Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Let me introduce you to Transparency International (the global body whose remit it is to achieve a world in which government, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption.
Transparency International now maintains a presence in more than 100 countries. The movement works relentlessly to stir the world’s collective moral conscience and bring about changes in the way that public affairs are regulated. Much remains to be done to stop corruption, but much has also been achieved, including:
Transparency International defines CORRUPTION thus:
As Transparency International states on its website:
The Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP, (as readers of the Financial Times will be aware), has been forced to confront some difficult ethical decisions recently in regard to the forthcoming elections for Police & Crime Commissioner – the position that will take over the present remit of the Police Authorities (including, of course, the North Yorkshire Police Authority – present Chair: Councillor Jane Kenyon).
The decision to prohibit Magistrates (Justices of the Peace) from taking part in the election process has now been taken.
The received wisdom is that it is defensible, even desirable, to insist on a separation between the bench in court and the police force that hauls people before it. This is an important refinement of the more general principal of separation of interests where those interests may readily be seen to conflict with one another.
In the past week or two, three prominent prospective Police & Crime Commissioner candidates have been obliged to forego candidacy, contingent upon extremely minor criminal convictions, as teenagers, of some rather commonplace young persons offences:
These very minor infractions have prevented the three candidates in question from throwing their hats in the ring for the democratic process of electing Police & Crime Commissioners – whose remit closely overlaps with that of the present Chairs of Police Authorities throughout the country.
One can only wonder about the facts that informed the decision of North Yorkshire Police Authority Chair Councillor Jane Kenyon to withdraw her candidacy shortly after the publication, here on Real Whitby, of an ‘In My View’ article of mine, entitled “Jane Kenyon; North Yorkshire Police Authority”.
I suspect, though, that Councillor Kenyon had seen the writing on the wall.
I am unaware of any juvenile (or mature) convictions that may presently stand on her record.
I am aware, however, of a great number of as-yet un-investigated matters that may well result in convictions far more serious than joy-riding in a ‘stolen’ car, or standing in too close a proximity to a youth who unlawfully discharging an air-gun toward a tin can positioned on a railway embankment.
Let us not forget that Standards investigations at both Scarborough Borough Council and the North Yorkshire Police Authority have already determined (and stated in the public domain) that Councillor Jane Kenyon has been guilty of failing to fulfil her statutory obligations regarding her involvement with Whitby Regatta Limited on her Registers of Interests with each of those bodies respectively – criminal offences, under the Localism Act 2011, arising from conflicting interests punishable by a fine and/or exclusion as a Councillor for up to five years. Quite why neither authority felt it necessary to take any further action in respect of Councillor Kenyon’s criminal breach of the law remains unclear in the extreme
Then there is the matter of the failure, by Councillor Jane Kenyon, Mr Stephen Knight (the then Deputy Head of Legal & Democratic Services at NYCC) and the entire membership of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Standards Committee, to report their agreed conclusion that the signature purporting to be that of ‘Jane M. Kenyon’ on the Companies House 288a Appointment to Company Secretary document was, in fact, a forgery – which it clearly is.
Is it acceptable to these people that the Chair of the NYPA (whose conclusion that a forgery had taken place must, perforce, have preceded the Standards Committee’s conclusion) was acting lawfully in withholding that information from the North Yorkshire Police, whose duty it is to investigate crime – whether joy-riding or forgery? And we need waste no second on pondering whether or not forgery is a serious crime or whether or not the Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority knew of her duty to report it.
It is worth remembering that forgery falls within the remit of the North Yorkshire Police Major Fraud & Financial Investigation Unit whose DC Neil Jefferson not so longer ago told the press that “The Proceeds of Crime Act is a great way of ensuring that criminals do not benefit from their illegal activities.”
And it should also be remembered that, under that Act, it is not only an offence not to report the crime of forgery; it is also an offence to ‘tip off’ a suspect that the crime has been reported. (And what about ‘tipping off’ the prime suspect that the crime of forgery has not been reported?).
So who could be said to be a legitimate suspect in the 288a ‘Jane M Kenyon’ forged signature case? Who is known to have handled the document? Clearly, the authentic signature of T W Miller places Councillor Kenyon’s life-partner – Councillor Thomas William (‘Bill’) Miller – at the top of any list of possible suspects. He may conceivably be the only suspect.
North Yorkshire Police Major Fraud & Financial Investigation Unit interviewed any suspects? Has the Police Graphologist conducted any tests?
Recently, I have become privy to copies of Companies House documentation, contemporaneously annotated by Karen Miller – daughter-in-law of ‘Bill’ Miller – that demonstrate (supported by Jeremy and Karen’s personal testimony) that Jeremy Peter Miller’s company, Agricultural Fencing & Groundwork Suppliers Limited (AF&GSL), was taken over by Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller, without consent, on the same occasion that the 288a Appointment of Jane Kenyon as Company Secretary 288a document was submitted (with its forged ‘Jane M Kenyon’ signature), and the Company name was changed to Dales Timber Limited (DTL). As far as the layman may judge, the only authentic and genuine signature on those documents is that of ‘T. W. Miller’.
Further repetition of the question “Could it be that undue influence has been brought to bear to suppress the matter?” verges on tedium. Yet seven weeks have now elapsed since Real Whitby published my ‘In My View’ article entitled “Jane Kenyon and The Forged Signature – Who Done It” and no word has been forthcoming that any police force is investigating the forgery of her signature.
Above and beyond the evidence of the Public Record, my own files contain allegations of illegality (going back to 1981) on the part of Councillor Jane Kenyon and Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller’ – by people who have known them personally on a day-to-day basis and who have declared their willingness to testify in a court of law.
Are all of the people who have spoken out against illegality and criminal conduct practising (as fellow Conservative Robert Goodwill MP has suggested) mere ‘vindictiveness’ – notwithstanding the fact that their allegations are supported by reams of documentary evidence?
Is the clergyman’s widow a liar? Is the Whitby Town (Parish) Councillor who has corroborated her testimony a liar? Is the man who was conned in California a liar? Is the former Town, Borough and County Councillor a liar? Are ‘Bill’ Miller’s wife and their own son Jeremy liars? Are they all liars who have conspired to be ‘vindictive’ against those paragons of virtue Jane Kenyon and her life-partner ‘Bill’ Miller?
I think not.
In every case, complaints were lodged at the time – with the police and the local authorities – but evidence has ‘gone missing’, investigations were ‘inconclusive’ and never once have charges been brought.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confers upon me the right to form an opinion and to express it freely, through any medium, without regard to national frontiers.
It is my opinion that Newby & Scalby Parish Council, Scarborough Borough Council, the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Authority, North Yorkshire County Council, the North Yorkshire Police, the North Yorkshire Police Management Board and the North Yorkshire Police Authority itself have all been brought into disrepute – and continue to be brought into disrepute – by the astonishing arrogance and complacency that has allowed Councillor Jane Kenyon and Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller to indulge in rampant abuse of the public trust over three decades, with apparently total impunity.
In my view, if Councillor Kenyon and Councillor Miller are unable or unwilling to provide a comprehensive rebuttal – or sue me – or resign, then a Multi-Agency-Meeting must be convened immediately so that these matters can be resolved once and for all, and public confidence can be restored.
Where is the man or woman who will grasp the nettle?
Who will seek redress for the victims?
Think on. Transparency International defines ‘corruption’ thus:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Anyone feeling that they may hold information pertinent to this and related matters may approach Real Whitby in confidence, in the first instance by email, at the following address: