He has very kindly provided the NYE with a press release.

To ensure our coverage is comprehensive and impartial, we will publish press releases provided by each candidate and then interview them individually closer to the election.

PRESS RELEASE

Yorkshire Party aims for win in York and North Yorkshire Mayoral election 2024 with Keith Tordoff MBE

Keith Tordoff MBE has been selected by the Yorkshire Party as its candidate for Mayor of York and North Yorkshire in the 2024 election.

The party is aiming for a major breakthrough by winning the election, fielding a heavyweight candidate in a type of election where the personality and ability of the people standing has proven decisive in the past.

Mr Tordoff previously stood as an independent candidate in both 2021 North Yorkshire Police Fire Crime Commissioner (PFCC) elections, finishing in third place, only marginally behind Labour.

Keith served as a police officer, detective and specialist fraud investigator for banks, before becoming a successful businessman, growing million pound businesses in several sectors, from retail to mail order to property development.

He also has a strong record of involvement in the voluntary sector, serving as Chair of the Nidderdale Chamber of Trade and Chair of the Pateley Bridge Britain in Bloom Group, winning national awards with both. Keith is a Patron of Dementia Forward a registered charity based in North Yorkshire and was fundraiser of the year in the North for the Yorkshire Air Ambulance.

Mr Tordoff was awarded the MBE in 2018 for services to business and the community.

His priorities, as mayor, would be:

• to make North Yorkshire an economic powerhouse: a place where businesses can thrive, and residents can find meaningful employment both in rural communities and in its cities.
• improving transport links and connectivity, especially for rural communities.
• making North Yorkshire a safer place to live, work and visit.
• to make North Yorkshire a world leader in sustainability, while protecting and advancing its agricultural and fishing heritage.

Yorkshire Party co-leader, Dr Bob Buxton, said “Keith is the clear alternative to the Tories in North Yorkshire.  His experience, skills and passion make him ideally equipped to take on the complex challenges that come with being the first Mayor of North Yorkshire.  He is a man who sees the big picture but also has the critical skills to understand the detail and ensure that the solutions are the right ones.”

Commenting on his selection, Mr Tordoff said “North Yorkshire deserves a strong, independent champion – someone who understands the county’s needs and aspirations, and has the background and wealth of experience to deliver on addressing them. I will identify problems through listening to the people and turn things around, where needed, with a practical no nonsense business-like approach, driven by my passion and love for the county. Together, let’s do it for North Yorkshire!”

ALL ENQUIRIES PLEASE CONTACT:

Keith Tordoff MBE: Tel. 07552 769000 (any time)

www.keithtordoff4mayor.co.uk

According to York City Council, which runs crematoria and graveyards in the city, the total number of cremations and burials carried out over the past few years are as follows:

Here is a nice pretty picture of that data.

How strange! According to the ONS England & Wales registered deaths increased by 18% in 2020, but it is not reflected in the cremations and burials carried out in the City of York. It looks like business as usual in York.

So the politicians and bureaucrats at City of York Council have closed the city for tourism and hospitality, a major part of the local economy. They’ve thrown a great many people on the dole. They’ve closed a plethora of local businesses, some never to return. They did all this for a pandemic which appears never to have arrived.

Did the local government authority tasked with cremating and burying the dead during the deadly viral holocaust in the City of York take it’s eye off the ball? Or did the local authority cover up the fact there was no large increase in cremations and burials in the city during 2020? Answers are needed.

These politicians and bureaucrats should have been fully aware of the cremation and burial figures because, if a deadly viral holocaust had actually arrived, they may have needed to secure extra capacity to cremate and bury the hundreds of extra corpses. These politicians and bureaucrats have caused an enormous amount of damage in the city by not doing what they are elected and paid to do.

I suspect they’ll just use the Nuremberg defence: “I was just obeying orders.”

These politicians and bureaucrats are the plague on our country, not a novel variant of the Coronavirus.

Tier 2 local authorities across North Yorkshire will also be dissolved. Other councils affected are Craven District Council,  Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Ryedale District Council and Selby District Council.

The local government reorganisation will also see the end of North Yorkshire County and York City Councils.

The race will now be on to be the last leader and mayor of Scarborough Borough Council.

The wholly incompetent purveyors of poor investment decisions (otherwise known as councillors) have left large concrete slabs in prime tourist venues and other prime tourist sites decaying and undeveloped for decades.

The last residents of the Clown Hall will be fighting like rats in a sack to be the last name on the hallowed boards of the great and the crud that once included Scarborough’s celebrity paedophile ring; Savile and Jaconelli.

It is expected that some councillors will retire before the local government reorganisation so they can be awarded Honorary Aldermen status for their length of service and similarly get their name up in lights.

Six figure salaried Senior Officers across North Yorkshire will also be looking to secure their gold-plated pensions pots, lucrative early retirement on an unaffordable final salary pension scheme or formulating plans to land a money-spinning new job to swell their already bulging pension pots before retirement.

How will Scarborough’s Senior Officers fare in the race for a new job given their accounts haven’t been signed off for five years? With the reorganisation likely less than two years away it looks like they never will be signed off. With the record of poor service delivered to the people of the Borough will anyone offer them a job cleaning loos?

• – an “In My View” up-date by NIGEL WARD.

~~~~~

At a full meeting of the City of York Council (CYC) last night, Thursday 11th December 2014, Councillors voted overwhelmingly in favour of refunding ALL motorists wrongfully ‘fined’ under the disastrous and unlawful Lendal Bridge scheme, reversing previous decisions made under the leadership of resigned CYC Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER [Lab.].

The Lendal Bridge fasco has been extensively covered here in the North Yorks Enquirer:

• “A Poke In The ‘Eye’ For York City Council”
• “City of York Council: The Ballad Of Lendal Bridge”
• “CYC Leader Cllr. James ALEXANDER – Assault Allegations”
• “City of York Council Leader Cllr James Alexander Quits”
• “Lendal Bridge ‘Rip-Off’ Reversed By New CYC Leader”

Newly-elected Leader Councillor Dafydd WILLIAMS [Lab.] has called for an end to the culture of petty personal attacks which had escalated towards the end of Councillor James ALEXANDER’s troubled and unpopular tenure.

In other parts of North Yorkshire – notably, the Borough of Scarborough – similar sweeping changes (if , indeed, anything really has changed) are anticipated in the coming months, as the electorate becomes aware of widespread autocratic and uncouth behaviour on the part of leading Councillors.

• – an “In My View” update by NIGEL WARD, reporting on new City of York Council Leader Councillor Daffyd WILLIAMS’ decision to pay back the Council’s ill-gotten gains.

~~~~~

Readers may remember the row over the unlawfully implemented traffic prohibition at York’s Lendal Bridge.

Briefly, former Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER [Lab.] was determined to stand by the decision to offer repayment of thousands of Penalty Charge Notices oONLY to those motorists who actively applied for a refund.

• “A Poke In The ‘Eye’ For York City Council”

A number of commentators (myself included) took the view that for the Council to retain payments made under the terms of the faulty regulations was probably illegal (and perhaps even criminal) under the terms of the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968.

• “City of York Council: The Ballad Of Lendal Bridge”

Unsurprisingly, referrals to Chief Constable Dave JONES of the North Yorkshire Police resulted in no prosecutions being brought against the Council.

Within the Council, however, feelings ran high, with a number of acrimonious and heated exchanges taking place, both between opposing Councillors and even between Councillors and Officers.

• “CYC Leader Cllr. James ALEXANDER – Assault Allegations”

All things considered, it surprised few when Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER ‘suddenly’ announced his resignation, both as Leader of the Council and as Leader of the Labour Group.

• “City of York Council Leader Cllr James Alexander Quits”

Now comes the announcement that James ALEXANDER’s successor, newly-elected Leader Councillor Dafydd WILLIAMS [Lab.] – clearly mindful of the huge task before him rebuilding public confidence in the Council – has already instructed Officers to refund payments to ALL motorists caught under the faulty regulations.

Councillor Dafydd WILLIAMS has been reported as stating:

“The council got this wrong, and we are keen to make amends and move forward. We cannot put the Lendal Bridge issue to bed while people are still owed money.”

Whatever Councillor Dafydd WILLIAMS’ motives, we at the Enquirer applaud a victory for common sense and common decency, in the public interest, and offer our special appreciation to Private Eye and to ‘Mr Loophole’ Nick FREEMAN. Salute!

“We are all in this together”.

• – a short bulletin by NIGEL WARD.

~~~~~

City of York Council (CYC) Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER has tonight (Wednesday 19th November 2014) stepped down from both the Leadership of the Council and as Leader of the Labour Group, announcing that he will be leaving the Council entirely at the May 2015 elections. Some observers discerned that it was a somewhat stage-managed ‘impromptu’ resignation.

Councillor James ALEXANDER has been at the centre of some acrimonious exchanges recently, notably over the Lendal Bridge fiasco and the alleged ‘altercation’ with CYC Legal Officer Andy DOCHERTY:

• A Poke in the ‘Eye’ for York City Council
• City of York Council: The Ballad of Lendal Bridge
• CYC Leader Cllr. James ALEXANDER – Assault Allegations
• CYC: Not Feeling Yourself?

He is apparently to take up a new position accompanying Ed MILLIBAND in his quest for political obscurity.

Departing Council Leader Councillor James Alexander’s Statement

I have relished the opportunity York people and the Labour Party have given me in electing me twice to serve Holgate ward and then to lead this great city over the past three and a half years. I have lived in York all my adult life, this is my home and it is an honour to lead the city in which I am raising my family.

People who know me know that I give everything I can to my work and the Labour movement. But the long hours, pressure of grappling with government cuts and personalised politics has taken its toll on me and my family. It is also widely acknowledged that the last few years have been a most difficult time for all council leaders.

Despite recently receiving unanimous support in the Labour Group to continue and a part of me wanting to go on, I cannot fully commit to another four years. My new policy role at the national Labour Party is an opportunity I could not turn down.

I am proud of what Labour has achieved under my leadership since 2011, to turn a city in stagnation onto the path to prosperity. Under my leadership we showcased York to the world by bringing the Tour De France here. We have helped reduce unemployment to record levels, outperforming national figures, bringing businesses like John Lewis and Hiscox. The city has seen Terry’s, the Bonding Warehouse and the White Swan developed.

The Network Rail training centre has been the first major development on York Central in a generation and we can look forward to further developments coming to fruition. This I believe reflects a new confidence in investing in York. We have seen the long overdue refurbishment of the city centre and significant progress on the Community Stadium project.

Under my leadership the council has helped ensure that, despite the unprecedented cuts forced upon us by the Government, no library, swimming pool or children’s centre has closed in York and in particular we have maintained some of the highest performing schools in the country. The same cannot be said at other councils across the country. The job of protecting public services is going to be harder for my successor as further cuts begin to bite.

We have paved the way for the fastest internet connections in the country coming to York and have introduced city centre wi-fi. We built two new park and rides as well as much needed new council homes. As an outcome of York’s Fairness Commission York was the first Yorkshire local authority to pay the Living Wage, helping 900 of our lowest paid staff.

We modernised the council by introducing the webcasting of council meetings and the council relocating to West Offices saves £17million over 25 years. As leader it has been an honour to have met so many residents, volunteers, carers, businesses and community leaders. In particular I have learned a lot from the Community Conversations I have held in every community in York over the last year. Residents have expressed to me their frustration with cuts but also their hopes for the future of York. I am particularly proud that under my leadership York has become a more welcoming place for our LGBT community.

The next Leader of the Labour Group will have my full support. I’m confident they will be elected again with a strong mandate and an overall majority to run the council in May.

As I leave office I want to thank residents, council staff, senior management and my Labour Party colleagues for their support. I would especially like to thank the residents of Holgate for putting their faith in me, so much so that they re-elected me with the most votes of any Labour councillor at the last local elections.

The experience has been humbling.

I also want to thank my family for putting up with me during this tumultuous period of my life. My family has helped me learn that there is more to life than politics. I often remind myself it isn’t very often that a working class son of a single parent dinner lady, with no political connections, who started work as a temp at the council, becomes Leader.

It is time for me to close this chapter in my life and open up a new one, with a new set of challenges. No longer being Leader will help me gain a better sense of priorities and allow me to pursue other interests whilst I am both young and idealistic enough.

I want to live in a society where a person’s talents and hard work will determine where they get to in life and not the reverse. This is why I am in politics and I have not forgotten this ideal.

Yeah. Right.

In light of the allegations of bullying by elected members in recent times, one Jack Hamilton made an FOI request concerning allegations of bullying by elected members of the council on the WhatDoTheyKnow site.

Jack wanted to know how many elected members had been involved in inappropriate behaviour. You’ll notice Jack didn’t want any names, just facts and figures.

“Please tell us how many allegations have been made of inappropriate behaviour against current Cabinet members in the last two years.”

 “Please tell us how many allegations have been made of inappropriate behaviour against any elected member in the last two years.”

York City Council’s response was to inform Jack he wasn’t actually Jack Hamilton!

“Unfortunately your request does not fall within the definition of a valid request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).”

“To be valid under the FOIA, a request must fulfill the criteria set out in section 8 of the Act. Section 8 (1)(b) requires the requestor to provide their real name and address for correspondence.”

“We believe that you used a pseudonym and therefore consider your request invalid.”

“We may, however, be able to assist you with your request if you can provide your real name.”

The council has obviously read the text of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but clearly they really don’t understand how the Act is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The ICO considers it overly legalistic to seek proof of identity on a routine or even spot-check basis. The ICO further believes it would not be in the spirit of the Act or the ICO’s role in promoting access to official information.

The ICO’s guidance suggests that as a matter of good practice an authority should still consider a request made using a pseudonym where it is content to disclose the information requested and where identity is not relevant.

If the council again refuses to answer what appears to be a perfectly reasonable FOI request, then it would appear the council officer who ordered the FOI response is likely acting under political influence and not being apolitical.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on the progress of an extraordinary FOIA request concerning allegations of an assault by City of York Council Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER [Lab.].

~~~~~

Many readers will already be familiar with a government-sponsored web-site – WhatDoTheyKnow.com .

The site offers a very helpful service comprising a number of very useful features. Members of the public may register a username and an email address (never visible to other users) FREE OF CHARGE.

The site allows users to direct Freedom of Information requests to an extensive list of authorities who fall subject to the FOIA. The site notifies users when FOIA requests have received a response (be it partial, exhaustive or refused) and, in the case of requests that have reached the 20 working day time-limit imposed by the Act, prompts users to proceed to Internal Review, thence (if still unfulfilled) to prepare a case for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

But the value of the site goes far beyond being merely a convenient secretarial assistant.

The entire FOIA exchange between the user and the authority in question appears on the web-site for all the world to see.

This offers two benefits.

Firstly, users writing for a potentially wide readership tend to consider the form of words of their requests with some care. It has been wisely said that the secret of writing good FOIAs lies in the precision of the questions.

‘Sloppy’ questions are easy for authorities to slap aside. Indeed, even ‘tight’ questions do not always receive the frank disclosure that the law demands (not ‘alf). Nevertheless, there are often important insights to be gleaned from a clear picture of the information that authorities are determinedly refusing to disclose.

Secondly, other users may view users’ requests – and add annotations. Often, such annotations offer helpful advice to requestors. Some of this advice is very wise. Some not.

But, I repeat, by far the most important aspect of the WhatDoTheyKnow.com service is that it is all in the public domain.

This makes for transparency.

But it also imposes upon the user the full rigour of the libel legislation. The user is the publisher of any allegations and is personally responsible for the veracity of his/her allegations, as included in his/her FOIA requests.

So it is sometimes very interesting to read other people’s FOIA requests. It is a fine art. Some people write hundreds and never get any better. Others are far from prolific. Once in a while, one encounters a WhatDoTheyKnow.com user who is very finely focussed.

And once in a while, one encounters an FOIA of astonishing daring.

Consider this one, to City of York Council:

Dear City of York Council,

There is widespread talk in this city of a blazing row between the Council Leader Mr James Alexander and the Council monitoring officer Mr Andy Docherty.

It is alleged that a meeting between the two men deteriorated into an angry exchange with the Council Leader calling the monitoring officer “useless” and that after a further deterioration in the meeting the Council Leader “took a swing” at the monitoring officer.

Behaviour of this kind is not what one expects in Local Government and is of very great public interest. If true, it is a breach of Codes of Conduct.

You are asked to confirm or deny this verbal report currently in wide circulation around the city.

If it is correct please provide details of when and where this exchange took place and under what circumstances.

If it is correct please provide details of any formal or informal complaint currently being considered; and also any Code of Conduct disciplinary action currently being considered.

Yours faithfully, etc

This extraordinary allegation has been in the public domain on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website since the FOIA was lodged on 24th August 2014.

Readers may wonder what are the chances of stumbling around WhatDoTheyKnow.com on a wet afternoon and coming across an allegation as flagrant (and damaging) as this.

Well, in my case, the odds were dramatically shortened by the fact that I did not stumble upon it by chance.

The very same allegations were reported to me a few days ago by a Councillor who told me an identical story.

First stop – Google.

I typed the following terms into the Google ‘Search’ bar:

• “City of York Council Leader James ALEXANDER Monitoring Officer Andy DOCHERTY”

This is what came up:

The first of these two links (from the Bradford Telegraph & Argus of 13th December 2013) tells a rather interesting tale. I quote:

“A report brought before City of York Council’s audit and governance committee at the request of leader Coun James Alexander and his deputy, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, this week recommended speakers should not criticise the authority’s officials, should avoid “party political” and “frivolous” points and should ensure anything they say is “factually correct”.

However, the committee ruled the report, written by assistant director for governance Andy Docherty, should be deferred ahead of a wider consultation on the council’s constitution, because it could restrict democracy.”

It could indeed restrict democracy.

There is something rather disturbing about a man known for his dominant (not to say domineering) style of Leadership seeking to shut down criticism. Disturbing because it has a despotic (amost sociopathic) ring to it.

Fortunately, reason would appear to have prevailed.

Sources close to the Leadership have suggested that Andy DOCHERTY’s report was produced under some duress. Some have suggested that it was designed to fail. Some have suggested that Councillor James ALEXANDER became wise to this possibility. Whatever the state of relations between Councillor James ALEXANDER and Andy DOCHERTY before this episode, it is probably fair to say that it did nothing to sweeten the mix.

City of York Council Monitoring Officer Andy DOCHERTY has a perspective on this that is also in the public domain on WhatDoTheyKnow.com:

The above image shows only the most recent in a thread of exchanges between DOCHERTY and Councillors Tracey SIMPSON-LAING and Ruth POTTER – well worth a thorough read.

But it was the second of the two Google returns (pictured above) that led me to the FOIA request cited – and to its response – or rather, its Refusal Notice, though it is not explicitly stated as such – on 27th August 2014:

In response to your email on the 24^th August 2014 regarding the Council Leader and Monitoring Officer, I would like to advise that this is not a request for recorded information and therefore is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

If you would like information about making a request under the Freedom of Information Act, guidance from the information commissioner can be found through the following link:
[1]http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/officia…

However, I can confirm outside of the Act that there have been no incident such as that described in your email and I can on behalf of the council verify that the verbal report you say is circulating is false.

Should you wish to make a request for recorded information in future, this will be considered under the Act.

Regards,

Erin Francis Long | Information Compliance Officer
t: 01904 554145 | e: [2] [email address]
City of York Council  | Complaints Team, Customer & Business Support Services

This is unequivocal:

• “I can on behalf of the council verify that the verbal report you say is circulating is false.”

Erin Francis LONG has issued, no doubt with the full approval of Councillor James ALEXANDER, a robust and categorical denial.

One may be reminded of the celebrated response, from the witness-box, of Mandy Rice DAVIES in the Profumo trial – “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”.

Annotations to the FOIA on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website (on 28th, 30th and 31st August 2014) only add to the intrigue.

1. [PS – 28/08/14] Typical York Council response to an FOI request – evasion.
2. [JH – 30/08/31] I too have heard this story. Not directly from a direct witness but from somebody I trust who did speak to a direct witness. City of York Council need to take the utmost caution in replying to this FOI. I understand the witness is preparing to make a public statement and should that happen the outcome could include both civil and criminal charges. Give recent events in Rotherham, CYC must be on guard to ensure it shines a light on abusive behaviour at all levels. Officers may feel they gave to protect their leaders but as we can now see, when the lid blows those same officers find themselves directly in the firing line.
3. [PSC – 31/08/14] I wonder if Erin Long’s sudden departure from City of York Council got anything to do with this ‘sensitive’ issue?

This ‘unofficial’ Refusal Notice was, of course, challenged by the original requestor on Monday 23rd September 2014, the first working-day following the expiry of the statutory period of 20 working-days allowed by the Act for authorities to respond.

City of York Council had delayed its robust and categorical denial until the last possible moment. Was the denial not so robust and categorical during any of the preceeding nineteen days since the question was asked? Why the delay?

Had there, perhaps, been some fierce in-fighting about how (or whether, even) to provide a frank and honest response, as the law requires?

The requestor’s challenge elicited the following response from Erin Francis LONG:

I have now left City of York Council. Please forward your email to [City of York Council request email]<mailto:[City of York Council request email]> or telephone 01904 554145 so that your enquiry can be dealt with by a member of the Complaints and Feedback the team during office hours.

Outside office hours:

If you have an urgent social care concern please call 0845 0349417.

For details of other emergency numbers including urgent housing repairs please call 01904 551550.
Thanks
Erin Long

Now call me old-fashioned, but one must surely admit that this case now bears at least some of the classic hallmarks of a Council cover-up operation.

I decided to investigate further.

At 4:44pm on Tuesday 23rd September 2014, I emailed City of York Council Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER and asked him myself:

Councillor James Alexander – Leader – City of York Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

James,

I regret that you have found yourself unable to treat me with the modicum of respect innate in a personal acknowledgement and response to my two earlier emails. That was remiss.

I now found it necessary to correspond with you for a third time, hopefully with better results. Failure to treat all with respect, as you may be aware, is a breach of the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life:

It is also a breach of 3(1) of the City of York Council Members’ Code of Conduct.

May I specifically request that you do not fail to show me the respect implicit in a personal acknowledgement and response to this email? Thank you.

To business:

I have been approached by a human being who asserts to having been an eye-witness to an altercation between yourself and City of York Concil Monitoring Officer Mr Andrew DOCHERTY. The same human being asserts also that the incident included an assault or an attempted assault.

These are very serious allegations.

I see, from Googling around for a few moments, that I am not the only party who has been made privy to these allegations. This suggests to me one of two possibilities:

• (1) the allegations are false and malicious and utterly without foundation, and thus subject to remedy under legislation dealing with defamation – for such allegations, if untrue, are certainly defamatory and injurious to your public repute (and, hence) fitness for public office,
  

or

• (2) the allegations are substantively true.

My question is this:

Which is it? (1) False,  or (2) True?

I offer you this opportunity to make a personal statement ahead of publication of an article based on the allegations that I have outlined.

I can well appreciate that you may prefer not to comment and to invoke your ‘right to silence’, with its concomitant ramifications of perceived guilt. That is a matter for you.

My perspective is somewhat different. I take the view that an innocent man would have no hesitation in offering a frank and honest rebuttal of any and all allegations founded in untruth and injurious to the good repute of the Leader and, by extension, his Council.

The irony of this present situation is that, had you responded personally to my earlier correspondence, openly and transparently, I should have quickly forgotten your name. The present allegations would have been of only minor interest.

Now, they are of considerable interest.

But I do want to be certain that I have given your the courtesy of a reasonable opportunity to state your position and your case.

Please do so not later than close-of-play (5:00pm) on Friday 26th September 2014. Failure to respond in a timely manner to this courteous and generous opportunity to set the record straight may well be interpreted by 100,000 readers to be a tacit admission that the Leader of City of York Council is little more than a common thug, lacking the strength of character to admit to a momentary loss of composure in the face of extreme provocation. That, too, is a matter for you.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

I received a read-receipt from Councillor James ALEXANDER thirty-six minutes later at 5:20pm the same day.

I believe that I had captured Councillor James ALEXANDER’s attention.

But not his open and transparent response.

What possibly reason could Councillor James ALEXANDER have even to need think twice about issuing the robust and categorical denial that ex-Data Compliance Officer Erin Francis LONG had already published into the public domain back on 27th August 2014.

Is Councillor James ALEXANDER having second thoughts about whether or not it is still his position that the allegations published on WhatDoTheyKnow.com on 24th August 2014 are false – or are they true?

But the line has gone dead. Jimmy Boy has gone to ground. I can only conclude that Councillor James ALEXANDER has elected to take his chances with the thousands and thousands of readers now eminently likely to believe, by default, that he is little more than a bully – a common thug – rather than provided them with an open and transparentpersonal assurance of his innocence.

But let me close this report by allowing WhatDoTheyKnow.com the last word by quoting the final entry on the ‘thread’, from WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer moderator Richard TAYLOR.

It makes clear that City of York Council has requested that WhatDoTheyKnow.com removes certain annotations which, according to the Chief Executive Officer, include defamatory statements against a specific member of staff (should that read “former member of staff”?).

More to the point is the fact that the Chief Executive Officer has not requested the removal of the original FOIA request containing the explicit allegation that Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER  “took a swing” at Andy DOCHERTY. This would seem to indicate that the allegation is not defamatory – because it is true, and the truth can never be defamatory:

The Chief Executive Officer of City of York Council is Kersten ENGLAND. Kersten is saying nothing.

CYC Head of Legal is Andy DOCHERTY. Andy is saying nothing.

All we have is CYC ex-Data Compliance Officer Erin Francis LONG’s vicarious denial – and Erin Francis LONG has mysteriously disappeared from view.

CYC Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER is saying nothing – though a personal robust and categorical denial is now absolutely essential – if we are to believe that the assault allegations are false. Without Jimmy Boy’s personal denial, the default assumption has to be that the allegations are true.

And nobody still in position at City of York Council is denying it.

Finally, readers who have taken an interest in the disgraceful City of York Council “Lendal Bridge Scam”, as covered in our earlier articles:

“City of York Council: The Ballad Of Lendal Bridge”

and

“A Poke In The ‘Eye’ For York City Council”

may find this piece from the Harrogate Informer of interest.

The country’s leading traffic lawyer Nick FREEMAN has apparently also called on North Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Dave JONES to investigate City of York Council Leader Councillor James ALEXANDER for theft.

With ‘live’ allegations of assault and theft, how tenable is Councillor James ALEXANDER’s position on the Council?

And I think it is fair to say that City of York Council finds itself in something of a mess at the present time – which will, perhaps, explain why the council is exhibiting all the tell-tale hallmarks of an authority in “cover-up” mode.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on the very latest posturing from the City of York Council in its response to public concern regarding the legality of its Lendal Bridge money-grab.

~~~~~

In response to an article published her on the Enquirer on 3rd September 2014 (entitled “A Poke In The ‘Eye’ For York City Council”), one of our readers immediately submitted a Letter to the Editor, published that same day under the heading “CYC: Conspiracy To Defraud”.

The writer, Richard PEARSON of Scarborough, raised a very interesting point; if ‘fines’ collected by the Council in respect of the contravention of regulations that were themselves without legal foundation, surely – once that fact had been established – the Council should be obliged to return the money to motorists who had been summarily convicted of a what turned out to be a “non-offence”. Surely, to withhold repayment from all but those motorists who specifically request repayment would permit the Council to make a gain from an illegal action, and, conversely, inflict a loss on the innocent motorists?

It seemed to me to be a question worth the asking.

So I emailed to Councillor James ALEXANDER, who is the Leader of City of York Council, copying in North Yorkshire’s “Voice of the People” Police & Crime Commissioner Mrs Julia MULLIGAN) offering the Leader a layman’s interpretation of the terms of the Fraud Act 2006.

I will not trouble the reader with the entirety of that email, but the salient points are as follows:

“I would like to outline my perception of the circumstances – very much in lay terms..

1) The Council deployed a Traffic Regulation Order such that would expose those who committed infractions thereof to being deemed liable to summary conviction under the terms of a PCN, or FPN, if you prefer.

2) Some 53,000 motorists fell foul of the regulations and were duly relieved of varying sums of money.

3) Following a rigorous legal procedure, the ruling was handed down that the Council’s regulations were untenable.

4) The Council initially committed to repayment of the ‘fines’, but ultimately this decision was reversed by a Scrutiny Committee.

I am sure this is an oversimplification of a much more complex chain of events. Nevertheless, it is easy to see how the layman might conclude that the Council has demanded monies based on an untenable application of process. It follows that the motorists who, having parted with their hard-earned money under considerable duress, are now left out-of-pocket – though innocent of any wrong-doing.

Clearly, a tort has taken place. Thus far, we find nothing unusual.

But the next step is to provide the (wrongly) summarily convicted motorists with their remedy.

The onus cannot fall upon the innocent to recover their money; the duty surely lies with the Council to repay it. But these last remarks address themselves to ethical considerations and I want us now to consider the legal implications.

I then cited s.1 an s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006, which readers may review here, and here.

Observations

A) the City of York Council is a body corporate – a person:

1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2)

B) the City of York Council has irrefutably made a representation to the motorists; namely, that it intends, by making this representation, to cause it so to be that infringement of the imposed regulations will be subject to a summary conviction leading to the payment of a ‘fine’ – which will thus cause the motorist loss (or expose him to the risk of loss) – to the Council’s gain:

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

C) the City of York Council is a body corporate whose intentions are directed with the consent of elected members and carried out by officers of the body corporate, being paid public servants.

12 Liability of company officers for offences by company

(1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

(2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(3)    If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

The text that I have highlighted in bold type suggests that Richard PEARSON had made a very astute observation. But I wanted Councillor James ALEXANDER to give his consideration to the matter in a humanistic context, rather than a legalistic one. So I offered him an analogy that places the situation in an everyday setting:

Little Alfie (aged 11) approaches his little sister Beth (6), who is playing a tune of her own choosing on the family piano. Alfie tells Beth that if she does not play a tune of his choosing, he will take away a sizeable number of her possessions as a penalty or forfeit for her non-compliance. But Beth has not grasped Alfie’s intent – because of the sound of the piano and because she is unclear of the precise meanings of words like “sizeable number” or “possessions” or “forfeit” or “non-compliance”. She continues to play her own chosen piece.

Alfie, perhaps realising that there is a dangerous precedent to be set here if he fails to carry out his declared intent, makes off with quite a good few of her possessions. Beth is very upset. Six-year-olds can be very vocal in their protestations.

But then Daddy comes home from work and, sensing an injustice in the air, sets to – to establish the true course of events. He soon realises that Beth is the victim of an action taken by Alfie that is devoid of any legitimacy. He has been a bad lad. Daddy tells Alfie to return Beth’s possessions. But Alfie is tricky. He maintains that Beth can have back only those possessions that she can assert are missing. (Here, the analogy is less pure – I did not want to introduce 53,000 younger sisters to Alfie).

This is manifestly unfair. Alfie, the bully big brother, stands to come out of the exchange ahead of his starting position, despite being the bad guy.

And poor Beth is off to visit her friend Cassandra in Jersey for the summer holidays and has no hope of recalling a full inventory of her assets and claiming on Alfie for every last item. Beth, the innocent little sister, stands to come out of the exchange the loser – despite her innocence.

I concluded my email to Councillor James ALEXANDER by pointing out that, in a very real sense, as Leader of the Council he is very much the “Daddy” of York electors and has a duty to put principle before profit and thereby portray his Council as an honourable institution. And I requested a comment for publication.

Councillor James ALEXANDER has not responded to me personally, but the Council’s Communications Manager Debbie MANSON was very prompt in providing the following statement, for which I am most grateful:

“The standard democratic process was followed in this decision making process and was held in a fair, open and transparent way. The decision to require an application to the council, to enable repayment of fines, is legally sound and has been agreed by a leading QC.

“The Leader took a decision in April to bring the Lendal Bridge trial to a conclusion. At that time he acknowledged the benefits of the Lendal Bridge trial included the significant increase in bus reliability and patronage, improved air quality and the increase in recorded footfall and hotel bookings.”

“At around the same time, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) made a decision regarding some appeals by individuals against fines imposed on both Coppergate and Lendal, which questioned the legality of the schemes. The council applied for a review of that decision, considering the decision to be legally flawed. After a further three months the TPT had still not reached a decision.

“Considering this significant passage of time and the uncertainty that this imposed on individuals, a report was taken to a public Cabinet meeting 5 August and it was agreed that the council would progress with the refund process for Lendal Bridge. Subsequently, officers were asked to put in place a process for the Lendal Bridge fines to be refunded on application to the council. It was also agreed that the council would no longer pursue a review of the TPT decision about the Lendal Bridge fines, but that the review would continue into the Coppergate decisions.

“The Cabinet decision was subsequently ‘called-in’ at a scrutiny meeting, which was held on 27 August, but was upheld with a majority vote.

“The council’s website will be updated with details of the refund process shortly, at www.york.gov.uk/lendalbridge”

When confronted with the opinion of “a leading QC” – that it is legally sound to repay only those motorists who request repayment – a layman such as I can only bow to higher knowledge regarding legal interpretation, whilst observing that neither Councillor James ALEXANDER nor his spokesperson Debbie MANSON has thought it relevant (or politic) to address the ethical or moral aspects of the Council’s predicament.

Conclusion? City of York Council does not ‘do’ ethics and morals.

But it at least appears that Richard PEARSON and I are not entirely alone in our view that there may be a case to answer. I have received a rather unanticipated email from Mr Will NAYLOR, who is Chief of Staff to Police & Crime Commissioner Julia MULLIGAN, who has not previously acknowledged my emails (see here and here)

On Friday 5th September 2014, Will NAYLOR wrote:

Dear Nigel 

Thank you for copying us into your email.

I will ensure this is raised with relevant colleagues, and we will come back to you if necessary. 

Kind Regards

Will Naylor 

Chief of Staff to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

So we must now await developments. If any. The CPS guidance can be found here.

But I leave readers to contemplate the likely consequences of you or I extracting £1,2M from around 53,000 innocent victims, then baldly declaring that we would repay only those who actively sought repayment. To my mind, that compound the original offence.

I have no doubt that you or I would face prosecution if we were to treat innocent people like that. And, returning to s.12 (2)(b) of the Fraud Act 2006, cited above and repeated her, for convenience of reference:

(b) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

I can only wonder why the Members and Officers of the City of York Council should escape unscathed?

But then the ‘powers that be’ regard me as the devil incarnate for daring to express the ludicrously Utopian view that we should all be treated equally under the law. How absurd is that?

• – a report by NIGEL WARD.

~~~~~

All summer long, residents of North Yorkshire have being enjoying a snide chuckle at the expense of York’s latter-day Dick TURPIN – chubby-cheeked Councillor James ALEXANDER, Leader of York City Council.

The Council’s illegal attempts to turn the city’s Lendal Bridge into a stream – a revenue stream – has back-fired.

Around 53,000 drivers were fined up to £60 each for crossing the bridge in defiance of totally inadequate signage. But the Traffic Penalty Tribunal has ruled the whole scheme unlawful, leaving the Council with no option but to offer to refund their ill-gotten gains.

But true to the penny-pinching ‘no blame’ ethos of Councils all over the country, the Council’s Scrutiny Committee has voted 5:4 to reneg on the Council’s original pledge to refund all concerned and refund only those motorists who actually apply for a refund.

Fortunately, they have caught the eye of the ‘Eye’ . . .