After a little research, I find the reason why Leicestershire Police won't charge Oakham Town Councillor
Charles Haworth and Co. (ex mayors)
The reason being quite simple, they were supporting Rutland County Council and in particular the
Tory Leader Roger Begy.
It is no coindence that Cllr Haworth started his filthy campaigns at the time myself and another of
his victims had rasied Standards Complaints about Tory Roger Begy's disgusting conduct.
(Roger Begy says Planning and Property are not his favourite thing, strangely most peoples complaints
relating to his conduct have a planning or property connection and we all know why his son was struck
of the solicitors register.)
The female victim of this mob, is now starting her own legal resolution after suffering at the hands of
Haworth and Co. Cllr Haworth posted anti sematic posts about her on the Rutland Chat Forum.
communicated as her ward Councillor unkown to her with a firm of Architect Inclusive Design Ltd she had employed, They employed former Rutland Planning officer and probally the shortest serving Oakham Town Councillor Mathew Taylor.
Cllr Haworth sent them congratulatory post cards when the resident feel into a legal dispute with them and Rutland County Council, on behalf of the people of Oakham, when she lost her home he passed on information via twitter about her bank. So much information Cllr Haworth and Co used to attack residents
is gleaned from information obtained in his role as a Cllr, so I find it hard to understand why he can say
he is not acting as a councillor, when he is conducting himself in a Anti Semetic, Homophobic Crude Crass and very damaging way.
We can see why Leicestershire Police won't charge Cllr Haworth for crimes he has admitted
committing.
Because if he appears before a Judge he will take people connect to Rutland County
Council down with him and not forgetting the former Mayors of Oakham.
This lady like me is disgusted by Rutland County Coouncils recent standards findings.
A Councillor from the South East of England contacted me and said "You can't put your councillor hat
on and off when it pleases you the man is a dick" So nationally people see his conduct is very wrong.
Well it appears that Councillor is very wrong, in Rutland if your a friend of the Rutland Conservatives you
can take you hat on and off when you please. That includes criminal counduct in public office.
I don't beleive the independent person Rutland County Council appointed to review the standards
complaint I made is qualified to make the decission they did.
Saying its fine to behave in any disgusting way as long as you say you were not acting in youre capacity as a councillor.
Cllr Haworth shared emails amongst his friends admitting he sent malicious post cards on behalf
of the residents of Oakham, Is that not acting in the capacity of a Councillor.
"on behalf of the residents of Oakham"
Cllr Haworth has admitted criminal acts in a recorded interview and in two written police statements
and Leicestershire Police chose not to charge him why? This question was put to DC McMacDonald in
court who asked a officer to lie about the decission not to charge him, she said it was a CPS descision.
I court he said it was his.
It's circumstantial but significant that on 4 December 2009 the Standards Board had issued its report upholding our complaints references SBE-O6B8O-YMBGV and SBE-07068-2XX5G against Begy.
Haworth's collusion with Smith of Inclusive Design the ladies architect started on 17 December 2009 after he'd sent the postcard to her in the summer at the time the complaints were made along with the posts on the forum about poking the eyes out of the jewish monkey ###### just one of the description enjoyed by
the Councillor and former Mayors on their vile chat forum.
That is the point Sgt Wharton became involved for the first time, I beleive he knew who was responsible
but took know action.
The SBE upheld our complaints about Begy's deliberate misconduct when engaging in Council business relating to her and her property. Rutland County Council could not refuse to forward these complaints
we had made against Roger Begy because his disgusting conduct had overspilled into the publics eye
and members of the public came forward willing to give evidence. Of course standards issued no sactions
because they did not have access to the previous 26 complaints that had been swept under the carpet
by the local Tory Standards committee and the paid help Geoff Pook monitoring officer who has
run away.
The same finding must applyto Haworth's even more disgusting conduct the emails prove this took place.
According to the CPS, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office is committed when:
• a public officer acting as such
• wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
• to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
• without reasonable excuse or justification
The motive may be malice or bad faith but reckless indifference is sufficient.
That is the complaint substantiated by his emails between Haworth and Smith.
The Assistant Chief Constable questions why people are accusing his force of a
corrupt relationship which our Councils appear to enjoy.
