SBC Solicitor: Unforgivable Incompetence – or Something Worse?

Whitby --> Featured --> SBC Solicitor: Unforgivable Incompetence – or Something Worse?

SBC Solicitor: Unforgivable Incompetence – or Something Worse?

SBC Solicitor: Unforgivable Incompetence – or Something Worse?

  • an ‘In My View’ article by NIGEL WARD, offering a detailed account of the extraordinary machinations of Scarborough Borough Council in relation to the alleged cover-up of accustaions that former Scarborough Councillor and Mayor, Alderman Peter JACONELLI was a serial predatory homosexual paedophile, whose activities were known to Scarborough Borough Council and the North Yorkshire Police – who apparently elected to turned a blind eye.


Following the very positive response to Tim HICKS’ article “Operation Countryman II (7): Jaconelli and Savile“, and my own article  “’The Protection Racket’ – Three Decades of Crime”, I have been asked to provide an up-date on the numerous allegations against former Scarborough Councillor and Mayor, Alderman Peter JACONELLI.

In my view, no right-thinking reader can avoid the conclusion that neither Scarborough Borough Council nor the North Yorkshire Police has made even the most perfunctory effort to confirm or refute the allegations of Trevor HARRINGTON and Councillor Geoff EVANS (and others) that Alderman Peter JACONELLI was a predatory homosexual paedophile – or to respect the wishes of the victims by stripping Alderman Peter JACONELLI of his civic honours.

The events of the past five weeks have culminated in the most appalling professional incompetence on the part of award-winning Scarborough Borough Council Director of Democratic & Legal Services Lisa DIXON (see also the Private Eye ‘Rotten Boroughs’ story “Lisa Majsety” at the foot of this article).



Recent Events

On 23rd August 2013, I emailed Trevor HARRINGTON to pass on information received independently from three SBC Councillors to the effect that the reason that SBC CEO Jim DILLON had not brought Trevor HARRINGTON’s allegation against Alderman JACONELLI before the Council back in February was that neither Trevor HARRINGTON nor Councillor Geoff EVANS (nor any of the others) had formally requested him to do so – a Constitutional requirement – thus allowing Jim DILLON to keep the affair out of Council and therefore well away from press and public.

On 24th August 2013, Trevor HARRINGTON emailed SBC CEO Jim DILLON for the second time (having done so without response on 13th February 2013), specifically requesting that the matter be raised in Full Council (next forthcoming meeting, 7th September 2013), and requesting an acknowledgement that this would be done.

On 3rd September 2013, mindful that the Full Council Meeting was only four days away, I again emailed Trevor HARRINGTON to ascertain whether or not his email of 24th August 2013 had elicited any acknowledgement or response. It had not.

On 4th September, a Borough Councillor encountered SBC Director of Democratic & Legal Services Lisa DIXON in the Town Hall. Asked if the Council had sent an emailed response to Trevor HARRINGTON’s email of 24th August 2013, Lisa DIXON said “Yes”. The Borough Councillor informed her that, up to and including the previous evening, Trevor HARRINGTON had heard nothing and therefore the Councillor urged Lisa DIXON to re-send the email, which she agreed to do directly.

On 7th September 2013, Scarborough Borough Council held a scheduled Full Council Meeting. SBC CEO did not report (minuted under  Agenda Item 4) receipt of the email from Trevor HARRINGTON – to which Lisa DIXON had claimed to have responded.

To consider any communications received by the Chief Executive


The Chief Executive advised that no communications had been received

On 17th September 2013, the SBC Cabinet met and considered Agenda Item 13 under the terms of Agenda Item 11, excluding press and public (i.e. “behind closed doors”):

Anticipated Legal Proceedings in Relation to Defamation and Harassment

To consider a verbal report by the Director of Democratic & Legal Services.


The Cabinet considered a verbal report by the Director of Democratic and Legal Services which provided an update on her service’s progress in preparing legal action in relation to the defamation and harassment of Council staff.

RESOLVED that the report be received.

Councillors who remained present during the exclusion of press and public have stated that the verbal report by SBC Director of Democratic Services Lisa DIXON lasted approximately sixty seconds, followed by a short announcement from SBC Leader Councillor Tom FOX to the effect that there remained nothing further to debate, so the meeting was thereby concluded.

Also on 17th September 2013, at 15:54 (after the Cabinet meeting had closed), Lisa DIXON despatched an email that is central to the thrust of this article.

On 20th September 2013, I received an email from an anonymous source whose cryptic but significantly-named email address suggests that he (or she) is a ‘whistle-blower’ within the Scarborough Borough Council administration.

I must mention, here, that many Councillors appear to have the impression that the true identity of the ‘whistle-blower’ is the writer of this article. This is not so. Others believe that it is a Councillor or Officer of the Council.

The email to me was marked ‘FYI’ (‘For Your Information’), and contained only a copy of an email dated 17th September 2013 (one week after the 7th September Full Council Meeting) sent by Lisa DIXON to Trevor HARRINGTON – ostensibly to Trevor HARRINGTON but in fact to the ‘whistle-blower’:

—– Forwarded message from “Lisa Dixon” <> —–
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:54:08 +0000
Subject: Email of 13 February 2013
To: [whistle-blower’s name and email address redacted] 

Dear Mr Harrington 

I understand from a Scarborough Borough Council member, Councillor [name redacted], that you appear to have not received my E-mail reply to your E-mail of 13 February 2013. 

I would therefore repeat my earlier confirmation that your allegations have been referred to North Yorkshire Police for their investigation. Upon conclusion of their enquiries, the Council will reconsider this matter as appropriate.

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor

Director of Democratic and Legal Services

Scarborough Borough Council 

Monitoring Officer

Trevor HARRINGTON did not receive this email from Lisa DIXON.

This email was in fact addressed directly to the ‘whistle-blower’ with the cryptic email address – NOT to Trevor HARRINGTON, either at the address he used on his 13th February 2013 to SBC CEO Jim DILLON (when he first lodged his allegations against Alderman Peter JACONELLI – OR to Trevor HARRINGTON at the email address used on his 24th August email to SBC CEO Jim DILLON (when he requested that the matter be raised in Full Council), with no Cc: box entry. It was not sent to Trevor HARRINGTON at all.

Let us pause for a moment to consider the magnitude of this unforgivable departure from the strict duty of confidentiality by which every solicitor is bound.

Lisa DIXON, a solicitor, in a flagrant violation of Trevor HARRINGTON’s rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, sent an email containing the name and sensitive personal details of a member of the public who had courageously accused a nationally renowned Alderman of the Borough of being a serial predatory homosexual paedophile, on the basis of his first-hand knowledge. It is unforgiveable.

If my solicitor were to do something comparable, I would sue him and I would expect the Law Society to censure him, perhaps even to terminate his license to practice.

From my almost half-a-century of experience in the private sector, I have no hesitation in contending that any corporate solicitor committing a comparable error would be summarily dismissed.

So let us pause here to consider under what conceivable circumstances SBC Director of Democratic & Legal Services and Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON might send an email intended for Trevor HARRINGTON’s email address to – of all possible destinations – the address of the ‘whistle-blower’  who many at the Council believe, wrongly, to be either me or a disaffected member of the administration?

Was this an act of astonishing professional incompetence?

Or was it an act of duplicity and subterfuge intended to serve some nefarious other purpose?

There is only one person who could conceivably be legitimately in receipt of such a private and personal email, other than Trevor HARRINGTON himself – and that is SBC CEO Jim DILLON, who might quite properly be copied in, since it was on his behalf that Lisa DIXON was responding to Trevor HARRINGTON.

But Jim DILLON was not copied in.

  • To whom does Lisa DIXON believe her email was delivered?

Clearly, the ’whistle-blower’ cannot be SBC CEO Jim DILLON. Can he? Surely not. Or someone in his office? Who knows?

But let us go on.

On 25th September, in an email to the Borough Councillor mentioned above, Lisa DIXON insisted that both she and Councillor Geoff EVANS had emailed Trevor HARRINGTON (presumably at the email address from which his first email to SBC CEO Jim DILLON was received, back on 13th February 2013). Councillor Geoff EVANS has not confirmed this. From whence has Lisa DIXON acquired the information that he did?

  • Trevor HARRINGTON did not receive either of these alleged responses to his emails,

Also on 25th September, I emailed MotP1, MotP2 and MotP3 (referred to as Witnesses C, D and E, respectively, in the Tim HICKS article), who had all lodged emailed complaints with Scarborough Borough Council back in February and March 2013 – though this fact has only emerged via a ‘leak’ at the Council. The purpose of my email was to ascertain whether or not any of these other complainants had elicited any response, written or spoken, from either Scarborough Borough Council or the North Yorkshire Police.

On 26th September 2013, I received a response from MotP1 (Witness C), who confirmed that he has heard nothing further regarding his allegations from either SBC or the NYP.

Also on 26th September 2013, I received a response from MotP2 (Witness D), copying me the following email to him from SBC Leader Councillor Tom FOX, dated 22nd February 2013:

22 February 2013 08:15AM

Thank you for your e-mail re the above person.

I have forwarded your e-mail to our Director of Legal Services for her information and attention.

Again, thank you for the information.

Most sincerely, tom fox


Beyond that Tom FOX email (above), nothing further has been heard by MotP2 (Witness D) from either SBC or the NYP.

On  27th September 2013, I received an email from MotP3 (Witness E), providing copies of the following email correspondence received from Lisa DIXON:

—–Original Message—–

From: Lisa Dixon

Sent: 28 March 2013 17:56

To: [name redacted]

Subject: RE: Peter Jaconelli/Jimmy Saville [sic]

Dear [name redacted]

Thank you for your E-mail. I can confirm that I have noted your request.

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor


—–Original Message—–

From: Lisa Dixon

Sent: 23 April 2013 15:27

To: [name redacted]

Subject: RE: Peter Jaconelli/Jimmy Saville [sic]

Dear [name redacted]

Further to our correspondence in this matter, please would you confirm that I have your consent to pass your E-mail on to North Yorkshire Police?

Many thanks

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor

MotP3 (Witness E) has received no other contact from SBC and none whatsoever from the NYP. And why was he the only one of five whose consent to pass the allegations to the Police was ever sought? Has SBC no policy or procedure for dealing with Police referrals?

Later on 27th September 2013, Trevor HARRINGTON finally did receive an email from Lisa DIXON at his own email address, asking him to confirm that he was indeed the sender of the original 13th February email (which he had signed in his own name, using an email address bearing no similarity at all to that of the ‘whistle-blower’) sent to (and received by) SBC CEO Jim DILLON:

Dear Mr Harrington

I have been provided with this E-mail address for you.

I would be most grateful if you could confirm that you are the author of an E-mail containing certain allegations against a former Scarborough Councillor so that I can provide an appropriate response.

I apologise for seeming overcautious in my approach to this issue, but there appears to have been some confusion over the exact details of your E-mail address due to additional external involvement and I am conscious of the sensitivity of this matter.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor

“There appears to have been some confusion”?

“Additional external involvement”?

“The exact details of your E-mail address”?

  • How can there have been any confusion – other than the confusion generated by Lisa DIXON herself – regarding an email address clearly displayed on Trevor HARRINGTON’s original email to the Council back on 13th February 2013, or his email of 24th August 2013? I can confirm that there is no similarity whatever between Trevor HARRINGTON’s email address and that of the ‘whistle-blower’ – other, of course, than that they both contain an @ sign.

Trevor HARRINGTON immediately responded, confirming his identity as the author of the original 13th February 2013 complaint – as if that had ever been in any doubt.

Also on 27th September, Lisa DIXON responded to Trevor HARRINGTON stating that his allegations had been referred to the North Yorkshire Police (without having secured his consent) and the Council would await the outcome before taking any action.

Trevor HARRINGTON responded by asking for the date on which the Police had been informed.

Later on 27th September 2013, Lisa DIXON replied thus:

From: Lisa Dixon <>

Subject: RE: Confidential

Date: 27 September 2013 5:44:31 PM AWST

To: ‘Trevor Harrington’, Cllr.Mike Ward

Mr Harrington

The allegations were referred initially by the Council in the week your E-mail was sent. I am afraid I do not have the exact date to hand.

I can confirm that I sent a follow up E-mail to the police on 28 March 2013.

I can also confirm that the Chief Executive has received your E-mails. He has asked me to deal with this on his behalf due to my ongoing involvement.

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon, Solicitor

“I am afraid I do not have the exact date”?

  • How come? The Council’s IT-system logs every single e-event. The email to the Police is logged and Lisa DIXON has the date; yet the alleged email to Trevor HARRINGTON, was apparently not logged. Why? Does it exist? Was it ever even sent?

“Follow up E-mail to the police”?

  • Lisa DIXON is here inadvertently asserting that the NYP has done precisely nothing regarding Trevor HARRINGTON’s allegations, either before or since her alleged 28th March 2013 email to the Police. At the time of writing he has still heard nothing from the NYP.

“The Chief Executive has received your emails”? (Note the plural: “emails”).

  • Thus confirming that Trevor HARRINGTON’s name and contact details must be securely logged on the SBC IT-system. Yet Jim DILLON has never responded, and Lisa DIXON sent her email of 17th September to the wrong recipient. Again, why?

And Trevor HARRINGTON has still heard nothing from the North Yorkshire Police.


The following conclusions can be drawn from this rather tedious overview of the correspondence record dealing with the allegations against Alderman Peter JACONNELLI:

1)      SBC CEO has made no response to any of those who made their allegations directly to him.

2)      SBC Leader Councillor Tom FOX has made only a single response to a complainant, stating that the allegation had been referred to Lisa DIXON.

3)      It was not until ten days after the Full Council Meeting of 7th September 2013 (for which Trevor HARRINGTON had, on 24th August 2013, formally requested SBC CEO Jim DILLON to raise the matter at that Full Council meeting), that Lisa DIXON finally attempted, or can even claim to have attempted, to respond to Trevor HARRINGTON.

4)      Lisa DIXON in fact sent the highly personal and confidential email for Trevor HARRINGTON to the email address of the suspected SBC ‘whistle-blower’.

The only mitigation available to Lisa DIXON now lies in the degree to which she has been manipulated by others.

Which others? Those, perhaps, with something to hide? I will be reporting in due course on background information still coming to light on the three people from whom Lisa DIXON takes her instructions.

Meanwhile, readers who wish to suspend their disbelief to a point very close to infinity may choose to imagine that Scarborough Borough Council has properly conducted the processing of these five (perhaps more) independent allegations against Alderman Peter JACONELLI – and against the Council itself and the North Yorkshire Police, regarding the historical collusion and cover-up of earlier allegations made while Alderman Peter JACONELLI was still alive and criminally active – will probably continue to do so.

But that would be to ignore the evidence of the correspondence record cited above.

In my view, the authorities have behaved appallingly in that:

  • SBC CEO Jim DILLON (who arrived in Scarborough in 2005, long after Alderman Peter JACONELLI was dead) has evaded his duties entirely and ignored the requirements of the Council Constitution by failing to report Trevor HARRINGTON’s correspondence to the Full Council meeting on 7th September 2013.
  • SBC Leader Councillor Tom FOX has misled MotP2 (Witness D) into believing that the matter was in process of investigation (by Lisa DIXON and/or the North Yorkshire Police) when, in fact, there is no evidence that any investigation has been pursued by either.
  • SBC Portfolio Holder Councillor Jane KENYON has attempted to utilise Council resources to ‘terminate’ Real Whitby and thereby silence the only investigative-reporters willing to publish the truth about the JACONELLI affair and the present whereabouts of the DVD showing al fresco ritualistic sexual activity involving ‘prominent local dignitaries’ (was JACONELLI one of them?) and ‘national celebrities’ (was SAVILE amongst them?), at a rural location on the edge of the moors, close to Scarborough, in the 1980s. (See the section entitled “Digression into Savile/Jaconelli Territory” in my article “’The Protection Racket’ – Three Decades of Crime”).
  • SBC Director of Democratic & Legal Services Lisa DIXON, having initially failed to respond to any of the complainants, finally reacted to a Borough Councillor’s urging by sending a highly confidential and sensitive email to an anonymous ‘whistle-blower’ (who may well be a Town Hall insider) that should have gone to Trevor HARRINGTON (whose address and contact details are definitely on record at the Council), apparently in an attempt to satisfy the Borough Councillor  that the appropriate action had at last been taken. It had not.
  • The North Yorkshire Police would appear to have taken no significant action whatsoever – other than a perfunctory interview with Councillor Geoff EVANS, who was told there was no case to answer. Of course there can be no case to answer; the accused is dead and cannot face trial.
  • In any case, the responsibility for stripping Alderman Peter JACONELLI of his civic honours is not a Police matter at all – it is strictly a Council matter, in no way dependent on a criminal prosecution, and the Council is continuing to evade that responsibility.
  • Some Councillors (Conservatives, as was Alderman Peter JACONELLI) are reportedly taking the view that it would be best to retain Alderman Peter JACONELLI’s name on the roll of honour out of sympathy for surviving members of his family. In my view, that is utterly disingenuous. The likely truth is that they do not want Conservative candidates for the next election to be associated with a publicly disgraced fellow Conservative.
  • Nobody at Scarborough Borough Council has expressed even a token measure of sympathy for the victims.

In the light of such compelling evidence of (at best) astonishing professional incompetence, or (at worst), abuse of position to pervert the course of justice, I would contend that it is now imperative that the entire affair is passed to an impartial arbiter geographically far removed from the sphere of influence of SBC and NYP – who appear entirely untrustworthy. I have no doubt that this view will be shared by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.




About the Author:

Website Admin for the Real Whitby Website. All authors of the Real Whitby Website have access to publish on the website. Individual authors will usually sign off their articles with their own names.


  1. Nigel September 30, 2013 at 8:53 am - Reply

    Apologies regarding the irritating dysfunctionality of the FaceBook ‘Like’ button and the now defunct Share-bar. These things happen. Nonetheless, many thanks for the hundreds of manual ‘Shares’ all over FB and beyond.

  2. Brian Dodds September 30, 2013 at 8:55 am - Reply

    First, if I may suggest, would it not be to the advantage of all those who have come forward as witnesses to this gross miscarriage of justice to get together and formulate a plan of action. Possibly a formal complaint to the Law Society regarding the actions of Lisa Dixon at the very least, if there is any action taken against her by the said society I believe she would not take the consequences alone. It could also have a beneficial effect on all of them as victims of the ritual abuse perpetrated by Peter Jaconelli, and as a group, give them more of a voice. It is blatantly obvious that those who,s duty it is to deal with this matter are going to use every means at their disposal to avoid any action that doesn,t fit in with their agenda and to cover their own backs.

  3. Patricia David September 30, 2013 at 9:28 am - Reply

    It is interesting to note that the name has not been removed from the Scarborough Town Hall board to protect the sensitivities of Jaconelli’s descendants. Yet the whole of the gravestones and markers for Jimmy Saville’s grave was removed virtually overnight without any similar sensitivities. It would seem that SBC is sensitivity selective! It is not difficult to see whose sensitivities!

  4. Bob Roberts September 30, 2013 at 11:03 am - Reply


    How on earth did these establishment(s) and establishment figures allow themselves to get into this position ?

    Initially I guess, it was being unwilling, perhaps even sadly arrogant or being unable to respond to letters, letters from those concerned publicly spirited members of the public, all of which were simply seeking redress, accountability, traceability for things that they perceive as being wrong in local governance.

    Obviously the perceived miscreants as recipients of those letters at that time saw no wrong doing, and if they did, simply saw fit to ignore any correspondence from those same concerned individuals. At the time, it was probably so much simpler just not to engage, to ignore the requests to not to answer the questions honestly, truthfully and accepting the consequences, the criticism of the time. But now, as importantly, without all the adverse publicity that now ensues and hampers their abilities to come clean to their accusers.

    Those same people, all feeling so very aggrieved at the lack of response from the establishment and its figures, they then create Real Whitby and turn to it as the only public forum willing to listen and highlight their grievances. Meanwhile and coincidentally the local newspapers appears to morph themselves from a daily informative and sometimes challenging and questioning forum into a weekly advertising billboard, whilst showing very little interest in the day to day news items that really concern the electorate.

    So, we have all those same requests, all of them that could have been handled so so much better, albeit with a similar difficult outcomes, all now face the public spotlight via the internet, perhaps not undeservedly so, but indeed unnecessarily so; had they been responded to earlier.
    As consequence we now have a case of being unable even, if SBC/NYCC/NYPA wanted to, to enter the public debate arena in terms of answering claims of dishonesty, of abuse of privilege, of abuse of trust and a complete lack of accountability and traceability.

    One would think by now someone in the corridors of power would realise it’ll all come out in the end? Real Whitby isn’t going to go away; unless its platform is shut down. Even in the US, the NSA is unable to shut down the Al Qaeda websites, so I doubt even SBC and it’s IT gurus in conjunction with their legal eagles colleagues will find a way of ending what is after all a democratic debate, in what’s left of a democratic country.

    I feel sure that although some elected and some non-elected officials of SBC would not publicly admit to even reading Real Whitby, nevertheless it’s here and here and here to stay, especially whilst all these shenanigans continue.

    So I would say to all those aggrieved officials elected and non-elected – Do yourselves a favour; do the town(s) a favour and more importantly; Do the electorate a well deserved favour and enter the debates before it gets really messy.

    Im not in any way attached to Real Whitby nor to SBC, NYCC or even NYPA. I am attached to seeing and end to what may well be a very messy outcome for some individuals who have quite probably been caught up in the crossfire and quite probably innocents all through being wrapped up in the compexities of these allegations true or false.
    Being caught up in something that may decide the fate of their careers and reputations.
    Hopefully someone, somewhere can conjure up some commons sense from somewhere in all this mess.
    Am I been too simplistic here I wonder ?

  5. James Miller October 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm - Reply

    @Patricia David. The one thing that was removed (or covered up) was the graffiti scrawled outside St. Peter’s Church, Castle Road, Scarborough, at the time of PJ’s funeral. I saw that before it was ‘hushed’, on the grounds that it may cause distress to the Jaconelli family. The essence of it was that PJ was a homosexual paedophile. I think maybe ‘homosexual’ is (thank God) no longer, whilst being not totally, socially, acceptable at last it is no longer a term of total abuse. But paedophilia is not only legally wrong, it is morally despicable. But despite all the evidence SBC, under the careful watch, of Tom Fox will not even examine that evidence. After all, PJ was a grandee of the local Conservative Party. Mr Fox runs the council like he ran the local police station.

    @Bob Roberts. You raise some interesting points.

    ‘How do these establishment figures allow themselves to get into this position?’

    They don’t allow themselves to get into it. They enter these deals completely freely of their own volition. They have calculated that, even if malfeasance is suspected there is only a minute chance that they will be censored in any way. Their ‘Brothers’ are guarding the guardians and the electorate have every confidence that this system will work, even though they wrote it.

    Your final question about whether you are being too simplistic is the wrong question. Are you being too simplistic? No. Are you being naive? I’m afraid the answer is yes. Until a few years ago I was a member of the local politics in-crowd and was never a conspiracy theorist. That term is now one of abuse, rather like ‘social housing tenant’ and ‘claimant’ even if the same people have paid loads into the system. But, having seen the inside, I am now convinced that this sort of behaviour is deliberate and calculated. Yes, there are conspiracies. Lots of them.

    • Tim Hicks October 4, 2013 at 8:06 am - Reply

      Dear James,

      Thank you for your comment. We were aware that graffiti had been put on St Peters church before Jaconelli’s funeral, but you are the first witness that saw it to come forward and confirm the content. It shows how well known Jaconelli’s paedophile offending was in Scarborough during his lifetime.

      Best regards,


  6. November 8, 2013 at 12:00 pm - Reply

    Do you deal with anti-corruption anywhere else but Whitby?

  7. rev phil; December 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm - Reply

    The TIME (HIGH TIME) is right to get the whole support from locals and have a meeting of your own and elect ANOTHER (SOLE) council.
    This council are ELECTED by the people of the area and will invalidate the current sitting council. (VOTES)

    START finding candidates – do a poll hold a PRIVATE (PUBLIC) election and use the PUBLIC to manage the voting system THEN walk INTO the council building and EVICT the sitting council.

    If this was done in NYC I would be surprised if ALL the other towns and cities didn’t do the same thing.

    If they are NOT going to listen to us and look after the people they are supposed to look after then they MUST GO.
    THEN start as the FIRST meeting, the criminal prosecution of ALL councillors regardless of crimes allegedly committed, re hire the innocent ones and gaol the guilty and have their salaries for the year RE-deposited into the public purse.

    Elect a Grand Jury – Select an HONEST judge (Good luck with that one) FIRE the chief Constable and prosecute, re-issue WARNINGS to the constabulary and BRING them BACK to the LAW of THE LAND (Common Law) – BAN TAX for essential services – Fire, Ambulance and constabulary.
    Re-call the native troops (the regional militia / regiment) – Make a positive statement that there will be NO unoccupied houses in the area and start to feed the homeless, warm the elderly, and CREATE JOBS from thin air – doing all of the above using the MASSIVE salaries the previous council have STOLEN under FALSE pretences from the public.

    THIS will change the way the WHOLE country sees the authorities and will garner support from the majority, there will be some who do not agree but they will, more often than not, HAVE a vested interest in maintaining things the way they are now.

    No squabbling over WHO is eligible – WE ARE ALL eligible REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING.
    There are ONLY one type of scrounger and the Authorities admit as such – ‘THEY’ are THEM.

    Namaste, rev phil;

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.