• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on a blatant electioneering letter in this week’s Whitby Gazette.

~~~~~

With the North Yorkshire County Council elections seven weeks away, the Scarborough & Whitby Conservative Association, painfully aware of the absence of all credibility in the party locally (contingent upon the tsunami of NO CONFIDENCE in SBC Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] and his bottom-of-the-barrel Cabinet), has rolled out one of its relatively new kids on the block to front the salvage job necessary to keep the Tory trotters in the North Yorkshire trough – Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic Transport, Transport Services and ICT, Councillor John NOCK [Con.].

Whitby Tory SBC Councillors David “Slim or No” CHANCE [Con.] and Joe “Frank & Honest” PLANT [Con.], having earlier rolled out NYCC Leader Councillor Carl LES [Con.] for a Gazette photo-opportunity to beat the Whitby Piers drum (just as in 2015, when MP Robert “Air Fares” GOODWILL [Con.] did the honours) may wish they had handled the task themselves. Neither is good for much, true, but they would have found it difficult to do worse than Councillor NOCK’s blatantly biased mud-slinging.

One cannot help but wonder what County Councillor Carl LES [Con.], the only North Yorkshire Tory to have apologised to the victims/survivors of predatory paedophile Peter JACONELLI, really thinks about sharing a platform with a JACONELLI apologist . . . other, perhaps, than “needs must when the Devil drives“.

Here is Councillor NOCK’s letter to the Whitby Gazette (17/03/17):

It does not stand up to examination.

Firstly, the decision to demolish the Futurist was not taken “some time ago”, as the Tories keep pretending.

In fact, the decision to REGENERATE the Futurist site was taken “some time ago” – in January 2016 – without any specific reference to demolition.

As the vote on 9th January 2017 (22:21) clearly showed, had demolition ever been specifically spelt out, there would have been vociferous objections back then, instead of support for a regeneration proposal in which “demolition” was carefully concealed. Councillor NOCK may genuinely have forgotten that the Opposition was sand-bagged; the public has not. County & Borough Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.] made this abundantly clear in her letter to the Scarborough News.

Such is the weasel-worded vocabulary of Councillor NOCK – who, lest we forget – wriggled out of any substantive sanction for his shameless defence of Peter JACONELLI on the grounds that JACONELLI (unlike Jimmy SAVILE) was not a paedophile but merely a “hebephile” (one whose sexual preference is for 11-14 year-olds). Astonishingly, Councillor John NOCK [Con.] even attempted to offset his guilt by claiming that it was Councillor BARNETT [Lab.] and Councillor DODDS [Ukip] who had brought the Council into disrepute – by reporting NOCK’s remarks to the Monitoring Officer.

I believe Councillor NOCK has a son. Presumably, Councillor NOCK would have had no objection to Peter JACONELLI messing with NOCK Junior when he was 11-14 years old? Bizarre, isn’t it? Ludicrous.

Councillor John NOCK [Con.] goes on to describe the caution evinced by many – including some Tories (not least, Leader-in-Waiting Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Con.]) – regarding the Futurist Ground Investigation Report (GIR)as “gesture politics”. Then again, Councillor NOCK may genuinely have forgotten that the Opposition was sand-bagged over the GIR, just as it was about the “demolition”; the public has not.

The truth of the matter is that the stability of the escarpment behind the Futurist is of vital importance – not least to residents whose homes may be at risk.

And it is interesting to note that when Councillor NOCK reproaches Councillor DENNETT with another coat of his “gesture politics” varnish, he gratuitously throws in Councillor BARNETT, who played no part in the letter to the Gazette from Councillor DENNETT, to which Councillor was purporting to respond. Is this the spiteful expression of a mean-spirited grudge I see before me? (“You told tales on me; I’ll get you back!” – Kindergarten politics).

Next, Councillor NOCK, whilst conceding that the budget paperwork was indeed provided to Councillors only at the eleventh hour, seeks to blame them for not attending briefing meetings – at which the material was not all available anyway. He then goes on to blame “one Councillor” (identity withheld) for wasting Officer-time in a futile attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery budget – and wasting public money on an entirely necessary Extraordinary Meeting to ratify a budget delayed by Officer incompetence and Cabinet feet-dragging.

Of course, unnecessary Standards Complaints are a waste of money, too, when the outcome is as pathetic as a perfunctory mini-bollocking from the Chair of one’s own party.

And within this culture of secrecy, Councillor NOCK proceeds to heap scorn on the Opposition Leader, Councillor Steve SIDDONS [Lab.], for failing to scrutinise that which should, by rights, be openly available in the first place but, in reality, is carefully kept from view.

And an open and honest man would have included an explanation for why the previous year’s accounts have still not be signed off by Auditors MAZARS – whose “independent investigation” into the Ben MARRIOTT allegations of fraud and corruption within the Council is now long overdue – and doubtless another waste of money. Perhaps Councillor NOCK would like to raise that with the Chair of the Scrutiny Board – Councillor Steve SIDDONS [Lab.]?

Councillor John NOCK [Con.] is also disingenuous on the matter of the dredger – known around the harbour as ‘HMS DREDGENOUGHT’.

In fact, the dredger really has been dredging – and that will be the subject of a future article exposing SBC’s apparent disregard for the legal requirements of another expensive (for the Council) out of court settlement, studiously omitted from SBC’s Press Releases.

Presumably, the Gazette will afford Labour Councillors BARNETT, DENNETT and SIDDONS their ‘right of reply’.

But the sad truth is that all too many Gazette readers will likely take NOCK’s knocks at face value – and return him and his fellow failures to office.

Best keep an eye on the North Yorks Enquirer Bullshitometer . . . this letter from Councillor John NOCK has sent it way into the red. Of course, anyone can spout bullshit and this mealy-mouthed Tory minnow has finally found an opportunity to excel.

• an “In My View” by NIGEL WARD, reporting on another abusive outburst from Whitby Town Mayor

~~~~~

On the evening of Tuesday 7th March 2017, Whitby Town Council (WTC) convened the most recent of its regular monthly meetings.

For readers unfamiliar with the present incumbents of WTC, it may be helpful, before proceeding, to recall that the present Mayor of Whitby, Councillor Noreen WILSON [Lab.] is coming to the end of her second term. Prior to her two terms as the public-facing representative of democracy in Whitby, Councillor Noreen WILSON was best known as the Councillor who told citizen journalist Nick HENDERSON:

• “You can shove your camera up your arse!”

Many Councillors sought to excuse this entirely inappropriate remark on the grounds that poor Noreen has anger management issues. Not ‘alf.

It is with great sadness that I must now report that the Mayor of Whitby, Councillor Noreen WILSON [Lab.], appears to have lost her battle with what I refer to (if only to myself) as “gavel rage” – that well known symptom of sociopathy, prevalent amongst those whose perception of ‘power’ contains no sense of public service; rather, an unshakeable belief in personal omnipotence.

Readers may more readily recall the name of Ron WILKEY, whose eloquent explication of the case for a No Confidence vote must surely have been a factor in the deliberations of both WTC on 7th February 2017 and Filey Town Council (FTC), on 13th February 2017.

Ron WILKEY attended WTC last night to express his thanks to the Council for their Vote of No Confidence in the Leader at SBC, Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con] and his Cabinet of seven Portfolio Holders, and to express his views on the letters sent by Councillor BASTIMAN [Con.] and CEO Jim DILLON. These letters are reproduced at the foot of this page.

Ron WILKEY has provided a statement regarding what took place last night and I can confirm that everything Ron states has been corroborated by other witnesses, including a Scarborough Borough Councillor.

STATEMENT of RON WILKEY

Nigel,

Thanks for meeting me tonight after the Whitby Town Council farce.

Events unfolded as follows:

I arrived a few minutes late and mouthed my apologies, as the meeting started at 6.45pm not 7pm as I had thought.

They were on Item 3 on the Agenda;

EXTERNAL REPORTS

1. a) North Yorkshire Police

and then went on to Borough Council reports from Cllrs Barnett and Dennet respectively. This led to a couple of questions on those reports.

Then Item 4;

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SESSION

I was 3^rd to speak. I introduced myself and again proffered apologies for being late, then thanking Councillors for the hospitality shown when I attended the Full Council meeting on 7^th Feb 2017.

I thanked them for the votes of No Confidence then, but said that the letter received in response from the CEO and the Leader of SBC was;

a) a thinly veiled threat, and also

b) was in a form of words identical to the letter sent to Filey Town Council, whose motion to vote included in The Leader, The Cabinet and the Chief Executive Officer of Scarborough Borough Council.

I said I thought that the reply was ill-conceived as a general reply which could be sent to any Town or Parish council and was, as usual, ignorant.

I then asked a question directed to Cllr Trumper as to why he did not declare and interest, being a Borough Councillor, and step away from the vote. The Mayor then instructed him that he didn’t have to answer. Which he didn’t. I said my thanks and sat down.

The meeting continued as per the Agenda until Item 7;

LETTERS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL

b) Letter from the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council.

It was at this point that The Mayor asked the Council what, if any, or how, should they reply. A lively debate ensued with a lot of sighs and put-downs in the direction of Cllr Havelock. I felt strongly that he was wasn’t being understood or treated with respect, and especially when Cllr Jennison said about an earlier remark and that this was exactly why they have No Confidence. Cllr Havelock agreed that that had formed part of his motion to vote on the 7^th February. Another Cllr said it wasn’t, but Cllr Havelock insisted it was.

The Mayor said they would debate it no longer, under the 6-month rule. It was then that I had to say something, as a point of order in defence of the wording of the motion, as they were all discussing a response to Scarborough Borough Council – the entire institution – when, in fact, the motion specified No Confidence only in the Leader and the Cabinet. Most Councillors seemed unable to grasp this fundamental distinction.

I know I shouldn’t have spoken out while Standing Orders were in effect, but I said what I said in the public interest. The public cannot be well represented by the Council fumbling about in the dark. I also offered that, if I was asked to leave, then I would do so. I tried to continue but was then bellowed at by The Mayor to “Shut up!”. The Mayor then slammed her hands on the table with a loud report and walked out, saying she was suspending the meeting.

There was no need, as I had made clear that I would have left the meeting if the Council so wished.

The Clerk came over to me and I asked her not to speak to me as if I was a naughty school-child and that I was 68 and she should show me some respect.

She said I abused the Mayor, which I did not.

As members were getting their coats on and leaving, I was reminding those around me that they had the wrong end of the stick and didn’t understand the vote was NOT about Scarborough Borough Council in its entirety as many of then believed.

I flippantly said, “Well, you’ve got a early night”. A few said that they were disappointed the meeting was suspended as there were still some important things to debate.

It was then that The Mayor approached me and told me to “Go home. You’re a knob”. I asked her to repeat her remark and again she called me a “Knob”. I called to Cllrs Havelock, Barnett and Dennett to be witness to The Mayor using rude expletives.

I left the Council Chamber saying no wonder the Borough has no regard for Whitby Town Council if this is the way Democracy works in Whitby.

– THE END –

It is worthy of note that Whitby Town Council video-records its meetings – although long-standing readers of the Enquirer may recall that the Whitby Town Clerk, Mrs Pam DOBSON, has been known to ‘mislay’ recordings, as she did when she was Clerk to Marlborough Town Council, where her successor (following her humilating departure), Mr Liam COSTELLO, had this to say:

“Mrs Dobson’s actions, as several councillors have suggested, could have been passed to the police for investigation, as a mis-use of public office and a possible offence under the Fraud Act”.

In the ensuing court action, Judge SIMPSON, who led the Tribunal, said:

“She was at times evasive in her answers, and overall, we were unanimous in having concerns as to her credibility.”

Complaints against Councillor Noreen WILSON [Lab.], both to the Council and to the Labour Party, over the “Shove your camera up your arse” incident were not upheld.

It is eminently possible that complaints both to the Council and to the Labour Party in respect of Noreen’s latest eruption will be brushed under the carpet, too.

In my view, it is high time a Councillor of Ian HAVELOCK’s calibre, perhaps with the support of Councillor Terry JENNISON (who was the Seconder of Councillor HAVELOCK’s ‘No Confidence’ motion last month) prepared a form of words for a motion of NO CONFIDENCE in Mayor Noreen WILSON to spare the Council any further descent into disrepute. There are rumours, too, the Clerk Pam DOBSON has spoken of imminent retirement. One hopes that she will not apply for the vacancy at Fiely Town Council, where the Town Clerk, the exemplary Mrs Gina ROBINSON, has already announced her retirement.

It would appear that the more we strive for transparency in local governance, the clearer is the picture we obtain of dishonourable conduct, arrogance, ignorance, rank stupidity and kindergarten farce.

The following textually identical letters from SBC CEO ‘Silent’ Jim DILLON and Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] to, respectively, Filey Town Council and Whitby Town Council are not only arrogant to the point of insolence, the latter is entirely inappropriate – since the WTC motion of No Confidence made no reference to the CEO who, on this occasion, had no business appending his name to a document that was none of his concern.

Letter from SBC CEO and Leader to Filey Town Council

I expect members of Filey Town Council to have no difficulty in formulating a response to the CEO and the Leader, along the following lines:

Dear Chief Executive, Dear Leader,

The Town Council envisages the relationship between the Town and Borough Councils developing in a way that ensures that both continue to work to promote the best interests of our residents through the good graces of those Officers and elected members in whom the Town Council does have confidence.

Yours faithfully, etc.

Letter from SBC CEO and Leader to Whitby Town Council

Last night, members of Whitby Town Council proved themselves incapable of understanding their own motion, much less of formulating a response, which must surely take the following form:

Dear Leader,

The Town Council envisages the relationship between the Town and Borough Councils developing in a way that ensures that both continue to work to promote the best interests of our residents through the good graces of those elected members in whom the Town Council does have confidence.

It is unclear why, after twelve years of silence, the Chief Executive has chosen to insert himself in a matter in which he plays no significant role.

Yours faithfully, etc.

Of course, a less burdensome response – from both Town Councils – would be simply to refer the Chief Executive and/or the Leader to Arkell -v- Pressdram.

Readers have been requesting voting details on last night’s Resolution to the effect that Whitby Town Council has NO CONFIDENCE in Scarborough Borough Council Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] and his seven colleagues who together form the SBC Cabinet.

It is understand that Councillor HAVELOCK drew his motivation for tabling the motion from the 2,270 people who have signed a Scarborough resident’s on-line petition to the same effect – NO CONFIDENCE.

FOR (6)

Councillor Ian HAVELOCK (who Proposed the Motion)

Councillor Terry JENNISON (who Seconded the Motion)

Councillor John FREEMAN

Councillor Heather COUGHLAN

Councillor Geoff WILSON

Councillor Dennis COLLINS

AGAINST (4)

Councillor Noreen WILSON (Mayor)

Councillor Rebecca PEARSON

Councillor Phil TRUMPER [Con.]

Councillor Linda WILD

ABSTAINED (2)

Councillor Natalie SMITH

Councillor Jonathan HARSTON

It is interesting to note that three former Mayors of Whitby supported the Motion – Councillors JENNISON, FREEMAN and COUGHLAN.

It is also interesting to note that two Whitby SBC Councillors are members of the BASTIMAN Cabinet – Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.] and Councillor Sandra TURNER [Con.].

Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.] is widely predicted to lose his seat on North Yorkshire County Council in the forthcoming May elections – to the very capable and hard-working SBC Councillor Rob BARNETT [Lab.], who spoke eloquently in favour of last night’s Motion – as did SBC Councillor Gerald DENNETT [Lab.].

Councillor Sandra TURNER [Con.] has twice in the past resigned her seat at SBC, when sitting as an Independent Councillor. It will come as no surprise should she do so again in the light of this vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the Tory Cabinet.

Following the public announcement of the result on the Whitby Gazette Facebook page last night, it has spread like wild-fire throughout the Borough. As one County and Borough Councillor told the Enquirer, “In my opinion, this result follows a pattern. People are disillusioned. They want change – as the Brexit and US election results have so clearly signalled.”

Certainly, public reaction on social media has been close to unanimously in support of Councillor Ian HAVELOCK’s Proposal.

It has been pointed out that Councillor Phil TRUMPER [Con.], who also sits on Scarborough Borough Council, should arguably have declared an interest and recused himself from the vote – as did Councillors Steve and Amanda SMITH (who, quite correctly, withdrew in respect of their close relationship with SBC as leading lights in Whitby in Bloom).

Unfortunately, the Town Clerk, Mrs Pam DOBSON, was unable to attend the meeting, which was therefore left in the hands of Deputy Clerk Mrs Ann COWEY. Presumably, Mrs DOBSON, had she been present, would have pointed out to Councillor Phil TRUMPER [Con.] his apparent conflict of interests.

It is understood that Councillor Ian HAVELOCK will be writing to SBC Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] informing him of the Resolution of NO CONFIDENCE and inviting him to do the honourable thing – resign.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, up-dating readers on the SBC fraud and corruption scandal.

~~~~~

The “Whitewash” Continues

On Tuesday 13th December, I attended the Hull Employment Tribunal to witness the attempt of Scarborough Borough Council’s award-winning team of in-house solicitors, their Human Resources department and their barrister to knock the stuffing out of Ben MARRIOTT’s victory in his constructive dismissal claim.

Arriving a little late, I anticipated entering the hearing to find ‘The Gunfight at the OK Corral’ in gripping progress. After all, the stage had been set by three-and-a-half years of build-up in the North Yorks Enquirer, a couple of welcome (though belated) salvos from The Scarborough News and a scathing and contemptuous blast form Private Eye.

Thus far, the Council’s in-house legal department had emerged from the case looking as shifty as an out-house rat.

Yet SBC Directors were continuing to insist that Ben MARRIOTT was wrong about everything (which, presumably, is why they voluntarily paid him the £95K, rather than risk the Tribunal’s award), and that they are as pure as the driven snow.

Despite the humiliation of having his Council described by Judge Humphrey FORREST as the perpetrators of a “complete whitewash”, SBC Chief Exec and Head of Paid Service ‘Silent’ Jim DILLON felt it incumbent upon himself to comment(!), personally, to The Scarborough News.

Whether singled out for his evasiveness or his dilatoriness, we do not know, but Jim DILLON felt it necessary to defend himself (and his beleaguered legal department), thus:

That third paragraph – “Mr DILLON told The Scarborough News, etc”, was fighting talk:

 “The council has asked the tribunal to reconsider some elements of how the judgment was reached. Our request has been accepted and we await the outcome, which we expect to receive at the review hearing in December”.

Vaudeville springs to mind: “He’s dead but he won’t lie down”. Or Punch & Judy: “The show ain’t over till the fat lady signs (a statement of truth – that is actually true)”.

Director of Legal & Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer Mrs Lisa DIXON, in an email to Councillor Rob BARNETT [Lab.], went even further. Her message to him came across loud and clear: The Council was not for rolling over, she insisted. The lady was not for turning. She did not mention the words “complete whitewash”.

In the event, there was no sign at all of a court-room shoot-out taking place when I arrived to witness proceedings. Fortunately, the usher was helpfully able to explain that a settlement was being finalised in an adjacent conference room and the hearing itself would never take place. I asked if there were any reporting restrictions in place and the usher said, “None”.

In a brief conversation with Ben MARRIOTT, who left the conference room to update me, I learned that neither Mrs Lisa DIXON, nor any of her ‘award-winning’ legal team, attended the hearing to mount that much-vaunted challenge.

Instead, SBC’s sole representative was Director of Finance and s.151 Officer, Mr Nick EDWARDS – the man with the cheque book – whose function it was (in common parlance) to ‘pay off’ Ben MARRIOTT.

In the light of this total capitulation by Scarborough Borough Council, what is the significance of the fact that neither Mrs Lisa DIXON nor Mr Nick EDWARDS has responded to public questions published here on the Enquirer about the work they themselves have had carried out on their own properties? (Incidentally, I believe thanks are due to Councillor Dilys CLUER [Green] for ensuring that Directors’ Registers of Interest are back on-line: Here).

And the bitterest pill for SBC to swallow must have been that Ben MARRIOTT told me, with a satisfied smile on his face, that he had resolutely refused to enter into a Non-Disclosure Agreement – leaving the way clear for publication, no doubt in instalments, of all the nooks and crannies of the whole sordid affair. Water on stone . . .

On 22nd December 2016, SBC’s Director of Legal & Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer, Mrs Lisa DIXON, emailed all 50 SBC Councillors, seeking to play down the Council’s dismal defeat at the hands of Mr MARRIOTT’s legal team. Setting aside Mrs DIXON’s weasely-worded pleading that the Council had capitulated only to save tax-payers’ money(!), please pay special attention to the fourth paragraph, which I have highlighted in bold, with the key phrase in underlined type:

Dear all

For information, the employment tribunal case involving one of our former employees, Mr Ben Marriott, concluded in Hull last week.

Although the Council remains disappointed by the Tribunal’s decision, to avoid any further court costs and implications on the public purse, the Council reached a settlement with Mr Marriott.

For the record, the settlement was for the Council to pay £95k to Mr Marriott.

Mr Marriott asked for a confidentiality clause in relation to the settlement but the Council refused this as the Council considered it important in the interests of transparency for the settlement to be made public.

The Council’s legal fees in the matter are approximately £16.7k.

The external investigation we have instigated with our external auditors, Mazars, is now underway and we await the investigation’s findings early in the New Year.

Kind regard

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor

I suppressed a loud guffaw when I read that Mrs DIXON was appealing to “the interests of transparency” – as though transparency has ever been any sort of a consideration at SBC.

Readers may remember that on 2nd January 2017, the Enquirer published an Open Letter from Ben MARRIOTT, addressed to everyone in the Borough. Item 4 in Mr MARRIOTT’s letter openly challenged the integrity of Mrs DIXON, who had stated outright that it was Mr MARRIOTT –  not the Council – who sought a confidentiality clause (a Non-Disclosure Agreement, or NDA) as part of his settlement package.

The government has published a document on this subject, signed off by the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES [Con.] when he was Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (2015),  entitled “Use of severance agreements and ‘off payroll’ arrangements Guidance for local authorities”.

The following excerpt tells us all that Mrs DIXON needs to know.

In short, Mrs DIXON was bang out of line even dreaming about a non-disclosure agreement (NDA – or “gagging clause”) in the case of a whistleblower. For her c. £75K per annum, surely she should be aware that an NDA was not an option? Perhaps she just hoped that Mr MARRIOTT wasn’t aware?

In any case, letters from the Council to Mr MARRIOTT leave the matter beyond any doubt.

And why would Ben MARRIOTT lie?

So he is far from being a worried man. But then he is not the one with something to hide . . .

In Full Council, on 9th January 2017 – the notorious ‘Demolition of the Futurist’ meeting – Councillor Andrew BACKHOUSE [Con.], in answer to a shrewdly-framed question from Councillor Gerald DENNETT [Lab.] regarding Mr MARRIOTT’s challenge to Mrs DIXON’s integrity, indicated that the Council would provide full support to Mrs DIXON in whatever action she felt it necessary to pursue.

Just play that again and check the way the Mayor, Councillor Simon GREEN [Con.] (bless), does his best to sand-bag Councillor DENNETT with his dithering interruption “Councillor, Councillor! I don’t think this is quite the place . . . this is already being dealt with elsewhere.”

“Elsewhere”, eh, Simon? Behind which closed doors might that be, Mr Tranparency? I think everybody has your number now, pal. Thank you, at least, for that.

And then, ghost scripted by the normally mute head honcho, “We, we don’t think it’s appropriate to raise this”. Yeah. Right. Sure. It wouldn’t be in the public interest to address whether or not the Monitoring Officer has been disingenuous. Close ranks. Batten down the hatches. Never explain. Never apologise. After all, the public don’t understand such matters, and anyway, it’s none of their damned business.

The sheer arrogance.

Questions:

• Might one plausible interpretation of Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE’s remarks be that he was asserting that the Council was already committed to underwriting Mrs DIXON’s legal costs in an action for defamation against Ben MARRIOTT? Could he point to where such a decison is Minuted?
• Or is this another case of a Councillor (a Portfolio Holder, to boot) having been deliberately misled about the true course of events?
• To what extent will the content of this present article come as news to Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE?
• And what about his predecessor in the HR Portfolio, Councillor Andrew JENKINSON [Con.] – another who has not responded to public interest questions about how the Elaine BLADES / Alison JOHNSON investigation of the Ben MARRIOTT allegations could have passed under his radar, or over his head?
• Does Councillor Andy BACKOUSE know that he may lack the authority to make such a commitment in support of Lisa DIXON?

A thorny question, this last one. He may wish he had read and digested the following article (on the LocalGovernmentLawyer.com web-site) entitled “Protecting the reputation of the council”, before allowing his customarily measured observations to stray into such dangerous territory.

One obstacle that Mrs DIXON would need to surmount in any putative libel action against Mr MARRIOTT (which would have to be at her own expense – not ours) is that the truth provides a complete defence to defamation. Nobody at the Town Hall would rush to sue me for using the term “that sink-hole of scrofulosity on St Nicholas Street”. (Five will get you ten that by the time you read that word, Mrs DIXON will have already Googled it – ‘sink-hole’, I mean).

Another obstacle is that Mr MARRIOTT is not alone in challenging Mrs DIXON’s integrity. (My collection of Facebook screenshots includes literally scores of excoriating comments and allegations made by people from all walks of life. Will the Council sue them all? With our money?).

And let us be clear that every citizen has the right to challenge any paid public servant’s integrity. I would argue that every citizen has a duty to challenge any paid public servant’s integrity. They work for us – the public. They are paid by the public. Their glorious pensions are paid by the public. They are accountable to the public in every way and to every degree.

The glorious fact is that the Council has no power to prevent interested citizens from scrutinising its activities – and publishing their findings into the public domain. Try as I will, I cannot think of one plausible reason why a Monitoring Officer should take exception to evidence of corruption in the Council being exposed. Well, perhaps one . . .

The following excerpt from the draft Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting of 17th January 2017 (not yet available to the public) indicates that the matter of Mrs DIXON’s integrity remains, in some sense, ‘live’:

Comparing Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE’s response to Councillor Mike COCKERILL’s clearly ‘staged’ question – an almost verbatim re-iteration of Mrs DIXON’s letter to all Councillor of 22nd December 2016 (reproduced above) – keen observers will have noted the inclusion of an extra sentence in the BACKHOUSE version, namely:

• “The Council did not engage a QC in relation to this matter.”

This much at least we know to be true. Judge Humphrey FORREST’s Judgment in the case is reproduced here.

The title page reveals that the Council (the Respondent) was represented Mr Albert WEISS – Counsel. Mr WEISS is not a QC.

But the inference that Mrs DIXON hopes that Councillors will draw is that the Council was frugal in its appointment of a barrister on a lower pay-scale than a QC – without mentioning that every penny spent defending the indefensible was a profligate waste of taxpayers’ money; the Council lost. The public pays.

So that accounts for the claimed £16.7K of SBC’ legal costs. Maybe. By today’s standards, it seems a small price to pay for Counsel attending six days in court, plus pre-trial conferences, case management reviews, phone calls (at somewhere in the region of £15 per minute), letters, emails, faxes, printing, etc, etc.

But Mrs DIXON is still persisting in the pretence that the Elaine BLADES/Alison JOHNSON “complete whitewash” investigation, and all the other in-house legal work pursued by Mark ROBINSON and the rest of the ‘award-winning team’ cost the public purse nothing. The motto at SBC Legal would appear to be: “If you absolutely must tell the truth, tell only half of it”.

But as complacent as our public servants may have become, throughout the forty-three years since the Local Government Act 1972 granted them their ‘authority’ on 1st April 1974, sooner or later they will recognise that the age of the internet offers every citizen the opportunity to see what they have been machinating behind their closed doors – and to tell the world.

Well, the Enquirer has been investigating. And I can assure readers that The Futurist Theatre forms only a relatively small part of a far more ambitious multi-million pound development strategy that will render the centre of Scarborough unrecognisable – and whose chief beneficiaries will not be you or I.

~~~~~

It is interesting to note that the threshold for Petitions to qualify for a debate in Parliament is 100,000 signatures.

100,000 equates to 0.156% of a national population of 64.1 million. (A sixth of one per cent).

The Borough of Scarborough has a population of 108,006. By the national standard, it needed only 169 people to sign the Scarborough resident’s Petition. 169 signatures to surpass the national threshold.

At the time of writing, there are approximately 2,200 signatures on a Petition calling for a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE in SBC Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] and his Tory Cabinet (at The Futurist, they would have to resort to standing in the aisles).

That equates to 2.067% of a population of 108,006. So the Petition in Scarborough exceeds the national threshold by a factor of 13.25 times greater support.

So my final question is this:

Which Scarborough Borough Councillors have the backbone to demand a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE (click on the URL-link) in BASTIMAN’s last bastion, the cabinet.

Or are they all content to keep wallowing in the swamp