• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD – a (low) opinion piece – revealing another example of how political expediency eclipses all else – including the wellbeing of our maritime environment and  those who draw from it a responsible and sustainable livelihood.
  

~~~~~

Readers of the Enquirer from the Scarborough area and points south may not be especially familiar with the name Ben HOUCHEN (36), Tees Valley Mayor [Con.] (pictured above), the North East’s new ‘Golden Boy’ of Conservative opportunism. He has been glowingly described as the protégé of the Rt.Hon. Sir Robert GOODWILL [Con.], the former Minister of Fisheries and incumbent MP for Scarborough & Whitby, whose support for the shellfish industry has been conspicuous by its asbence in recent weeks.

Mr HOUCHEN certainly has some brass; but ‘Golden Boy’ may be about todiscover that only fools take brass for gold.

I came across Mr HOUCHEN on the back of my interest in, and support for, the “Reclaim Our Sea” WAVE campaign for a proper and exhaustive investigation into the cause of the staggering mortality rates amongst crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans along the coast from Seaham down to Whitby. Linked to the highy abnormal die-off of unknown thousands of crustaceans, seabirds too have been washed ashore in disturbing numbers. The ‘official’ explanation for the die-off – algal bloom – has been dismissed by two independent investigations and the real culprit seems to be high concentrations of the toxic chemical pyridine, released from seabed sediment by the massive dredging operations carried out in preparation for the proposed Teeside Freeport.

The Enquirer has featured two appeals recently (well worth revisiting) in support of the “Reclaim Our Sea” WAVE campaign to suspend dredging until the cause of the sealife mortalities has been positively identified and necessary mitigation devised and implemented:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/reclaim-our-sea/
• http://nyenquirer.uk/tsunami-coming/

Mr HOUCHEN is a fervent proponent of the proposed Teeside Freeport – he no doubt wishes to turbo-charge his political ambitions by staking claim to being “the man who brought prosperity back to the North East”. (The Tees Valley area comprises the five Boroughs of Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington, Hartlepool, and Redcar & Cleveland).

This may be laudable – but it does not justify using dirty smear and slur tactics against campaigners? Probably not. So when I saw Mr HOUCHEN’s horrid little Tweet (see below), I decided to ask him what his game was.

To summarise that Tweet, Mr HOUCHEN asserts:

• that “activists” (he means campaigners) have bullied RSPB staff into supporting their cause with a statement given under duress;
• that the dredging activities preparatory to the creation of the Freeport are justified (by placing profit ahead of the environment);
• that “some” campaigners have been impersonating Police Officers (a criminal offence);
• that the RSPB statement was not ‘official’ (cleared by the RSPB national head office);
• that campaigners had produced no evidence to validate their concerns.

Having seen the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) statement to which Mr HOUCHEN refers, I wrote to him to give him his ‘Right of Reply’ ahead of publication of this article:

Subject:	Media Request – Right of Reply
Date:	Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:53:57 +0100
From:	Nigel Ward
To:	Mayor@teesvalley-ca.gov.uk

Mr Ben HOUCHEN – Tees Valley Mayor

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Ben,

My name is NIGEL WARD. I am a regular contributor to the North Yorks Enquirer. I also provide evidenced background material to Private Eye magazine.

I write to request a comment from you (your ‘Right of Reply’) in respect of a comment published on social media under your name:

In the interests of openness and tranparency, I can inform you that the North Yorks Enquirer has had sight of a more recent RSPB email contradicting your comment.

Specifically, it denies any attempt at ‘hounding’, bullying or coercion and re-iterates unqualified support for the Wave campaign.

Before reporting on the matter, I wish to give you the opportunity to qualify or withdraw your allegations. Or provide an appropriate apology to the campaigners. You may wish to substantiate your allegation that “some” campaigners have impersonated a Police Officer – a criminal offence.

Please provide your response (not exceeding 250 words) either directly to me or to the North Yorks Enquirer at:

letters@nyenquirer.uk

My press deadline is close-of-play (5:00pm) on Monday 12th September 2022.

My report will include such comment as you are willing to provide, or the fact that you have failed to respond, whichever is the case.

Please be so good as to provide, in e-format, a current image of your likeness, in landscape aspect, not smaller than 620 x 350 pixels. Thank you.

My regards to you for a fine and relaxing weekend. I look forward to hearing from you.

Nigel

Mr HOUCHEN has not responded. But an inside source assures me that he did indeed read my email – and forwarded it to his Legal Department (from whom I have also heard nothing).

Quelle surprise.

Now let us take a look at the official RSPB statement on this vitally important issue:

On request, RSPB Head Office has since confirmed:

“ This is an official statement and did come from us – it was issued by the England comms team with support from local staff.”

A local RSPB Officer has also confirmed that:

“We’ve had no contact with Ben Houchen so he’s just making assumptions on his own…There’s been no bullying. I guess he just doesn’t like what we’ve said…Our position is clear and has not changed.”

I subsequently discovered (courtesy of BBC Radio 4) that Mr HOUCHEN had been running off at the mouth about the campaigners being “conspiracy theorists” who propagate nonsense:

“It’s not just pyridine, they think it’s Agent Orange apparently from secret factories in the Second World War. We’ve also been told that it’s Russian submarines trying to cause problems for the UK government.”

We seem to have on our hands a politician who habitually tells porkies in service of his own agenda – hardly a novelty. Yet it seems fair to say that Mr HOUCHEN has gone to some lengths to infuse himself with every available byte of information about untreated waste. One could say he has internalised it.

One might even say he is full of it.

It turns out that there is quite a back-story to Mr HOUCHEN – and who better to tell it than our old chums at Private Eye?

(Readers who struggle with the small font size may wish to download the article in PDF-format, here).

It needed only a very swift Google to elicit the following headline from the Mirror, casting further aspersions on the integrity of Mr HOUCHEN, to lower my opinion a further notch:

Mr HOUCHEN’s determination to be a ‘mover and shaker’ in the North East seems to have been hampered along the way by some ‘absolute beginner’ mistakes.

The following report from The Times shows him in a very poor light indeed.

First lesson, Mr HOUCHEN: Google has a long memory.

Second lesson: the simple courtesy of a response is often the best policy.

Meanwhile, turning to topics of far greater importance than the aspirations of just another Tory greasy-pole climber, the Enquirer will presently be publishing details of the next WAVE “Reclaim Our Sea” event – a human WAVE spanning the shorelines and riverbanks of the entire UK.

Campaigners are asking supporters to download (HERE) and print out (in black-and-white or colour) the following generic poster in which local details may be added, in marker-pen, for display in local shops and homes in A2, A3, A4 or A5 format.

For further background, please review this highly-informative MUST READ Metro report.

Then watch organiser Sally BUNCE’s video, below.

See also:

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD.

~~~~~

Readers who have followed the ongoing saga of the Yorkshire Coast BID (the 1.5% levy on businesses in the tourism sector whose rateable value exceeds a threshold of £12K per annum) may have seen/heard the report on Yorkshire Coast Radio confirming Scarborough Borough Council’s receipt (over a week ago on Thursday 13th February 2020) of the STANYON Report – the conclusions of Mr Peter STANYON (CEO of the Association of Electoral Administrators) regarding the way in which SBC conducted the ballot process.

Naturally, elected members of SBC have been pressing Officers for sight of the Report, but s.151 Finance Director Nick EDWARDS has steadfastly refused to provide the document.

Obviously, this is matter of great concern. It should be remembered that the Full Council resolved that an independent, impartial investigation must be commissioned to penetrate the truth of whether or not the ballot held to legitimise the levy was conducted properly and in compliance with the legislation. It follows that the real subjects of the investigation were, in fact, Council Officers – not elected members (who played no part in the ballot process).

I do not need to labour the point that a flagrant conflict of interest arises when an Officer seeks to prevent disclosure of a Report into Officers’ conduct.

And yet I can now confirm and demonstrate that Mr EDWARDS has asserted, by email on the morning of Thursday 20th February 2020, that:

“As we discussed yesterday, the Council has received the report from Peter Stanyon. I require some points of clarification, before being able to discuss the report with my Chief Executive about how best to report the findings to the Audit Committee and other interested parties.”

Allow me to bullet-point the key elements, as I see them:

• As previously confirmed (by telephone on Wednesday 19th February 2020):
  • The Council has received the Report.
  • Mr EDWARDS intends, following receipt of ‘clarification’ from Mr STANYON, to confer with Chief Executive Mr Mike GREENE on how best to inform elected members.
  • Mr EDWARDS is awaiting clarification.

Unfortunately for Mr EDWARDS, I can also confirm that Mr Peter STANYON, in response to a request for some indication as to when Mr EDWARDS might be expected to receive his ‘clarification’, has confirmed thatMr EDWARDS’ requested ‘clarification’ has already been provided – on Wednesday 19th February 2020 – the day before Mr EDWARDS’ email quoted above:

“I spoke to Nick yesterday and I understand SBC are progressing following clarification I gave. 

Best regards. 

Peter”

Far from progressing, Mr EDWARDS is stalling.

So, joining the dots for those who may not have grasped the significance of these messages (i.e. most Councillors), we appear now to have clear evidence from Mr STANYON that he had already provided the very ‘clarification’, on Wednesday, that Mr EDWARDS claimed, on Thursday, to still be awaiting. That, at least, is my interpretation . . .

At this point, I would suggest that a straw poll asking readers whose pants are on fire would be likely to elicit only one nomination . . .

It would appear that SBC Leader Councillor Steve “Openness &Transparency” SIDDONS [Lab.] was right all along – there are indeed dark forces at work in the Council. As usual, though, Councillor SIDDONS has been looking in the wrong direction.

As to “how best to report the findings” to elected members; why should they settle for anything less than sight of the full unredacted document, together with Mr STANYON’s ‘clarifications’?

In My View

1) All Councillors must now insist upon open publication of the Report into the public domain.

2) Further, Mr EDWARDS must be suspended from duty until such time as a diligent and impartial “without fear or favour” investigation has been conducted into the disconcerting appearance that he has wittingly misled Councillors.

Over to you, Mr Mike GREENE – the first real test of your integrity.

In Related News

In related news, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) – Mr GREENE’s previous employer – suffered a cyber attack on Saturday 8th February 2020. Most of the Council’s digital services were rendered inoperable. Although details of the attack have not been released, it is suspected that it may have been effected via ‘Phishing Emails’. These are emails written in such a way to mislead the recipient(s) into clicking malicious links.

It would appear that a similar intrusion has since taken place at Scarborough Borough Council. Councillors have been advised:

We have several layers of ‘cyber defense’ built into our systems, including email. However, no system is 100% secure. By being vigilant about emails that we receive, and websites we browse, we as individuals can help protect ourselves. If you receive an email and are unsure about its legitimacy, please feel free to discuss it with us. We will soon be sending out further guidance and training regarding cyber security measures like detecting phishing emails. Many thanks,

Regards, IT Help-Desk Support.

This is of concern not only to residents of Scarborough Borough (including BID levy-payers) Redcar & Cleveland and residents (who must be increasingly grateful that their Council prudently rejected participation in the Yorkshire Coast BID), but also to BID levy-payers in the East Riding of Yorkshire whose data may also have been compromised.

That this should arise consynchronously with the arrival of the STANYON Report may signal more than coincidence.

I have, therefore, written to Mrs Caroline LACEY (CEO of East Riding of Yorkshire Council) alerting her to the situation.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject:Data Breaches, etc
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:48:20 +0000
From: Nigel
To: Caroline.Lacey@eastriding.gcsx.gov.uk
CC: News <news@nyenquirer.uk>

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, clarifying and expanding upon last weeks’ article regarding ICO data protection registration (or not, as the case seems to be).

~~~~~

In my article of Friday 8th February 2019, I pointed out that, according to the ICO website, Scarborough Borough Council appeared to have opted for a Tier 1 (£40) data protection registration when, as a public authority employing more than 250 people, surely a Tier 3 registration (£2,900) should have been declared and paid?

One switched-on reader has emailed me to point out that SBC’s Tier 1 registration referenced only the data protection service for the Council’s Electoral Register, and it may possibly be the case (may it not?) that SBC had registered the Council (body corporate) separately under Tier 3, in full compliance with the legal requirements. fair point.

The ICO website search facility does indeed disclose a second registration for SBC – but not for the Council (the body corporate). Remarkably, that second registration is in the name of Mr Tom FOX (would you believe?) – but the record shows that this second registration is also Tier 1. Hmmm. Is Mr Tom FOX Scarborough Borough Council? Possibly not.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Scarborough Borough Council’]

However, there is no registration at Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 for Scarborough Borough Council (the body corporate). Someone appears to have been remiss.

Comparisons with our neighbouring electoral authorities shed some light.

To our south, East Riding of Yorkshire Council maintains two registrations – one under Tier 1 (for their Electoral Register) and a second, for the body corporate, under Tier 3, as required. Bravo!

[Source: ICO website search for ‘East Riding of Yorkshire Council’]

To our north, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council maintains only a Tier 3 registration. This would suggest that the Council’s Electoral Register is unprotected by Tier 1 of the ICO data protection program. The personal data of over 100,000 electors is not covered by the program.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council’]

As for Ryedale District Council, our immediate neighbour to the west, here again we find two registrations – Tier 1, in respect of its Electoral Register, quite correctly, and a second Tier 1 in respect of the Council itself. I struggle to believe that Ryedale District Council, a public authority, has less than ten employees – which is the limit for Tier 1.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Ryedale District Council’]

So, according to the ICO website, of the quartet of electoral authorities in our immediate area, only East Riding of Yorkshire Council is presently in tune with the legal requirements.

One out of four is not acceptable. Three out of four have failed.

And three out of four Monitoring Officers have failed to pick it up. The ICO, too. This is not impressive.

If you or I operated four vehicles, only one of which was compliant with the legal requirements, we would be well advised to anticipate prosecution – and we would be unlikely to turn out to have been unnecessarily pessimistic.

Do you imagine that three out of four of our immediate area’s Councils will be prosecuted? We are, of course, all equal under the law.

[As a matter of interest, Craven District Council, Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Selby District Council, City of York Council and North Yorkshire County Council have all registered for data protection with the ICO in full compliance with legal requirement. Only Scarborough Borough Council, Ryedale District Council and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council are presently in default.]

~~~~~

Dear Editor,

On reading your report about the bully tactics of SBC and associates, I thought that it may be of interest to you to know that when I was a Councillor who spoke out for the people, I too was threatened in an attempt to  make me keep schtum.

Our then MP accused me publicly of being Islamophobic. I was approached by the then area Police Inspector about this, as he did not like me exposing his lack of interest.

I was threatened by Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council legal team, who claimed that I was acting “vexatious” on several occasions.

I was threatened by the food standards for being “vexatious” and if I did not shut up, they would prosecute me.

I was hauled in front of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Monitoring Officer to explain myself.

Not forgetting all the “missing” emails . . .

Very few councillors will stand up to this type of intimidation and most will eventually “toe the line”. Most Councillors have forgotten that they are elected to represent the people on the council – not represent the Council to the people.

Only  the very best will stick it out for what is right, no matter what.

Kind regards,

David Williams

former Redcar & Cleveland Borough Councillor

David WILLIAMS, Redcar. 28th January, 2018.

At last, a Council full of Councillors who DID pay their Council Tax!

Following FOIA disclosures regarding Councillors who did not pay their Council Tax without recourse to enforcement procedures at;

• Richmodshire District Council

• Hambleton District Council

• East Lindsey District Council

• North East Lincolnshire Council

• Hambleton District Council

• Selby District Council

• Hull City Council

• Hartlepool Borough Council

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (R&CBC) is the next Council to provide a response to one of a series of identical Freedom of Information requests, in the following terms:

For each of the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 until the date of your response:

(1) which R&CBC Councillors have been the subject of recovery action, either in the form of demands sent by letter or email, or by court action. Please specify which type of recovery action, where applicable.

(2) which R&CBC Councillors have been barred from participating in voting on budgetary decisions, contingent upon Council Tax arrears of two months or more.

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, alone amongst the Councils yet to have provided a response, has confirmed that NOT ONE SINGLE COUNCILLOR has been the subject of any Reminders, Summonses or Liability Orders for Council Tax arrears. Credit where credit is due.