Comments on: Jane Kenyon – Some Things You May Not Know !!

By: David Clark

David Clark — Thu, 09 May 2013 09:45:11 +0000

“Were members of the House of Lords involved in the
Belvedere Computers Inc.episode in the USA”?

By: whitby bloke

whitby bloke — Wed, 01 May 2013 00:10:08 +0000

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/local/councillor-at-the-centre-of-cyber-storm-1-4756049

By: David Clark

David Clark — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:40:30 +0000

“How can it be that the Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Director, and Agent for Service of Process, of a suspended California Corporation is able to hold positions of authority in British Public Life”? The Corporation Belvedere Computers Inc. No. C0999400 was suspended on the 2nd.August 1982. by order of the Franchise Tax Board, Sacramento CA.USA. As of April 26th.2013.,the corporation remained suspended. The corporation has not been dissolved. Having regard to the question asked in the first paragraph of this statement(Bearing in mind that the corporation has not been dissolved)”How has it been possible for the people involved in the corporation to have been involved in local and national public life without censure for 30 years.

By: David Perry

David Perry — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:38:42 +0000

Many years ago I remember Ms. Kenyon pulling pull up and park her car on double yellow lines at the top of Flowergate, at the very narrowest bit.

The parking warden on the other side of the road doffed his cap to her with a welcome and walked on. My friend and I were too incredulous to say, or do anything.

Clearly above the law!

By: Paul D

Paul D — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:48:59 +0000

Hmmmm public “Perception”? Very interesting choice of words.

Does this mean then that they don’t want to actually “Change” Local Govt but just the “Perception” of it? Sounds like “Common purpose” vocabulary to me :/

By: Dave Red

Dave Red — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:47:49 +0000

Step by step you go far and many roads lead to Rome

By: Sarraceniac

Sarraceniac — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:19:36 +0000

I’m sure that they do (or in some cases did). The point is that they didn’t need an explanation per se of company law. All they needed to know was ‘Can we get our money back?’ The answer is nearly always ‘no’. There is a good chance (and I don’t know the details any more than most other people do) that Dales Timber did not go against its own minutes and Articles of Association and did not act illegally. I think Nigel’s argument is that they sailed pretty close to the wind and acted immorally. Unfortunately, especially in business, acting immorally is not acting illegally. However, the electorate are entitled to be able to trust their elected representatives to act not only legally but morally. Were Ms. Kenyon and her partner not prominent local politicians they would have no case to answer to the man in the street, at least for their dealings in business, they could just be written off as fast buck shysters. However, they chose to enter politics as well as business. So they have an awful lot of questions to answer.

By: Dave Red

Dave Red — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:57:43 +0000

There may be a possibility that some of the local businesses and individuals may have access to experienced companies lawyers or good accountants.

By: Sarraceniac

Sarraceniac — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:45:00 +0000

Sorry Dave but I don’t quite understand the question. If somebody passes themselves off as an executive director (or non-executive for that matter) when they are not, then they never had the protection afforded by incorporation in the first place. So how can they lose it?

One of the protections offered to limited status is that the individual directors are not responsible for the legally incurred debts of that company. If the company (which is of course a different legal entity from the individual directors) breaks company law then the Company Secretary is the officer held responsible in law. So if the board of directors agrees that the company should, let’s say, make an illegal investment or an ultra vires payment from its funds then in law, the Company Secretary is to blame for not stopping it. If an individual director, whether executive or non-executive, does a no-no without the approval of the board then they have no protection in law by claiming that they did it for the good of the company. They acted as an individual and not as a director, unless of course the board has a minute showing that it passed a resolution giving the individual director carte blanche. In practice of course Companies House will rarely refer an individual for prosecution unless such behaviour is regular or large amounts of money are involved. The same is true of barring people from holding directorships in the future. There are just too many of them.

If this is a bit simplistic then I apologise but it is really a very complex subject and to get a thorough explanation you would need to pay an experienced companies lawyer (or a good accountant) rather a lot of money.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:22:08 +0000

Why dont you list all the companies as Dave suggested above and then bring them to this page for their comments.

Kenyon is clearly corrupt and she should be arrested and imprisoned along with those aiding and abetting.