This is why I felt there was a need for Pride in Oakham, after many years of Homophobic Abuse from Oakham Town Councillors past and present and a few Rutland County Councillors.
As we approach the second Oakham Pride that is not inclusive and is described by me and others as a lesbian led tea party, it disappoints me that we have a Pride committee who are inclusive or diverse and have no understanding of the real purpose of a Pride event.
Pride events are a way for the LGBTQ+ community to celebrate their identity and culture, and to raise awareness of the challenges they still face.
Pride events are a time for celebration, but they are also a time for activism. Pride events are a way to show the world that LGBTQ+ people are not going to be silenced or erased. They are a way to demand equality, justice, and respect.
At my trial at Leicester Court almost ten years ago, giving his opinion about the conduct of Oakham Town Councils Deputy Mayor Charles Haworth. Judge Temperley said: “I don’t agree. Some of the material goes way beyond satire. They are crude and crass and homophobic.” he was referring to a blog created for Councillors and former Councillor to post mainly homophobic posts about me. After the trial Cllr Adam Lowe who remains a town councillor told me he disagreed with everything the Judge had said. He of course recently went on to commit serious breaches of the councillors code of conduct against Oakham Mayor Zoe Nealson and was found guilty of what can only be described as homophobic conduct. Zoe is married to the Vice Chair of Oakham Pride Rachael Nealson. I don't worry about that now, because no one else is bothered about Oakham Town Council and all its uncontested members.
(update homophobic bigot and the most unkind person I have ever known, Joyce Lucas BEM has been co-opted back onto Oakham Town Council. Adam and Joyce the perfect team.
Man cleared of harassment was exercising freedom of expression, says district judge
Rutland Times Court News
Published: 15:33 Tuesday 15 October 2013
A man accused of harassing and stalking a council chief and councillor
has been cleared in court.
Martin Brookes, 47, of Willow Crescent, Oakham was found not guilty of stalking and
harassing Rutland County Council chief executive Helen Briggs and Oakham town councillor
Charles Haworth at Leicester Magistrates Court on Monday.
District Judge John Temperley said Mr Brookes, a former Oakham town councillor, was
exercising his freedom of expression when repeatedly e-mailing and blogging about Mrs
Briggs and it did not constitute harassment.
He also said Mr Brookes had phoned and texted Coun Haworth because he was trying to
find out who was attacking him on a website which had been set up anonymously by the
councillor. The judge accepted Mr Brookes was at his wits’ end.
Giving his verdict at the end of a five-day trial, Judge Temperley said: “Freedom of
expression is an essential function of a democratic society. It is applicable also to those who
offend and shock.”
Mr Brookes had been accused of making allegations on his blogspot about Mrs Briggs’
professional role and personal integrity and sending e-mails to her which he copied to other
members of the authority, police and Rutland MP Alan Duncan.
Judge Temperley pointed out that Mrs Briggs had told the trial she expected to be
challenged and criticised, but disagreed with her view that it was a personal vendetta.
Judge Temperley said: “The defendant is right to confront if he thought she was not doing
her job well. He questioned her relationship with the local police and press.
“But as all the evidence indicated everything (Mr Brookes says) is already in the public
domain. Some of it has been reported in Private Eye and by the BBC.
“Some of the comment is harsh, shocking or personally offensive, but that does not mean it
is criminal.
“I do not consider it as a personal vendetta. She is one of many people against whom the
defendant vents his spleen.”
He concluded: “I’m left in no doubt that the defendant’s conduct caused Mrs Briggs distress.
But freedom of expression does not constitute harassment.”
In finding Mr Brookes not guilty of stalking and harassing Coun Haworth, Judge Temperley
said the councillor had been “economical with the truth” which “undermined his credibility
as a witness”.
The trial heard there was a long history of animosity between Coun Haworth and Mr
Brookes.
Coun Haworth had attacked Mr Brookes on his website Laughing Stocks and had told the
trial the comments were satirical and lampooning.
However, Judge Temperley said: “I don’t agree. Some of the material goes way beyond
satire. They are crude and crass and homophobic.”
Mr Brookes had been accused of making silent phone calls and sending numerous text
messages to the councillor.
The judge found not all the texts were from Mr Brookes and there was “nothing derogatory
or offensive” in them. Their purpose was to find out if Coun Haworth was the author of the
Laughing Stocks.
Mr Brookes was accused of stalking Coun Haworth after “causing disruption” at a councillors
surgery and waiting with a camera outside a police station where Coun Haworth was making
a complaint against him.
The judge said based on the evidence from police in both instances, Coun Haworth’s claims
were “exaggerated”.
The judge concluded that while he could not be certain how many texts were sent to Coun
Haworth, he was satisfied that Mr Brookes’ motivation was to expose Coun Haworth as the
author of blogs which had “understandably caused him distress over a number of years”.
Judge Temperley said: “I accept he was by now at his wits’ end.”
The court had also heard that Mr Brookes had gone on a computer used by Coun Haworth
in Oakham Library and traced the history and sent the details to the councillor and a
number of other people.
The Judge said: “The main purpose was to cause embarrassment. In my view it was
deliberate and calculated.”
He said the library incident was “the most serious”, but it was not enough evidence on its
own to convict.
Prosecuting solicitor had argued that Mr Brookes’ allegations were all “without any
foundation and baseless and vacuous rumours” which fell foul of the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997’s “reasonable comment” yardstick.
But defence solicitor David Swingler argued Mr Brookes’ allegations in his blogs, tweets and
e-mails were all information that was already “out there”.
Mr Swingler said: “If everyone is asking these questions of whether or not something is
‘rotten in Rutland’ why on earth should Mr Brookes think he is in the wrong?”
