Unabridged letter of response by Rt.Hon. Robert GOODWILL MP (Scarborough & Whitby – Conservative) to a letter (reproduced beneath Robert Goodwill’s letter) from a member of the public – a former Councillor – passed to Real Whitby by that member of the public:
Dear Mr. Armitage,Thank you very much indeed for your letter in connection to County Councillor Jane Kenyon. I can assure you that both the Police Authority and County Council have looked at these allegations and has dismissed them as either unsubstantiated or in some cases vindictive attacks.I can assure you that Jane Kenyon has my continued confidence.
Robert Goodwill MP
Robert Goodwill MP for Scarborough & Whitby
21 Huntriss Row
f: 01723 362577
1. The Police Authority found that County Councillor Kenyon had not in fact declared her interest in Whitby Regatta Limited until July 2011. Although they chose not to take any action, this still means that she has committed a criminal offence and as Mr Hicks points out this is completely incompatible with her continued status as Chairm of the North Yorkahire Police Authority.
2. No authority, to my knowledge, has ever stated that the investigation by Real Whitby is “vindictive”. It is manifestly in the public interest and simply dismissing allegations on the basis of malice is absurd, given that they are already proven by the Public Record.
3. As a result of the Real Whitby investigation, more evidence continues to emerge of other acts of misconduct, including that Councillor Kenyon misled the authorites regarding her involvement in Dales Timber Limited (DTL) – not properly declared in her register of interests and bankrupted owing £229,000 to its creditors (some of whom are Mr Goodwill’s own constituents).
4. Whitby Town Council have considered the evidence submitted by Real Whitby and initiated an investigation into Councillor Kenyon’s actions in relation to Whitby Regatta – a constructive action that it is to be hoped will put the Regatta on an appropriate legal basis.
Clearly the Real Whitby investigation has revealed compelling suspicion of crime and misconduct by Mr Goodwill’s colleague Councillor Kenyon. It is quite wrong of him to abuse his position as an MP to issue falsehood and false allegations of vindictiveness against individuals, for political ends, simply because they have exposed wrong-doing.
The best course of action for all is for Councillor Kenyon to resign.
As a Member of Parliament and our representative surely after all these allegations have been made, you can refute them. Namely:
- “I feel deeply saddened, following the series of corruption scandals surrounding Chief Police Officers in North Yorkshire – some of which remain unresolved – that ordinary rank-and-file Police officers and civilian staff of North Yorkshire Police have been let down so badly by a member of their senior management so soon on the heels of the Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell humiliation.
The North Yorkshire Police Authority is led by a person whom the Police Authority openly admits has committed a criminal offence – an offence punishable by disbarrment from being a Councillor Astonishingly, the NYPA deems this is ‘a minor infraction’.Only the existence of a high level cover-up within the authority, including the collusion of Monitoring Officers, has prevented Councillor Kenyon’s arrest. Yet Councillor Kenyon has not even offered an apology.As a result of Councillor Kenyon’s refusal to resign and the failure of the Police Authority to take the appropriate action, North Yorkshire Police is now the only Police force in the civilised world where the person in charge of maintaining standards and holding the police to account, is openly admitted to have committed one criminal offence and is maintaining her right to silence in respect of other well-documented allegations of criminal offences.This makes Councillor Kenyon, North Yorkshire Police and the North Yorkshire Police Authority a national laughing stock.
Councillor Kenyon has brought North Yorkshire and North Yorkshire Police into national –perhaps international – disrepute and failed utterly in her duty as a Councillor not to bring the Authorities on which she serves into disrepute.
Her only honourable course of action now is to resign.”
- Certificate of Incorporation and Articles of Association of Company Number 769384 – Whitby Regatta Limited (Experian credit rating: “BELOW AVERAGE”).OBJECTS4.1 The Company’s objects are (1) To promote hold arrange take part in yachting and other marine activities events meetings trials competitions and the like; to do all such things as may be deemed expedient for the promotion of such sports and pastimes to establish maintain promote and operate an organisation club school or academy yachting and yacht racing or like events and to protect advance and further the interests of and provide facilities for yachtsmen and to provide information advice and assistance on or in all matters incidental to or affecting the use of yachts and marine craft and the laws and regulations appertaining thereto.
4.2 [this clause has been left blank]
4.3 (2) To carry on all or any of the businesses of promoters organisers conductors of races competitions sporting and other entertainments and enterprises of every description (whether or not connected to yachting) proprietors and operators of marinas moorings slipways causeways landing stages boat house foreshore rights and wet and dry docks and repair yards operators and proprietors of caravan and camping sites operators of markets auctions and sales lock-up garages motorcycle trailer and car parks and all accommodation and conveniences required in connection therewith cafe restaurant and hotel and motel proprietors refreshment caterers and contractors and things of all kinds necessary or useful for carrying on the foregoing businesses or any of them or likely to be required by customers of or persons having dealings with the Company.
4.1 The first point of note is that nowhere in the Company Objects is there any mention of Whitby Regatta.
4.2 is left blank. This suggests to me that a bog-standard clause alluding to finances, such as appears on most template Articles of Association documents, has been wittingly omitted.
4.3 effectively gives carte blanche to the Whitby Regatta Limited to engage in all manner of business activities, with all the benefits of the goodwill and good name of Whitby’s 172-year-old community initiative – having paid nothing for it. Ms Kenyon appears to have been a prime mover in creating a viable business identity out of a voluntarily-managed, highly successful local tradition that, I am sure, has no interest whatever in expanding its remit to include commercial ventures in everything from “marinas moorings slipways causeways” to a “cafe restaurant and hotel and motel proprietors refreshment caterers and contractors and things of all kinds”, on a commercial business basis no longer primarily directed at serving the interests of the people of Whitby.
Moving on to Clause 6 – NO DISTRIBUTION TO MEMBERS:NO DISTRIBUTION TO MEMBERS
6.1 The income and property of the Company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects as set out at Article 4.1 and no part of such property and income may be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the Company.
6.2 Nothing in this Article 6 prevents any payment in good faith by the Company:-
(a) of reasonable remuneration to any member who is an officer or employee of the Company or who otherwise provides any services to the Company;
(b) of interest on money lent by any member of the Company at a reasonable and proper rate per annum not exceeding 2 per cent less than the published base lending rate of a clearing bank to be selected by the directors;
(c) of reasonable rent for premises demised or let by any member of the Company;
(d) of fees, remuneration or other benefit in money or money’s worth to any company of which a member may also be a member holding not more than 1% of the issued share capital of that company;
(e) to any director (or alternate director) of expenses under Model Article 20 last modified by Article 11.2 hereof); or
(f) of any premium in respect of any such insurance as is permitted by Model Article 39.
Again, sub-clause 6.1 is innocuous enough. All the money must be directed towards the Objects, none to the Members. Highly commendable. But . . .
6.2 sets out what amounts to a list of exceptions to the foregoing – conferring considerable latitude on the Board and its powers of disbursement – in particular, to Directors.
- To summarise: In plain language, Whitby Regatta Limited can engage, without constraint, in a wide range of commercial business activities and disburse funds in a wide variety of ways – all according to the prerogative of the Board of Directors!
- This is a very far cry from the old Whitby Regatta Committee’s traditional and historical rôle of voluntarily organising the town’s rowing races and maritime fête, and distributing such profits as may arise charitably amongst a selection of local good causes.
And judging by the Invoices that have been passed to me (see pic) Whitby Regatta Limited is now using ‘Whitby Regatta’ as its trading name, although the former is a Limited Company, trading for profitable purposes, and the latter is (purportedly) a charity. This means that, to all intents and purposes, a commercial Limited Company is representing itself as a local ‘charity’.
PLEASE ACTYours sincerelyJulian Armitage