I can hear many of you saying you agree with Eric and you can’t see much in the way of any hypocrisy.

As you know, the North Yorks Enquirer fashions itself as an unbiased source of information. Nigel and I have spent many an hour pouring over the reams of information provided by councils across North Yorkshire on such lofty subjects as, yes, you guessed it, Councillor Allowances.

Imagine my surprise when I delved into North Yorks Enquirer’s archives to take a look at previous transgressions by greedy councillors and the name of Labour Councillor Eric Broadbent popped up.

Imagine my surprise when the investigation revealed that Labour Councillor Broadbent, whilst in receipt of £255 per annum from Scarborough Borough Council for Broadband, was also in receipt of around £500 per annum from North Yorkshire County Council for, you guessed it, Broadband!

Imagine my surprise when Labour Councillor Broadband’s ill-gotten gains were featured on the BBC’s flagship regional investigative journalism programme, Inside Out, and he opted to continue taking the money.

Imagine my surprise when I find out that Councillor Broadbent hasn’t once offered to repay that £2,000, nor donate that £2,000 Broadband Allowance he should never have received to the Little Foot Trust or another worthy charity.

No, Eric, The Broadbent Beer Fund or the Labour Party are not suitable ‘charities’.

I wonder, will Labour Councillor Broadbent’s arms grow sufficiently long enough for him to reach the wallet in his deep pockets and donate that £2,000 to the Little Foot Trust children’s charity or will the mean and greedy Labour Councillor Broadbent keep the money he looted from the public purse and deny those children a once in a life time trip to open their eyes to great opportunities?

We’ve had some big shocks over the last year. We’ve had Brexit and the rise of Trump, but surely Labour Councillor Broadbent repaying this £2,000 is an outside bet no one will take seriously.

I’ll be running for election to North Yorkshire County Council in the next few weeks. One of my objectives, should I get elected, will be to sour the trough these councillors have their noses firmly wedged in.

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

Enjoy!

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/real-whitby-private-eye-the-bbc-and-the-faceless-public-servants/ Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:01:06 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=418 Real Whitby, Private Eye, the BBC and the faceless Public Servants

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Following a nine-month long in-depth BBC ‘legal eagle’ scrutiny of our numerous reports on Real Whitby regarding evidence of corruption in North Yorkshire, on Monday 10th February 2014 BBC North East & Cumbria broadcast an episode of their award-winning investigative documentary series ‘Inside Out’, presented by award-winning Chris JACKSON. A segment of the program was also aired on BBC Yorkshire & Lincolnshire. It has not escaped many people’s attention that viewers in Scarborough, the nexus of several of the segments, were only able to view the short version. No doubt many of them will, over time, get around to watching it here. Glad to be of service.

In fact, only a representative handful of the issues that Real Whitby has highlighted over the past couple of years lent themselves to the necessarily brief screen-time available (total: 21 minutes). Only these were presented to viewers because some of the more complex investigations would have needed far too long to explain in the necessary detail.

For those who missed the broadcast, the program is available on the BBC i-Player for a short period, after which, it will no doubt be widely proliferated throughout the social video network, starting here on YouTube.

Disappointing, but unsurprising perhaps, was the fact that the BBC could persuade none of the authorities who have sought to smear Real Whitby as “libellers” and “anarchists” to step up to the plate and face the interrogations that we faced. But our paid public servants – forgetting perhaps that we represent (and indeed belong to) the public whom they serve and who have the right and social duty to hold public servants to account – offered only written responses (carefully structured, of course, by their timorous legal departments). They owed it to the public to face the cameras. So did we. But we delivered.

The program should rightly be left to speak for itself. However, one statement provided by Scarborough Borough Council is worthy of special mention since it consists in a blatant lie, astutely spotted and highlighted by presenter Chris JACKSON. Pay special attention to that. It is unremarkable in the fact that it typifies the disingenuous nature of the SBC Legal & Democratic Services department headed by Lisa DIXON, but it is salutary to see it exposed on screen by such a respected and even-handed reporter. Keep it to hand. It will serve as a useful reminder.

Meanwhile, please give Chris JACKSON your best attention. Comment below, by all means – but it would carry a deal more weight if you would comment under your real names – as we do.

Nigel. Whitby, 11th February 2014.

You may also remember that HDC went to great lengths to conceal the names of those elected members receiving free connections. At first, the Council claimed that naming the Councillors in receipt of the free connection would breach the Data Protection Act

“The Council declined to provide the further information on the basis that the information would reveal personal details and that this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.”

I then asked the Council for a review of its decision to withhold the information requested. On the March 28th 2013, I received a copy of the Internal Review from Martyn Richards, Director of Corporate Services at HDC. The Council amended its view and then sought to rely on Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold the names of Councillors in receipt of the free connection.

“For the reasons set out above my conclusion is that the request for information about the individual Members who have received support from the Council for broadband access is covered by the exemption in Section 40(2) of the FOIA because disclosure would breach the first data principle in the DPA.”

Amusingly, the HDC Constitution considers that transparency regarding information about the allowances, expenses and perks that elected members receive is required under the Council’s Constitution [1.03(7)]. Currently, there is no version of the Council’s Constitution available on the HDC website to peruse.

I was left with no option but to complain to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) as information about the allowances, expenses and perks of elected members is firmly in the public interest.

Where possible, the ICO prefers complaints to be resolved informally and asks both parties to be open to compromise. The ICO wrote to Hambleton District Council in October and asked them to reconsider their decision to withhold the information. Shortly afterwards, I received the following from HDC:

“Dear Mr Thorne,

I refer to your complaint to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s decision not to provide information about Members’ broadband.

The Commissioner has offered the Council the opportunity to reconsider its position. The Council has done so and, whilst it maintains that its original position fulfilled the requirements of the Act, it has decided that in the spirit of openness and transparency it would be appropriate, on balance, to release the information. I attach the information originally requested by you.

The Information Commissioner has been notified.

Regards,
Martyn Richards
Director of Corporate Services
Hambleton District Council”

So, nine months after initially requested, we now know the names of Councillors who are in receipt of a Broadband connection paid for by Hambleton District Council. HDC’s efforts merely delayed the release of the information and HDC received a black mark from the ICO in the process.

The spreadsheet sent to me by Martyn Richards of HDC made for interesting reading, too. Not only did it contain the names and costs of the elected members Broadband connections as requested, it also contained the user names and passwords of those Broadband connections. HDC may have to report themselves to the Information Commissioner after disclosing information to me that likely contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.

As regular readers will know, Councillors in the local Tier-2 District or Borough Councils often also hold seats on the Tier-1 North Yorkshire County Council. All Councillors who sit on NYCC receive a £500+ Broadband/IT Allowance as part of their Basic Allowance, unless they choose to ‘renunciate’ that part of their Allowances payment, which none currently do.

So, which Hambleton District Councillors receive the free Broadband connection from HDC and also receive £500+ from NYCC for Broadband?

County Councillor Arthur Barker (Conservative)
NYCC Swale & HDC Leeming (NYCC Executive Committee Member)

County Councillor David Blades (Conservative)
NYCC Romanby & Broomfield & HDC Northallerton Broomfield

County Councillor Tim Swales (Conservative)
NYCC North Hambleton & HDC Osmotherley

County Councillor Tony Hall (Conservative)
NYCC Northallerton & HDC Northallerton Central (NYCC Executive Committee Member)

Also named was former Hambleton District Council Leader Neville Huxtable. Former County Councillor Huxtable did not stand for re-election in the May 2013 County Council elections and resigned from Hambleton District Council on the 30th October 2013.

The Members Allowance Scheme at Hambleton District Council is quite explicit regarding Allowances paid by other Authorities:

“Where a Member is also a member of another Authority that Member shall not receive Allowances under this Scheme if he/she is receiving an Allowance from the other Authority in respect of the same duties.”

The HDC page which details the allowances and expenses paid to elected members still doesn’t make any mention of free Broadband connection which Councillors receive, even though the original FOI request was made in January 2013. The annual cost of providing Broadband to elected members appears to be around £9,000.

The County Councillors concerned were asked if they would be willing to make a repayment. No replies have been received thus far, but I would imagine they’ll be in discussions with the relevant Monitoring Officers.

UPDATE: 03/12/13. I’ve received an email from Cllr Tim Swales. Cllr Swales states he has numerous broadband lines, including one for each of the Councils he represents. This would mean that Cllr Swales is not profiteering from his NYCC IT Allowance.

UPDATE 07/01/14. I’ve received correspondence from Hambleton District Council. Cllr Barker had asked NYCC in 2006 to stop paying him money for broadband as HDC were paying for his broadband line. Cllr Barker is quoted: “To receive payment for this from NYCC would therefore be inappropriate”. NYCC did as instructed for a short while, but then reverted back to paying full basic allowance for some reason. Cllr Barker noticed in October 2013 that NYCC had not done as he had instructed and the money has since been repaid.

Article first posted to Real Whitby on November 21 2013.

• an ‘In My View’ article by Nigel Ward, reporting on the balancing act – between Ethics and Expediency; between what is morally right and what is merely convenient – performed by Monitoring Officers in attempting to establish acceptable stands of conduct on the part of elected members and paid public servants. Nigel first addressed this issue in only his second article for Real Whitby, “Who’s Complaining?”, back in March 2012.

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

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Background

For the benefit of our many new readers, I should perhaps begin by explaining that I have been, for some years now, attempting to persuade our local Councils – Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) and North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) – to address a series of apparent breaches of their respective Councillors’ Codes of Conduct. These Codes have been amended (with effect from 1^st July 2012) in accordance with the terms of the Localism Act 2011, based (in theory) on the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life (which have been amended, earlier this year). Under these revised terms, some breaches constitute criminal offences, addressable by the courts. The Nolan Principles are entirely reasonable in their aims:

The ‘Dry Bones’

(Readers who are familiar with the details of following recent examples of alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct may wish to proceed directly to the next section – Comparisons are Odious).

In a recent article of mine (”4,000 Hole In Blackburn Cover-Up” – 21/07/2013), I had occasion to mention in passing that, in the past five years, a grand total of thirty-five Formal Complaints against elected members of North Yorkshire County Councillor (NYCC) in respect alleged breaches of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct have come under the purview of the Council’s Standards regime. This information was provided to me by NYCC in a response to a FOIA request (FOIA).

The response also indicated that, of these thirty-five, only two were fully upheld – a ‘hit rate’ of only 5.7%.

I was not able, at that time, to furnish details of those two ‘successful’ Complaints, but thanks to NYCC Senior Lawyer (Governance) Moira BEIGHTON, I am now able to provide further details. I had asked her for clarification, thus:

1. In the case of the single formal complaint that was fully upheld in 2009/10, what sanction was imposed upon the offender?

1. In the case of the single formal complaint that was fully upheld in 2012/13, what sanction was imposed upon the offender?

1. Could you please provide URL links to the Decision Notices in respect of all of the formal complaints that were either partially or fully upheld.

Moira BEIGHTON has responded with the following:

1. In the 2009/10 case, in which a member of the public (in fact, a Parish Councillor – name redacted) had complained that a County Councillor (name redacted) had made a “disparaging comment” about the Complainant, in an email to a third party. The Complaint was upheld (being a breach of Article 3(1) of the Code – “failing to treat others with respect” (hardly a capital offence, in the greater scheme of things) – and the sanction was “That the subject member should write a letter of apology to the complainant and attend a training session with the Monitoring Officer.”

Keep in mind that the Complainant was himself an elected member of a Parish Council.

1. In the 2010/11 case, was against former County Councillor Richard WELCH (one of the 37 Double-Dippers), under two Articles of the Code – namely, 3. (1) You must treat others with respect, and 3. (2) (b) You must not bully any person – in respect of events in December 2009. County Councillor Richard WELCH was similarly found to have breached only the first of the above-mentioned Articles, and the sanction was the same as in the first case: apologise and have a chat with the Monitoring Officer . . .

Of particular interest in this second case is that the Investigating Officer was NYCC Deputy Monitoring Officer Stephen KNIGHT. Remember the name. We shall be returning to Stephen KNIGHT when we have dealt with the present matters.

1. In the 2012/13 case, the link provided by Moira BEIGHTON to the Tribunal Decision Notice (ref APE 0549) of only one case leads to a MSWord.doc that, unfortunately, references a Parish Council in Cornwall that has nothing whatsoever to do with my request. How ‘transparent’ is that?

I would be curious to know exactly how much of the taxpayers’ money has been squandered in pursuit of these 35 Formal Complaints that have boiled down to just 2 apologies and a chat. Perhaps I should ask?

Comparisons are Odious

It may be true that comparisons are odious; nevertheless, they can be instructive.

The cases outlined above concern relatively low-level breaches of the Code – ill-considered remarks, in emails or in person, that gave a degree of offence to the recipients. In comparison to some of the issues raised by the Real Whitby Magazine (and other publications) recently, involving the receipt of inappropriate payments from the public purse and use of privilege of position for personal gain, it is surprising (to say the least) that the two above complaints have actually been successful at all – and yet have resulted in such minimal and ineffectual sanctions.

But even on the topic of ill-chosen words, the above cases do not begin to approach the seriousness of (then) County Councillor Bill CHATT’s offensive email to Real Whitby investigative-journalist Tim HICKS:

From: Cllr.Bill.Chatt

Sent: Friday 21st September 2012 13:36

To: Tim Hicks

Cc: Cllr.Tom Fox and all elected members of  Scarborough Borough Council

Subject: Re: Double dipping scandal. Former police officer alleges fraud

If you feel right is on your side,and I am sure I have not claimed twice for any thing why don’t you and your troll friends do it ,or that’s right the Internet is you only medium,and real life is something you will never understand, if you all worked to support the wonderfully town of whitby in what they do for the people then I am sure things would get better for everybody , I am being judged by standards and when that is over I will stand by their decision,

WILL YOU LOT 

I do no wish you to make contact with myself anymore and I this continues I will consider this harassment and will have no option but to seek advice from the police ,

Please stay with your troll friends and leave decent people who work for the better of the borough alone,

I have waited to responded to somebody for a long time I would ask was it breast feeding that was the problem when you were a child?

Was it that you was the kid with glasses on at school who every body picked on,

Did you not have a Lego set 

I hate bully’s who pick, and pick. in my life in my circles people don’t make life difficult because they can, life is hard enough with out Internet trolls 

Private eye they never get it wrong they have never been sued for the wrong story

So what do you say shall we be adult about this or will you need breast feeding soon

Kindest regard 

A very pissed of and sick of it 

William Chatt

This email is my own personal views and not the views of Scarborough borough council

William Chatt

In my view, those remarks go far beyond the “disparaging comment” attributed to the defendants in the cases outlined above. They are deeply insulting and ominously threatening. Coming from an elected member of (at that time) two Councils, they were incontrovertibly unacceptable in trhe extreme.

And yet NYCC refused even to address County Councillor Bill CHATT’s conduct (the language, the personal references to Tim’s mother, the threats of Police action) based on the untenable grounds provided by NYCC Monitoring Officer Carole DUNN – that his email was not sent from his NYCC email client and, therefore outside of NYCC’s area of concern. By that reckoning, County Councillor Bill CHATT could send similarly offensive emails to the Her Majesty the Queen from a Hotmail account, or similar, with total impunity as far as his position as a County Councillor was concerned. How does that sit with the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life?

The case of the Formal Complaints against County Councillor John BLACKBURN is of a far more serious complexion. Initially, two independent witnesses maintained that County Councillor John BLACKBURN had claimed that he had subverted his Stamp Allowances over a period of several years, apparently in part to cover his electoral campaigns at the taxpayers’ expense – a criminal offence. He was exonerated by NYCC on the sole ground that he could not recall any such circumstance and maintained that he would anyway never have done such a thing. To make matters worse, NYCC Chief Exec Richard FLINTON appears to have wittingly prevented two further witnesses from being considered at all during Investigating Officer Catriona GATTRELL’s superficial investigation. And since then, another witness has come to light. How does all that sit with the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life?

And then we have the on-going case against County Councillor Carl LES, Chair of the North Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel (and formerly Vice Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, of which [then] County Councillor Jane KENYON was Chair), whose signed Mileage Claim Forms include claims for “impossible journeys”. This seemingly straightforward allegation, amounting to an offence under the terms of the Fraud Act 2006 (and therefore a Police matter), is apparently being “investigated” internally by NYCC’s own auditors Veritau Ltd (on whose Board of Directors we also find SBC’s Director of Business Support and s.151 Officer Nick Edwards – of Open Air Theatre fame). County Councillor Carl LES is himself a Director of Veritau Ltd. And so is NYCC CEO Richard FLINTON. But Richard FLINTON asserts that there is no conflict of interests here. How does that sit with the Seven Nolan Principles?

And speaking of Mileage Claims, County Councillor David JEFFELS who, having fraudulently claimed for travelling expenses to Conservative “Away Day” junkets, has now been obliged to repay his overclaim – thanks to Real Whitby’s Tim THORNE. No sanctions. No prosecution. And County Councillor David JEFFELS is just one of 45 Conservative County Councillors who, for all we are allowed to know (the data having been withheld, despite an FOIA request to NYCC), may well have done the same. How does that sit with the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life?

In my second ever ‘In My View’ article for Real Whitby (10^th March 2012), I wrote:

• “Let us imagine, say, that you have grounds to believe that a certain Councillor has acted improperly, perhaps by ‘leaking’ commercially sensitive information to a close friend or family member, with a view to granting him or her a financial advantage. You probably feel that this would be rather like ‘insider trading’.”

In fairness, my remark was directed towards some purely hypothetical scenario more akin to the “Me Too!” scandal. But the principle remains the same.

And how prophetic that article turned out to be, at least in the case of Councillor Tim LAWN – currently under investigation by the North Yorkshire Police (NYP), following information provided by Corruption Buster Tim THORNE (again) to SBC and NYMNPA Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON, ever “economical with the truth”, who, without Tim THORNE’s timely intervention, had previously contrived to take no action. How does that sit with the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life?

According to a source intimately connected with York Potash Ltd, three additional referrals have since been made to the NYP, although no confirmation has been forthcoming from them, and NYMNPA Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON has yet to respond to a request for confirmation. How does such conduct sit with the Seven Nolan Principles?

The Bottom Line

The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing résumé is that ‘Expediency’ would appear to have all but eliminated ‘Ethics’ from the equation in North Yorkshire. The Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life, though admirable in intent, form no practical part of the ethical framework under which our Local Authorities actually operate – though they are, of course, required by law to do so. But the North Yorkshire Police assert that they will intervene only at the request of the Council.

So the ‘policing’ is left to the Monitoring Officers – all too ready to interpret the regulations in favour of elected members, with whom a symbiotic relationship appears to have evolved, thus establishing a sense of invulnerability in elected members amounting to an almost impenetrable carapace of secrecy and cover-up. They are confident that, if challenged on their conduct, they will be vigorously defended by the Council legal staff whose true duty is to police them. And even when ‘convicted’ (only two out of every thirty-five times, remember), they face nothing more daunting in the way of sanctions than having to write an apology (of questionable sincerity) and receive a few words of ‘guidance’ from the Monitoring Officer. Then they are free to go back out into the world and behave like feudal barons all over again.

The truth is that public servants, paid or elected, are apparently above the law in this country.

Surely, Lord NOLAN would turn in his grave . . .

But let us not despair; the scrutiny continues.

I now notice that I have forgotten to return to NYCC Deputy Monitoring Officer Stephen KNIGHT. My apologies; I will address that topic in another article.

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

It turned out that the Council provided a Broadband connection free of charge to eighteen of their forty-four elected members. There is no cash Broadband Allowance in Hambleton. The average cost of the Broadband connection over the course of a year was £403.08 per Councillor. This means that the total yearly cost borne by Hambleton District Council by providing Broadband to eighteen of their elected members was £7,255.44.

Perusing the yearly published list of Allowances given to elected members did not reveal this perk. I wonder how many other perks the Council provides to elected members that cannot be easily scrutinized, and are hidden from inquisitive eyes?

As regular readers will know, Councillors in the local Tier-2 District or Borough Councils often also hold seats on the Tier-1 North Yorkshire County Council. All Councillors that sit on NYCC receive a £500+ Broadband/IT Allowance as part of their Basic Allowance, unless they choose to ‘renunciate’ that part of their Allowances payment, which none currently do.

There is the possibility here that some or all of the nine Hambleton District Councillors who also sit on North Yorkshire County Council are receiving a total of £900 a year for their Broadband – a princely perk, I’m sure you would agree.

So I asked Hambleton District Council if they would name the Councillors that are in receipt of a free Broadband connection provided by the Council at an average cost of  £403.08 per Councillor. Their reply was:

“The Council declined to provide the further information on the basis that the information would reveal personal details and that this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.”

A pretty laughable response, considering that transparency regarding information about the perks that elected members receive is required under the Council’s Constitution [1.03(7)], and firmly in the public interest. It appears other steps will need to be taken to prise this information out of them.

After that response, the nine Councillors that sit on both Councils were asked if they received a free Broadband connection from Hambleton. The nine Councillors were emailed, not once, but twice, to their official email addresses at both Councils, asking the question.

Four responses were received.

Two Councillors said they are not in receipt of a Broadband connection paid for by HDC. Two Councillors were evasive and would not answer the question. The other five Councillors have not responded to either of the emails.

The Members Allowance Scheme at Hambleton District Council is quite explicit regarding Allowances paid by other Authorities:

“Where a Member is also a member of another Authority that Member shall not receive Allowances under this Scheme if he/she is receiving an Allowance from the other Authority in respect of the same duties.”

So who are the seven shy Councillors who won’t answer a perfectly polite if inquisitive email about the perks they receive from their local Council?

Cllr Arthur Barker
Cllr David Blades
Cllr Tony Hall
Cllr Neville Huxtable (since stood down)
Cllr Caroline Patmore
Cllr Peter Sowray
Cllr Tim Swales

Would any of you Councillors care to set the record straight and let us know if you are in receipt of a free Broadband connection from Hambleton District Council?

Prior to the publication of this article, Hambleton District Council Head of Corporate Services Martyn Richards was emailed three times and offered the opportunity to provide a statement for publication. He has acknowledged the first two emails. He has not offered any further comment. Perhaps his Council’s duty to transparency has slipped his mind.

Article first posted to Real Whitby on June 5 2012.

The deafening silence was broken on the 2^nd May 2013 by County Councillor John McCartney (Eggborough ward) of Selby District Council, and North Yorkshire County Council (Osgoldcross division).

In an email, Cllr McCartney has revealed that he was unaware his NYCC Allowance included a substantial sum for Broadband. On the strength of the information in the articles on this site he contacted Selby District Council and arranged to repay monies he’d received from Selby District Council for IT. Well done, Sir!

An Officer at Selby District Council has contacted all dual-hatted Councillors and made them aware of the situation. I expect a few more Councillors from Selby District Council will be following Cllr McCartney’s example and repaying their IT/Broadband Allowance in the near future. We’ll keep you updated on that.

Of the 72 Councillors that comprised North Yorkshire County Council during the last term of office, 49 of them were dual-hatted Councillors. Of those 49, 37 were receiving an IT/Broadband Allowance from two Authorities or Double-Dipping as it has become known.

There was a recent outbreak of concern that elected members must abide by the Nolan Principles by the Deputy Monitoring Officer at Scarborough Borough Council, Lisa Dixon. One wonders why there was no regard for the Nolan Principles during the Standards Committees hearings into the Double-Dipping at NYCC and SBC during 2012?

Do Carole Dunn (Monitoring Officer, NYCC) and Lisa Dixon (Monitoring Officer, SBC) still believe that Councillors are fully entitled to claim the IT/Broadband Allowance from both Authorities? Why didn’t they take the Nolan Principles into account during those hearings? I think we should be told!

Double-Dipping Time-Line

• 7^th Apr 2012: Standards Complaint submitted to North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) and Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) by Nigel.
• 9^th Apr 2012: First Double-Dipping article published on Real Whitby.
• 3^rd Aug 2012: Update: Investigations underway at NYCC and SBC.
• 21^st Sep 2012: Cllrs first pilloried in Private Eye’s ‘Rotten Boroughs’.
• 18^th Oct 2012: SBC Standards Committee meets and decides there was no wrong-doing. Nolan Principles not taken into account.
• 21^st Oct 2012: Cllr Colin Challen (SBC Standards Committee) speaks out about Double-Dipping, citing Nolan and urging repayment.
• 22^nd Oct 2012: Cllrs’ statements published on Real Whitby.
• 28^th Oct 2012: NYCC Standards Committee meets and also decides there was no wrong-doing. Nolan Principles again not taken into account.
• 20^th Dec 2012: Cllrs are ‘Highly Commended’ in 2012 Private Eye ‘Rotten Borough Awards’ – ‘Expenses Fiddler of the Year’ category.
• 2^nd May 2013: County Councillor John McCartney of North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council tells Real Whitby he has repaid the money.

Article first posted to Real Whitby on March 13 2012.

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

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

• Corruption Buster Nigel Ward interrupts the schedule of his series of exposés describing the fraud and forgery surrounding the Extended Schools “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme to report on an astonishing turn of pre-election events . . .

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

I have no wish to pre-empt the spectacular dénouement of my long-running “Me Too!” investigation, but I must beg the indulgence of readers who have been awaiting the final part of the series in order to cover an unexpected turn of events.

At 4:40am on the morning of Monday 25^th March 2013, the following comment was posted on an article of mine entitled ‘“Me Too!” – a mystery of many parts’, first published in September 2012. Here is the comment:

Joe Plant
March 25, 2013 at 4:40 am

Dear Mr Ward

I have kept all your information about the serious comments you have made and still make. I will name a few, Corruption, Double Dipping, Dishonesty, Fraud. If you have evidence of this then instead of playing it out behind a desk and over the web, may I suggest you go to the police. I am more than happy for you to do that.

A local resident of Whitby. Joe Plant

I hope you will bear with me while I examine this extraordinary comment in detail.

Firstly, let me flag up what may seem a trivial point to new readers. As regular readers well know, I have always made clear to Councillors and Officers at Local Authorities that I take grave exception to being addressed as ‘Mr’, or ‘Mister’ or, indeed, ‘Mr Ward’, or ‘Mr N Ward’ of ‘Mr Nigel Ward’; I find use of titles deeply insulting; they are an affront to equality.

Because of this, it is my declared preference to be addressed by my given name – ‘Nigel’ – and I have always made this known to Councillors and Officers of all the Authorities with whom I correspond of this, including CEOs and Monitoring Officers.

By and large, except occasionally in the case of those with whom I have never before corresponded, someone addresses me as ‘Mr Ward’, all Councillor and Officers respect my preference. In the unusual event that someone fails to do so, I always write back, politely explaining my preference (to which I have an ‘entitlement’, by the way), and this invariably elicits a courteous apology and we can resume business on amicable terms. No problem.

In the past, County Councillor Joe PLANT has always addressed me, in his emails, as ‘Nigel’ and I know that he is aware of and (normally) respects my preference, since he well knows how offensive I find the use of the title ‘Mr’. Whilst being formal in his address to me, he has signed himself off with his Christian name, thereby retaining the use of the familiar for himself, but denying it to me.

This leads to the conclusion that, on this occasion, it was County Councillor Joe PLANT’s intention to be quite deliberately offensive to me; in the public domain.

He then proceeds to list some of the very serious issues that the Corruption Busters have been investigating. He has been saving them. I should like to examine them.

Corruption

There are many definitions of ‘Corruption’. For me, the most concise and yet all-embracing is the one formulated by Transparency International. It reads:

• “CORRUPTION is the abuse of entrusted power for personal gain. It hurts everyone who depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority”.

It makes no distinction between acts of bribery, fraud, forgery, nepotism, embezzlement, etc, concentrating instead on the fundamental issue – the breach of the public trust. Nor does it distinguish between financial gain, public kudos (ie: ‘electability’), unmerited privilege, ‘insider’ trading information, etc – any unauthorised gain suffices to damn the guilty.

Moving on:

Double-Dipping

Perhaps County (and Borough) Councillor Joe PLANT has not read the professional opinion of Detective Inspector Cedric CHRISTIE of the West Yorkshire Police, where, prior to his retirement, he spent many years in the WYP Fraud Division:

• “Claiming twice for something like broadband is just the same as claiming mileage from two different authorities for the same journey. If I was investigating these circumstances I would consider a case of fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.”

Recently there have been a number of comments on Real Whitby by correspondents opining that the practice of double-dipping may well be immoral or dishonest, but it is not actually criminal. This position that is not tenable in law.

The Fraud Act 2006 defines criminal fraud as occurring when:

1. A person behaves dishonestly.  The act of dishonesty can be one of commission (i.e. making an expenses claim) or one of omission (i.e. not refunding an overpayment); the Fraud Act 2006makes no distinction.

and;

2. Either that person makes a gain, or another person makes a loss.

Applying that statutory standard to the thirty-seven double-dipping County Councillors, let it be noted that:

1) No correspondent to Real Whitby denies that the practice of taking multiple and excessive Broadband Allowances from different Councils to pay for one and the same single (and cheaper) Broadband connection expenditure is obviously wrong; or, for that matter, of husband and wife receiving two separate and excessive Broadband Allowances from SBC to pay for one Broadband connection, or putting in an expense claim at one Authority for telephone calls already paid for from the Basic Allowance at another (delegating) Authority is immoral and dishonest.

2) Nor does anyone deny that the double-dippers have made a monetary gain by their dishonesty. This being the case, prima facie there are grounds for bringing a criminal case of fraud against the double-dippers, because the Fraud Act 2006 defines an act of dishonesty to make gain as fraud.

County Councillor Joe PLANT next lists ‘Dishonesty’ and ‘Fraud’. It should hardly be necessary, after the two preceding items, to go very far down that road.

What is of note is that County Councillor Joe PLANT was commenting on an article in which his own name appears only twice. Allow me to quote from my own article:

“I first took an interest in the Extended Schools “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme (which, to remind readers, was a 2008 Labour Government initiative providing ring-fenced funding to enable deprived children to engage in extra-curricular learning opportunities (horse-riding, photography, dance, learning to swim, etc) following an article in the Whitby Gazette in November 2010, entitled “Activities launch for youngsters”, in which Councillor Joe PLANT was quoted as saying:

• “The free school meals and the Me Too vouchers are there for you and to help you. In the simplest terms use them or lose them.”

Councillor Joe PLANT was promoting the scheme as part of his position as Chair of the NYCC Young People Scrutiny Committee, who had oversight of the initiative. (The Young People Scrutiny Committee meets six times a year, and the Chair receives an additional £4,632 in Allowances – that is £772 per meeting – plus a few photo opportunities with the Gazette. Nice work if you can get it. (As a Conservative Councillor and Kenyon protégé, you probably can get it). It makes one wonder what is the primary motivation for some people seeking election.”

But let us now address the matter of ‘Dishonesty’.

• Does County Councillor Joe PLANT deny promoting the “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme in November 2009?
• Does County Councillor Joe PLANT deny his Chairship of the Young People Scrutiny Committee, or the Special Responsibility Allowance of £4,632 per annum associated with that position?

Surely not.

What is it, then, that causes County Councillor Joe PLANT to rattle off such a rash comment at 4:40am on a Monday morning?

(Incidentally, this new out-break of publicity has encouraged more people to come forward with damning evidence, for which I am grateful).

I doubt that I am alone in concluding that County Councillor Joe PLANT is astonishingly anxious to protest his innocence, perhaps too much, of anything remotely dishonest or fraudulent in the run-up to the County elections on 2^nd May 2013.

But his double-dipping is a matter of public record. There is no escaping it. He has accepted money from two Councils for one and the same Broadband connection. FACT.

Readers of the Whitby Gazette of 26^th October 2012 may recall that County Councillor Joe PLANT was quoted as stating, apropos the double-dipping:

• “As this has to go through NYCC standards committee I cannot comment further. When that decision is known I will give a frank and honest statement about the whole issue”.

But that Standards Decision (exonerating the double-dippers on a point of Council terminology) came down within the week, on 2^nd November 2012 – more than five months ago – and County Councillor Joe PLANT has remained tellingly silent. FACT.

So why is he suddenly running off at the mouth now?

County Councillor Joe PLANT’s discomfiture could perhaps have arisen as a result of his position in relation to the “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme.

An email to me from Paul ATKINSON of NYCC, dated 20^th March 2013 – just last week – included, as an attachment, a response to my FOIA N6341 in which NYCC Monitoring Officer Carole DUNN states:

• “There were significant communications failings over a period of time on the part of the officers involved to their managers in the receipt and handling of an unusually high invoice from a provider which posed budgetary problems, resulting in decisions as to the widening of eligibility criteria and expansion of activities being taken by the cluster without knowledge of the problem.”

I have highlighted the phrase “an unusually high invoice from a provider” for very good reason.

Readers of my article ‘“Me Too!” – a mystery of many parts’ will perhaps recall reading about the NYCC Officer – a ‘whistle-blower’ – who, in February 2011, named for me a County Councillor who had made inappropriate overtures to the Council for payment of a “Me Too!” Voucher invoice of alarming proportions that had been submitted to the Council by a “Me Too!” service provider, who is related to that County Councillor, by marriage.

Two other witnesses – both citizens in good-standing; both, in fact, School Governors – have confirmed this information.

County Councillor Joe PLANT has confirmed for me, in an email of 2^nd April 2011, that he has a son who married into the family of a “Me Too!” service provider – in fact, the same one named by my three informants. FACT.

In a meeting with NYCC CEO Richard FLINTON earlier this month, my friend (but not relation) Mike WARD elicited the information that the majority of the “Me Too!” service providers had now been paid – though some at a reduced settlement figure. According to NYCC accounts, payment to a service provider (a family-run business – a family related, by marriage, to the County Councillor in question) was made in December 2012, in a sum significantly in excess of £100,000. That sounds like a lot of Vouchers to me! The ‘Junior’ Admission Fee for an hour’s swimming at Whitby Leisure Centre is a good Voucher’s worth at £3.20. It would take 35,000 such sessions to run up a bill of well over £100K.

Now, County Councillor Joe PLANT maintains that this is no problem, because he declared his interest in a Meeting of Full Council at NYCC on 16^th February 2011 – but that was fifteen months after he was trumpeting the “Me Too!” Scheme in the Whitby Gazette of 25^th November 2009. (Readers will note that he was still addressing me as ‘Nigel’ back then, even when I was pressing him hard for a full explanation of his part in the “Me Too!” affair):

—– Original Message —–

From: Cllr.Joe Plant

To: Nigel

Cc: Carole Dunn

Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 4:29 PM

Subject: Full Council

Nigel

The date of the Full Council which I declared an interest was 16 Feb 2011.

Regards

Joe

That declaration reads thus:

• Cllr Plant: “I have given a question for Councillor Watson, before I ask it I want to declare a personal interest my son is married to a provider of Me Too. The scheme was launched last year and went down well in the Whitby area and is aimed at underprivileged children.  It has increased the take up of free school meals and activities they would not have gone to in the first place. It started off well, but I want to ask Councillor Watson to investigate problems of the Me Too scheme as it operates in Whitby area it is apparent that some providers have not been paid since last summer and they have been told there is not enough money in the pot to pay and they are suspended. The scheme continues. Allegations that vouchers are being handed out to people not entitled to them. One particular case is a millionaire in the Whitby area and they have changed hands for money. Please investigate as a matter of urgency because the scheme is being abused.”

Unfortunately, this declaration of interest came not only fifteen months too late – but only after the ordure had hit the air-recirculatory system, when news of the fraud and forgery elements of the “Me Too!” affair become widely-known, when the following announcement appeared on the East Whitby Community Primary web-site. FACT.

Me Too Vouchers

21^st January 2011

Dear Parent/Carer

Re:  Me Too Vouchers

It took some considerable effort and persuading to convince the authority that all pupils/families at East Whitby should be eligible for Me Too vouchers.  I am sure that you appreciate having them and the obvious benefits of being able to access the activities available free of charge.  The cost of all our families having the vouchers is considerable.

It has come to my notice that pupils/families not from East Whitby have somehow obtained East Whitby School vouchers and are using them fraudulently. Not only is this illegal but it reflects very badly on us as a school, as people will automatically assume the worst, and accuse East Whitby parents of passing the vouchers on.

If you lose your vouchers, please let me know immediately so I can warn the providers and please do not pass on vouchers to anyone else.  They are for your child’s use only.  Abuse of the system could easily result in the vouchers being withdrawn.

Thank you to the vast majority for your co-operation. Please let me know if you have any more information regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely

A Mok

Headteacher

Three weeks after this bombshell, County Councillor Joe PLANT, having said nothing for the past fifteenn months, suddenly declared an interest and offered an interesting tale of abuse – at the very time when those two School Governors and the NYCC ‘whistleblower’ were making very earnest entreaties to me to expose the apparent nepotism that they knew of directly, from within ‘the system’. FACT.

That same ‘system’ has contrived to keep a lid on this disgraceful affair ever since.

The Extended School “Me Too!” Voucher Scheme was backed by £1,570,000 of Disadvantaged Subsidy funding from the DCSF, to which NYCC chipped in a further £157,000, totalling over £1.727 MILLION, to be disbursed through Vouchers that had no face-value, no serial numbers, no anti-forgery provisions and no systems in place to prevent those ‘in the know’ from tipping-off associates about this extraordinary opportunity to quite literally print money.

North Yorkshire Police

On 19^th June 2012, NYCC Monitoring Officer Carole DUNN informed me that the Police were considering the “Me Too!” investigation. This turned out to be a rural beat PC in Hambleton – hardly a Police Officer qualified to evaluate a complex £1.727million case of fraud, forgery, nepotism and public sector corruption.

Neither the beat Constable himself nor NYCC CEO Richard FLINTON could provide a Crime Number. FACT.

Monitoring Officer Carole DUNN now tells me, in an FOIA response dated 18^th March 2013, that:

• “It is uncertain whether a copy of this report was provided to North Yorkshire Police, but it is believed that police officers were given sight of it and so it is this report which is being considered for disclosure in response to the request.”

“It is uncertain” – “it is believed” – does the Monitoring Officer really not know? Or is this legal-speak for “we successfully contrived to keep the Police out of it”?

She then proceeds to withhold the report!

One would think that it was no concern to electors – on the brink of an election – that the truth should finally out, so that electors know what sort of Councillors they run the risk of electing.

But, once again, Carole DUNN, of Private Eye notoriety, covers up the truth.

In 2011, Inspector Mark GRANGE, of the Whitby Police (NYP), told me on two separate occasions – each in the presence of a witness – that it was NYP policy NOT to pursue investigations of Local Authorities except at the behest of the Authority in question. FACT.

Perhaps that explains County Councillor Joe PLANT’s ostentatious show of willingness to embrace a Police investigation.

But on 16^th April 2013, North Yorkshire Police & Crime Commissioner Julia MULLIGAN hopes to announce the name of the next Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police.

A ‘new broom’ (hopefully) will in due course receive my 70,000+ word report.

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

CodHead has picked up on the fact that Councillor Eric Broadband – begging pardon, ERIC BROADBENT – is the only Labour Party Councillor to have been caught out double-dipping his Broadband/IT Allowances (from North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough Borough Council). Plenty of pressure on him to pay it back and grab the moral high ground, but Eric is not budging.

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/n-yorks-council-ceo-under-renewed-pressure/ Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:01:44 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=523 N Yorks Council CEO under renewed pressure

• – an ‘In My View’ article by Nigel Ward

~

Talking to a ‘tame’ Councillor last week, I discovered that there are still some people who see nothing wrong with ‘double-dipping’ – the name given to the process by which Councillors accept Allowances from two different Councils, or double up on their mileage reports, etc.

I suggested the following analogy. To my surprise, it sufficed to convince the Councillor that ‘double-dipping’ really is shameless profiteering from the public purse. See what you think.

When I was a child, I received ‘pocket-money’ from my parents. I say ‘pocket-money’ becuase my posh friends who attended public school always received much more than I did, and they called their pocket-money their ‘allowance’.

I cannot remember, after all these years, how much pocket-money I received each Saturday morning throughout my childhood, but I do remember that, at one time, it was 10/- (ten shillings) per week.

Sometimes, it was my father who handed me the 10/- note; sometimes my mother.

This much I can tell you with absolute certainty.

Had I ever accepted the 10/- note from my mother, my father would have had plenty to say to me if he had unknowingly offered me a 10/- note, too, and I had had the gall to accept it. He would have said, “No more pocket-money for the next two weeks!” – and thus I would gave forfeited 10/- for the following Saturday (repaying my over-payment), and 10/- the Saturday after that, by why of a ‘fine’ for the dishonesty implicit in my omission to declare that I had already received my 10/- pocket-money.

Yet that is exactly what Councillors all over North Yorkshire have been doing for years – keeping quiet and keeping the money.

Call me old-fashioned, but for me that is obviously wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! – and we all knew that as seven-year-olds.

I do not want to be represented by Councillors whose moral standards are less evolved than those of any seven-year-old, do you?

So I have written again to North Yorkshire County Council Chief Executive Officer and Head of Paid Service Richard FLINTON, in the hope of helping him to grasp what any seven-year-old knows very well.

‘Double-dipping’, in all its devious forms – Broadband, mileage, stamps/postage and whatever other fraudulent tricks they employ – is just plain wrong.

It must cease.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—– Original Message —–

From: Nigel

To: Richard FLINTON richard.flinton@northyorks.gov.uk

Cc: Multiple recipients

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 9:20 AM

Subject: *** COMPLAINT NON-RESPONSIVENESS ***

Mr Richard FLINTON – Chief Exec – NYCC

Richard,

I note that you continue to remain non-responsive to me on a number of very serious issues.

Your indecision is in no way acceptable.

There now arises yet another issue; I refer you to the text of an email to me from your Senior Lawyer (Governance) Moira BEIGHTON, dated and timed at 14:43 on Thursday 31st January 2013. It concerns a complaint against County Councillor John BLACKBURN. For your convenience of reference, I reproduce Moira BEIGHTON’s text here:

Dear Nigel

I note that this complaint is now being pursued by an anonymous complainant through yourself.  Carole Dunn, Monitoring Officer, will be assessing the complaint with the Independent Person on 7 February 2013 in accordance with the Council’s procedure for dealing with allegations of breach of the Code of Conduct.  If the complainant has any further information which she/he considers to be relevant to the complaint, it is important that we receive it by 6 February.

Yours sincerely,

Moira Beighton Senior Lawyer (Governance)

It must be self-evident to the simplest soul that it is absolutely unacceptable – given that I have received neither acknowledgement nor response from you on the matter of my complaint against Carole DUNN in respect of highly inappropriate actions in relation to previous complaints – that the complaint against County Councillor John BLACKBURN should, in any circumstances, fall under Carole DUNN’s purview.

The complaint was raised by a member of the public who asked me to pursue the matter, on his/her behalf, for fear of reprisals or retribution being exacted by other members of the Conservative Party.

I reproduce the witness statement of the (first) complainant here, for your convenience of reference:

STATEMENT

The following is true to the best of my knowledge, and ability to recall events.

In the months leading up to the County Council elections of 2009, there were a number of meetings and sessions organised for the candidates.

Some of these involved meeting, and interacting with current Councillors for them to chat to us about what to expect, give advice and allow us to ask questions.

One one occasion, whilst we were in the conservative club (the room was the front bar, upstairs), John Blackburn was talking to us, after we’d met and had some sort of discussion about strategies for getting out and campaigning and leaflet dropping.

Posters for the candidates were decided at this point, and we also talked about a forthcoming trip to County Hall for the new candidates. There would be a free luncheon buffet provided for us. I can’t remember if this was paid for by SWCA or by County Hall itself.

John Blackburn at one point was stood before the group talking about what to expect as a Councillor once we were elected.

I remember being quite bored during this meeting, because Cllr Blackburn isn’t the greatest of orators, and my attention waned a little. I did try hard to pay attention, however. I recall he talked about people’s concerns about expences incurred, and he mentioned that things like expenditure incurred whilst conducting Council Business could be claimed back. Things like stationary were provided, there was an allowance for a number of things, like mileage. One of these, I seem to recall he called a “postage allowance”. Whereby a set number of stamps were provided by County Hall on a regular basis. He did say that he didn’t use all of these every time, but he made sure he claimed them anyway, because they could come in useful at a later date. He used the example that they could be used to send out christmas cards to constituents, for sending out election materials, or for writing to constituents later in the year. He justified hoarding the stamps by saying that if he went over one month, by writing to people, then he could just use up some of the ones already saved. He said something about it could mean the difference in helping to “keep the other buggers out” at election time, which I presume meant Labour Candidates.

I remember being surprised that he would say such things, being a Conservative I thought he would have wanted to reduce costs at County Hall as much as possible and certainly was all for open and democratic choices. I didn’t get chance to raise a question about this, because the day was rather busy with dealing with Candidate information, trying to remember what was needed to be done for my electioneering, and so on. I also had several discussions with other candidates about what their plans were for how they would canvas their areas, and this distracted me from asking Cllr Blackburn about this issue.

Signed [name redacted]

I have, of course, interviewed the complainant. Were I in any doubt as to the veracity of the above statement, I hope you know that I would hardly be such a fool as to lend it my support. It must be self-evident to the simplest soul that others were present during the incident described above. I have been requested to withhold further statements until such time as anonymous complainants are satisfied that the matter is not to form the next installment in a series of ‘cover-ups’.

Why have I not been provided with the County Councillor BLACKBURN’s defence statement? Or is that a work-in-progress, prepared with the assitance/collusion of Carole DUNN or one of her staff, as in the now infamous ‘double-dipping’ case? I require clear responses to these questions.

In consideration of the foregoing, you will (I trust) understand the necessity to have this complaint heard not by an Officer whose own integrity is questionable and awaits investigation in pursuance of the complaint that you have declined thus far to acknowledge, but by a genuinely independent body whose integrity is above reproach.

There has been a string of complaints deflected by  the most questionable application of sophistry by Legal Officers at County Hall. This must cease.

Failure to diligently investigate bona fide complaints against elected members and paid public servants constitutes a clear breach of the public trust. The public at large relies implicitly on the integrity of elected members and paid public servants. In my view, there could be no greater dereliction of duty on your part than to allow these matters to remain inadequately addressed. Your clear duty is to actively strive for the highest possible standards of integrity amongst your members and staff.

You should also understand that, by ignoring issues of the gravest possible nature, you risk consigning members and staff to the ordeal of ‘trial by media’, which is clearly unsatisfactory – both to defendants and to complainants. A fair resolution based on all available evidential material is the only way forward. The responsibility for investigating complaints and garnering evidence does not rest with me; it rests with the Council – and you are the Chief Executive Officer and Head of Paid Service. The ‘buck’ stops with you.

You continue to disregard my repeated invitations to engage with me in a open and candid discussion of these matters.

Audits presently in progress indicate that there have been a large number of breaches of the Code of Conduct in respect of a variety of Allowances/Expenses, Register of Interests and Procurement matters, as well as other issues.

And I insist that your refusal to address the complaint against County Council Bill CHATT, whose blatantly abusive email to a member of the public is a matter not of allegation, but of fact, is reconsidered immediately. Your contention that County Councillor CHATT’s email, having been sent using an SBC email client, is of no concern to NYCC is, frankly, ludicrous.

The man is a County Councillor. He has breached the Code of Conduct. Yet you contend that that is of no consequence to you – (though you are paid from the public purse to assume responsibility for administering such matters) – for the sole reason that the abusive remarks did not bear the NYCC email server address? Please read that abusive email again now, and note the date:

From: Cllr.Bill Chatt [Cllr.Bill.Chatt@scarborough.gov.uk]

Sent: vendredi 21 septembre 2012 13:36 [Friday 21st September 2012]

To: Tim Hicks

Cc: Cllr.Tom Fox [and around fifty other Cc: recipients and an unknown number of possible Bc: recipients]

Subject: Re: Double dipping scandal. Former police officer alleges fraud

If you feel right is on your side,and I am sure I have not claimed twice for any thing why don’t you and your troll friends do it ,or that’s right the Internet is you only medium,and real life is something you will never understand, if you all worked to support the wonderfully town of whitby in what they do for the people then I am sure things would get better for everybody , I am being judged by standards and when that is over I will stand by their decision,

WILL YOU LOT 

I do no wish you to make contact with myself anymore and I this continues I will consider this harassment and will have no option but to seek advice from the police ,

Please stay with your troll friends and leave decent people who work for the better of the borough alone,

I have waited to responded to somebody for a long time I would ask was it breast feeding that was the problem when you were a child?

Was it that you was the kid with glasses on at school who every body picked on,

Did you not have a Lego set 

I hate bully’s who pick, and pick. in my life in my circles people don’t make life difficult because they can,life is hard enough with out Internet trolls 

Private eye they never get it wrong they have never been sued for the wrong story 

So what do you say shall we be adult about this or will you need breast feeding soon

Kindest regard 

A very pissed of and sick of it 

William Chatt

Councillor William Chatt

Four months have now elapsed, yet you remain incapable of grasping this very odious nettle. And I know that you are aware that Scarborough Borough Council also remains non-responsive on this matter.

Please be clear that I would contend that such conduct is utterly unacceptable.

Is it, then, really your contention that personal insults against a member of the public (and his mother – of whom County Councillor CHATT has knows nothing), threats of Police action, as well as a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts (there was never any suggestion that the ‘double-dippier’ had “claimed” Broadband Allowances; merely received) is acceptable conduct on the part of a County Councillor? I would ask the same question of the many Cc: recipients of this email – and the public at large. Of course it is not acceptable; it is intolerable.

I repeat my invitation to you to engage with me in an amicable dialogue to discuss an equitable way forward.

And (of course) I continue to assert my right to publish my correspondence into the public domain, this email not excepted, at my own prerogative.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

Richard FLINTON was internally promoted to the Chief Exec slot within NYCC, when former CEO John MARSDEN moved to Tyneside.

We are about to find out if Richard FLINTON was promoted beyond his ability.

Meanwhile, perhaps readers have read about former LibDem Cabinet Minister Chris HUHNE pleading guilty to conspiring to pervert the course of justice this morning.

• “The maximum sentence for conspiring to pervert the course of justice is life imprisonment, although it often carries a penalty of several months in jail.”

Some readers may consider the latter very lenient.

Me too!

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