Tensions Flare at Oakham Town Council as Decade-Old "Abolition" Petition Resurfaces

Tensions Flare at Oakham Town Council as Decade-Old "Abolition" Petition Resurfaces

By Local Democracy Reporter 

Oakham Town Council is bracing for a stormy session this coming Wednesday, February 11, as a bitter row over a decade-old campaign to abolish the council threatens to overshadow local business.

The rift centers on a formal question submitted by Cllr Paul Ainsley directed at Cllr Martin Brookes. The query seeks to force Cllr Brookes to declare whether he still believes the council is "no longer fit for purpose" a stance he took in 2015 when he launched a petition to dissolve the authority entirely.

The friction appears to be a delayed aftershock from the controversial reading of Cllr Anna Douthwaite’s resignation letter last year. Since that event, the atmosphere in the chamber has reportedly soured, with Cllr Brookes claiming he has faced "three consecutive months" of personal attacks.

Cllr Ainsley’s question, framed as a "straightforward two-option format," asks Cllr Brookes to choose between:

• (A) That the council should be dissolved to reduce costs and improve governance.

• (B) That he no longer holds this view.

In an opening statement, Cllr Ainsley cited emails from December 2025 in which Cllr Brookes allegedly claimed he was only a few signatures short of triggering a referendum on the council’s existence in 2015 and remains confident he could do so again if there was a need.

Cllr Brookes has reacted with fury to the inquiry, labeling it a "gross waste of meeting time" and an "amateurish attempt at a 'gotcha' moment."

In a written statement prepared for Wednesday’s meeting, seen by this reporter, Cllr Brookes accuses his colleague of a "retrospective fishing expedition" and a "campaign of targeted harassment."

"I will not be bullied, I will not be intimidated, and I will not be reduced to a binary 'A or B' answer to satisfy Cllr Ainsley’s personal vendetta," the statement reads.

Cllr Brookes further suggests that the questioning is a retaliatory measure for his own scrutiny of council efficiency. He has already raised the matter with the Monitoring Officer, arguing that the question has no relevance to the current business of the Oakham South Ward.

Cllr Paul Ainsley's Questions to be asked at Wednesday's meeting.

From: Paul Ainsley <painsley@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 6:35 PM
To: TownClerk <TownClerk@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Cc: enquiries <enquiries@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: Members’ Question for Next Council Meeting

Hi Chris,

The formal question and accompanying opening statement I intend to raise at the Full Council meeting on 14 January are set out below. I am content for this email to be included in the meeting pack.

Opening Statement

Councillor Brookes has previously stated, including in emails from 10 December 2025, that he once gathered signatures to abolish this council and was, unfortunately, just a few signatures short of triggering the required referendum. He’s also said he’s confident that, if he chose to pursue it again, he could secure the extra signatures needed to start that process.

I’m asking my question today simply to clarify his current position. To keep things clear for the minutes, I’ve set the question out in a straightforward two option format so the response can be recorded accurately and without any ambiguity.

Formal Question

To Councillor Martin Brookes, Member for the Oakham South Ward:

Could the councillor confirm, by choosing one of the following two positions, whether he still holds the view expressed during the petition he launched in 2015 under Sections 82 and 100 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007:

(A) that Oakham Town Council is no longer fit for purpose and should be dissolved to reduce costs and improve governance; or

(B) that he no longer holds this view?”

Thanking you in anticipation.

Kind regards

Cllr Paul Ainsley | Oakham North East

ROL House, Long Row, Oakham, LE15 6LN

T: 07903 004883 | e: painsley@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk

Please note: Emails may occasionally be sent outside standard working hours, with no expectation of a response outside your own.
For formal council matters or to contact the office, use our central mailbox: enquiries@oakhamtowncouncil.gov.uk. This address is jointly managed by the Council Office Team to ensure timely replies and a clear audit trail. Responses cannot be guaranteed if other office email addresses are used

Councillor Brookes will respond with this written statement:

Formal Written Statement: Councillor Martin Brookes 

Date: February 6, 2026 Regarding: The Procedural Irrelevance and Bad Faith 

Questioning by Cllr Ainsley 

1. Rejection of the "Question" and Procedural Abuse 

Let me be absolutely clear: I am under no legal or moral obligation to participate in a 
staged interrogation regarding personal views I held many years ago. Cllr Ainsley’s 
attempt to force me into a "two-option format" is not a pursuit of clarity; it is a 
transparent, amateurish attempt at a "gotcha" moment that has zero bearing on the 
current business of Oakham Town Council. 

This question is a gross waste of meeting time. It is a retrospective fishing expedition 
triggered by the inappropriately read resignation letter of a former colleague an event 
that was handled with questionable professionalism to begin with. To bring a matter 
from 2015 into a 2026 council meeting is a desperate reach for relevancy. I formally 
request that the Chair strikes this question from the record, as it serves no purpose 
other than to settle a personal score. 

2. A Campaign of Targeted Harassment 
What we are witnessing this evening is not "scrutiny" it is a persistent, calculated 
campaign of undermining and bullying. For three consecutive months, I have walked 
into this chamber only to be subjected to personal attacks. 
Cllr Ainsley’s obsession with my past activities is having a direct, adverse effect on 
my morale and, by extension, the effective working of this Council. It is a sad 
indictment of his priorities that he would rather litigate a decade-old petition than 
address the pressing needs of the Oakham South Ward. This is nothing more than a 
continuation of the hostility I have endured for daring to suggest that this Council 
should be more accountable and efficient. 

3. Final Notice 
I will not be bullied, I will not be intimidated, and I will not be reduced to a binary "A 
or B" answer to satisfy Cllr Ainsley’s personal vendetta. 
If Councillor Ainsley has nothing of substance to offer this town other than a 
15-year-old grievance, then he is the one who should be questioning his fitness for 
office. I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a formal answer. 
I have said all I intend to say on this matter. I expect the Council to return to actual 
business immediately. 

One-in-a-Generation Shake-up, Residents Urged to have your say on the Future of Rutland and Leicestershire’s Councils, Government launches a landmark consultation on the future of local power.

One-in-a-Generation Shake-up, Residents Urged to have your say on the Future of Rutland and Leicestershire’s Councils, Government launches a landmark consultation on the future of local power.

By Local Democracy Reporter

The map of Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland could be redrawn forever as the Government launches a landmark consultation on the future of local power.

Residents, business owners, and community leaders are being called upon to weigh in on a massive structural overhaul that would see the current system of 10 separate councils scrapped in favor of a smaller number of "unitary" authorities.

Currently, the region is served by a mix of city, county, and district councils. Under the new proposals, these would be replaced by streamlined councils responsible for every local service from bin collections and housing to social care and highways.

The Three Options on the Table

The Government is seeking views on three distinct visions for the region:

Two Councils (The City Extension): Leicester City’s boundaries would expand to take in surrounding areas, creating one large city council and one single council covering the remainder of Leicestershire and Rutland.

Two Councils (The Status Quo Boundary): One council would cover the entirety of Leicestershire and Rutland, while Leicester City Council would remain within its current borders.

Three Councils (The 'North, City, South' Plan): This proposal creates a council for North Leicestershire and Rutland, a council for South Leicestershire, and keeps Leicester City on its existing boundary.

"If things must change, this is the best way"

The "North, City, South" option is being spearheaded by the region’s seven district and borough councils alongside Rutland County Council. They argue their plan is the most effective way to save money while keeping local government "local."

Cllr Pip Allnatt, Leader of Melton Borough Council, speaking for the group, admitted that while they didn't believe the current system was "broken," the Government has mandated change.

"This represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset and reimagine local government," Cllr Allnatt said. "Our proposal is built on collaboration, evidence, and engagement. We believe North, City, South is the best way forward for our communities."

The coalition claims their three-council plan would:

Save over £44 million a year through efficiency.

Retain Rutland’s historic name and civic status.

Keep councils connected to the communities they serve.

Accelerate economic growth and support future devolution deals.

The Leaders Behind the 'North, City, South' Proposal

The push for the three-council model is supported by a cross-county coalition of leaders:

Cllr Gale Waller, Leader of Rutland County Council

Cllr Ben Taylor, Leader of Blaby District Council

Cllr Jewel Miah, Leader of Charnwood Borough Council

Cllr Phil Knowles, Leader of Harborough District Council

Cllr Stuart Bray, Leader of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

Cllr Pip Allnatt, Leader of Melton Borough Council

Cllr Richard Blunt, Leader of North West Leicestershire District Council

Cllr Samia Haq, Leader of Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

How to Have Your Say

The consultation is now live and will run for seven weeks. The Government is expected to make a final decision by the summer, with the new authorities officially taking over in 2028.

Residents have until 11:59pm on 26 March 2026 to submit their views.

Take Part in the Survey: You can access the official Government consultation and complete the online survey here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-government-reorganisation-in-leicestershire-leicester-and-rutland/proposals-for-local-government-reorganisation-in-leicestershire-leicester-and-rutland

For more info on the North, City, South plan:

www.northcitysouth.co.uk

Wolves and Bears Set for Oakham as Ambitious ‘Wild Rutland’ Vision Unveiled, Planning Application Submitted

Wolves and Bears Set for Oakham as Ambitious ‘Wild Rutland’ Vision Unveiled, Planning Application Submitted

by Martin Brookes

Wolves and Bears Set for Rutland as Ambitious ‘Wild Rutland’ Vision Unveiled

Plans have been formally submitted for a transformative 1,000-acre (435-hectare) conservation and tourism destination east of Burley Park Way. Named "Wild Rutland," the project seeks to take visitors on an immersive journey 1,000 years back in time, reintroducing iconic species that once roamed the British landscape.

The heart of the proposal, submitted by the Wild Rutland Partnership, is a managed wildlife park that will become home to Eurasian Brown Bears, Grey Wolves, Eurasian Lynx, and Elk. These species will live in large, naturalistic enclosures designed to mirror their historic habitats.

The project is described as a "conservation-led" effort to restore the local ecology. Central to the plan is the protection and enhancement of Burley Wood, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Developers intend to convert surrounding arable farmland into native woodlands and wildflower meadows, creating a massive biodiversity net gain for the county.

Wild Rutland is designed as a multi-day destination, blending education with high-end leisure. The planning statement outlines several key features:

An 83-room complex consisting of a hotel and nature-integrated lodges will allow guests to stay overnight within the park.

A central visitor center featuring retail spaces and "refuel stations" in the form of multiple cafes and dining outlets.

Beyond animal sightings, the park will feature a high-ropes adventure course built into the woodland canopy and "halls of residence" to host school groups and university researchers.

The Burley Estate, which has been farmed by the Hanbury family for generations, views the project as a vital diversification of their agricultural land. If approved, Wild Rutland is expected to create 75 full-time equivalent jobs for the local community.

Support over 1,300 parking spaces, including dedicated bays for coaches and large vehicles to manage tourism traffic.

Utilize a solar array to ensure the park’s infrastructure remains sustainable and carbon-conscious.

The application (Ref: 2026/0066/MAF) is currently under review by Rutland County Council. If the project clears the planning hurdles this year, construction could begin as early as Summer 2026, with a target opening date of 2027.

"Wild Rutland represents one of the most significant private investments in UK conservation this decade," the planning statement notes, aiming to position the county at the forefront of the UK’s nature-recovery movement.

Members of the public can view the full plans and environmental impact assessments on the Rutland County Council planning portal.

Planning Application:

https://publicaccess.rutland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=T963PQNNGJ500&activeTab=summary

Comment:

https://publicaccess.rutland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=T963PQNNGJ500

Frustration at Oakham Town Council as "Poorly Presented" Financial Report is Deferred, Committee is set up for UK Town Culture Bid

Frustration at Oakham Town Council as "Poorly Presented" Financial Report is Deferred, Committee is set up for UK Town Culture Bid 

By Local Democracy Reporter

Oakham Town Council’s latest extraordinary meeting descended into frustration this week as councillors grappled with an incomplete agenda report, and a race against time for a national cultural bid.

The meeting began with a sharp rebuke of a proposal to transfer funds from the council’s HSBC account to a new account with Unity Bank. The item was ultimately deferred after being labeled "poorly presented" a member.

The Clerk’s proposal notably failed to state the specific amount intended for transfer. Cllr Brookes raised serious alarms, questioning a request to move the "majority of funds" without clear details or sight of the new account’s terms. It emerged that while the Unity Bank account had been approved "a long time ago," most current members were not on the council at the time and had no record of the decision.

Cllr Paul Ainsley appeared to be the only member who recalled the original approval. Accessing the council’s HSBC accounts via his mobile phone during the meeting, he suggested a transfer figure above £350,000. which the Clerk had decided was the figure he wanted to transfer at a rate of £10,000 each day.

Despite the lack of clarity, Chairman Cllr Chris Nix moved to defer the matter, telling the Clerk, "This is no reflection on you" a comment that drew later criticism from Cllr Brookes.

Cllr Brookes requested that future papers include:

An annual review of HSBC signatories (a statutory requirement).

The formal appointment of signatories for the new Unity account.

The council has a history of slow progress regarding bank mandates; it reportedly took months to approve Lloyds Bank signatories, only for one appointee to resign shortly after.

Following the meeting, Cllr Brookes did not mince words regarding the council’s internal governance.

"Our financial regulations are meant to be robust to protect public money; far too often the council is sloppy," Cllr Brookes stated.

He revealed that a promised half-year internal audit has yet to be arranged by the Clerk despite repeated requests. Cllr Brookes also took aim at the Chairman’s "no reflection on you" remark, adding: "How will things ever improve when staff don't follow regulations but are constantly told in public they have not done anything wrong?"

Further controversy has arose with the revelation that a staff member was previously paid a £500 bonus for covering a "doing a great job" during an absence, while the long term staffing issues continued to simmer.

The council did eventually find agreement on one front: applying for UK Town of Culture status. The bid was prompted by Cllr Brookes, who spotted a "dreadful" and "unfairly critical" article in Nub News lambasting the council for not applying. Prior to this article the council had no knowledge of the opportunity.

A new committee has been formed to meet the 55-day deadline:

Chair: Cllr Jonathan Nicolls

Members: Cllrs Paul Ainsley, John Harris, and Chris Clark.

The committee has to rush to find member from the community.

Cllrs Powel and Payne from Rutland County Council were present and spoke, Cllr Powel said Rutland County Council would provide a letter of support if required.

However, the bid is already mired after the meeting. Cllr Brookes expressed concern over Cllr Ainsley’s suggestion that if local organisations and schools fail to reply to consultation letters, the government "does not need to know," so long as a few replies are received.

The council also approved a move to Google Workspace at the request of Cllr Ainsley. This was met with resistance from two councillors who pointed out that the council already pays for Microsoft subscriptions that offer the same services.

The Clerk confirmed that while the council pays for these subscriptions, Cllr Brookes noted that members are currently "not granted use of any packages apart from Outlook email," and even then they are not granted access  to many of the available features. He added members also lack access to the NALC (National Association of Local Councils) portal for legal guidance, despite the council paying for it. and numerous request for login details to be supplied to members go unanswered. 

Additionally, the council agreed to adopt .Gov.UK Notify, a text messaging service to keep residents informed of council workings.

The evening concluded with a closed-door emergency staffing meeting. While details remain confidential, Cllr Brookes noted that Oakham has "failed to deal with staffing correctly" for years, stretching back to the previous Clerk before he had returned to the council. That Clerk attempted and failed to seek money via a tribunal.

He offered praise for Melanie, the temporary admin assistant, suggesting she is being used "past the maximum we should expect." The staffing committee had intended to meet the Clerk today to discuss the meeting's outcomes, only to discover he previously arranged to take the day off.

Oakham Town Council is scheduled to meet again next Wednesday.

'A Vote on Competence': Cross-Party Panel Vetoes Rutland, Leicester and Leicestershire Reform Police Crime Commissioner’s Budget

'A Vote on Competence': Cross-Party Panel Vetoes Reform Police Crime Commissioner’s Budget

By Local Democracy Reporter

In an unprecedented move that has sent shockwaves through Leicestershire and Rutland’s political landscape, the Police and Crime Panel has unanimously voted to veto the budget proposals of Rupert Matthews, the country’s only Reform UK Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

The decision, which took place during a high-stakes meeting on Wednesday, marks the first time in history that the cross-party panel has exercised its power to block a PCC’s financial plan. While the debate centered on council tax figures, the fallout has been characterised as a damning indictment of Mr. Matthews’ leadership.

The meeting laid bare a significant divide between the PCC and his top officer. Mr. Matthews had proposed raising the police’s share of council tax by £11 for the 2026/27 financial year. However, temporary Chief Constable David Sandall took the extraordinary step of publicly opposing his boss, arguing that anything less than the maximum allowable £15 increase would leave the force in a state of crisis.

Chief Constable Sandall warned the panel that the £4 difference represented a £4.7m shortfall in the coming year, a figure that would balloon in the future. "The position today is there is £4.7m less than is required to sustain the current level of service to the public," Sandall told the panel.

He warned that the lower precept would be the equivalent of losing 30 new officers immediately, and up to 350 officers over four years. He further cautioned that 999 response times and the investigation of complex crimes would be "at risk" under the PCC's plan.

The scrutiny panel comprising representatives from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, and Independents found common ground in their concern for public safety.

The mood turned particularly sour for the PCC when his own political allies turned against him. Reform UK Leicestershire County Council leader Dan Harrison seconded the veto, stating the budget proposals made him "angry" and accusing Mr. Matthews of behaving in a "most unworthy way."

After the meeting Conservative Councillor Craig Smith summarised the gravity of the decision, noting that the unanimity of the vote transcended party lines.

"This is not party political, but rather a vote on the competence of the Police and Crime Commissioner, who totally ignored the advice of senior officers and execs," Cllr Smith said.

Following the veto, a defiant Mr. Matthews hit back at the panel, calling the decision "ironic." He argued that his proposal still represented a £13.5m increase in funding compared to last year and maintained that the force could manage the deficit.

"I will not just take the highest amount simply because I can," Matthews said. "There is already enough pressure on households up and down the country. We need to reset the approach to taxation."

He dismissed the concerns over the deficit, suggesting it represented a small fraction of a nearly £300m budget and expressed "every confidence" that the force could achieve his targets without "undue challenge."

The veto forces the PCC back to the drawing board. Under statutory rules, Mr. Matthews must now reconsider his proposals, taking into account the panel’s concerns regarding the force’s ability to keep the public safe.

He is expected to present a revised budget to the panel on 12 February.

Prolific Car Thief who went on a Multi-County Crime Spree including Oakham Rutland Jailed

Prolific Car Thief Jailed After Multi-County Crime Spree

A 19-year-old "prolific offender" who targeted homes across several counties has been sentenced to six years in custody. Theo Ramsey, formerly of New Fields Avenue, Leicester, was jailed on Friday, January 30, following an intensive investigation into a string of burglaries and vehicle thefts.

Between January and March of last year, Ramsey carried out a systematic series of "2-in-1" burglaries. His method was consistent: breaking into residential properties to locate car keys before fleeing with high-value vehicles parked outside.

The scale of the investigation spanned several towns and villages, including, Leicestershire, Fleckney, Broughton Astley, Countesthorpe, Narborough, Leicester, Coalville, Syston, Belton, Market Harborough, and Kirby Muxloe and Oakham in Rutland

The court heard that Ramsey’s actions were particularly invasive, as the majority of these crimes were committed overnight while victims were asleep in their homes.

Ramsey was eventually apprehended following a complex investigation by local police. Detectives utilized CCTV analysis and digital forensics specifically phone data to place Ramsey at the scene of the various crimes.

Faced with "overwhelming evidence," Ramsey pleaded guilty in December to a total of 25 charges, including:

• 12 counts of burglary

• 9 counts of motor vehicle theft

• 2 counts of attempted burglary

• Possession of nitrous oxide (for wrongful inhalation)

• Attempted theft and theft from a motor vehicle

Detective Constable Billie-Jo Kent, the lead investigator, highlighted the emotional toll these crimes took on the community. "Their homes were entered and their prize possessions were stolen. Many of the cars Ramsey stole were high-value prestigious vehicles. The incidents were extremely distressing for the victims."

DC Kent added that the force hopes the six-year sentence, to be served at a Young Offender Institution (YOI), provides reassurance to the public that such invasive crimes are met with serious consequences.

Watchdog Issues Warning to Police and Crime Commissioner Rupert Matthews (Reform) After "Inappropriate" Email to Officer and Social Media Blunder

Watchdog Issues Warning to Police and Crime Commissioner Rupert Matthews (Reform) After "Inappropriate" Email to Officer and Social Media Blunder

By Your Local Democracy Reporter

Leicestershire’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Rupert Matthews, has been warned over his professional conduct following two separate complaints involving an "inappropriate" email to a female officer and inaccurate public claims.

The Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Police and Crime Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee met on January 21, 2026, to resolve the matters through an "informal resolution" process. While the committee is not empowered to make formal findings of fact, the meeting resulted in formal reminders and recommendations being issued to the PCC regarding his future conduct.

Complaint A: The Email to a Female Officer

The first complaint centered on an email sent by Mr. Matthews to a serving female police officer. After reviewing submissions from both parties, the Sub-Committee expressed clear concern regarding the PCC's communication style.

The committee deemed the tone and content of the message "inappropriate for the office" and stated it fell short of the high standards expected of a public official in his position.

Mr. Matthews expressed regret during the meeting for the "offence and distress" caused to the officer and acknowledged the email was inappropriate.

A formal reminder has been recorded, advising the PCC to maintain "appropriate professional distance" and exercise better care when communicating with police staff.

Complaint B: Social Media and Public Remarks

The second complaint involved remarks made by the PCC in a public setting, which were later circulated in a social media clip.

The dispute involved a claim by Mr. Matthews that the complainant had telephoned him to discuss a specific issue.

During the proceedings, the PCC walked back this claim, clarifying that he "does not now contend" that the phone call took place as previously described.

The committee will send an explanatory note to the complainant regarding this clarification. Furthermore, a formal recommendation has been issued to the PCC, stating that any future public references to third-party contacts must be "accurate and verifiable."

Both matters were heard in an "exempt session" meaning the public and press were excluded to protect personal information. Because the complaints were classified as "non-criminal," the panel followed the Elected Local Policing Bodies Regulations 2012, which focuses on resolving disputes through mediation and recommendations rather than disciplinary sanctions.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that both complaints are now recorded as "resolved," provided the PCC adheres to the recorded reminders.

A formal record of the outcome is being sent to all parties involved. A public summary was released by the Panel to ensure transparency in the oversight of the PCC’s office.

Former Council Association Chief Jailed for Historic Rape of Child, a founding figure of the Leicestershire and Rutland Association of Local Councils (LRALC) and a former employee of Rutland County Council.

Former Council Association Chief Jailed for Historic Rape of Child, a founding figure of the Leicestershire and Rutland Association of Local Councils (LRALC) and a former employee of Rutland County Council.

Former Council Association Chief Jailed for Historic Rape of Child

By Local Democracy Reporter Tuesday, February 3, 2026

A former high-profile local government official, who spent decades at the heart of Leicestershire and Rutland’s council sector, has been jailed for seven years for the "detestable" rape and indecent assault of a young girl in the 1980s.

Jacob (Jake) Atkinson, 55, was sentenced at Preston Crown Court after a jury found him guilty of a catalogue of sexual offences. The court heard that the abuse began in Rossendale when the victim was just nine years old and only ceased when Atkinson left the area to attend university.

For forty years, Jacob Atkinson’s crimes remained hidden as he built a prominent career in local government. He was a founding figure of the Leicestershire and Rutland Association of Local Councils (LRALC) and a former employee of Rutland County Council.

The truth only emerged when the victim finally felt able to disclose the abuse first to her husband, then to the Truth Project, and finally to the police.

Dave Hindle, of Lancashire Police's major crime review team, praised the victim’s courage:

"Atkinson targeted his vulnerable victim for his own sordid sexual interests. Once he got to his 50s, he probably thought he had gotten away with his detestable crimes. It’s thanks to the victim’s bravery that a light has been shone on who Atkinson truly is."

It has now been revealed that Atkinson, of Birkdale Road, Anstey, resigned from his position as Chief Executive of the LRALC in May 2025. Crucially, he did so without disclosing to his employers that he had been arrested or charged with the historic offences.

The LRALC confirmed they only became aware of the charges after his departure and were prevented from speaking out until today due to legal reporting restrictions.

In a statement issued to member councils this week, Cllr Tony Hirons, Chairman of the LRALC, condemned the crimes:

"These crimes, which we condemn in the strongest possible terms, pre-date his employment... and have absolutely no connection to our organisation or its work," Cllr Hirons said. "Our thoughts are foremost with those harmed by these crimes. We stand with all survivors of sexual violence."

The association sought to reassure the public that they remain committed to safeguarding and that the staff team has worked to ensure "continuity and stability" since Atkinson’s sudden exit.

Handing down a seven-year prison sentence, the Judge noted that the term reflected the sentencing powers available at the time the offences were committed in the 1980s. In addition to his custodial sentence, Atkinson has been ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for life.

Leicestershire Police say: You can report a sexual assault or rape that happened at any time to us, even if it was months, years or decades ago. We take every report seriously, no matter how much time has passed.

We understand that there are lots of reasons why someone might not feel ready to tell anyone about what has happened right away. We also know it's common for survivors to take time to realise that what has happened is a crime.

To contact Leicestershire Police regarding historic child abuse (non-emergency), call 101, report online via their website, or visit a police station. 

Former Rutland, Leicester and Leicestershire Police Crime Commissioner Slams Successor Over 'Astonishing' Police Budget Decision

Former Rutland, Leicester and Leicestershire PCC Slams Successor Over 'Astonishing' Police Budget Decision

By Local Democracy Reporter

A fierce political row has erupted over the future of policing in Leicestershire, as former Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Lord Willy Bach launched a blistering attack on his successor, Rupert Matthews.

In a stinging social media post, Lord Bach accused the current Reform PCC of "selling the citizens of Leicestershire short" after Mr. Matthews reportedly rejected police advice regarding the annual council tax precept.

The heart of the dispute lies in the police precept the portion of council tax that goes toward funding local law enforcement. Lord Bach claims that Mr. Matthews has refused to set the precept at the £15 increase recommended by Leicestershire Police, a move he says is out of step with every other PCC in the country.

According to Lord Bach, this decision will leave a significant black hole in the force's finances:

• £1.4 million: The extra savings the force will reportedly have to find next year.

• 30 Officers: The equivalent loss in manpower resulting from the funding gap.

"I am upset and angry at the astonishing and ridiculous decision by my successor," Lord Bach stated. "The result of his decision will be that our Police Force will have to lose the money equivalent of more than 30 additional Police Officers who would be protecting us from crime."

Lord Bach further argued that the public is willing to pay more to ensure safety, comparing the £15 annual increase to the price of "one cup of coffee per year." He claimed that a majority of residents consulted were in favor of the higher precept to better protect communities across the city and the two counties.

"It is astonishing that the PCC has gone against police advice. But then, over the last five years he has always treated the police force with barely concealed contempt."

The critique did not stop at budget figures. Lord Bach leveled a series of personal and professional accusations against Mr. Matthews, citing the departure of "two outstanding Chief Constables" during his tenure and accusing him of "trashing the Leicestershire Police’s good reputation."

"This is a step too far," Lord Bach concluded. "I hope most of those who read this will agree that his conduct here is totally unacceptable."

Rutland County Council Steps Up After Oakham Town Council Limits LGBT Flag Display for LGBT History Month

Rutland County Council Steps Up After Oakham Town Council Limits LGBT Flag Display for LGBT History Month

By The Local Democracy Reporter

In a swift response to local disappointment, Rutland County Council (RCC) has stepped in to ensure the LGBT flag flies prominently in Oakham throughout February. The move comes after Oakham Town Council (OTC) sparked backlash with a decision described by critics as "daft."

The controversy began when Oakham Town Council voted to amend a proposal regarding the flying of the flag at Cutts Close. While Councillors Martin Brookes and Sally-Anne Wadsworth initially sought a more extensive display for LGBT+ History Month, the council ultimately decided the flag would only be hoisted on the first and last days of the month.

Cllr Brookes expressed his frustration with the outcome, noting that while he must respect the democratic decision of the chamber, the result was "disappointing."

The decision by the Town Council did not sit well with Oakham’s LGBT+ community. Following discussions with Hannah, the organiser of Oakham Pride, Cllr Brookes escalated the matter to the unitary authority.

In a significant win for local campaigners, Rutland County Council agreed to fly the flag in a high-visibility location: outside the Rutland County Library.

"I am pleased and thank Rutland County Council, they recognise how important LGBT History Month is to the community," Cllr Brookes said. "Very shortly after speaking to Oakham Pride, I decided to write to the County Council, and I am pleased to say they agreed to fly the flag in a prominent place."

LGBT+ History Month is an annual month-long observance that focuses on the history of gay rights and related civil rights movements.

It aims to promote equality and diversity by making the achievements and contributions of LGBT+ people visible, histories that were often suppressed or ignored in the past.

Flying the flag is a public signal of inclusion. It tells residents and visitors that the county is a safe, welcoming place for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

February was chosen in the UK to coincide with the 2003 abolition of Section 28, a law that previously prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality.

The debate over the flagpoles at Cutts Close is far from over. The issue is set to return to Oakham Town Council in approximately six months.

While the Town Council has traditionally flown the flag for the Leicester Pride weekend, Cllr Brookes indicated a pragmatic approach for future requests. "I don’t think I will be asking for the flag to be flown for the entire Pride month," 

For now, however, the rainbow colours will remain a constant fixture outside the library, ensuring the month of February is marked with the visibility the community fought for.

Oakham Council Faces Cultural Crossroads Amid Victoria Hall Closure, extraordinary meeting

Oakham Council Faces Cultural Crossroads Amid Victoria Hall Closure

by The Local Democracy Reporter.

 A major bid for a new government initiative and a significant modernisation of the Town Council’s digital infrastructure are set to headline an upcoming extraordinary meeting of Oakham Town Council.

The meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, will see local representatives gather at the council offices at Rol House to discuss the future of the town’s cultural standing and its internal operations.

The most high-profile item on the agenda is a proposal for Oakham to bid for the Town of Culture, a new government initiative. If successful, the designation could potentially unlock funding and prestige for the town.

However, time is of the essence. Following the government’s announcement last October via County Councils, (Rutland County Council have said they did not receive notification to inform town councils) the initial application which requires public and stakeholder consultations must be completed by March. Critics have pointed to the Council's history of slow progress, most notably regarding the ongoing efforts to rescue Victoria Hall from trustee failings. Despite over a year of council intervention, Victoria Hall closed its doors this month, casting a shadow over the town's cultural capacity just as this new bid is considered.

In addition to cultural ambitions, the Council is looking to streamline its communication and financial management. Members will consider SMS Messaging adopting "GOV.UK Notify" as the Council’s official system for sending text messages to residents.

Implementing Google Workspace to better coordinate consultations, surveys, and working groups.

The potential transfer of council funds from HSBC to Unity Bank.

Public Participation

As with all full council meetings, residents are encouraged to attend and participate. Under the Council’s standing orders, there is a designated window for public deputations and questions.

However, residents are reminded that outside of these specific periods, public participation is only permitted at the Chairman's discretion. Those attending should also be aware that the proceedings are filmed and recorded and streamed live.

Meeting Details:

When: Wednesday, 4th February 2026, at 6:30 p.m. 

Where: Town Council Offices, Rol House, Long Row, Oakham 

Next Meeting: 11th February 2026