THE LAST POST?

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD – whence he came, whither he goeth. And why.
  

I speak for the profound advantage of the town of Whitby being administered by the best Town Council in North Yorkshire. Who speaks against me?

~~~~~

Background

By way of background information, please let me tell you a story, beginning with my potted history – who I am.

My first love was Sandy, my miniature corgi – born, by some irrelevant happenstance, on the same day as me. At the age of four, he was stolen, at the gates of Liverpool’s Stanley Park, by a man with one of those silent whistles. I was devastated, traumatised, bereft.

Perhaps that is why I have always divided the stages of my life into ‘dog years’ – blocks of seven human years-  (0-6 [I] infancy; 7-13 [II] childhood; 14-20 [III] youth – followed, in much the same rudderless vein, by 21-27 [IV], 28-34 [V] and 35-41 [VI] – a great deal more more youthful folly).

Then, at the age of 42 – the beginning of my seventh ‘dog year’ [VII], I met my one true love and became – at long, long last – some sort of a grown man.

I have plied many ‘professions’ in my charmed life – fortunately, with spectacular mediocrity. No great successes. I could, in fact, speak at great length of failures – projects, collaborations, friendships, relationships, marriages. Run of the mill.

I have been a musician [drums, percussion, vocals, guitar, Hammond Organ & piano]; an entrepreneur [bloodstock, 3-card-brag, chess, publishing]; an artist [photographer, automotive designer, copyrighter, scriptwriter, compositor]; a music producer [sound engineer, arranger, commercial composer, conductor, symphonist (‘The Millennium Symphony’)]; a filmmaker [script-writer, actor, director, editor (‘Freyja’s Gift’ and ‘Small World‘)] and finally, for the past sixteen years – and very much tangentially – an investigative citizen journalist (whistleblower, litigant, campaigner, exposer). Most of my early ‘output’ was rubbish – which then contrived to deteriorate down the years. With the benefit of hindsight, I need not have bothered at all. On the other hand, surely it is good to keep busy?

• (I have placed a small ‘collage’ of scrapbook photos at the bottom of this page, for anyone who may be interested in my catalogue of far misses).

As I said, I have been a spectacular mediocrity in every department – for which I am genuinely grateful. I have been so remarkably fortunate as to have sat at the feet of some of the great and the good, whilst dodging the slings and arrows of the very, very bad indeed. Lucky me!

I was cocky. Leaving school at 15 and, within weeks, having Brian EPSTEIN’s flunky all over me like a tramp on a fiver, how could I help being cocky?

So cocky I was . I thought I could turn my hand to virtually anything. And I more or less could – but not, alas, especially well.

And then I found Investigative Citizen Journalism.

Investigative Citizen Journalism

Throughout my eighth [VIII], ninth [IX] and tenth [X] ‘dog years’, I have turned my attention to the lot of the much-put-upon common man.

There are three fatal gifts in this life: intelligence, beauty and success. Believe me, any two of these can blight a life. Many lust after all three. This, in my view, is a prodigious mistake and hopelessly beyond remediation.

But my high-score – lucky for me! – is one of the above. I have picked up some priceless experience and I believe I can state, in all reasonable modesty, that I am not completely useless or devoid of worldly wisdom – and I have the ability to express myself.

Scrutiny

Since 2009, I have been scrutinising the doyens of Public Life and publishing my findings on the internet. I have exposed cheats, liars, swindlers, bullies and paedophiles.

But also – and no less a cancer in our modern society – delusional, narcissistic neuro-divergents of many stripes: people who hold an exaggerated view of themselves and their own abilities and ‘powers’ – and thereby suffer a completely unmerited sense of ultimate entitlement to hold Public Office, to disburse the Public Purse, to make decisions that radically (and, all too often, negatively and irreversibly) impact on our habitat, our built-environment and our communities. Every Council seems to have one or two such fruit-cakes. Some have five or six. To this extent, Whitby Town Council (like Potto Parish Council) has been unfortunate.

Some of these self-annointed ‘élite‘ (in their minds only) act out of simple self-interest (often pecuniary); some from an overweening compulsion to demonstrate to others that they are more ‘worthful’ than them – or more ‘worthful’, even, than they believe themselves to be. In reality, they are just ‘pimping up’ their innate sense of inadequacy. They are trying to prove to others what they themselves do not believe – that they, above the common man, are in some way fundamentally and exceptionally important in the community. In the language of the common man, they are “pissed on power”.

They are not closely in touch with the notion that they are duty bound, by Act of Parliament, to act on our behalf. They are oblivious to the fact that their failures – however grave they may be – are indemnified by the Precept-payers. They fail, we pay.

I would contend that these delusional ‘volunteers’ are not the best hands in which to place the Public Purse, to grant the ‘power’ to enact decisions that radically impact on our habitat, environment and community, and shape the future of where and how we endeavour to prosper and enjoy our lives here in Whitby, or elsewhere.

With the help of many others, I have been collating data and reporting on wrongdoing for almost 16 years.

Methodology

When one embarks upon the task of scrutinising a Public Authority, one must begin with the Pubic Record (which sets out – or is intended to set out) exactly what the Authority has done in our names).

If one examines the Law (statutes, case-law, directives, etc) and finds that there is a discrepancy – e.g. the Authority has committed some act that it is not authorised to perform – then this signals the suspicion that the Authority is riding rough-shod over the law to achieve its purposes; purposes which do not necessarily coincide with the Will of the People, whose well-being is the Primary Care of the Council.

One can work with this. But one needs the data.

The Public Record at Whitby Town Council (that body of information concerning the governance, statutory compliance, management and finances of the Council) is less than complete due to the apparent absence of many such vital documents as certain Agendas, Minutes, Reports, Contracts, Procedures & Protocols and other Constitutional Requirements (Standing Orders, Financial Regulations, Terms of Reference, Powers of Delegation), and what-have-you, on and on, on and on.

Some of these ‘approved’ documents directly contradict one another in irresolvable conflict – and, thus, they are meaningless. This has been a problem at WTC for many years and has recently been expanding unabated. On 24th July 2024, the Council was strenuously advised (Ticket #5642) by Ms Sheena SPENCE, Chief Officer of the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations (YLCA), thus:

“To avoid this kind of confusion again, the Council is advised to review both Standing Orders and the Terms of Reference and ensure that they are compatible, reflect the same policy and have clarity”.

I find no record of any start having been made to this vital re-organisation.

However, there are a number of ‘official’ avenues of investigation:

• Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA 2000);
• Subject Access Requests (Personal Data Recovery)
• The WayBack Machine (Archived Web-Pages)
• Archived Newspapers & Web Reports

One can waste years pursuing, to no avail, reliable records of Council transactions lost in the mists of dust under the roof of the Pannett Art Gallery.

‘Leaks’

Of far greater value to me has been information ‘leaked’ to me by Councillors and Paid Public Servants who, at very close range, are able to see how local government is manipulated to serve an agenda far removed from the best interests of the electorate or the public at large. Such unsolicited information may take the form of the unanticipated arrival of:

• ‘threads’ of email correspondence, forwarded to me via ‘one-off’ email clients (or saved to a one-use memory-stick);
• ‘screenshots’ of such content, similarly delivered;
• so-called ‘confidential’ Reports;
• references to Case Law and/or Judicial Review confirming that a local Council has acted beyond its statutory authority;
• clandestine audio/video recordings;
• signed Witness Statements.

This is gold dust.

The Present Story

The story that I would like to relate now can, of course, be substantiated in fine detail by way of me reproducing the material evidence within the body of this article, as is my customary modus operandi.

However, and in the interests of ‘cutting to the chase’, I propose to set out a fairly brief but comprehensive ‘TIMELINE’, so that a very straightforward narrative emerges for all to see.

TIMELINE

When whisperings of ‘Local Government Re-organisation (LGR) first began trickling down from County Hall at Northallerton, and when the COVID-19 Lockdown came into effect, it became clear that all 731 Town & Parish Councils across North Yorkshire would be left with no independent governance and accountability oversight at a professional level, with the sole exception of the External Auditors – whose powers to enforce statutory requirements are, in the final analysis, minimal.

For the past three years – i.e. since 1st May 2022 – I have been collating data on Whitby Town Council’s Public Record – predominantly the work of former Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer, Mr Michael Andrew KING, and the way in which it was presented to, and duly secured the majority approval of, WTC Councillors.

On 31st March 2022, North Yorkshire’s 7 Districts & Borough Councils and 1 County Council were abolished and the Unitary Authority for North Yorkshire came into effect the following day (‘Vesting Day’ – 1st April 2022) – North Yorkshire Council (NYC).

The ‘middle layer’ of local government vanished overnight – and, with it, all semblance of ethical supervision of the Towns & Parishes who, with the exception of the utterly toothless and ineffectual NYC Councillors’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, stood beyond the scope of official scrutiny or sanction, because:

• The Local Government Ombudsman has no remit to investigate Town & Parish Councils;
• Internal Auditors seldom invest more than half a day ‘rubber-stamping’ small Council’s Returns;
• The only remotely ‘fit for purpose’ avenue of raising concerns is to the External Auditors via the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) and the Annual Governance & Accountability Return (AGAR), via the External Auditors (PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP).

Under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, which applies to the audit of accounts of around 10,000 small Councils, each of us, as a local government elector, has the right to inspect, ask questions about and challenge Items in one’s Council’s Annual Accounts. These are called ‘Objections’. The law grants each Objector the right to anonymity. I have waived my anonymity. I make no secret of my Objections, nor of the copious evidence that supports them. And I know of many other Objectors.

On 26th July 2023, WTC’s External Auditor – PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP – acknowledged from me a series of rigorously-documented and comprehensively-evidenced Objections to the WTC Returns, as prepared by the properly delegated member of staff. I was anxious to avoid the undesirable consequence of Whitby Town Council (and, ultimately, the Precept-paying public) bearing the expense of a costly Audit Investigation so, with a view to withdrawing my Objections, I sought the opinion of PKF regarding what other process might be available to me to expedite matters (ideally, without imposing a cash burden on the Precept-payers of Whitby).

The response from PKF’s was that I was free to lodge a Complaint with Whitby Town Council against the Clerk/RFO, whose work it was to provide the Council (and both the Internal and External Auditors) with such necessary evidence of governance compliance and financial rectitude as to satisfy the requirements of the AGS/AGAR – the very subject of my Complaint.

Throughout August and September 2023, I continued to submit well-evidenced articles to the North Yorks Enquirer, criticising the Council in unrelenting terms. Always well-evidenced. Always forewarning against potential errors. Always ignored.

On 25th September 2023, I lodged my Formal Corporate Complaint against the responsible member of staff, marking my submission ‘STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL’ (a requirement under GDPR, necessary to protect the Complaint Subject’s personal data – along with that of other named parties, including members of the public) in respect of a roster of departures from the contractual obligations set out in her/his Job Description as well as significant breaches of local government legislation.

The following day, 26th September 2023, the Town Mayor, Councillor Bob ‘The Nob’ DALRYMPLE, acknowledged my Formal Corporate Complaint, advising that it had been passed to the then-Chair of the Human Resources Committee to be processed in accordance with the Council’s Complaints Procedure. So Bob had set off on the right foot.

Readers who find that the minutiae of the legal requirements imposed on Town/Parish Councils a trek of infinite boredom across a tundra of mind-numbing red tape are asked to stay with me from here on in – because we are approaching the sharp point upon which WTC’s ‘old guard’ is in the act of impaling itself.

On 4th October 2023, I received an email/PDF-letter from the then-Chair of Human Resources, as follows:

Dear Mr Ward

I acknowledge your complaint submitted by email on 26th September 2023. In accordance with the town council’s published procedure, this has been referred to rne, as Chair of the Human Resources Committee, and has been considered by the committee at its meeting on Tuesday 3rd October 2023

There is an overlap between the headings of your complaint and issues raised with the council’s external auditor (PKF Littlejohn) as part of their limited assurance review of the council’s 2022-23 Annual Governance and Accountability Return by a local government objector.

The committee discussed the complaint put forward by yourself with regard to a member of staff. The unanimous decision was taken at this meeting to await the completed stages of the External Auditor’s determination procedure.

As soon as we are in receipt of their report we will advise, you of the outcome and any further steps that may be necessary going forward.

Yours sincerely,

[typos and spelling corrected]

If I need to point out that this is ludicrous, you are reading the wrong article. Note just four points:

1. The then-Chair makes no reference to the Committee’s ab initio departure from the timescale set out in the adopted terms of the Council’s Complaints Procedure;
2. The then-Chair takes no issue with my GDPR-necessitated imposition of ‘Confidentiality‘ – it is part of the adopted Procedure;
3. The then-Chair concedes that there is an ‘overlap’ between the evidence provided in my Formal Corporate Complaint and the matters then under investigation by the External Auditors (at a cost of £355:00 p.h. of public money);
4. The then-Chair undertakes to pursue the matter on receipt of the Report from the External Auditor (at an unspecified date in the future).

In short, the former-Chair stepped far outside of the adopted Procedure in four fundamental ways, thereby rendering it null-and-void.

On Wednesday 4th October 2023, I responded by adding a further 3 Supplementary Complaints, followed shortly by 3 more, to my original Formal Corporate Complaint of 25th September 2023. Softly, softly . . .

On Monday 6th November 2023, I received a letter (dated 30th October 2023) from a Mr Craig BATKO, solicitor, of the London/Home Counties law firm of WELLERS HEDLEYS – a document referred to in WTC’s Minutes as a “cease-and-desist” letter: https://nyenquirer.uk/slapp-happy-wtc/

Mr BATKO’s client (whom he specifies as ‘Whitby Town Council’ – NOT ‘The Human Resources Committee of Whitby Town Council’, or ‘Chair of the Human Resources Committee of Whitby Town Council’, or even ‘Whitby Town Mayor’ or ‘Town Clerk’ – with additional titles appended, as desired) is a “public authority” and is therefore captured by Article 10.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

A BRIEF LEGAL DIGRESSION

On 19th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR – 217A).

In 1959, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was enacted to protect our right to hold our own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into force in domestic law on 2nd October 2000. Article 10.1 states:

What this means is that I am entitled, by law, to “hold opinions”, to “receive and impart information and ideas” and to do so “without interference by public authority”.

What this means is that by attempting, via a “cease-and-desist” letter, to “interfere” with my right to Freedom of Expression – my right to “receive and impart information and ideas” – Whitby Town Council and/or the then-Chair of Human Resources and/or the then-Town Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer, Mr Michael Andrew KING (each the agent of a “public authority”), has breached my Human Rights.

WELLERS HEDLEYS invoice to WTC for this “cease-and-desist” letter was settled from the Public Purse. Under the instruction (allegedly) of a “public authority”, a solicitor was paid from the Public Purse to silence my Freedom of Expression.

Who did instruct Mr BATKO? Were those instructions sufficiently comprehensive? Were they, in fact, misleading – perhaps even deliberately so? Was legal Authority to Act duly delegated and provided to Mr BATKO by WTC? Or was somebody ‘winging it’? It has been really quite extraordinary that the very documents that might shed light on the past five years of WTC are,  in large degree, the very same documents as those which cannot be located.

Do you think they were uncomfortable about over-stepping their strict limits under Article 10.1? Certainly not. But they would be if they knew what was coming next.

So I responded to the Mayor in my customary courteous manner, even pointing out the potential jeopardy arising, should the Council deviate from its adopted Policy, thereby opening the Complaint Subject’s path to a Constructive Dismissal case.

But, no. We would await the External Auditor’s Report. The Clerk/RFO was apparently so revered by the ‘old guard’ that he could not possibly have fallen short in the tiniest degree. I suspect that he knew they were mistaken.

(‘Signed off’ Accounts must be published by the last day in September each year. Unless there is a problem. You guessed; there was a problem).

The Report was finally published on Thursday 4th April 2024. It came as no surprise to me that the so-called ‘Qualifications’ – i.e. ‘black marks’ that the Auditor assigned to WTC’s Returns –  did indeed ‘overlap’; a perfect match.

On Monday 29th April 2024 – and again on  Saturday 4th May 2024 – either side of the Council year-end, I emailed the Chair of Human Resources, reminding her of her promises:

• “As soon as we are in receipt of their report we will advise, you of the outcome and any further steps that may be necessary going forward.”

On Tuesday 7th May 2024, I received a response from the Chair of Human Resources, including this gem:

• “I am prevented from obtaining legal advice on this or sharing with others”.

What should have been said was:

• “We have trammelled your Human Rights and would like to convey our most sincere and humble apologies. It will not happen again”.

But it did happen again, just as it did with the WELLERS HEDLEYS’ “cease-and-desist” letter. Despite my efforts to save the Council tens of thousands of pound (of public money), I was treated with utter disdain.

A week later, on Tuesday 14th May 2024, Full Council convened for its Annual Meeting – all Committees became subject to the election of a new Chair – and suddenly we learned of the imminent departure from the Chairship of the then-Chair of the Human Resources Committee.

On Tuesday 18th June 2024, we found Councillor Glenn GOODBERRY in the hot seat – but not for long.

And then, on Friday 21st June 2024, Mr Michael KING resigned his position as Town Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer to Whitby Town Council, providing the requisite eight weeks notice.

On Tuesday 16th July 2024, it was announced that Councillor GOODBERRY had resigned from the Council (and therefore was no longer Chair of the now-rudderless Human Resources Committee).

Now in paroxysms of indecision, the ‘old guard’ knew not which way to turn.

But the momentum was mounting. Some of the ‘old guard’ have been vocal about how strongly they believe that the Human Resources Committee appointed the wrong candidate for the role of Town Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer. The one they really wanted was a first-timer with no Clerking experience whose claim to consideration was predicated upon his self-trumpeted reputation as a highly-successful grant-jockey. I can well imagine that the ‘old guard’ would welcome an Applicant who promised to bring in some money.

On Tuesday 30th July 2024, and to the horror of the ‘old guard’, Councillor Steve SMITH (a former two-times Chair/Mayor and a man of unimpeachable integrity) was elected Chair of the Human Resources Committee. Councillor SMITH (emphatically NOT ‘old guard’), almost immediately inherited the unenviable task of supervising and overseeing the recruitment of a new Town Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer – a replacement for Mr KING. Mr Adam CHUGG was duly appointed, on a six-month probationary trial period, beginning on Tuesday 1st October 2024.

PANIC!!!

From this point on, up to the then-Clerk/RFO’s last day in post (Thursday 15th August 2024), a series of Meetings, Extraordinary Meetings, Postponed Meetings, Cancelled Meetings (re: Inquoracy) and Re-Convened Meetings (it was, after all, August and even volunteers may take holidays) took place – and this against the background of the office in turmoil, the then-Clerk/RFO securing the passwords (emails, circulars, documents, social media accounts), bank details, credit card details (removing himself as delegated signatory, etc), affiliated-body membership resignations) and what-have-you, on and on, on and on.

And the massive hole in the DANFO mystery was bubbling up all over the town. And who is the captain of this sinking ship?

On Sunday 25th September 2024, in the midst of all this, I emailed Councillor Steve SMITH (my Ward Councillor and Chair of Human Resources), requesting an up-date on my Formal Corporate Complaint & 6 Supplements against the former Clerk/RFO. I copied in, as a point of courtesy, the Town Clerk (town.clerk@whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk) email address, so that the incoming Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer, Mr Adam CHUGG, would be aware on his first day in position (1st October 2024), that he might do well to fix at the very forefront of his mind.

I want to say that, in my dealings with Mr CHUGG, I have found him very easy to accommodate in terms of his manner of speech, his subtlety and his profound grasp of the moral responsibility of public service. His style is very laid-back but he can mount a riposte with some fluency. I believe he is a man who may grind exceedingly slowly (at times, frustratingly!) but exceedingly fine.

If I were one of the ‘directing minds’ who had failed so cataclysmically:

• to achieve anything of the most trivial noteworthiness during these past five years; AND
  
• meanwhile abandoned any pretense of due diligence to audit, check, control, follow, keep an eye on, observe, oversee, scan, supervise, survey, track or otherwise make themselves aware of the impending certainty of Audit Investigation Fees; AND
• failed to address my Formal Corporate Complaint against the former Clerk/RFO; AND
• failed to address the unlawful departures from adopted Procedure and bare-faced lies of the former-Chair of Human Resources

. . . I should be very worried indeed.

But, no. My Formal Corporate Complaint still languished at the bottom of the ‘To Do’ list.

This hiatus coincided with a sudden up-turn in incoming ‘leaks’. Documents are, of course, always welcome. However, they may not necessarily be genuine – or complete.

So it is the audio/video recordings that I most favour. I recognise the individual voices. Having spent half a lifetime in the recording studio environment, in many cases I can recognise the ambience of the room in which the conversations took place. The Pannett Park Art Gallery, for example, is an acoustic swamp unlike any other in Whitby.

Ah, the audio-video recordings. Not always on the same medium. Nor even the same file-format. Either those recorded are Oscar-winning acting material capable of playing a short scene purely for my misinformation (how absurd), or they are unaware that they have, amongst their number, someone with a very precautionary mind-set. and a dodgy loyalty compass.

I am about to skip a few chapters here – interesting chapters, but preventing us driving directly to the dénouement.

Where We Are Now?

I managed to attend the meeting of the Human Resources Committee on Thursday 20th February (though not the one on Wednesday 12th February 2025 – where Chair Councillor Steve SMITH suffered a well-anticipated Vote of No Confidence (not binding) in his HR Chairship – which followed hard on the meeting held on Thursday 6th February 2025.

At the meeting on 20th February 2025 (the most recent), the former-Chair asked the present Chair what he proposed to do in response to his defeat in the Vote of No Confidence against him.

This was not an Agenda Item. Councillor SMITH is too much the gentleman to invoke Standing Orders and ask her to wind in her neck. But he answered. He is not about to be bullied.

Now the timing becomes crucial because several major events are coming up soon in rapid (by Council time) succession.

1. Tuesday 4th March 2025 – Full Council on (next Tuesday);
2. Wednesday 19th March 2025 – Annual Town Assembly;
3. Tuesday 1st April 2025 – first day of the Clerk/RFO & Proper Officer’s full appointment, following a six-month probationary period;
4. Tuesday 13th May 2025 – Annual Council Meeting;

After that, nothing is scheduled on the Whitby Town Council Meetings Calendar.

Between times, the Council must (really?) appoint a new Assistant Clerk, following the announcement of Mrs Ann COWEY’s intended retirement in May, what with the attention focussed on who does (and who does not) want the new Clerk/RFO (Mr CHUGG) to remain in position:

• who is going to deal with the little matter of the Human Rights Act breaches?
• who is going to deal with the little matter of the unresolved Formal Corporate Complaints?
• how easy will it be to attract Clerk/RFO candidates to a Council in melt-down?
• likewise, an Assistant Clerk? (although one excellent candidate has already applied).

And now, just as the bad eggs are stacking up on the top shelf, a new problem has arisen. Once again, it is the former-Chair of Human Resources who has set tongues a-wagging.

I have reports and witness statements of a serving WTC Councillor publicly haranguing a member of the public at a meeting to the effect that he will be hearing from her solicitor regarding something he published on the internet that was mildly critical of her work on the Council (and was widely read and universally applauded).

I have no way of knowing which solicitor’s name may have been invoked, but I do confess to wondering if it was Mr BATKO, of WELLERS HEDLEYS. Now there is a man I should like to meet.

This reminds me of the dog-pee on the cake-stand incident (“Don’t you know who I am”).

And the WTDB consultation incident (“For heaven’s sake, don’t ask the people of Whitby what they want – they won’t say what we want then to say!”)

It also reminds me of the alleged incident on the Swing Bridge; a member of the public had purportedly called the same Councillor a rude name – since which, the Council paid for, at public expense, ‘squawk-alarms’ (‘personal safety alarms’) for those Councillors who wish to fend off future name-callers. I understand there have been no takers; they languish in the Clerk/RFO’s desk.

I have also received news, from eye/ear witnesses well-known to me, that there are credible reports of another incident of the same ilk – by which I mean harassing, bullying, ‘pulling rank’.

The same Councillor has apparently visited her internet critic’s place of work, announcing that many people expected to see her critic sacked as a direct consequence of expressing his opinion and were considering mounting a boycott of the business at which he works.

Delusions of omnipotence!

The Bug

So I attended, the Human Resources meeting on Thursday 20th February 2025 , in company with a Councillor and a member of the WCN [a videographer] and the Chair very kindly allowed me to speak at Public Participation.

I wanted the members to be aware that their determination to deal with member/staff matters behind closed doors (EXCLUSION OF PRESS & PUBLIC) was almost certainly futile because I had strong reason to believe that meetings (including private meetings) were being ‘bugged’ and sent anonymously to me. I explained how easily this could be accomplished, given today’s Bluetooth technology. I suggested that members might wish, for example, to consider moving the meeting to another room. Just a heads-up. If ‘confidentiality’ were genuinely required, perhaps no chances need be taken?

The Chair thanked me for my input and my colleagues and I left the room.

Within 48 hours, I was proved right.

So fill in your own answers, please – in this game of “Guess Who”:

• who wanted to move to another room?
• who wanted to abandon the meeting?
• who wanted to bring in the Cybercrime division of the North Yorkshire Police to sweep for bugs?
• who wanted to instruct a solicitor?
• who wanted to refer the whole shebang to the NYC Monitoring Officer?
• who wanted to stop being so paranoid and move along to the business in hand?

The answers to some of these questions will come to light at the meeting of Full Council to be held at 6:00pm on Tuesday 4th March 2025.

Others will emerge at the Annual Town Meeting/Assembly, originally scheduled for 19th March 2025 – now deferred until some time in April 2025.

The Annual Meeting of Full Council (at which the Town Mayor for 2025/26 will be elected) will take place at 6:00pm on Tuesday 13th May 2025.

No date has yet been set for the AGS/AGAR meeting (probably in June 2025).

Nevertheless, the bugler is presently warming up.