~~~~~

Dear Mr Editor,

Reference –

1. North Yorkshire County Council
2. North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel
3. Scarborough Borough Council

Reference –

• J82/2956 – POULSON J.G.L. and others: Conspiracy to corrupt, indecent assault and rape

and

• TS58/1134 – Transcripts of the final days of the criminal trial Regina v. POULSON & POTTINGER

Two persons avoided the threat of criminal sanction relating to the National Archive catalogued above as a result of a conspiracy between the authorities and one other person.

Question –

• “Who benefited from this?”

The British political establishment. And one other – Sir Bernard Kenyon, Clerk to the West Riding County Council. (Martin Maudling, the son of a Home Secretary part of the establishment).

Question –

• “Who have been the losers?”

The people of Scarborough, Whitby and the County of North Yorkshire.

From 1974 to the present day, the effects are still being felt.

The authorities listed at the outset of this letter, including the North Yorkshire Police Authority (now defunct), have had a member of staff of J.G.L. Poulson among their number for the past 31 years.

May I ask four additional questions?

• “Was the complainant in J82/2956 one and the same person as ‘Miss X’ in TS/1134?”
• “Was a former chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority (now defunct) at one time, circa 1967, an employee of J.G.L Poulson Ltd?”
• “Who is the woman [see photo below] with the bag underarm?”

… and the ‘wide boys’ appear to be all on the front row…

and finally,

• “Over the past 31 years, has public service in North Yorkshire been compromised by the participation of an employee of J.G.L Poulson?”

Thank you.

Kind regards,

David W. Clark

David CLARK, Middlesbrough. 26th July, 2015.

~~~~~

Dear Mr Editor,

There is a catalogue of documentation held at the National Archives, in Kew, London, headed;

• J82/2956 – POULSON, JGL and others: Conspiracy to corrupt, indecent assault and rape.

Also listed at the National Archives;

• TS 58/1134 – Transcripts of the final days of the criminal trial: Regina v. POULSON & POTTINGER.

These two catalogue entries appear to be linked.

At least one person involved with J.G.L. POULSON lived within the Scarborough Borough Council area; the public record verifies this statement.

There may have been other from the same area who were closely involved.

The book “Web of Corruption: The Story of John Poulson and T. Dan Smith”, by Raymond Fitzwalter and David Taylor (“World in Action” and “Panorama” investigative journalists) is a good read . . .

The effects of the situations described have a bearing locally, regionally and indeed nationally, to this day.

Kind regards,

David W. CLARK

David W. CLARK, Middlesbrough. 3rd June, 2015.

~~~~~

Dear Sir,

Since the Scarborough Borough Council elections of 7th May 2015, and prior to that, I have been troubled by several unsanswered questions in regard to the local (and other) Councils and Public Bodies of North Yorkshire:

“Have there been any elected Councillors of Scarborough Borough Council or North Yorkshire County Council, or any Public Body within these Councils’ areas, who, in previous years, has worked for the company J.G.L Poulson Ltd?”

This is just one example.

If only people knew what is going on in their name.

Answers, please!!!

Kind regards,

David W. CLARK

David W. CLARK, Middlesbrough. 18th May, 2015.

• This communication consists entirely of my opinion, the right to express which is conferred upon me under the terms of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, to which this country is a co-signatory.

I have written today (1st December 2013) to Mrs Julia MULLIGAN, Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire. The letter is my Appeal to her to address, as she has previously committed to do, the many issues raised on Real Whitby regarding very serious lapses in moral probity on the part of high-profile members of the local authorities here in North Yorkshire.

Readers who share my concerns are free to email Mrs Julia MULLIGAN in support of my Appeal:

pcc@northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Whitby, 1^st December 2013.

Julia,

I write to proffer my most heartfelt encomiums.

The action you have taken, together with Chief Constable Dave JONES of the North Yorkshire Police (NYP), to recover the ‘Personal Development Fund’ payments disbursed to former Chief Constable Graeme MAXWELL and former Deputy Chief Constable Adam BRIGGS brings your first year in office to a stirring, if unheralded, climax. I applaud you. Bravo!

Moreover, your action demonstrates unequivocally that you possess the courage and integrity to confront this nadir of cronyism under which such morally unjustifiable payments were disbursed to men who have since been proven to be a disgrace and a mortification to the Force whose reputation and good-standing in the community now lies largely in your hands.

I must confess, however, that I doubted your resolve on any matter likely to entail criticism of your ‘predecessor’, (now) Alderman Jane KENYON – presently the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement & Legal at Scarborough Borough Council and formerly Chair of the now-defunct North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYPA) and its equally defunct Management Board (NYPAMB).

It is some years now since a member of the public had the temerity to ask, at a public meeting of the NYPA, that very pertinent question:

• “How can it be that two officers of a suspended California Corporation can hold Public Office in Britain”?

It is, of course, no secret that David CLARK (for it was he who raised that question) was referring to Ms Jane KENYON and her life-partner Parish Councillor T.W. ‘Bill’ MILLER. To this day, he awaits a reasoned response. In the light of your recent action, surely an answer must now be forthcoming?

The public domain is replete with detailed coverage of other excesses of financial ineptitude authorised by Ms Jane KENYON’s during her tenure at the NYPA and the NYPAMB.

I refer of course, to the astonishing matter of the £500K purchase of the fleet of completely unsuitable Volvo P70s and Range Rovers, the £400K to Mrs Peta ACKERLY (wife of former Superintendent Paul ACKERLY, and the much-lampooned en suite bathroom provided for the personal hygiene of former Chief Constable Della CANNING – all authorised during the tenure of Ms Jane KENYON.

These lapses form a lamentable record for anyone entrusted with control of the public purse, and yet Scarborough Borough Councillor Tom FOX, who is, of course, Chair of the SBC Cabinet (and who, you will recall, found himself unable to meet my eye throughout the two hours of your ‘Time to Talk’ PR-event at the Stephen Joseph Theatre in Scarborough on 23^rd October 2013), has found himself equally unable to provide a simple “Yes” or “No” response to my oft re-iterated question, in the public interest, first posed eighteen months ago on 1^st July 2012:

• “Are you currently satisfied with your appointment of the present Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement and Legal?”

Councillor Tom FOX finds himself between a rock and a very hard place here – for how, in the light of Councillor Jane KENYON’s thirty-year record of abysmal financial blunders, can he say “Yes”?

And how – without confirming a calamitous failure of judgement on his own part – how can he say “No”?

But Councillor Tom FOX has more pressing matters beleaguering him at present. In recent days, he has been openly and publicly accused of complicity in Police brutality pertaining to the silencing of a witness, with its concomitant consequence of a potential charge of perverting the course of justice.

Which leads us to the inexplicable matter of the determined cover-up of the innumerable allegations against former Scarborough Mayor and Councillor, Alderman Peter JACONELLI, whose abuse of his position allowed his serial predatory homosexual paedophilia to go unchallenged, let alone investigated, prosecuted or punished from (at latest) 1953 to his death in 1998. Since 13^th February 2013, a dozen or more independent witnesses (i.e. victims) have come forward, starting with an acting (now former) Scarborough Borough Councillor – Geoff EVANS.

Again, Councillor Tom FOX has evaded my question, first posed on 18^th February 2013, in the public interest:

• “What is the intention of the Leader in respect of the many serious allegations, every bit as horrific as those against Jimmy SAVILE, against former Councillor and Mayor Peter JACONELLI, in respect of his status as Alderman of the Borough. Is there a process in train for the Council to adopt the same approach as in the SAVILE case?” 

I am not alone in demanding an answer to this question; on the contrary, it is being asked by an increasing number of victims – victims whom you have promised a voice – as well as Councillors and even former Police Officers. The title of Alderman is now and forever tainted.

North Yorkshire Police has nothing to say on the matter, yet every resident of the Borough of Scarborough with whom I have discussed the matter (many of whom were, like me, teenagers in the early nineteen-sixties) has asserted that reports of JACONELLI’s conduct (and impunity) were rife and uncontested half a century ago – and ever since.

Are we to believe that only Councillor Tom FOX, the former Scarborough Police Inspector, remained in blissful ignorance?

Now we learn that Whitby Memorial Hospital is to form part of the NHS investigation into the Jimmy SAVILE abuses. Will your office be offering a statement regarding NYP’s historical record of intelligence surrounding the hospital?

Returning to Ms Jane KENYON and her life-partner Councillor T.W. MILLER, I would like your Chief Constable to explain to the member of the public for whom I act as the Authorised Complaint Friend how it is that the initial Police Statement which she delivered, in my company, to the Malton Police Station office of the Major Fraud Investigation Team of the NYP on Wednesday 24^th October 2012.

The Statement, alleging bank fraud and forgery, was presented to DC Melanie SPANTON, who took a photocopy, but declined to formally accept it or log it as evidence.

On 5^th December 2012, we were informed (by the same Officer) that the investigation was being passed to the Durham Constabulary (on grounds of the ‘political sensitivity’ of the accused) who would be instructed to include me in their investigation, and there would be a “clear need” to accept the Statement and other evidence. It was never requested. No evidence was taken.

The Durham Constabulary did not pursue the investigation and, having excluded me from their communications with the Complainant, finally informing the Complainant by telephone that the investigation was being passed back to the North Yorkshire Police. That was in early May 2013.

On 11^th September 2013, having been pressed by me for information regarding the progress of the case, Deputy Chief Constable Tim MADGWICK wrote to me to declare

“With regard to the separate allegations made by [NAME REDACTED] (for whom I note that you also indicate that you are acting as “authorised Complaint Friend”), the current position is being clarified by North Yorkshire Police Financial Investigation Unit in this regard and contact will be made with Ms Miller in due course.”

Today is 1^st December 2013. How long does the Financial Investigation Unit need to evaluate a brief initial Statement and progress to its formal acceptance and investigation? Another year is slipping away.

Like Councillor Tom FOX, Deputy Chief Constable Tim MADGWICK also faces serious allegations in regard to the intimidation of investigative-journalist and chartered accountant Tim HICKS, who has reported on actions taken by DCC Tim MADGWICK at the behest of – then Chair of the NYPA, Jane KENYON.

Is this the standard of policing generally in North Yorkshire? Are victims of financial crimes committed by common criminals – rather than career-long members of the establishment who happen to be close acquaintances and friends of ranking Police Officers – forced to wait over a year for absolutely nothing to happen?

I put it to you that my assertion to Chief Constable Dave JONES at your ‘Time to Talk’ PR-Session in Scarborough – namely, that there appear to be two distinct classes within the application of the justice system in North Yorkshire – is beginning to appear unassailable.

Those two classes are: the common man – and the self-serving and corrupt élitist ‘cronies’.

I am far from being alone in that view.

How else are we to comprehend the inordinate delay in each of these cases? How can it be that the perusal of twenty-four sides of A4 (being the twelve monthly Mileage Claims Forms of two distinct and separate institutions upon which County Councillor Carl LES has served) drag on from March 2013 to the present day – with no charges in sight?

And three years down the road, no charges have been brought in respect of the widespread abuse of the £1.7M “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme, in which prodigious sums were expertly funnelled to relatives of those promoting the scheme. On 26^th October 2012, County Councillor Joe PLANT (a protégé of Councillor Jane KENYON, and deeply implicated in the “Me Too!” scandal) promised “a frank & honest statement” regarding his ‘double-dipping’. We are still waiting.

We learn this week that no charges are to be brought against former-Councillor Tim LAWN, who apparently did commit an offence, but ‘without criminal intent’. What was Graeme MAXWELL’s intent when he committed gross misconduct? Or Adam BRIGGS? Or the Officers who allegedly assaulted an innocent detainee in the cells of Scarborough Police Station? Did they have criminal intent? Did Peter JACONELLI have criminal intent? Did Jimmy SAVILE have criminal intent?

Councillors and Council Officers appear to operate under the auspices of a protection racket.

Julia, I write to you as a common man – one of the herd. I am a simple man. I left school at fifteen; but my curiosity made of me a great reader and keen traveller who taught himself to be a writer, a film-maker and a symphonist. In the course of my life, ridden with mistakes and failures, the simplest and the greatest truth I have learned is this: that at the very kernel of our civilization, our society, our community, lies the innate sense we all share of what is right – and what is wrong.

It is wrong to ‘double-dip’ from two pots for the same reimbursement.

It is wrong to accept – then betray – the public trust for one’s own ends.

It is wrong to use privileged information for private gain.

It is wrong to pervert the course of justice.

You cannot rebut me. Wrong is wrong. And no amount of clever words from clever lawyers and clever Monitoring Officers will change what we all know in our hearts. Wrong is wrong.

So I humbly appeal to you, having grasped the nettle of the ‘Personal Development Fund’ emoluments, to go forward and address the issues that you declined to address with me at your ‘Time to Talk’ PR-session, when you made a thrice-stated commitment to meet me to examine these issues. You have yet to make good on your word.

I am at your service, Julia.

And I wish you bon courage!

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

PS – I intend to publish this Appeal into the public domain. I trust that meets with your approval?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“CORRUPTION is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone who depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority” – (Definition: Transparency International)

For the avoidance of doubt, Mike WARD and Nigel WARD are not even distantly related to one another.

~~~~~

Dear Mr Goodwill,

Those who follow football like myself, an ardent Liverpool fan, will know what a vote of confidence means in a manager’s career.

I am not sure if the same applies in politics but maybe you, having spoken to the Police Authority, NYCC and SBC before giving Councillor Kenyon your vote of confidence, can now give us,your constituents, some answers to the many questions that are being asked at this time.

You say the allegations on the Real Whitby site and in Private Eye are unsubstantiated. To which allegations are you referring? Are you and others just looking at the issues surrounding Declarations of Interest when expressing a vote of confidence or have all the various allegations now been fully investigated?

Who has carried out the investigation? If a thorough investigation hasn’t been carried out what gives you the confidence you are expressing?

Have you spoken to the Vicar’s wife whose story has been told and who I believe might, at least at one time, also have been one of your constituents?

Who was called on to provide any documents that have been referred to or to give evidence to an enquiry?

Are there any concerns in your opinion or possible grounds for an enquiry?

Surely even those who are referred to in the ongoing articles should themselves be asking for an enquiry if there hasn’t been one so they can put the record straight and/or give their side of any story.

You say some of the claims are vindictive. What have you seen to substantiate this? I have read nothing to suggest that those writing the articles on the Real Whitby site have a ‘strong or unreasoning desire for revenge’ (Oxford Dictionary definition).

I have spoken to Nigel Ward and do not see him as vindicative. I might accept some of those who may have suffered or lost money through the alleged offences and who are now providing the possible evidence to those writing the stories might well have cause for complaint.

However those who you might expect to take up the complaints seem to be remaining silent; hence the articles. All the journalists involved seem to be simply presenting the facts as they see them.

They would, I’m sure, willingly publish, as they did with your letter giving the vote of confidence, any counter claims/arguments.

Apparently there is nothing wrong in the way declarations have been made in the eyes of the Legal Departments of both councils, though this does appear to go against the facts as presented.

It would be in everyone’s interest to hear the legal arguments for reaching that conclusion.

However surely there are other issues which need to be examined in far greater detail. Has there been any conflict of interest? Has any local party, business or public authority suffered because of these alleged offences?

Has anything been done to put the integrity of those involved into question? Is there any truth in the allegations being made?

Do other Councillors and Officers have concerns? Aren’t you and the Councils concerned about public opinion? Are both Councils and all Councillors possibly allowing themselves, along with the Conservative Party, to be brought into disrepute? Can the alleged offences, if correct, be condoned?

I have no personal issues with anyone involved but I do have concerns with what I am reading.

I acknowledge the many good things that Councillor Kenyon has done in the community and when a councillor myself I voted in the same way on a number of key issues debated in the Chamber of SBC.

Yes I stood against her, as an Independent, at the NYCC elections, for the Ward in which I live, but that was because of my dislike of Party Politics especially at the local level. All parties are capable sometimes of having good ideas and they should be supported regardless of Party.

Surely with the evidence being presented the actions of those in public positions have to be examined to see if they have been in line with Nolan’s 7 Principles of Public Life Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.

Some Councillors serving on more than one Council have apparantly received double payments for their broadband connection.

This is now being investigated by the Standards Committee. Those only serving on two bodies since 2009 could possibly be forgiven for failing to realise as the Councillor’s Allowance was not broken down but before 2009 the broadband allowance was itemised on the payment slip. Do you condone a double claim on the public purse.

Only a few hundred pounds a year but still not justified or earned. Wouldn’t you encourage those who have been paid twice for the same service to repay that amount even before any enquiry or do you believe those in authority might simply find a way of fudging the issue ?

Councillors in general do their best to ensure they are acting in the interest of those who put them in that position.

However the allegations, like the expenses scandel surrounding MPs, are reflecting badly on everyone, including your Party.

Are the complaints true or false? If there are no answers or a response of any kind conclusions are bound to be drawn – no smoke without fire etc etc. – and the issue will not go away.

Denial or acceptance of the facts is the least one might expect.

Why not say there is no truth in any of the allegations or yes some, most/everything is factually correct and offer an apology for what has occurred in the past. It is never a crime to say sorry and apologise especially if anyone has suffered.

There seems to be so much being said/inferred about various issues with no comment or statement from those who serve.

The Council Officers and Councillors are public servants who are there to serve the residents and are answerable to them. There is a need to keep the public informed.

We rely on those in positions of authority to spend our money wisely and as any good councillor will tell you certainly not for personal gain or private ambition.

The trust, selflessness and integrity of ALL public officials is being called into question. That is not ideal or right.

We need openness, honesty, transparency now and a simple ‘continued confidence’ statement is not enough.

I do however acknowledge that you have said something when too many around you in the political arena are remaining silent.

Maybe you could expand on your ‘Vote of Confidence’ a little further helping to give some of your constituents the answers to what appear relatively simple questions.

Thank you,

Mike

Mike Ward. Dunsley. 29th August 2012.

Robert GOODWILL MP’s letter to Nigel WARD:

~~~~~

Private Eye “Rotten Boroughs”

• – an “In My View” article – by Nigel Ward

~

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Readers of recent articles in my continuing “In My View”  series have been asking what it takes to persuade the authorities to address the (by now) almost innumerable concerns raised by an examination of the Public Record vis-à-vis Councillor Jane Kenyon. It would appear that an appeal to the Council Leaders, Monitoring Officers and Chief Executives to do what their job descriptions require is destined to be forever ignored.

North Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Tim Madgwick remains silent. North Yorkshire Police Authority Chief Exec Jeremy Holderness remains silent. Independent Police Complaint Commissioner Nicholas Long remains silent. Baroness Warsi and Lord Feldman (Co-Chairs of the Conservative Party) remain silent.

Only Robert Goodwill MP (Whitby & Scarborough – Con) has expressed confidence in Councillor Kenyon – some say, the confidence of ignorance; some say, the professed confidence of party loyalty.

On Monday last, 20^th August 2012, I emailed the Leaders and Chief Execs of NYCC, SBC and the NYPA – a call to action that I hoped would pre-empt the necessity of washing more of Councillor Kenyon’s laundry in the public domain. Not one of them has extended to me the courtesy of an acknowledgement – much less, a response.

Mike Ward, a former and perhaps future Scarborough Borough Councillor (Mike is a candidate for the Esk Valley Ward bye-election), has given his consent to Real Whitby publishing his correspondence with Robert Goodwill MP (Scarborough & Whitby – Con).

In that correspondence, Robert Goodwill MP has accused David Clark, a wheelchair-bound member of the public (and a senior citizen), of the crime of harassment of Councillor Kenyon “over some period of time”, claiming that allegations made against her “have been fully investigated”.

This is untrue.

Clearly, Robert Goodwill has failed to grasp that the Public Record exists so that concerned members of the public may scrutinise the actions and integrity of elected representatives and paid public servants. Having examined David Clark’s correspondence with the authorities, I can confirm that he has complied scrupulously with the proper procedures for complaints and requests for information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He has done so politely and extremely patiently. He stands falsely accused by Robert Goodwill.

And yet it now transpires that Robert Goodwill has made similar false and defamatory accusations against David Clark in other correspondence, with other members of the public.

Robert Goodwill needs to grasp the simple truth that it is the evidence of the Public Record that impeaches Councillor Kenyon’s moral probity. If Councillor Kenyon feels “harassed”, she will soon come to realise that it is the Public Record of her own actions that now calls her to account.

In the matter of my own ongoing complaints against Councillor Kenyon, NYCC’s Moira Beighton has informed me (apologising for a month’s delay) that an Investigating Officer had been delegated – Mr Stephen Knight – and he has been notified that I continue to await his visit for the purpose of providing him with further evidence. Far from having “been fully investigated”, as Robert Goodwill avers, matters have yet to progress even to the point where the allegations are fully defined and the evidence logged. The ‘investigations’ have scarcely begun.

Incidentally, we are left to ponder how it can conceivably be appropriate for Mr Steven Knight to be delegated the task of addressing these matter at all, when it was he who conducted the administration of David Clark’s complaint to the NYMNPA Standards Committee at which Councillor Kenyon, as well as Mr Stephen Knight and the all of the members of the Standards Sub-Committee have seemingly colluded in their decision not to report a crime of forgery.

See how that plays in plain English:

• Nigel: “Hi, NYCC! I think you should investigate how come these people, including Stephen Knight, appear to have kept ‘schtumm’ about a forgery – a serious crime. Oh, and by the way, Cllr Kenyon’s partner is the only credible suspect.”

• Moira: “Sure thing, Nigel. No problem. We’ll send Stephen Knight round to collect your evidence. We trust him to be impartial.”

Astonishing! They want to send one of the suspects to pick up my evidence!

Openness, transparency, accountability, the seven Nolan Principles – one really could not make it up.

Since there is obviously no will on the part of the Councils to investigate Councillor Kenyon, I have decided to offer the opportunity to our eight North Yorkshire Members of Parliament.

Until now, Robert Goodwill’s six fellow Conservative North Yorkshire MPs have elected to remain silent – as has the sole North Yorkshire Labour MP. Robert Goodwill is the only one to ‘break ranks’.

I believe it is now time for all of them to show their colours. So I have written to them, in the straightforward terms, asking them to comment on just two of the innumerable concerns that I have been documenting throughout the past four months.

Here is my email:

—– Original Message —–

From: ‘Nigel’

To: andrew.jones.mp@parliament.uk ; haguew@parliament.uk ; GOODWILL, Robert ; nigel.adams.mp@parliament.uk ; julian.smith.mp@parliament.uk ; mcintosha@parliament.uk ; hugh.bayley.mp@parliament.uk ; julian.sturdy.mp@parliament.uk

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:19 PM

Subject: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

To the elected Members of Parliament for North Yorkshire

Anne McINTOSH MP (Thisrk & Malton) [Conservative]Andrew JONES MP (Harrogate & Knaresborough) [Conservative]William HAGUE MP (Richmond) [Conservative] Robert GOODWILL MP (Scarborough & Whitby) [Conservative]Nigel ADAMS MP (Selby & Ainsty) [Conservative]Julian SMITH MP (Skipton & Ripon) [Conservative]Hugh BAYLEY MP (York Central) [Labour]Julian STURDY MP (York Outer) [Conservative]

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Anne –  Gentlemen,

I write in the Public Interest to solicit your individual responses on the matter of the very large number of discrepancies in the Pubic Record that raise serious doubts regarding the integrity of the present Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Councillor Jane Margaret KENYON (NYCC & SBC).Notwithstanding the widely-held opinion that no-one has the will to address these issues until after the abolition of the Police Authorities on 22^nd November 2012, I put it to you all that matters of integrity, of their very nature, stand paramount to the mere vicissitudes of the political calendar; they are immutable and omnipresent, both in time and in space.

They must be addressed.

Therefore, I would be grateful if, individually, you would respond to the following questions in the knowledge that your answers will be published into the public domain. Thank you.

1) How can it conceivably be acceptable to either the North Yorkshire public or to ‘the powers that be’ that the Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, NYCC and SBC Councillor Jane KENYON, has failed, for over a year, to take action in the case of a crime of forgery – a crime of forgery by her own allegation, supported by the unanimous professional consensus of both the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Standards Committee Sub-Committee and the North Yorkshire County Council then-Deputy Head of Legal & Democratic Services, Mr Stephen KNIGHT – most especially when ostensibly the only credible suspect of that crime of forgery is her life-partner, Councillor Thomas William (‘Bill’) MILLER?

Surely, the contention that there may here have been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice bears careful investigation here?

And is it not disturbing that the NYCC Officer delegated the position of Investigating Officer garnering evidence in relation to my complaints is that very same Mr Stephen KNIGHT?

2) How can it conceivably be acceptable to either the North Yorkshire public or to ‘the powers that be’ that the Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, NYCC and SBC Councillor Jane Kenyon, has repeatedly accepted Allowances for her Broadband/telephone facility from both the North Yorkshire Police Authority and from North Yorkshire County Council, in the aggregate sum of circa £1,300 per annum – given that she was present at the Meeting of NYCC on 17^th December 2008 when the Resolution was carried to include Broadband Allowance within the standard NYCC Basic Allowance with the caveat that members could ‘renunciate’ [sic] all or any part of the Basic Allowance, and cannot, therefore, resort to an anyway  indefensible plea of ignorance?

Surely the seven Nolan Principle of Public Life were drafted for the express purpose of elevating Public Standards above the level of such petty thievery as ‘double-dipping’?

These two questions are informed by but a minute sample of the many penetrating questions I would like to see resolved. Evidence in my possession seems to unequivocally support the contention that, for many years, a culture of ‘cover up’ has prevailed here in North Yorkshire.

For the moment, though, a coherent answer would satisfy me that the Public Interest features prominently in the crowded purview of each and every one of you. I trust that such is the case.

In the interest of transparency (which we all uphold), I offer you, if I may, a word of caution; one of your number has already been rash enough (some are saying ‘foolhardy’) to state that a member of the public (identified by name) “has been harassing Councillor Kenyon for some considerable time”.

This is a very serious (though totally unsubstantiated) allegation of crime. It is defamatory.

I look forward to your suitably measured responses. My readers – your constituents – await word from each of you . . .

My given name is ‘Nigel’. My family name is ‘Ward’. Please respect my preference for being addressed by my given name. Thank you, most kindly.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/tag/jane-kenyon/

“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it’s called transparency.”  – [David Cameron – Sept. 2010]

I leave you with the thought that Julian SMITH MP, who has been highly critical of Councillor Kenyon’s NYPA performance, is a relatively ‘new kid on the block’ in Parliamentary terms.

Perhaps he will now show his mettle now? He looks like a decent young man.

Otherwise, I shall just have to continue to expose evidence of misconduct, professional and private.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~