Friday, September 09, 2011

Councillor Terry King Deputy Leader Rutland County Council Standards

You will see from the email from Geoff Pook at Rutland County Council that the Sub Committee of Rutland County Standard is not taking any action regarding my complaint raised against Cllr King Deputy Leader.
This is a clear indication of how corrupt Rutland County Council is. It will refer any complaint it receives about me from Councillors and ex Councillors, but when the Deputy leader sends me a series of insulting e-mails its ok. They give him, Roger Begy Leader and Helen Briggs consent to carry on bullying. I ignore Mr Pooks request not to publish his email because it shows clearly he failed in his duty as monitoring officer I requested all Mr Kings emails were presented as evidence to support my complaint.

I have since made a new complaint against Mr King after a local business man who has read the e-mails on my blog said the email amount to a string of evidence of bullying and disrespect. The disrespect is very clear as Mr King confirms that in his own words.

I have also raised a complaint against Roger Begy who publicly called me a idiot at the last planning meeting.

I have also raised a complaint against the Chief Executive Helen Briggs for Bullying and supporting bullying by Roger Begy and Terry King and ex Councillor all Conservative thugs....
I think my case over the past two year shows clearly the system of self regulation does not work and there is a serious need for independent regulation of Councils

In the mean time it appears all Councillor in Rutland can bully anyone, send them email threatening them anything is acceptable to Rutland County Council Standards.


To Martin Brookes 
From: Geoffrey Pook
01/09/11
Hello Mr Brookes.

Please do not publish this e-mail as the matter is not for the public domain at present.

The Assessment Sub-Committee resolved to take no action on your complaint.  The formal decision notice will be issued when I return from leave on 21 Sept  and you will have the opportunity to request a formal review by a different Sub-Committee if you wish.

Essentially members concluded that in terms of the complaint itself there was insufficient substance to raise a possible breach of the Code.  I should say that I provided members with the e-mail exchanges between you and Mr King which led up to the incident the subject of your complaint.  I did not go back over a longer period because that was not directly relevant to the actual allegation.  Members also had sight of an unsolicited e-mail from Mr Gale about the incident.

Regards
Geoff Pook