• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD: Is SBC attempting to protect corrupt staff from criminal prosecution?

~~~~~

Now that the Ben MARRIOTT corruption allegations are out in the open, a steady stream of information has been reaching me about exactly who benefited from unauthorised use of Council manpower, materials and equipment. Not all of the sources have been able to provide hard evidence; nevertheless, it is clear from the frequent occurrence of certain names – including names of Councillors (past and present) and members of staff (past and present) – that there has been a long-running and systemic abuse of position by a group of paid and/or elected public servants running well into double figures.

Thus, we are not talking about the odd ‘bad apple’ – oh, no.

We are talking about organised CORRUPTION – crime in the workplace pursued as a way of life over many years – and a number of promotions.

But it would appear that, with the sole exception of Ben MARRIOTT, not a single individual at SBC – Councillor or Officer – had the integrity, the courage or the common decency to “blow the whistle”.

Well, the whistle is blowing now, alright, loud and shrill. Yet SBC Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] has made it known that he wishes to keep any investigation – and there MUST be one – strictly ‘in house’. Still trying to keep a lid on a scandal far more toxic even than the Highpoint Rendel fiasco.

On the day Ben MARRIOTT resigned (Tuesday 5th January 2016) – and after a previous request for information – NYE editor Tim THORNE sent this email to the North Yorkshire Police:

It will surprise no-one to learn that Tim THORNE’s email received the following less than helpful response – though from the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire, NOT the North Yorkshire Police:

PCC FOIA Response PDF

To spare readers the download, I can disclose that the single substantive line of Liz FRYAR’s response was:

• “I wish to advise you there is no information held within North Yorkshire Police to answer your request”.

Three years of SBC internal investigation had not produced a single referral to the North Yorkshire Police.

Readers – and Councillors – may wish to contemplate just why SBC refrained from reporting allegations of systemic fraud and corruption to the proper authority – the North Yorkshire Police.

But the big question now is why no-one at SBC responded to an email from a member of the public dated Sunday 7th February 2016, addressed to all fifty SBC Councillors, plus SBC Director of Legal & Democratic Services Lisa DIXON and her counterpart at North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) Mr Barry KHAN.

This email was also forwarded to me. It reads:

[The URL-link at the top of the email leads to the second of my four ‘Corruptophenia’ articles, also dated 7th February 2016].

Asking around, I soon learned that not all Councillors received this email. Apparently, Borough Solicitor David KITSON’s infamous ‘filtering system’  kept selected Councillors ‘out of the loop’.

So it seems that only Councillors John NOCK [Con.], Sandra TURNER [Con.] and Martin SMITH [Con.] (members of the panel who considered – and rejected – Ben MARRIOT’s appeal) were provided with any information at all about the endemic corruption – and they were lied to by Officers. On whose orders were they ‘misled’?

What we do know is that, as far as most of the remaining Councillors were concerned, the answer to all three of these questions was a resounding NO. I say ‘most’ because some, of course, did know exactly what was going on.

But what of Lisa DIXON? Why did she not respond to the three questions?

She most certainly was aware that:

1. ‘impropriety’ had been taking place in the Council’s Technical Services Department;
2. Officers/Councillors had been receiving goods/services improperly; and
3. the Council was facing legal action by Ben MARRIOTT.

Lisa DIXON knew full well that the answer to all three questions was a resounding YES. Why did she not respond, if for no better reason than to attempt to elicit further information from the sender that, for all she knew, might contribute to the Council’s investigation of Ben MARRIOTT’s corruption allegations?

Ah, silly me. The Council was not in the business of diligently investigating Ben MARRIOTT’s corruption allegations – as Judge Humphrey FORREST made unequivocally clear in his Judgment.

(Readers of an earlier article in this series will be aware that I wrote to Lisa DIXON three years ago, in August 2013, offering to give her the low-down on the corruption in the Technical Services Department. She never accepted my offer).

But then, on 7th August 2016, two days after the conclusion of the Ben MARRIOTT -v- SBC hearing, North Yorks Enquirer editor Tim THORNE renewed his efforts to elicit information from the North Yorkshire Police. His series of four emails can be reviewed HERE.

On Thursday 22nd September 2016, the above correspondence was interrupted by the arrival of a ‘one-liner’ from NYP’s Darren BROWN (Collar Number 4957) to Tim THORNE (curiously, at his private email address – not the NYE address from which his own emails were transmitted) that stated:

• “Thank you for your email, I have forwarded it to our serious crime unit”.

Unsurprisingly, the NYP Serious Crime Unit has yet to approach Tim THORNE, or me – or Ben MARRIOTT.

It becomes clear that there was, and is, simply no will to investigate the corruption.

How could that possibly be, you may well ask?

Could it be that even a half-hearted investigation would have risked revealing that there were beneficiaries of the corruption at the highest levels within the Council? Were the Chief Officers/Directors themselves beneficiaries? Or leading Councillors? Without a thoroughgoing and impartial external investigation, the public is unlikely ever to find out.

But SBC Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN is on record confirming a commitment to an internal investigation. Surely he cannot mean Elaine BLADES and Alison JOHNSON – to whom HHJ Humphrey FORREST gave very short shrift indeed at the hearing; either they were utterly incompetent or extremely adept – at keeping the corruption off the record.

The Scarborough & Whitby Labour Group has issued a Press Release insisting on an external investigation.

The Scarborough News has published Ben MARRIOTT’s views under the title “Whistleblower calls for council action”.

Public reaction, as expressed on social media, is unanimous in its condemnation of the Council’s obsession with secrecy, cover-up and whitewash.

I doubt that SBC CEO Jim DILLON and his fellow Paid Service Officers  Lisa DIXON and  Nick EDWARDS will be able to brazen it out much longer – though perhaps they should publish photos of their own homes and invoices for any home improvements they have carried out in, say, the past five years.

In Nick EDWARDS case, he may wish to include any improvements he and his wife Deborah have carried out with their property development company Edwards Estates (Scarborough) Ltd.

And now, on the day of publication of this article, there comes ‘out of the blue’ (as it were) an email from North Yorkshire Police which seems to suggest that a criminal investigation may be underway after all . . .

Had SBC (and the North Yorkshire Police) not been so hell bent on smearing the Enquirer, perhaps Councillors might have given credence to our exposés three years ago – and spared Ben MARRIOTT his heart attacks (and the taxpayers of the Borough a small fortune).

And then there is another huge scandal brewing – just around the corner in the Department closest to Technical Services; Assets, Harbours and Lands – the Portfolio of Councillor Mike COCKERILL [Ind.]; he of the Sicilian connection.

• an Open Letter from NIGEL WARD to Scarborough Borough Council’s Portfolio Holder for Human Resources & Performance. Detailed answers, please, Andrew. In the public interest.
  

~~~~~

Councillor Andrew JENKINSON [Con.] (Newby) – Portfolio Holder for Human Resources & Performance – Scarborough Borough Council (SBC)

Cc: Mrs Lisa DIXON – Director of Legal & Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer – SBC

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Andrew,

Along with the kudos (and the Special Responsibility Allowances) attendant upon your elevation to the Cabinet comes an increased duty of openness and transparency.

In particular, as Portfolio Holder for Human Resources & Performance, you stand inescapably at the very heart of the Ben MARRIOTT “whistleblower” scandal.

I have some questions for you – questions suggested by both elected members (including of your own Party) and members of the public – concerning the non-investigation of Ben MARRIOTT’s “whistleblower” allegations of fraud and corruption in the department in which he worked for the Council for fourteen years.

As an elector of the Borough of Scarborough, as an investigative-journalist and as a human being in a free and democratic society, I have the right to ask these questions as part of my four-year long investigation into prima facie evidence of systemic fraud and corruption within the purview of what is now your Portfolio.

For the purposes of ensuring that it is as easy as possible for you to provide clear answers to each of these questions, I have numbered them. I would appreciate it if you would adhere to my numbering system when you provide your open and transparent responses. Thank you.

1. As Portfolio Holder for Human Resources & Performance, did you ever interview Ben MARRIOTT to obtain a first-hand account of his many allegations?
2. What steps did you take to address the serious concerns raised by Councillors John NOCK [Con.], Sandra TURNER [Con.] and Martin SMITH [Con.] following Ben Marriott’s Stage-2 appeal hearing?
3. What was your reaction to Councillor John NOCK’s persistent efforts to ensure an in-depth investigation to establish the truth behind Ben MARRIOTT’s allegations? Did you engage with Councillor John NOCK – as you should have done – or did you simply criticise him, as is widely held to be the case?
4. What steps did you take to ensure that the Council and the taxpayer would not be exposed to the risk of legal action by Ben MARRIOTT?
5. Did you genuinely understand the litigation risk to the Council – and taxpayer – or did you docilely accept the assertions provided to you by your Officers? Specifically, did you robustly question Elaine BLADES (HR Manager), Gillian MACKENZIE (HR Officer), Martin PEDLEY (Head of Asset & Risk Management), Alan DARGUE (Property Asset Manager), Adrian HILL (Asset Management Officer), Andrew BOYES (Joiner) and Roy HAREWOOD (PAT Tester)? If your answer is in the affirmative, please provide evidence of any such challenge(s).
6. What steps did you take to ensure that Ben MARRIOTT’s identity would remain strictly confidential, in line with the terms of the Council’s Whistleblower Policy and when were you first aware that it had been ‘leaked’ by an Officer or Officers?
7. Now that you have had an opportunity to study HHJ FORREST’s Judgment, what steps have you taken, if any, to hold Officers to account through the imposition of sanctions up to and including  dismissal?
8. Which Councillors, to your own knowledge, benefited in kind from the alleged abuse of Council materials and/or manpower?
9. It is my information that Martin PEDLEY (Head of Asset & Risk Management) failed to attend the SBC barrister’s witness briefing prior to the ET Hearing which took place 1st – 5th August 2016 – which would perhaps at least partially explain why his testimony was so disastrously damaging to the Defendant (SBC) as to reverse the Tribunal’s first impression (see HHJ FORREST’s Judgment para.102) – instead of which he attended a briefing with Director and s.151 Officer Nick EDWARDS CPFA (£74.9K p.a.). My tenth question, then, is this; did you attend either/both of these meetings, or did they take place without your foreknowledge?
10. Transparency International has published a report entitled ‘Counting the Pennies’ (PDF version provided for your convenience of reference) highlighting many areas in which local authorities have considerable scope for imrovement. Have you read and digested the report and formulated suitable proposals to progress in Cabinet?

Please take care that the answers you provide are answers which you would have no hesitation in repeating, under oath, in a court of law. Thank you.

Please be assured that I intend to continue my investigation into Ben MARRIOT’s allegations and it is my intention, too, to publish my findings into the public domain.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

~~~~~

To Whom It May Concern

• Marriott V Scarborough Borough Council
• Claimant Respondent
• In the Hull Employment Tribunal. 1-5 August 2016
• Case No: 1800295/2016 Judge Forrest

This is an Open Letter to all who want to see openness and transparency in public office.

I Whistle Blew on what I believe was corruption and fraud within the Council, SBC.

Attached is the full Judgment of the case which lasted five days. The findings are shocking to say the least, but I would like to draw your attention to several points that came out during the trial.

The Council Final Appeal Panel before this went to law; three elected Councillors were sitting to resolve this case – Cllrs J. Nock (chair), S. Turner and M. Smith. The Council Officers were found to have totally misled them. In the report on corruption, it was a total white-wash [103]. The Officers misled them on the code of conduct  [98], misled them on no evidence found [94], and brought in evidence that which was nothing to do with the enquiry or was untrue [96]. I say misled, but there is stronger words to describe this.

Human Resources Manager Ms Elaine Blades admitted that she had taken advise from Mrs Lisa Dixon, Director of Legal & Democratic Services and Mr. Edwards s.151 Director. So the questions to pose is, was this a cover up from the top, from the start, and why?

Mr. Mark Robinson, SBC legal Counsel, has been advising the inquiry team from the start – not on the inquiry itself, but on how to keep it within employment law. Why did Elaine Blades carry out their wishes knowing this was wrong and against her professional judgement and her important position with the corporation?

More importantly, the second person that undertook the role of investigating this suspected fraud and corruption was Ms Alison Johnson, Auditor for corruption and fraud. Mazars LLP are responsible for all corruption and fraud within the council and are the External Audit company. This is totally unacceptable; they are suppose to be the gate-keepers. Ms Johnson did not do her job but went along with this total white-wash.

The investigation now needs to be carried out fully by a professional team and under no internal pressures. This is, after all, public money. The Judgment has already pointed out this was a total white-wash and not even the basic questions were asked.

There own Policies and Procedures not followed. Who should be monitoring these and how can this be tightened up so they can’t be ignored by anyone, no matter where they are in the company structure? This falls at present to Ms Elaine Blades. It’s too important to leave it to one person. External audit? But they can’t be trusted either, to do their job?

The waste of public money and of course the attack on me, the Whistle Blower; the cost of this legal action for me runs into thousands of pounds Their cost will be much higher because they have had a QC from early on and of course the time re-writing Policies & Procedures to fit in with their stories. And a lot more internal work.

Mr Jim Dillon (CEO) has been fully informed about this from the start by me. I have been asking him many times to resolve this suspected fraud and corruption. He looks at this as a private vendetta where he can spend our money defending the indefensible.

Finally, above all the damage this process has cost me and my wife and family, it has caused me to have three heart attacks, major heart surgery where my life was in the balance. I have had to retire early than I wanted to, with all he added costs, and I’m still fighting them now for remedy.

Yours, etc

Ben Marriott

Mr JEFFERY was perhaps unaware of the detailed coverage on the Enquirer:

• “JACONELLI Apologist: SBC Cllr John NOCK”
• “SBC: Nock, Nock . . . Who’s Still There?”

N.B. – The Standards Committee concluded that because the victims of Peter JACONELLI  were in the 11-14 age-range (i.e. the same age as Eskdale School pupils) – rather in than in the 5-10 age-range ‘favoured’ by JACONELLI’s co-offender Jimmy SAVILE, this made the former a “hebephile” (rather than a paedophile, as the latter) and thus there was nothing particularly reprehensible about NOCK stating:

“He [JACONELLI] was not a predatory paedophile. He was not like Jimmy Savile. He was only handing out money to poor kids for giving him a wank”.

Quite what the Standards Committee intended by labelling Peter JACONELLI only (!) a “hebephile” has still to be explained.

In the Gazette coverage, Councillor John NOCK’s reaction was reported thus:

“Cllr Nock also claimed that the ones making the complaint were, in fact, the ones bringing the council into disrepute.”

It will be interesting to see whether or not Councillor John NOCK seeks election in the Northy Yorkshire County Council elections in May 2017. Given NYCC Leader County Councillor Carl LES’s sincere apology to the victims/survivors of of JACONELLI, it is difficult to imagine that NOCK would be warmly welcomed by the NYCC Conservatives.

~~~~~

Dear Mr Editor,
 
I was gratified to see that the Gazette did not shy away from reporting an issue that I am sure SBC would have rather remained buried. I refer to the article regarding the outcome of the Standards Committee concerning Cllr Nock’s comments. (Gazette 4.3.16)
 
Bearing in mind the appalling revelations regarding child abuse that are reported regularly in the media, our elected representatives should be vigilant about the impact of comments made that show any lack of sensitivity, sympathy or concern.
 
It was with regret that your article reported Cllr Nock’s view that those bringing the allegations brought the Council into disrepute.

What an extraordinary comment from the man found to be in breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct!

Our elected representatives need to take responsibility for their own comments and not try to apportion blame elsewhere. Good on those who have the courage to stand up and be counted.
 
Keith Jeffery

Keith JEFFERY, Whitby. 24th March, 2016.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on an incipient crack in the Tory SBC stranglehold.
  

~~~~~

Readers of the Whitby Gazette and the Scarborough News may have struggled recently to discern any useful information regarding opposition to Scarborough Borough Council Cabinet’s declared intent to close the Tourist Information Centres (TICs) in the Borough.

It is relatively straightforward.

On Tuesday 8th March 2016, the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee met under the Chairship of Councillor David JEFFELS (both a Borough and County Councillor – in fact, the Chairman of North Yorkshire County Council, no less) to consider a call-in of Cabinet’s decision to close the TICs, led by Councillor Alf ABBOTT [Con.], and supported by Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.], Councillor Phil TRUMPER [Con.], Councillor Guy COULSON [Con.] and the notorious Councillor John NOCK [Con.].

Five signatories – four Tories.

Yes. Four Tories, opposing the Tory Cabinet.

The reason for the call-in was recorded thus:

We fully understand the need for cost savings, but

1. Other options should have been considered that could be equally cost effective, but would offer a better local, face to face service eg Harrogate, Hambleton, etc

2. There was inadequate consultation with members and local communities before the officers[sic]report and recommendations were submitted to Cabinet for decision.

3. The decision was based on incomplete information and estimated statistics. The costings did not include all the financial facts that should have been considered

4. No risk assessment was carried out on the possible adverse effects on local attractions and businesses and local tourism economies.

The Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee voted unanimously in favour of the call-in:

Committee’s resolution

RESOLVED that the committee recommends that the Cabinet:

(i)            Reconsiders its decision in relation to the Tourist Information Centres in the Borough by marketing the Whitby and Scarborough TIC sites on the basis that part of the current Whitby site should be reserved for use by a manned TIC/Customer First facility, and a manned TIC should be retained in Scarborough;

(ii)           Carries out more widespread consultation throughout the Borough including villages in the North York Moors National Park;

(iii)          Carries out a reassessment of the statistics used in the report to enable a rigorous cost/benefit analysis of the options proposed; and

(iv)         Explores a wider range of creative options which should include encouraging local groups to develop a Community Right to Bid under the Localism Act 2011, with the necessary six month moratorium period to allow such bids to come forward.

Our magnificent Leader, Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] – caught out earlier in the week by NYE Guest Author Allan ROBERTS (who disclosed Delboy’s appalling attendance record at the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority) – will not be a happy bunny.

Not, at least, judging by the certainty of conviction he evinced in a recent letter to Whitby Town (Parish) Council:

Spare a moment to savour that last line again:

• “…but I cannot allow such dialogue to delay the implementation of the Cabinet resolution of 16 February.”

Is that so, Delboy?

Well, probably yes.

Councillor BASTIMAN – who has modelled his style of Leadership on that of his waning-star predecessor and present Mayor, Councillor Tom FOX – may well pull out all the stops to ensure that his Cabinet over-rules the call-in Resolution and ratifies his short-sighted and, in my view, ill-advised pursuit of his own way. By close-of-play next Tuesday 15th March, the TICs could be history.

A number of my little bluebirds are singing a song of discontent with the present Leadership.

Nevertheless, Councillor Derek BASTIMAN is what is technically known as a ‘Strong Leader’ – that is to say that he will remain Leader for his full 4-year term, concluding at the May 2019 elections. Whereupon, he may well fully intend to go on for a further four years. (Go on. Admit it. That little light at the end of the long, dark tunnel flickered for a moment then, did it not?).

But no. Not even a vote of ‘No confidence’ can dislodge him. In fact, only three eventualities can:

1. The death of the Leader (of which there would appear to be no predictable prospect)
2. The resignation of the Leader (of which there would appear to be no predictable prospect)
3. The disqualification of the Leader in his capacity as a Councillor (i.e. conviction of a criminal offence and in receipt of a sentence of more than six months imprisonment (of which there would appear to be no predictable prospect)

Still, you never know . . .

And that says little about the rising tide of in-party discontent. A couple of resignations; a couple (maybe three) floor-walkers; a dyspeptic old  dipsomaniac keels over . . . a week is a very short time in politics. And they say all political careers end in tears . . .

By the way, have you asked your Councillor yet where he or she stands on Brexit?

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on the ‘verdict’ in the case of the Scarborough Borough Council hebephile-apologist, Conservative Councillor John NOCK.

~~~~~

Readers may remember an article of mine published on 21st November 2015, under the title “JACONELLI Apologist: SBC Cllr John NOCK”.

The article reported on the extraordinary behaviour of Councillor John NOCK [Con.] (Mulgrave ward), who had shared his opinion with fellow elected members, in the prelude to a Special Meeting of Full Council on 23rd October 2015, convened for the purpose of bestowing the civic honours of Freeman of the Borough on two worthy citizens and Alderman of the Borough on five former Councillors, that Peter JACONELLI was somehow not as ‘bad’ as Jimmy SAVILE. Not unlike stating that Peter SUTCLIFFE was not as bad as Dennis NILSON. But it turns out that Councillor John NOCK [Con.] claims to have been making a very fine distinction.

Councillors were shocked to hear that it was Councillor John NOCK’s considered opinion that another Alderman of the Borough, former Mayor and Councillor Peter JACONELLI, was not (contrary to the resolution of his own Council and the stated opinion of the North Yorkshire Police) a predatory paedophile in the same mould as his close associate and fellow member of Scarborough’s notorious paedophile-ring, Jimmy SAVILE, with whom JACONELLI co-offended for decades.

According to the words of Councillor John NOCK [Con.], as reported to me verbatim:

“He [JACONELLI] was not a predatory paedophile. He was not like Jimmy Savile. He was only handing out money to poor kids for giving him a wank”.

In my 21st November 2015 article, I predicted the outcome of the ensuing Standards Committee hearing as follows:

“I suspect that we may now look forward to a protracted exercise in flimflammery (with its concomitant drain on Council resources), the result of which will in all likelihood be that Councillor John NOCK will be ‘sentenced’ to the maximum sanction – fifteen minutes of re-training with the Monitoring Officer, that paragon of moral probity, Lisa DIXON.”

 On Thursday 3rd March 2016, under the title “Scarborough councillor ‘sorry’ over Savile and Jaconelli remarks”, the Yorkshire Post reported on the outcome of the Standards Committee hearing of Tuseday 23rd February 2016. This followed similar reports in the Scarborough News (“Councillor rapped for comments about Jaconelli abuse victims”) and the Whitby Gazette (“Councillor rapped for comments about Jaconelli abuse victims”).

All three reports quote the Minutes of the SBC Standards Committee hearing thus:

“Councillor John Nock explained that he believed he was having a dispassionate discussion about what Peter Jaconelli’s behaviour should be described as, admitting that he was playing devil’s advocate by drawing a distinction between Savile and Jaconelli’s respective targets.

“In strict terms, this made Savile a paedophile, and Jaconelli a hebephile. Councillor Nock went on to deny vehemently the wording which had been attributed to him in the complaint, including the use of crude, colloquial language to describe Jaconelli’s activities.”

“Hebephilia” is an artificial classification suggested by researcher Ray BLANCHARD (and others) in 2009. It seeks to make a distinction between “paedophilia” and “hebephilia” by reserving the former term for the sexual abuse of children up to age 11 and the latter term for the sexual abuse of adolescents in the age range 11-14. It has not been adopted by the wider scientific community and is generally acknowledged to be irrelevant from a moral perspective and of significance only in diagnostic terms.

Quite how this “paedophile/hebephile” distinction could in any way ameliorate Councillor John NOCK’s remarks is not made clear by the Standards Committee. Substituting the phrase “11-to-14-year-olds”  for the word “kids” in Councillor John NOCK’s reported sentence “He was only handing out money to poor kids for giving him a wank” – i.e. “He was only handing out money to 11-to-14 year-olds…” – still leaves him having made very light indeed of Peter JACONELLI’s serial sexual abuse of children.

It typifies the weasel words that are invariably deployed to protect loose cannon Councillors. I would be unsurprised to learn that Councillor John NOCK [Con.] was provided with the word “hebephile” by the very people whose duty it is to conduct the hearing impartially.

Moreover, the fact that Councillor John NOCK appeared to condone Peter JACONELLI introducing minors to prostitution (as long as they were over 11 years of age) seems to have escaped the Standards Committee completely. One has to wonder about the mores of a Standards Committee membership that baulks at the word “wank” (how shocking!) but allows JACONELLI’s coercion of minors into prostitution to pass without comment or concern in their Decision Notice. I invite readers to cast around for a suitable epithet with which to characterise the membership of the Standards Committee. [Clue: You won’t have to look far].

Re-visiting Councillor NOCK’s remarks, we note that he made no specific reference to the age of the “poor kids” who were bribed into (dare I say?) “servicing” Peter JACONELLI – only the implication that, as “poor kids”, they could do with the money. “Fair exchange is no robbery” – was that Councillor John NOCK’s intended meaning? Abusing kids is okay, as long as long as they are fairly paid?

So the “paedophile/hebephile” distinction/excuse that he trotted out to the Standards Committee four months after the event – and with some help, no doubt, either from paid public servants or from Google (do you believe for one moment that he knew the word “hebephile” back on the 23rd October 2015? ) – reads very lame to me, even if it did fool the membership of the Standards Committee.

Readers may also wish to take note of the fact that Councillor John NOCK’s fellow Conservative next-ward neighbouring elected member – Councillor David CHANCE [Con.](Mayfield) – shrewdly sent his apologies and did not attend or take part in the Standards Committee hearing. (Congatulations, David. Well left, as they say in mixed doubles. That saved you the discomfort of having to ‘thumbs down’ your chum. Shrewd move).

Of considerable significance,  too, are the remarks Councillor John NOCK [Con.] made to the press, seeking to project the blame for his own conduct onto the two Councillors who reported his rash and disgraceful remarks to the Monitoring Officer:

• “Cllr Nock also claimed that the ones making the complaint were, in fact, the ones bringing the council into disrepute.”

Let me put that in perspective.

JACONELLI-apologist Councillor John NOCK [Con.] claimed that by reporting his playing-down of Peter JACONELLI’s offending, Councillors Rob BARNETT and Jonathan DODDS were somehow bringing the Council into disrepute?

Another rash and digraceful remark.

“4. Conducting yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute” constitutes a breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. In my view, there can be little doubt that Councillor John NOCK’s remarks about his easily-identified Complainants are defamatory. Making defamatory remarks about fellow Councillors surely “could be reasonably regarded as bringing your [his] office or the Council into disrepute”.

Councillor John NOCK [Con.] has impugned, in the public domain, the reputations of the two Councillors who, quite rightly, reported him to the Monitoring Officer. Surely he has placed himself once again in breach of Article 4 of the Code of Conduct?

The question now is whether Councillors BARNETT and DODDS will (i) seek redress under defamation legislation, through the Courts, or (ii) pursue the matter for a second time through the Council’s own utterly ineffectual regulatory body – the Standards Committee.

Should they opt for the former (litigation), I could recommend an excellent no-win-no-fee defamation solicitor and a first-class barrister. In which case, my guess would be that the best option for Councillor John NOCK [Con.] would be (i) to publish an unconditional apology to the two Councillors, the public and, most importantly, the victims/survivors of Peter JACONELLI, in the Yorkshire Post, the Scarborough News, the Whitby Gazette and (of course) the North Yorks Enquirer, (ii) to make a substantial donation to a CSA charity of Councillor BARNETT’s and Councillor DODDS’ choice, and (iii) to resign his seat on the Council in the hope that a candidate with a functioning moral compass may be elected.

As for the latter option (another Standards Complaint – via a second Formal Complaint to the Monitorong Officer), there is little to recommend it.

“The committee accepted his apology and found he was remorseful and not condoning the actions of the former Scarborough Mayor but Cllr Nock will be referred to the Conservative group for it to take further action against him.

Conservative group leader, Cllr Andrew Backhouse, said he had met with Cllr Nock, in the presence of the party’s monitoring officer, on Friday and the matter had been dealt with.

He confirmed that Cllr Nock remained a member of the party.”

(The party, that is, whose main pillar is family values).

So, in the event, it turns out that my prediction that Councillor John NOCK [Con.] would be ‘sentenced’ to enduring a fifteen minute re-training session with Mrs Lisa DIXON somewhat overshot the mark. In reality, “hebephile” apologist Councillor John NOCK [Con.] has escaped scot free;

That is the measure of how ‘soft’ Scarborough Borough Council and the Scarborough & Whitby Conservative Association really are on paedophilia – by whatever name – which goes some of the way to explaining how SAVILE and JACONELLI were able to sexually abuse kids in Scarborough for decades – long enough, at any rate, for their own deaths to ensure that they cheated justice. There is a lot of that in local government.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of articles.

Enjoy!

A month-by-month flip through the North Yorks Enquirer articles most widely shared on social-media throughout 2015.

JANUARY 2015

SBC: FOX – ‘Mayor Elect’ Vote Unconstitutional

How the election of Tom FOX to the SBC Mayoralty was ‘smuggled’ through in breach of the Council’s Constitution . . .

FEBRUARY 2015

School Governor ‘Hatchet-Job’ Investigation – Outcome

How Chairman of Eskdale School Board of GovernorsMike WARD was squeezed out, ostensibly on account of his political views . . .

MARCH 2015

SBC: Cornered Fox Bares His Teeth

How SBC Leader Tom FOX promised “threat or retaliation” over the NYE‘s coverage of the JACONELLI scandal . . .

APRIL 2015

Lord Janner: Another Establishment Rapist Protected By The Police

How Lord JANNER was always going to escape justice . . .

MAY 2015

Poulson: Conspiracy Theory “X”

How the corruption saga of the twentieth century casts a pall over public life in North Yorkshire to this day . . .

JUNE 2015

Savile/Jaconelli Scandal Breaks Nationally!

How the NYE allegations about Peter JACONELLI finally made national news . . .

JULY 2015

WTC: The Witches of Whitby

How Whitby Town Council sank (or, rather, dug itself) further into disrepute . . .

AUGUST 2015

JACONELLI: NYCC Leader Cllr. Carl Les Says “Sorry”

How NYCC Leader County Councillor Carl LES responded positively to our request for an apology to the victims of predatory paedophile former Scarborough Mayor Peter JACONELLI . . .

SEPTEMBER 2015

Savile & Jaconelli: They Knew In ’72

How North Yorkshire Police must have known all along about at least one sexual abuse complaint against Peter JACONELLI – they referred him to the DPP/CPS in 1972 . . .

OCTOBER 2015

PETER JACONELLI And The Paedo-Friendly DPP

How the paedophile crony-crew kept Peter JACONELLI out of jail . . .

NOVEMBER 2015

JACONELLI Apologist: SBC Cllr John NOCK

How Conservative Scarborough Borough Councillor John NOCK defended predatory paedophile Peter JACONELLI . . .

DECEMBER 2015

“Unenforceable” Parking Tickets/Permits Row Escalates

How the (ostensible) incompetence of legal departments and traffic managers throughout our North Yorkshire Councils led to huge ‘illegal’ profits from on-street parking . . .

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on an extraordinarily insensitive defence of predatory paedophile Peter JACONELLI, former Councillor, Mayor and Alderman of Scarborough Council.

~~~~~

Following the encouraging news that SBC Councillor Luke BACKHOUSE [Con.] has responded positively to Councillor Andy STRANGEWAY’s appeal for SBC to dignify the victims/survivors of Peter JACONELLI with a simple “Sorry!”, this brief report refers to the Conservative Councillor who, as reported in a previous article (though without disclosing his identity), was heard expounding his views in the Members’ Room at Scarborough Town Hall, immediately before the SBC Special Meeting of 23rd October 2015, convened for the purpose of “bestowing” Freeman status on two prominent members of the Scarborough community, and Alderman status on five former Councillors who voluntarily left the Council in May 2015 – or failed to achieve re-election (i.e. were rejected by an increasingly discerning electorate).

I speak of Councillor John NOCK [Con.], who apparently holds the belief that Peter JACONELLI was not really such a liability at all – not like that execrable Jimmy SAVILE. (What did happen to the £100,000 that SBC set aside to erect a statue to Jimmy SAVILE?)

It has been alleged, by Councillors present at the time, that Councillor John NOCK stated that Peter JACONELLI was not a predatory paedophile. Unlike Jimmy SAVILE, he was not an abuser and rapist of minors; he did not use his position and its attendant influence to cover up his half-century of sex crimes against minors. Absolutely not. He was guilty of nothing more delinquent than slipping young lads a bit of pocket money for giving him the odd hand-job. Nothing the matter with that, eh, John? Merely an expansive act of largesse, lending a hint of the common touch to the otherwise austere pomp of the Mayoralty – patently the stuff of which only the most transcendant of Aldermen are made.

In my view – and I would expect any right-thinking public servant to agree with me – Councillor John NOCK’s comments are absolutely unacceptable.

They are more than disrespectful; they are contemptuous. And contemptible – certainly to the victims/survivors, who have endured enough.

Corrupting minors into paedophilic prostitution is not compatible with being an Alderman, a Mayor, a Councillor or any other position of public trust. In my view, it is utterly inexcusable, and I would be astonished to learn that SBC Chief Officers would disagree.

That is why, after a year of procrastination and obfuscation, Scarborough Borough Council finally stripped JACONELLI of his Alderman status in May 2014.

Is Councillor John NOCK seriously suggesting that the Council over-reacted? That Peter JACONELLI’s name should still adorn that Teflon Honours List – to be publicly lionised despite his ten bob hand-jobs, and with his rapes and other sexual assaults conveniently omitted from the reckoning? Perhaps so.

It is interesting to note that Councillor John NOCK made his offensive remarks on 23rd October 2015. On Wednesday 28th October, Andy STRANGEWAY invited all 50 SBC Councillors to say “Sorry!” to the victims/survivors of Peter JACONELLI’s half-century of sexual abuse and rape. Councillor John NOCK, having read-receipted (but not until Sunday 1st November 2015) Andy’s “Say Sorry” appeal, offered no response at all – much less any form of apology, or even an expression of condemnation.

Clearly, Councillor John NOCK is not only a paedophile apologist, he is consciously and conspicuously unrepentant about it.

This stands in diametric contrast to his fellow Conservative Councillor Luke BACKHOUSE, whose earnest recommendation it is that the Council should indeed say “Sorry!” to the victims/survivors and their loved ones.

Two Conservatives, swimming in opposite directions, eh? So much for the cohesion achieved through Leadership, the seventh and last of the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life. Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.], Leader of the Council and the Conservative group, needs to get a grip.

I am reliably informed, from within ‘the Citadel’, that Councillor John NOCK is now to be the subject of a Standards investigation instigated by fellow Councillors, of diverse political persuasion, backed by their respective Group Leaders – though not, as I predicted, fellow Conservative Councillors.

I suspect that we may now look forward to a protracted exercise in flimflammery (with its concomitant drain on Council resources), the result of which will in all likelihood be that Councillor John NOCK will be ‘sentenced’ to the maximum sanction – fifteen minutes of re-training with the Monitoring Officer, that paragon of moral probity, Lisa DIXON.

Or perhaps Lisa DIXON will draft a disingenuous apology on behalf of Councillor John “Hand-job” NOCK (as he will in all perpetuity be known), just as she did in the case of the racist remarks of Councillor Mike “N-word” COCKERILL. It certainly makes one wonder just how low elected members must sink before any substantive action is taken against them.

A personal, humble and sincere public apology – penned by Councillor John “Hand-job” NOCK himself, alone and uncounselled, and published in the Scarborough News, the Whitby Gazette and the North Yorks Enquirer – would count for something.

And if the Scarborough & Whitby Conservative Association – the local  branch of the party that for decades has pimped itself as ‘the party of family values’ – can collectively muster two brain cells to rub together, they might just be pragmatic enough to withdraw the Whip from Councillor John NOCK and hand him his membership card in two pieces.

Might.

The only acceptable outcome would be for Councillor John NOCK to evince the courage to resign his seat from the Council, then (if he has the courage) to stand for re-election, thereby allowing his electorate to express their opinion on paedophile apologists in general, and John NOCK in particular.

But let us remember that Councillor John NOCK is not the first Scarborough Borough Councillor to defend Peter JACONELLI.

On 29th May 2014, I reported on Councillor Bill CHATT’s unsubtle remarks in the Council Chamber, in praise of Peter JACONELLI:

“I used to walk along there and actually work for three hours in his shop. I saw how many people came to that shop and he gave support to. He was my ward Councillor for many years and I know the people up there went to him and got help, support, and in some cases even financial help to support them himself.”

One could be forgiven for wondering whether or not Councillor John NOCK and Councillor Bill CHATT were ever on the ‘hand-job’ payroll.

It is difficult to believe that any Councillor could fail to appreciate that the insidious practice of buying electors’ votes whilst simultaneously paying their children for sex is doubly wrong and totally contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy – clearly subversive to the proper standards of conduct that the public has a right to expect of custodians of the public trust.

But the fact that filthy lucre changed hands seems to have been enough to satisfy these paedophile apologists that all must have been in order, all on a proper business footing. Paid for what he got, eh? No problem there, then, squire. Free market, innit? Right?

Wrong.

JACONELLI apologists like John NOCK and Bill CHATT, by their very presence, diminish the good standing of the Council.

At the same time, their blasé trivialisation of the sexual corruption of minors serves to alert the public to the deplorable departure from the ethical framework that certain elements of the present Council have come to epitomise.

In my view, the only way is out.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, following up on his recent coverage of the SAVILE/JACONELLI investigation.

~~~~~

Methodology of a Cover-up

I am grateful to my social-media connections for propelling my recent article “MAYOR FOX: “Sorry . . . NOT Sorry!” (27th October 2015) to the top of my personal ‘most widely shared’ chart. Thanks very much, everyone – and please keep spreading the word.

In fact, comments posted by social-media users have proved, on many occasions in the past, to be extraordinarily helpful in the laborious process of ‘joining the dots’ between the known elements of our investigations. The power of social-media to stimulate my own memory has often been a very positive factor.

Which brings me to an almost-forgotten article in the Telegraph, dated 15th May 2015, reporting on recently released official files which revealed details of leading Conservative MP Victor MONTAGU’s close run-in with the law, in 1972, having been charged with two counts of indecently assaulting a boy under 16.

In 2014, MONTAGU’s son Robert published a book – “Humour of Love” – revealing how he was repeatedly raped by his father, along with details of the ordeal suffered by around twenty other boys. Yet Victor MONTAGU never faced trial.

The files confirmed that Victor MONTAGU admitted “simply romping about with children either with clothes on or not”.

Astonishingly, these files – kept secret for forty years – included a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) which featured the following extraordinary sentence:

“The assaults, which are admitted, are not of themselves very serious, and if Mr Montagu is prepared to take the excellent advice given to him by Det Ch Insp [Jack] Newman and avoid any contact with the boy in the future I do not think that proceedings are called for.”

The DPP in question was Sir Norman SKELHORN KBE QC (1909 – 1988).

What caught my eye was the fact this was in 1972 – the very same year that Scarborough Councillor, Mayor and Alderman Peter JACONELLI escaped trial following a recommendation from the DPP that “no action” should be taken in respect of the indecent assault charges against him.

Incidentally, the Scarborough News coverage of Assistant Chief Constable Paul KENNEDY’s press statement (upon which this SN article was based) has attracted some very interesting comments from members of the public. One of them directed me to the Wikipedia entry for the Director of Public Prosecutions from 1964 to 1977 –  Sir Norman SKELHORN. According to Wikipedia, this man defended the use of torture in North Ireland during ‘the troubles’. In my book, you cannot stand much further to the right than that without moving to a bunker in Pyongyang – or a cell in Abu Ghraib.

But it seems Sir Norman SKELHORN (above) was habitually and reliably soft on paedophiles.

It was Sir Norman SKELHORN who did not prosecute – “for the public good” – when four young lads from the East End reported sexual assaults by the Bishop of Stepney, Trevor HUDDLESTON, in 1974.

The Mirror reported the Bishop as stating:

“I sat them on my lap, touched their ­bottoms and pinched them but there is nothing indecent.”

In addition to Alderman Peter JACONELLI, Victor MONTAGU MP and Bishop of Stepney Trevor HUDDLESTON, I soon encountered a reference to Sir Norman SKELHORN in a BBC report dated 27th November 2012, containing the following confirmation of Sir Norman’s tolerance for paedophiles, especially establishment pillars – this time Sir Cyril SMITH MP:

“Mr Skelhorn wrote to the Chief Constable of Lancashire on 19 March 1970 about Sir Cyril, who died in September 2010.

In it, he stated: ‘I do not consider that if proceedings for indecent assault were to be taken against Smith, there would be a reasonable prospect of conviction.'”

The Telegraph added:

“But despite all the allegations bearing striking similarities, no charges were ever brought after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) at the time, Sir Norman Skelhorn, decided the victims could not be trusted as they were, he said, of suspect character.”

“Suspect character”? Attaboy, Sir Norman! Kick a man when he’s down. How utterly sickening.

Of course, bullying, intimidating (by “threat or retaliation”) and slurring the character of victims/survivors of paedophilia (and those who expose cover-ups) is a well-practised art by now – witness the treatment handed out to one of only thirty-five victims/survivors of Peter JACONELLI whom the North Yorkshire Police have condescended to deem genuine, Guy WHITING, who has been arrested and beaten whilst in custody, then charged with bogus offences which ultimately had to be abandoned.

All in all, one could soon arrive at the view that, when the CPS released the JACONELLI “no action” statement last week (see my previous article):

“The Crown Prosecution Service was formed in 1986 under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions [Sir Norman SKELHORN], consisting of a merger of his old department with the existing police prosecution departments.

Prior to this, police forces were responsible for the bulk of prosecutions, with only the most difficult cases passed to the DPP.”

the word “difficult” could easily be taken to be synonymous with “politically sensitive” – itself a euphemism for “cover-up urgently required” (as applied, for example, to the high-profile suspects in a well-evidenced fraud case that the North Yorkshire Police failed to bring to prosecution not so long ago).

It is interesting, too, that his successor as DPP, Sir ‘Tony’ HEATHERINGTON, within weeks of assuming office, reversed SKELHORN’s decision not to prosecute Liberal MP Jeremy THORPE for the alleged attempted murder of his lover, Norman SCOTT.

I cannot recall Sir Norman SKELHORN bringing any prosecutions against “twelve or fourteen MPs”. Were they really “security risks”? Or is that merely a convenient catch-all phrase within which to conceal a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for establishment paedophiles?

Be that as it may, Sir Norman seems to have had a happy knack for steering high-profile sexual offenders safely away from the Courts.

So Scarborough Police certainly had every reason to believe that, by deeming Mayor Peter JACONELLI a “difficult case”, he could conveniently be referred to the DPP, Sir Norman SKELHORN. At the very least, the prospects were good of saving Peter JACONELLI from richly-deserved disgrace (if not prison), whilst at the same time covering their own positions by passing the buck to a higher rung on the ladder of authority.

As is invariably the case, the victims/survivors were left to deal with their horrific experiences as best they could.

That Sir Norman SKELHORN bears the responsibility for ensuring Victor MONTAGU, Cyril SMITH and Bishop of Stepney Trevor HUDDLESTON escaped trial has been noted before. I believe I am the first to add the name of Peter JACONELLI to that list.

SKELHORN, who ultimately relinquished his post after six MPs called for his resignation in the House of Commons, has one other claim to fame. It was he, also in 1972, who granted gangland “supergrass” Bertie SMALLS lifetime immunity from prosecution – an arrangement that the Law Lords described as “an unholy deal”.

I will be returning to the matter of Police informants’ immunity from prosecution in future articles. For the moment, I constrain myself to referring readers once more to the IPCC report (24/12/14) that featured in my recent piece – this time, Item 59.

One of our sources has spoken of having been directed to Peter JACONELLI as a likely contact whilst asking around in the Scarborough arcades for a suitable ‘fence’ to buy stolen jewellery – the spoils of a burglary he freely admits to having committed. He states that JACONELLI told him to come back in a few days; he (JACONELLI) would make some enquiries. But our source was arrested before he could return to JACONELLI – arrested and duly convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. He is now convinced that it was Peter JACONELLI who ‘snitched’ him to the Scarborough Police. Did Peter JACONELLI enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the Police?

This is all deeply disturbing because it adds yet another twist to the knotty problem of how to convince today’s authorities  that they MUST diligently investigate the decades-long cover-up of SAVILE and JACONELLI and the rest of the Scarborough paedophile-ring, without fear or favour (as we do), and use their powers of prosecution (as we cannot) to bring the cover-up artists to justice – whether it is “difficult” (read “politically sensitive”) or not. We know who to question. And we now know some of the stations where the buck stops en route to its destination.

In my view, certain members of the North Yorkshire Police and Scarborough Borough Council also know where the buck stops – and cannot for much longer avoid doing the right thing. And, again in my opinion, we will soon be hearing a long line of cover-up merchants pleading the Nuremberg Defence – “I was just following orders” – which is simply not acceptable; somebody issued those orders – perhaps Sir Norman SKELHORN – and all those who acted upon them are also culpable.

Nuremberg Principal IV states:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

No-one would deny that a moral choice was possible for all Scarborough officials – Police or Council – who were aware of allegations against Peter JACONELLI during his lifetime. For whatever reasons, they did not do the right thing. Therefore, they stand culpable and MUST be held to account.

In passing, I close with reliable ear-witness testimony of another disgraceful paedophile apologist at Scarborough Borough Council. I am informed by multiple sources that, at last Thursday 23rd October’s specially convened meeting to “bestow” Alderman status ( in some cases, a badge of shame), one of the new Tory Councillors was overheard, in the members’ room, to defend Peter JACONELLI with words very closely to this effect:

“He wasn’t like Savile. He was not a predatory paedophile. He was only handing out money to poor kids for giving him a wank.”

Apparently, it is the view of at least one serving Scarborough Borough Councillor that suborning young boys into homosexual prostitution is perfectly acceptable conduct for a Tory Councillor, Mayor and Alderman.

That incredibly crass remark surely breaches several of the articles of the SBC Councillors’ Code of Conduct; certainly it accords no respect to the victims and it irrefutably risks bringing the Councillor himself, his Council and his party into further disrepute. But one thing is certain; if a Standards Complaint is to be raised against this disgraceful, bottom-of-the-pile paedophile apologist, it will almost certainly not come from a Conservative Councillor. (They are all in it together, remember).

Inexcusable insensitivity on this scale goes way beyond the trivial sanctions available to the Standards Committee (fifteen minutes ‘re-training’ by the SBC Monitoring Officer, Lisa DIXON) and I would hope that the Councillor in question will evince the good grace and courage to issue a credible public apology during the course of his soon-to-be-forthcoming resignation statement. I will willingly submit it to the North Yorks Enquirer for publication.

Why are we waiting?