillor. Richard White will have a curtain over the glass of his office door so he cannot see you when you do visit the Council Office, he will not reply to your telephone calls, emails or letters, although paradoxically he will email you. We would like you to agree to mediation under the auspices of the staff committee, made up of Councillors many of whom have made your life unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. No, we are not prepared to ask ACAS to mediate on grounds of cost and we also reject your suggestion that Richard White’s Union undertake mediation. You are guilty without trial or investigation and we will take another stab at making it impossible for you to function as a public representative yet again tonight (26th May) in direct contravention of Standing Order 35. We have found you guilty, but we will not tell you precisely what you are accused of doing.”
In his bid to pursue this vendetta on behalf of Council members, Cllr Alf Dewis is claiming to be an expert in employment law. Making a bid to be seen as an Alpha Male leading the pack against Cllr Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis has messed up time and time again. Claiming to know the law and being an acute ignoramus of the laws of Local Government, he is, quite illegally, attempting to right the mistakes he has made at a meeting on 5th May, by yet again ignoring Standing Orders.
I would suggest that all Cllr Alf Dewis has achieved is to prove to me, and any disinterested onlooker, that he is no Alpha Male but is instead a supreme and absolute ignoramus in the law on this matter. He has mired the Council in an illegal and ill-considered vendetta against Cllr Martin Brookes.
Far from being an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has only proved himself to be an Alpha Prat.
Note: Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER 40
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
England and Wales
Section
1. Prohibition of harassment.
2. Offence of harassment.
3. Civil remedy.
4. Putting people in fear of violence.
5. Restraining orders.
6. Limitation.
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/pdf/ukpga_19970040_en.pdf
Ambulance at Oakham Crossing
I wondered what happens when a ambulance
needs to cross the crossing
the answer nothing it has to wait.
This is a new leicestershire Ambulance
designed to carry fat or larger people
to hospital
My visit too Oakham Town Council.
My visit too Oakham Town Council.
Yesterday I visited Oakham Town Council. The visit was prearranged. The treatment I received was disgusting.
I arranged the visit to view the public comments relating to Tescos planning application.
The Town Council decide at this evenings planning committee meeting on a recommendation to pass to RCC.
When I arrived at the front door I was told to go the back door. I could not use the front door like other Councillors and members of the public. Because the Town Clerk Richard White has returned to work.
I arrived in the Council Chamber to view the comments slips and the internal office door was immediately locked! Why? What does Oakham Town Council think I am going to do to The Town Clerk? This is the man who often shouted at me and now seems to have a great fear me. The same man who said it was ok for me to speak to him outside his home last Saturday because the rule only applied at work. What a farce!
After bout twenty minutes had passed Richard White left the building and the assistant clerk unlocked the door and said I could help myself to coffee.
The Town Clerk is paid nearly £35,000 a year and he can not cope with me, what a joke. Does the Town Council not understand who this treatment makes me feel?
The Mayor said she wanted no problems this year, she wants to earn gold status for the council this year. Really? The Council has serious problems we have no accounts. Accounts should have been completed on 31 March ready to be Audited and presented at the AGM that has passed and now the Town Clerk ask do we have problem delaying another month and to think he is paid £35,000 plus to produce accounts for a spending total of £230,000 If I was employed by anyone to do the same job I am confident this failure would have resulted in me loosing my job. Oh well never mind its only tax payers money why worry!
I trust the Town Clerk won't be at the meeting tonight or is he going to conduct the meeting from behind a locked door?
Yesterday I visited Oakham Town Council. The visit was prearranged. The treatment I received was disgusting.
I arranged the visit to view the public comments relating to Tescos planning application.
The Town Council decide at this evenings planning committee meeting on a recommendation to pass to RCC.
When I arrived at the front door I was told to go the back door. I could not use the front door like other Councillors and members of the public. Because the Town Clerk Richard White has returned to work.
I arrived in the Council Chamber to view the comments slips and the internal office door was immediately locked! Why? What does Oakham Town Council think I am going to do to The Town Clerk? This is the man who often shouted at me and now seems to have a great fear me. The same man who said it was ok for me to speak to him outside his home last Saturday because the rule only applied at work. What a farce!
After bout twenty minutes had passed Richard White left the building and the assistant clerk unlocked the door and said I could help myself to coffee.
The Town Clerk is paid nearly £35,000 a year and he can not cope with me, what a joke. Does the Town Council not understand who this treatment makes me feel?
The Mayor said she wanted no problems this year, she wants to earn gold status for the council this year. Really? The Council has serious problems we have no accounts. Accounts should have been completed on 31 March ready to be Audited and presented at the AGM that has passed and now the Town Clerk ask do we have problem delaying another month and to think he is paid £35,000 plus to produce accounts for a spending total of £230,000 If I was employed by anyone to do the same job I am confident this failure would have resulted in me loosing my job. Oh well never mind its only tax payers money why worry!
I trust the Town Clerk won't be at the meeting tonight or is he going to conduct the meeting from behind a locked door?
Oakham Town Council Meetings 26th May 2010
Oakham Town Council Meetings 26th May 2010
If a Council wishes to discuss matters privately and exclude the public and press, they can if they quote the correct act. Oakham Town Council often fails to quote the act.
Here is a little help:
It is not recommended the act is used frequently because it could lead to secrecy claims from the public. So it is generally used if the information relates to financial business affairs of any particular person.
Here is an example from a RCC meeting.
Exclusion of Public or Press
Its is recommended that the public and press be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, and in accordance with the Access to information provisions of Procedure Rule 239, as the following item of business is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
My very first meeting I attended the act was used correctly to discuss the tenders for the bandstand restoration. Although the Clerk did go on to tell us after Councillors voted and the public and press had departed the chamber. “Is what they don’t know is they can apply under the freedom of information act to obtain the quotes.”
This evening the Town Council wish to exclude the public and Councillors who are not members of the staffing committee to discuss a grievance made by the Town Clerk Richard White against me, They say this is to agree suitable recommendations for the Council to consider in order that the issue can be resolved in accordance with the Council’s Grievance Procedure.
They do not have a Grievance Procedure.
They have bullies like Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Charles Haworth.
I have complained about bullying from Cllr Alf Dewis and my letter has not been acknowledged,
Oakham Town Council is a sham. A Councillor has already contacted Oakham police to let them know they might be needed. I have asked the police to check the law and proceed with caution. I can not find any act that allows a Council to exclude a member because just because they feel like it.
I am guessing it was the same Cllr who felt the need to kiss me at a previous meeting because in her own words to the police and public, I did it because they were being horrible to him. The same one who started the meeting demanding I called her Cllr Lucas and not Joyce as she had previously demanded.
If I am asked to leave the meeting I will expect the correct Act to be quoted and voted on by members and for this act to be shown to the police. I have told the police I will not leave just because the want me to leave. They have not shown me the allegation letter written by the Town Clerk despite my many requests to see it and it is my right to know what the allegation is. It is not good enough to be excluded from the council office resulting in obstruction and precluding me form carrying out my duties as a Councillor. The Council must have something to hide!
I wonder how legal it is for Leicester Police to drag a councillor from his seat for not breaking any law?
If a Council wishes to discuss matters privately and exclude the public and press, they can if they quote the correct act. Oakham Town Council often fails to quote the act.
Here is a little help:
It is not recommended the act is used frequently because it could lead to secrecy claims from the public. So it is generally used if the information relates to financial business affairs of any particular person.
Here is an example from a RCC meeting.
Exclusion of Public or Press
Its is recommended that the public and press be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, and in accordance with the Access to information provisions of Procedure Rule 239, as the following item of business is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
My very first meeting I attended the act was used correctly to discuss the tenders for the bandstand restoration. Although the Clerk did go on to tell us after Councillors voted and the public and press had departed the chamber. “Is what they don’t know is they can apply under the freedom of information act to obtain the quotes.”
This evening the Town Council wish to exclude the public and Councillors who are not members of the staffing committee to discuss a grievance made by the Town Clerk Richard White against me, They say this is to agree suitable recommendations for the Council to consider in order that the issue can be resolved in accordance with the Council’s Grievance Procedure.
They do not have a Grievance Procedure.
They have bullies like Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Charles Haworth.
I have complained about bullying from Cllr Alf Dewis and my letter has not been acknowledged,
Oakham Town Council is a sham. A Councillor has already contacted Oakham police to let them know they might be needed. I have asked the police to check the law and proceed with caution. I can not find any act that allows a Council to exclude a member because just because they feel like it.
I am guessing it was the same Cllr who felt the need to kiss me at a previous meeting because in her own words to the police and public, I did it because they were being horrible to him. The same one who started the meeting demanding I called her Cllr Lucas and not Joyce as she had previously demanded.
If I am asked to leave the meeting I will expect the correct Act to be quoted and voted on by members and for this act to be shown to the police. I have told the police I will not leave just because the want me to leave. They have not shown me the allegation letter written by the Town Clerk despite my many requests to see it and it is my right to know what the allegation is. It is not good enough to be excluded from the council office resulting in obstruction and precluding me form carrying out my duties as a Councillor. The Council must have something to hide!
I wonder how legal it is for Leicester Police to drag a councillor from his seat for not breaking any law?
Tesco Planning Oakham Town Council Consultation
Tesco Planning Oakham Town Council Consultation
Oakham Town Council held a public consultation, I use the word loosely as from my observations it appeared more like an anti Tesco Rally.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to read comment slips left by the public
For some reason the public were asked to circle a age group.
Age 18-30: 3 comments received
Age 31-45: 4 comments received
Age 46-60: 17 comments received
Age 60 +: 52 comments received
No age declared: 35 comments received.
This evening I have to decide how vote for against the proposed Tesco Expansion. Based on the mass of documents Tesco has provided and comments received and my own view.
Here are some of the extract from some of the public comments:
1. Oakham is doomed!
2. What about the ghost Oakham could become?
3. If Tesco get their way what is proposed to make our roads safer around the store. More bumps, speed cameras, 20mph? The South Street junction is already a danger to slow moving people as it has blind bend near the corner.
4. The architectural equivalent of Japanese Knotweed (Tesco Vulgaris) will grow
will grow and strangle local delicate flora and fauna
5. Will the tourists who come to Oakham to see an intact, thriving market town with local produce and shops still come to see our shiny new supermarket, covered with broken trolleys and enormous car park full of litter? Do they really want to find out only when it’s too late to do anything about it.
6. It’s not good enough to stand by whilst a massive fait accompi is dropped like
an elephant turd onto our heads
(Surely Hippo turds are topical in Oakham? ed.)
7. My Concerns are not just middle aged Daily Mail reader hysterics,
8. I have no doubt this not an exercise by Rutland County Council in consulting local opinion without doubt the situation has been agreed well in advance
(No it was a PR event organised by Oakham Town Council after previous bad handling of the untidy mess that is Jinky’s Bar)
9. Local Business must be protected!
10. Please no more Tesco
11. I object
12. as long as they sell clothes I’m happy!
13. The proposed store is too small
14. No mater what incentives Tesco offer its not worth it. I live in the town centre I am 65
15. Bigger
16. NO NO NO
17. Chaos!
18. A.S.A.P please Be good for Oakham
19. Should be welcome
20. I object to the plans lock stock and barrel.
21. The in souciance with wich the Tesco Hegmonists propose to destroy our living spce with nary a thought for our well being is idiotic, unnecessary and typical of the working of a society driven by greed I wish to lodge my objection.
22. We do not want an enormous, architecturally grotesque temple of Mammon in it’s heart because it will at some point kill the town.
23. People won’t be able to show their daughters the stars because of the halogen glow.
24. We don’t need Tesco to take over the town.
25. Just leave it as it si why have bye pass to bring more Torries in town.
26. The death of independent retailers!
27. Where is england going! Stop Now + Think!!
28. Move the whole Tesco site to the by pass and include a petrol station. Develop the present site into an open Air (Semi Closed) exhibiton site and green area.
29. Tesco is greedy
30. We do not need an enlarged Tesco
31. Are you serious about wanting our comments?
32. Definetly No to more Tesco!
33. Are these Comments just to appease conscience? A town centre dweller of 30 years.
34. We should say “No”
35. Monstrosity!
36. OK, but a Café is not needed!
37. Tesco will not be Happy until they dominate Oakham.
38. I don’t like Tesco they are taking over the world.
39. I think a Big ASDA where Co-op would be better, I have lived here my whole life! Aged 18
40. Do not spoil Penn Street.
41. I am very angry Do the right thing please!!
42. A monopoly
43. Traffic
44. Oakham needs variety and competition council are to weak to come with any original ideas
45. We invited a cuckoo into the nest when we accepted Tesco, Roll over Oakham and die!!
This evening I will vote to keep the Bungalow in Penn Street. Tesco expansion plans ??
Oakham Town Council held a public consultation, I use the word loosely as from my observations it appeared more like an anti Tesco Rally.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to read comment slips left by the public
For some reason the public were asked to circle a age group.
Age 18-30: 3 comments received
Age 31-45: 4 comments received
Age 46-60: 17 comments received
Age 60 +: 52 comments received
No age declared: 35 comments received.
This evening I have to decide how vote for against the proposed Tesco Expansion. Based on the mass of documents Tesco has provided and comments received and my own view.
Here are some of the extract from some of the public comments:
1. Oakham is doomed!
2. What about the ghost Oakham could become?
3. If Tesco get their way what is proposed to make our roads safer around the store. More bumps, speed cameras, 20mph? The South Street junction is already a danger to slow moving people as it has blind bend near the corner.
4. The architectural equivalent of Japanese Knotweed (Tesco Vulgaris) will grow
will grow and strangle local delicate flora and fauna
5. Will the tourists who come to Oakham to see an intact, thriving market town with local produce and shops still come to see our shiny new supermarket, covered with broken trolleys and enormous car park full of litter? Do they really want to find out only when it’s too late to do anything about it.
6. It’s not good enough to stand by whilst a massive fait accompi is dropped like
an elephant turd onto our heads
(Surely Hippo turds are topical in Oakham? ed.)
7. My Concerns are not just middle aged Daily Mail reader hysterics,
8. I have no doubt this not an exercise by Rutland County Council in consulting local opinion without doubt the situation has been agreed well in advance
(No it was a PR event organised by Oakham Town Council after previous bad handling of the untidy mess that is Jinky’s Bar)
9. Local Business must be protected!
10. Please no more Tesco
11. I object
12. as long as they sell clothes I’m happy!
13. The proposed store is too small
14. No mater what incentives Tesco offer its not worth it. I live in the town centre I am 65
15. Bigger
16. NO NO NO
17. Chaos!
18. A.S.A.P please Be good for Oakham
19. Should be welcome
20. I object to the plans lock stock and barrel.
21. The in souciance with wich the Tesco Hegmonists propose to destroy our living spce with nary a thought for our well being is idiotic, unnecessary and typical of the working of a society driven by greed I wish to lodge my objection.
22. We do not want an enormous, architecturally grotesque temple of Mammon in it’s heart because it will at some point kill the town.
23. People won’t be able to show their daughters the stars because of the halogen glow.
24. We don’t need Tesco to take over the town.
25. Just leave it as it si why have bye pass to bring more Torries in town.
26. The death of independent retailers!
27. Where is england going! Stop Now + Think!!
28. Move the whole Tesco site to the by pass and include a petrol station. Develop the present site into an open Air (Semi Closed) exhibiton site and green area.
29. Tesco is greedy
30. We do not need an enlarged Tesco
31. Are you serious about wanting our comments?
32. Definetly No to more Tesco!
33. Are these Comments just to appease conscience? A town centre dweller of 30 years.
34. We should say “No”
35. Monstrosity!
36. OK, but a Café is not needed!
37. Tesco will not be Happy until they dominate Oakham.
38. I don’t like Tesco they are taking over the world.
39. I think a Big ASDA where Co-op would be better, I have lived here my whole life! Aged 18
40. Do not spoil Penn Street.
41. I am very angry Do the right thing please!!
42. A monopoly
43. Traffic
44. Oakham needs variety and competition council are to weak to come with any original ideas
45. We invited a cuckoo into the nest when we accepted Tesco, Roll over Oakham and die!!
This evening I will vote to keep the Bungalow in Penn Street. Tesco expansion plans ??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)