I contacted Oakham Town Council to find why they had removed the details of my disqualification from the news page on their web site?
I received the following response:
Hello Martin
I put it up on Friday. However, I then thought about it over the weekend and decided that there had already been enough publicity relating to your disqualification and took it off. If you are happy then I will put it back on again.
No other reason.
Richard White
Clerk to Oakham Town Council
01572 723627
E-mail: rwhite@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk
Clerk to Oakham Town Council
01572 723627
E-mail: rwhite@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk
Unlike the Rutland Times it was not biased reporting and contained a link to the findings that clearly show the readers there are two sides to this sorry tale. Maybe that is the real reason for the removal as many of those connected to the Council have been very pleased with the Rutland Times biased journalism.
The Rutland Times are now claiming the photograph they are using online and in their numerous duplicated publications was taken in 2009 at the opening of Oakham's loos. Some one is fibbing because there are no railings and planters in church street car park and there is certainly no green background.
I called in at the Oakham Office of the Rutland Times the receptionist was rude and the sports writer said it was nothing to do with them the blame laid at the door of the Stamford Office.
So I made a special trip to Stamford and met the Deputy Editor, who I hope not to meet with again.
I asked about the inappropriate comment placed on my blog via one of his companies computers, He said he did not believe my tracker details. Rather surprising, really when Leicestershire Police have found it has helped them
track homophobic thugs locally and then decide it is not in the public interest to pursue them.
