1) a Formal Standards Complaint (entirely spurious) brought by the Clerk/RFO against Councillor Mrs Hero SUMNER;
2) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by a member of the public against your predecessor, Councillor Mrs Linda WILD;
3) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by another member of the public against Councillor Joe REDFERN;
4) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by a member against Councillor Michael HARRISON.

At the risk of sinking to Councillor NOCK’s level of pettiness, I would state in my defence that there is no prohibition against smoking outdoors; there is no prohibition against introducing a note of levity (that raised a ripple of appreciative mirth) into a public meeting. One would have to be extraordinarily thin-skinned (or embittered) to have felt in any way insulted.

But Councillor NOCK has apparently not acquainted himself with the terms of Lord NOLAN’s Principles, which I contend he has clearly breached at Article 1.4, a well as the NALC Civility & Respect Pledge, virtually throughout. I trust I can rely on you to pursue the formalities of a Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor NOCK?

In March 2021, the Local Government Association launched a new inititaive on Standards with the following Objectives:

I ask you, Mr Mayor, can you, in good conscience, assure me that the present Whitby Town Council stands even amongst the lower foothills of these lofty aspirations?

Surely not.

Investigations

Anyone with the merest hint of appreciation of the importance of good Standards in Public Life must recognise, without recourse to the Government Guidance, that a member who has both privately and publicly evinced extreme personal animus against a Complainant, breaching the Councillors’ Code of Conduct in the process, cannot conceivably preside over an investigation into a fully-evidenced Formal Corporate Complaint against a member of staff.

Nevertheless, for those who fall outside of that broad description, allow me to quote:

“If you have a pecuniary, or private or personal non-pecuniary, interest in a matter being considered by your council, you should exclude yourself from discussions and decisions on that matter”.

Thus, there is no room for debate; the Chair of Human Resources MUST recuse herself from any part in that Formal Investigation. I trust I can rely on you to pursue the formalities of securing Councillor WILD’s recusal?

Your own duty, as set out in 1.7(b) of the NOLAN Principles, is equally clear:

“To actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs”.

You can hardly claim that there has occurred no “poor behaviour” for you to challenge, Mr Mayor; you are surrounded by and immersed in “poor behaviour”. You must now “challenge” that “poor behaviour”.

Empty Motions

At a time unique in the past 49 years, when the Town Council should be at its most pro-active, your brief tenure has been characterised by a series of empty Motions so devoid of serious purpose as to amplify the ubiquitous public perception that Whitby Town Council is now totally redundant.

1) the proposed purchase of 19 top-of-the-range iPad tablets – a proposal for which (contrary to s.49A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992) no budgetary provision had been predicated;

2) the proposed limitation on second homes – a proposal over which neither the Town Council nor North Yorkshire Council holds any authority (Mr Andrew ROWE, North Yorkshire Council’s Assistant Director for Housing, stated that while the authority “fully understood” the housing pressures in Whitby, it was not “a simple matter of us prioritising social housing over private housing” and added that the council had to work “within the boundaries of the national legislation”;

3) the proposed appointment of an ‘extra’ member of staff to undertake Data Controller duties (a role that is already identified within the Clerk/RFO’s Job Description) in respect of an alleged (but indeterminate) increase in Freedom of Information requests;

4) the proposed call for the resignation of unidentified members allegedly ‘guilty’ of exercising their  statutory rights to convene meetings;

5) the proposed ‘request’ to NYC Officers to “answer questions” over unsubstantiated allegations regarding Whitby market-traders – a proposal, once  again, to address an indeterminate issue over which the Town Council has no authority.

These ‘Motions’ are purposeless and incoherent; that they ever found their way into the official documentation of a local government authority demeans the Council and drives it into disrepute. They are the follies of untrained members abetted by an unqualified Clerk/RFO. Meanwhile, important issues over which the Council does have powers to act remain unaddressed and disregarded.

Mr Mayor, residents are asking whether or not the Council has taken leave of its senses. How should I answer them?

Finances

Unbeknownst to the public, Whitby Town Council is proposing (conservatively) to raise the Precept over the next four years from £283,560 to £329,247. None of this increase takes into account External Auditor PKF LITTLEJOHN’s projected Audit Investigation Fees that, at  £2,485.00 + VAT per day, could easily amount to 10% or even 20% of that Precept total. Yet during this same period, Staffing Costs will rise from the present (already astronomical) £246,000 to £271,065.

Since the Annual Meeting of 2nd May 2023, scarcely a week has gone by without new ‘weaknesses’ in governance compliance coming to light. These ‘weaknesses’ are logged and evidenced and will (barring an open and transparent admission of governance failure) potentially result in Objections to the AGAR/AGS next year, thus assuring a further delay in the Council’s Annual Accounts being ‘signed off’, with concomitant Investigation fees and scant prospect of improvement in the 2024/25 financial year. Shameful. As Lord NOLAN’s Principles state (and lest you have forgotten):

“All public-office holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resouces.”

Yet you have been strident in your refusal to accord any consideration to the views of the people of Whitby, three out of four of whom support the en masse resignation of the present members. 

Councillor Asa JONES, clearly without mandate from the Council (and thus in breach of the Council’s Media Policy) has decried a democratic process (a Parish Poll) enshrined in statute (the Local Government Act 1972) as “pathetic”. How silly.

The catalogue of catastophe that faces you now coincides with the yesterday’s news report (17th October 2023):

[NYC Leader] Councillor Carl Les said while local handling of services such as parks and public toilets could lead to improvements for residents, it would be “healthier” if more parish and town councillors making significant financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers had a democratic mandate.

“It would be healthier if people were elected and therefore had some sort of mandate to act. The more powers we give to people you have to hope the more people would want to be part of that process. Councillor Carl Les said while local handing of services such as parks and public toilets could lead to improvements for residents, it would be “healthier” if more parish and town councillors making significant financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers had a democratic mandate.”

Thus, the Leader of North Yorkshire Council, the unitary authority, supports my view that (contrary to your plaintive cry that “uncontested election” is the bee’s knees) a democratic mandate is the epitome of public service. Are you and your members afraid to face the electorate? Are you afraid that the electorate may be unimpressed by your efforts thus far?

And I wonder if Councillor LES is aware that it is only a so-called ‘donation’ from the ‘ring-fenced’ revenue from Whitby’s Public Toilets Reserve that is sparing the Town Council a further £96,000 budgetary ‘bodge’ (16 years at £6,000 per annum for the East Pier Footbridge installments). Why did the Town Council commit electors to financing maintenance work that is unequivocally within the remit of the Harbour Authority?

How do you react to Councillor Asa JONES’ juvenile challenge to Councillor RIDDOLLS?

“I have been clear from the start, if the incumbent Cllr for White Leys Ward (Cllr Riddolls) resigns then I too shall resign and fight the by-election for that seat.”

Perhaps the unmandated Councillor JONES could back up his rhetorical schoolboy challenge by resigning his West Cliff seat and inviting Councillor RIDDOLLS to contest the ensuing West Cliff casual vacancy? Whitby awaits . . .

A Council that does not trust the electorate to elect its members – then resorts to co-opting irresponsible tyros – has only itself to blame for being mistrusted and widely derided.

Come and have a coffee, Bob. Let me hear you defend your position.

Kind regards,

Nigel

Update: Reader’s social media offer:

---

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on absolutely disgraceful conduct by certain Whitby Town Councillors at the Extraordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26th September.

~~~~~

Before reporting on this astonishing meeting, there is a small matter in which I should declare an interest.

There were a number of disgraceful outbursts during the course of a meeting at which the acrimony-level reached new depths.

The first concerns the former Mayor, Councillor Linda WILD – the public face of the Council for three years.

Councillor WILD stated, openly looking daggers at me and leaving no doubt whatsoever as to the identity of the intended target of her bile, that a member of the public had called her “pork”.

That is a lie.

Councillor WILD can only have been referring to an article of mine, aptly entitled “WTC: The Vipers’ Nest”, on the subject of wasting Council time (published on the North Yorks Enquirer on 20th September 2023).

By all means read the whole article. The (possibly) relevant passage is reproduced below:

Let us consider, for a moment, the expression “You can’t educate pork”.

Councillor WILD could so easily have followed Councillor John NOCK’s advice and indulged in a modicum of research.

Google would have immediately informed her that “You can’t educate pork” refers to “someone who won’t listen to reason”  and “someone so set in their beliefs that you simply can’t say anything that will alter their mindset”.

Other interpetations of the expession “You can’t educate pork” include this pithier, more direct version:

Need I say more?

It was my maternal grandfather, back in the days of rationing, who I first heard use the expression “You can’t educate pork”.

Another one of his pearls of wisdom was “If the cap fits, wear it!”.

So let me be clear; I did not call Linda WILD “pork”. I stated, and intended that, “In my view” (as announced at the top of every one of my articles), she is so set in her beliefs as to be impervious to reason. I stand by my opinion.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 grants me that right. And I thank former Councillor Mrs Amanda SMITH, who included that reference in her eloquent remarks to all those assembled in the Pannet Art Gallery on Tuesday evening. Bravo, Amanda! Readers may not be aware that Mrs SMITH resigned form the Council in 2019 because of the hateful factionalism that has since grown and festered beyond all measure.

However, I am not presently minded to pursue Councillor WILD under the terms of the Defamation Act 2013. I would imagine that she has already achieved more than enough to terminally discredit herself in the eyes of the Whitby electorate.

Nor will I go to the trouble of lodging a Formal Complaint against her to the NYC Monitoring Officer in respect of what I regard as a flagrant breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the heaviest sanction available is 15 minutes re-training with the Monitoring Officer – a cup of tea and a ginger biscuit!).

All of the Whitby Town Councillors are committed, by Resolution, to the NALC Civility & Respect Pledge. Some commitment! Councillors WILSON, WILD, NOCK and HARRISON have seemingly forgotten about that.

Turning now to Councillor Michael HARRISON’s remarks casting the Enquirer’s often irreverent publication of so-called ‘photoons’, a digital age form of pictorial political lampoon that has been gracing the covers of Private Eye since 1964:

• https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers

The distinction between the Enquirer photoons that have so irked Councillor HARRISON and Private Eye front covers is only that the latter are often merely fictional, whereas the two Enquirer examples reproduced below are based on multiple eye-witness reports.

What they illustrate, in jocular fashion, is that the thoroughly obnoxious sense of entitlement on show at the Extraordinary Council Meeting last night is openly expressed and even flaunted by these two.

But, again, Councillor HARRISON (a regular absentee) would have done well to heed Councillor John NOCK’s opinions (I will return to these presently) urging members to do some research. It is clear that Councillor HARRISON has no idea who creates the Enquirer’s cartoons and photoons. He wishes to castigate me personally based on . . . what? Assumptions and his own ignorance.

Some people, alas, never allow ignorance (porcine or otherwise) to stand in the way of a mindless rant.

Readers pursuing the research that Councillor NOCK urges may elicit the following gems of character insight:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/jaconelli-apologist-sbc-cllr-john-nock/ (Nov.2015)

• http://nyenquirer.uk/9478-2/ (Mar.2016)

• http://nyenquirer.uk/return-of-the-hebephile/ (Mar.2016)

In brief, Councillor NOCK is the man who expressed the view, in the Members’ Room at Scarborough Town Hall, that former Scarborough Mayor and NYCC Councillor Peter JACONELLI could not rightly be compared with prolific predatory paedophile Jimmy SAVILE, on the grounds that he was not a paedophile.

At my request, North Yorkshire County Council Leader Carl LES subsequently apologised to JACONELLI’s victims, as did Assistant Chief Constable Paul KENNEDY of the North Yorkshire Police. But not SBC.

Apparently Councillor NOCK felt that introducing under-age boys to male prostitution was nothing for a “wordsmith” to write home about. However, according to the Yorkshire Post, NOCK then had the nerve to accuse the Councillors who reported his vile remarks of bringing the Council into disrepute.

I would describe that as “twisted logic”:

Perhaps this self-professed “wordsmith” can assist me in locating a suitable noun that embraces all the attributes of “hypocrisy”, “sanctimoniousness” and “perfidy” in one commonly-known word, preferably with few enough syllables to fall within lesser members’ vocabularies?

Councillor Noreen WILSON’s spirited (but empty) attempted defence of her indefensible ‘non-Motion’ was an object lesson in rancorous invective.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Motion is a Proposal (requiring a Proposer and a Seconder) that the Council takes a clearly defined action. Councillor WILSON’s ‘non-Motion’ does not meet that simple threshold:

Any competent and diligent Clerk/RFO would have sent these ladies back to the drawing board. No competent Chair/Mayor would have permitted this ‘non-Motion’ to go to a vote – for what action were Councillors being called upon to authorise? Handbags at dawn?

Similarly, no competent Chair/Mayor would have missed the opportunity, given such a large public presence, to suspend Standing Orders and allow everyone who wished to speak to do so. Councillor DALRYMPLE was clearly oblivious to the appalling impression created by his defensive/aggressive demeanour – just as he was at the 4th September 2023 Town Meeting/Assembly. A PR disaster of astonishing proportions.

Personally, I am grateful.

But I do wonder how many members of the public will have discerned the sly deviousness couching that absurd vote.

Those present may remember that the Chair/Mayor took the count clockwise, beginning with Councillor RIDDOLLS on his immediate left. The votes ‘FOR’ proceed around the table, amounting to 6 by the time the circle concluded with the Chair/Mayor himself, who was all too aware that, with only 14 members present, the non-Motion would be defeated without his own vote. The Chair/Mayor then voted ‘FOR’ the non-Motion, bringing the total to up to 7 – half of those present.

The AGAINST vote was taken, amounting again to a total of 7 – a tie.

The Chair/Mayor was then entitled to use a casting vote to break the tie. There was never any doubt as to how he intended to use his casting vote – he had already shown his colours, aligning his own vote with the ‘FOR’ contingent. But it was only after a theatrical pause, intended no doubt to convey deep deliberation, that the Chair/Mayor announced his casting vote ‘FOR’ the non-Motion – which thus carried. (Where to, nobody knows – and it may never be seen again).

But if members had chosen a more experienced Councillor as Chair/Mayor on 2nd May 2023, things could have been different. Clearly Councillor DALRYMPLE, a parvenu in local government, was unaware of the LGA Guidance on the use of casting votes – and so, apparently was the Clerk/RFO, whose duty it is to advise Councillors regarding ‘best practice’:

Similarly, the NALC Guidance states:

‘Best practice’ is seldom a consideration at Whitby Town Council, which is why their 2022/23 Annual Accounts cannot be ‘signed off’ by the External Auditor, PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP.

In this case, the ‘best practice’ of maintaining the status quo would have ensured the failure of the ‘non-Motion’ – and a withdrawal toward some lost realm of sanity.

I will close by applauding the reasoned, measured contributions of Councillor Hero SUMNER, Councillor Sandra TURNER and Councillor Rob BARNETT, all of whom impressed with their sincerity and commitment to the people of Whitby. Councillors Chris RIDDOLLS and Alf ABBOTT are also doing sterling work. It is a great sadness to me that they are ever out-voted by vainglorious self-seekers and arrant fools. I thank them for leading by example and provide a salutary illustration of the inverted pyramid of Whitby Town Council, where lions are led by donkeys.

I doubt that many in Whitby have scrutinised the Town Council so deeply and for so long as I have. Hats off to those who have. So I feel free to offer an educated opinion (must I always stress that point?) on the matter of which Councillors merit the support of the people and I have no fear (unlike the vipers) of naming names; those without ticks embody the only remaining obstacle to proper democratic representation for the town:

I close by welcoming the possibility of a by-election for the casual vacancy in West Cliff Ward, where Peter CROFT has resigned for what I regard as obvious and entirely understandable reasons.

Finally, finally, finally: I have received a number of communications from members of the public present at last night’s Extraordinary Meeting. I would like to share just two.

The first contains a page from a resident’s contemporaneous notes – the second, a very amusing Komedy Karaoke clip of Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing”. Enjoy!

And now for a good harmless chuckle!

~~~~~

Season’s Greetings to You All,

FURTHER IMPORTANT STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO END THE NONSENSE OF THE YCBID

1) INTEGRITY – Can they be trusted?  Will they be granted access to your finances? Will this benefit enable you – or them?

2) CAPABILITY – Are they actually capable of delivering what they promised on their c.v./at interview/performance review?

1)  An FOI request that the KPMG VAT advice that was sought by SBC confirms the VAT situation and verifies that SBC are, in fact PRINCIPAL and therefore perfectly legally entitled to end the DBID. The more of you who submit the FOI requests, the more noise we will be able to make. At the moment, it would appear that this information is being withheld, until ‘after the court case in January’ (???????).

2) A survey for your own use which has been carefully constructed using the ‘Business Plan’ that the DBID promised to deliver. At the moment, they are claiming that they are delivering what they promised and therefore justifying their own existence.

Season’s Greetings to You All,

Hero Sumner

A Letter to the Editor from WILLIAM PARKIN of Staithes, who offers further meat on the bone of Alderman Norman MURPHY’s deeply disturbing opinion piece “Route YC – What is it?”.

PLUS – some heart-warming news from – of all places – Gibraltar!

~~~~~

Dear Editor,

Reference: your Route YC Limited article by Alderman Norman Murphy: http://nyenquirer.uk/route-yc-what/

Alderman Murphy’s speculation regarding links between YCBID and Route YC is, in fact, a documented reality:

So why has Yorkshire Coast BID Limited decided to form a separate company, Route YC Limited, over which it holds total control?  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13469494/filing-history

Let it be said, there is nothing illegal in doing that. However, a few questions need answering as to why a separate Limited Company, with all its inherent costs, accountancy, legal, insurance, etc., has been set up?

From a link to the Articles of Association (AoA), the rules by which the Company professes to administer itself (via the above link), please click on the bottom entry of 21st June 2021 – Incorporation (note the change of the original company name: ROUTE SPACE YC LIMITED).

Within this document, there are a few paragraphs that perturb me (and perhaps it does give the impression of being a “flimflam” company).

Directors of Yorkshire Coast BID Limited are not paid. However, in the new company, Route YC Limited, Paragraph 19(2) authorises its Directors to be paid, and they are not accountable to anyone, Paragraph 19(5).

Paragraph 20 authorises them to be paid for attending meetings.

Paragraph 21 requires that anyone who is to join the company has to be approved by the Directors and, with Paragraph 22, if your face doesn’t fit, they can throw you out.

The part that really needs explaining, and amending to make sure it is not a “flimflam”, is Paragraph 40:

With the potential of Yorkshire Coast BID Limited being wound up at any time during the next two years, what has been created is a limited company that has Directors who can give away anything originated by Route YC Limited to another organisation chosen by members before distribution. Commendably generous; however, it is unlikely to comprise any relevant members. Indeed, the Directors could just run it themselves, without reference to members, and pay themselves until further notice. YCBID could vote to transfer, for example, £1,000,000 to the Route YC and there is nothing that the Council, Levy-payers, or anyone else, could do about it.

Also, there is no reason why Paragraph 40 could not be amended at any time to either (a) remove Paragraph 40 completely, or (b) amend it to permit the transfer of funds to yet another company (formed by the people with interests in it, for their own benefit).

I am sure the Directors do not have this in mind, but to demonstrate to the Levy-payers (who are paying for this possible “flimflam”), the wording should be amended to read:

“transferred, in Trust, to Scarborough Borough Council, or its successor, and East Riding Council.”

If Route YC works out at the level of success YCBID claims it will, then it is going to be worth a great deal of money as a business in its own right, which has been financed out of Levy-payers’ contributions. But these potential financial benefits will not be seen by Levy-payers.

When Yorkshire Coast BID is wound up, and if Route YC is successful (which I doubt because, without YCBID, it cannot be seen how it could be self-financing and would therefore need subsidy), then the people involved have created a potential income-stream for themselves that does not have to be accountable to the Levy-payers or to the Councils.

To solve this, and to prove that they are not in it for their own self-interest, Directors should immediately amended Paragraph 40 to ensure that devolved property and assets should be held in trust by both Councils or their successors.

Yours sincerely,

William Parkin

Staithes

---

PLUS

Readers may be interested to learn that the ‘powers that be’ in Gibraltar have ruled that Levy collection must cease and all paid Levy refunded, pending ongoing inquiries.

Yorkshire Coast Levy Payers’ Association Chair, HERO SUMNER, has written to Sir Robert Goodwill MP [Con.] (Scarborough & Whitby), apprising him (and all Levy-payers) of this game-changing development and its particular relevance to Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd:

Dear Sir Robert,

Less than a week ago businesses in Gibraltar formed a group objecting to the enforced BID Levy imposed by their local UK-led government.

The attached statement displays that HM Government of Gibraltar have acted swiftly and transparently in order to uphold democracy within the United Kingdom. 

If you read the entire text and read it again you will see that HM Government of Gibraltar have grasped, very quickly, that they have been MISLED into the belief that the Gibraltar BID was ‘wanted by the majority of businesses’.

For almost 4 years now, hundreds of businesses on the Yorkshire Coast have opposed the imposition of a secondary tax levied against their business rates.  

This  ‘BID levy’ is ‘enforced’ by local authorities (in the case of Yorkshire Coast BID) under threat of imprisonment for non payment. 

The money is paid to a private, limited company (in this instance, Yorkshire Coast BID). The Yorkshire Coast BID company is a private, limited company.  As such, they are not regulated,  not subject to FOI, have no legal requirement to supply audited accounts, nor have ever held an AGM.  

Democratically Elected Members at Scarborough Council voted unanimously to support a vote of No Confidence in the Yorkshire Coast BID. Council officers at East Riding AND Scarborough still maintain that there is a ‘legal requirement ‘ to collect the Levy and WILL continue to pursue businesses in the event of non payment.

This ill-treatment of local businesses is being allowed to continue through the inaction of our locally elected Members of Parliament.

PS . . . Our Business colleagues in Gibraltar sought our help for clarity with regards to claims that BIDs in the UK were ‘100% successful’.  Good job they asked, since we were able to provide evidence that this is not actually the case.

Business colleagues in Gibraltar have now demonstrated that, as a result of communicating with one another, democratic action can be taken. Let’s learn.

Hero Sumner

The pre-amble to the ‘Trilogy’ is available here:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/ycbid-trilogy-intro/

Episode Two is available here:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/ycbid-trilogy-2/

For reasons which will soon become apparent, Episode One will appear last in the series . . . it’s a killer!

~~~~~

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your continued interest in the story about the Yorkshire Coast BID and your determination to keep this at the forefront of public interest.  Whatever the individual view of current ongoing political turmoil,  the concerns may well be that the public are treated as ‘children’ and thereby,  unworthy of being entrusted with information that they may not be capable of processing.

Over the last 4 years, with your help, we have managed to compile a dossier of information that will prove that the tax and rate paying public have every right to question what they are told. The insult to the intelligence, experience and integrity of these hard-working individuals is unforgiveable …. that’s what drives us.

‘Trilogy’ – Episode Three

The story so far…

In this Episode of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”,  the reader is already aware  that the promised ‘magical’ outfit crafted by a team of ‘weavers and tailors’ is a con. The reader also knows that  the Emperor’s ‘trusted advisors’  have already twisted the fabric of reality.

Following a Vote of No Confidence in the Yorkshire Coast BID from SBC (elected members) and legal challenges at ERYC and SBC concerning the maladministration surrounding VAT…The ‘trusted advisors’ are continuing to  declare:

“We have very carefully  examined the processes we instigated  -{we have marked our own homework}- and despite the misgivings you may have as rate payers -{lesser beings/plebs who pay our wages}- we can assure you that there is NOTHING of any significance that can protect you from being forced to pay this levy -{because we signed an agreement without your knowledge}- We have a legal duty to extract finances from you -{peasants}- to give to the BID company -{who we think are ‘awesome’/’very clever people’}- -{our elected members may think otherwise, but. meh….what do they know?}- -{ we and the YCBID might have our sums wrong.  But we’re not admitting that to you and, in any case, you are all stupid – because the New Clothes are real and only stupid people can’t see it}-.”

The team of rogue weavers and tailors, of course, need no re-assurance of their supremacy – they KNOW they are much cleverer than simple peasants..

Let’s take a brief look at what 4 years’ worth of YCBID’s NOTHING (to worry about) looks like:-

In the hastily reconstructed Business Plan following Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council’s refusal to join the Yorkshire Coast BID’s snuggle club, the YCBID promises to:

“WORK ON BEHALF OF BUSINESSES TO CREATE REAL CHANGE AND HAVE THEIR VIEWS REPRESENTED….”:-

So, where is this reflected in the Company Board Structure, as outlined by Alderman Norman Murphy’s recent article in the North Yorks Enquirer?

• Representation By True Levy Payers Within the Yorkshire Coast BID? = NIL.
• Not One Single Levy Paying Business OWNER Within The BID Area? = NIL. None. Not One.

(Letters stating reasons for withdrawal from the Board have been previously published on the North Yorks Enquirer).

Presumably that INCLUDES the refusal to allow ‘Levy Paying Members’ to force an EGM following Covid19 Lockdowns with the rebuttal?

“Quite frankly, we have better things to do with our time.”

“NOT DUPLICATE OR REPLACE ‘WHAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE””:-

Such as? A few examples….

Scarborough’s ‘Goldwing Parade’ – Fossil Festival – Christmas Events – Ambassadors – Scarborough Gift Card  (A recent FOI revealed that £250,000 extracted from local businesses was pumped back into SBC’s coffers to ‘supplement’ these already successful ongoing initiatives…..).

Whitby (and more recently) Bridlington in Bloom. Businesses in Whitby, once alerted to the fact that they had already paid voluntarily to this once-revered and long-established initiative refused to support Whitby In Bloom via a secondary tax.  Ill feeling all round) Bridlington in Bloom representation is about to happen later in October… by one of the Board Members. Watch the Bridlington Town Council website for further updates.

“RESEARCH NEW SOLUTIONS…IMPLEMENT PROJECTS…PROVIDE VALUE…DELIVER BUSINESSES A RETURN…”

To be fair to the weavers and tailors of the Yorkshire Coast BID, even they (with their vast knowledge of ‘all things commercial’) couldn’t have anticipated the advent of COVID….but they managed to ‘step up to the plate’.  Or at least, the collection plate, to the tune of £59,000. Which they (to be fair) promptly handed to Scarborough Borough Council who (to be fair) passed it off as a ‘government grant’. To be fair, this was a case of mistaken identity and, when pointed out to the Officer who had made the ‘mistake’, it was acknowledged (to be fair) by an e-mail by stating that this was ‘a mistake’.

To be fair, the weavers and tailors of YCBID (like many BID companies) did do a lot of ‘working hard behind the scenes’ … especially during COVID lockdowns. They came up with ‘New Solutions’ as promised:-

“SHOPAPPY” – An online store that sold stuff. Especially helpful for those Hotels, Pubs and Restaurants unable to deliver services.

“MONSTER SAFARI” – Stickers in some shop windows designed to ‘engage’ families when shops were able to re-open…. ‘Very Exciting’ Initiative.  No idea how much this cost businesses – or, as ever what yields.

“MEERKAT ASSOCIATES” – The promised ‘Money Saving by Bulk Buying’ service. To be fair – by using some ‘forward thinking’ the YCBID had already anticipated by now that -{stupid}- business owners had not one ounce of common sense between them and that what was needed was a way of educating the -{stupid}- business owners into ways of saving money. So they did this;-

They gave  £20,000 to an organisation, along with a database they didn’t own, and invited them to make phone calls on behalf of ‘Yorkshire Coast BID’ in order to save money on behalf of -{stupid}- business owners.  To be fair, we’ve  had one report back from a -{stupid}- business owner who revealed that they managed to secure ‘savings’ for his business of  ‘up to £20 per year’.  Stupidly enough (to be fair), he told them to ‘F**k right off’.

“BRID BUS” – Open-top bus tour of Bridlington – “PLASTIC PUFFINS” – from Poland – “TROJAN HORSE”.

The original “BRID BUS” initiative was revealed to us at a meeting at the Revelstoke Hotel in 2019. It was an entertaining evening, chaired by the Mayor of Bridlington who kept a suitable arm’s length to all assembled and remained neutral throughout. The Chair of the YCBID was present. As was a Board Member who extolled the virtues of the “BRID BUS”, but refused to state who the ‘operator’ was. (Board Member -{non levy payer}- has since resigned).

The Open-top Bus Tour of Bridlington is operated by the East Riding Motor Company -{non levy payer}-.  Paid £10,000 by YCBID to ‘promote’ the tour.

Despite the promise to ‘Protect the Yorkshire Coast’ it was deemed prudent to import “Plastic Puffin” statues from Poland to be placed ‘along the Coast’. (A business in nearby  Derby offers a similar service). Businesses in Bridlington were told to remove ‘A-boards’ promoting their businesses the day before statues of “Plastic Puffins” were plonked in direct contravention to Planning Regulations.

AND  NOW – TA-DAH- THE FINALE!!!

“THE TROJAN HORSE” – TO END ALL FINAL TROJAN HORSES!!!

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/arts-and-culture/art/has-giant-trojan-horse-sculpture-in-bridlington-broken-a-guinness-world-record-3875719

So….has the “TROJAN HORSE”, built within Bridlington Spa, aided and abetted by ERYC, broken any World Records? And have the -{stupid}- business owners forced to fund this ‘spectacular’ event accrued any ‘return on investment’? Will the ‘beneficiaries’ -{food bank Bridlington}- be less hungry because of ‘recycling’ of the materials?

The jury remains out – until 3rd November….

BEFORE THAT . . .

Readers may look forward to the final Episode of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”

[Ed: Confused? You won’t be after Episode One of ‘Trilogy’ – coming soon to a screen near you]

‘Trilogy’ – Episode Two

[TRIGGER WARNING: May contain nuts and produce disturbing images]

A vain emperor has tasked a team of rogue weavers and tailors to provide him with an magnificent outfit that will be the envy of all those around.

They promise to deliver a garment that will not only fit the brief but will enhance his standing even further in that it will be totally invisible to stupid people…namely  those creatures unworthy to be part of the emperor’s ‘snuggle club’, yet at the same more than worthy to foot the bill for his insanity.

It’s difficult to imagine just how stupid the emperor himself was in this cautionary tale.

What did he think would happen when he stepped out wearing nothing but his short and curly wig in front of a baying crowd?

In an effort to cover his already exposed backside, the emperor sought the services of a fair minded and wise advisor to investigate the process ….

~~~ SNEAK PREVIEW ~~~

The ‘Trilogy’ series, entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes” will appear over the coming days.

~~~~~

Dear Editor

RE: Yorkshire Coast BID (and BIDs in general)

I am writing  as Chair of the Yorkshire Coast Levy  ‘Payers’ to add yet more depth to Alderman Murphy’s excellent article as published this week.

Your publication has been a great information source on this subject over the 4 years since Yorkshire coast businesses have been under the BID cosh and the we thank you for your sturdy efforts.

BIDs affect hundreds of thousands of businesses across the UK yet, for some reason, the mainstream media have sidelined any efforts to gain national attention on this shambolic sticking plaster dreamt up by Blair’s government in the early 2000’s.

It may be that the current Tory government is quite happy to continue using the same tired method of extorting further revenue from exhausted small business owners in attempt to blow hot air up the backside of culture vultures.  It may also be that this could be an attempt to sneakily privatise our High Streets.  Who cares?

Well, they may not yet care, but the General Public WILL care when the next cunning plan hits them between the eye balls . . . the Community Improvement Districts.

The latest offering from the government to ‘look into’ the ‘concerns’ surrounding Business Improvement District (presumably wearing a ‘worried frown’) is a circular sent to local ‘Councils’ asking for their views . . .

This is the equivalent of asking  turkey farmers what they think of Xmas.

Before going any further, I must  clarify for any of your readers who understand the term ‘Council’ to mean simply ‘elected members’. It does not.  The elected members are just as much the ‘turkeys’ here.  They,  just  like the rate-paying public, are subject to the whims and manipulations of the ‘mandarins’ (or ‘Officers’ as they like to be known).

Over the next few days, I’d like to share with your readers a Trilogy of tales based on the facts about The Yorkshire Coast BID. This will be as astounding and (hopefully) engrossing as any Hans Christian Anderson fairy story.

Yours,

Hero Sumner

Here is a sneak preview of the first instalment (second in the series, for reasons which will become apparent):

 ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ – Episode 2

A vain, stupid emperor has employed a team of rogue tailors to weave him an ‘outfit’ that will be so magnificent that only the very clever will be able to detect it.

After a few weeks of silence from his tailors, he sends a trusted advisor to investigate the proceedings . . .

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reproducing a portentous email (forwarded by original recipients) from Hero SUMNER, Chair of the Yorkshire Coast Levy-Payers’ Association, to three MPs – Sir Robert GOODWILL (Scarborough & Whitby), Sir Greg KNIGHT (East Yorkshire) and Kevin HOLLINRAKE (Thirsk & Malton). Nothing in Hero’s email falls contrary to information already in the hands of the Enquirer. Plus, further hanky-panky – read on . . .
  

~~~~~

Some of the more ostrich-like elected members of Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) will no doubt read Hero SUMNER’s email (below) to the three MPs relevant to the BID area (all Conservatives) with considerable circumspection.

Incapable of imagining that such serious allegations could be publicly circulated without being true, they must nevertheless now confront the facts, seek out the evidence and, as individual Councillors – never mind stepping back and relying on others to take a lead (leadership is not apparent at SBC) – begin to take some responsibility themselves for the present mess, trace it to its roots, and hold their Officers to account.

As Conservatives, the three MPs have no political imperative to sweep the follies and oversights of SBC’s Labour administration under the proverbial. Quite the reverse. But more importantly, where there is even a ghost of a breath of a hint of a murmur of malpractice, they must now be mindful of the fact that they are on the record as being “in knowledge”. That is tantamount to a variant of the Schrödinger’s Cat scenario – but from the cat’s perspective: they do not know when the box will spring open and they better look alive when it does!

Legal Director Lisa Dixon – in denial?

• http://nyenquirer.uk/wheels-within-wheels

~~~~~

THE WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS ON THE BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND…

Dear Editor,

The ‘Bridlington Explorer’ – the latest ‘exciting’ initiative from the Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd (YCBID) – was launched last week; a guided open-top bus ‘exploring’ the old town of Bridlington.

How exciting – for East Yorkshire Buses Ltd.

And of course  for Mr Ben Gilligan, who is one of their Directors. This ambitious young chap managed to mop up Directorships for 18 Tourism/Transport-related Organisations just days after the ‘unfair’ and ‘flawed’ Yorkshire Coast BID  ballot was announced a success.

Mr BEN GILLIGAN

Not entirely unsmug opportunist

How delighted (and excited) he and his fellow Directors at East Yorkshire Buses must be to receive a grant of £10,000 from the ever-generous Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd to assist with the promotion of this fabulous and exciting enterprise.

Of course, I’m sure that the Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd (of whom Mr Gilligan is also a Director) will  have taken East Yorkshire Buses through the very rigorous and transparent tendering process they claim to uphold.

(Other transport/tourism organisations are available).

I wonder what exciting things the ‘Route YC’ Company (of whom he is also a Director) are going to be offering to the beleaguered businesses who are funding this? Perhaps a free Beanie Pom-Pom hat, water bottle or insulated mug – all bearing the Route YC logo and priced at £20.

(Other pom-pom hats are available).

Yours, etc

Hero Sumner

Source: 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00254844