Whitby Regatta Ltd – Leaked letter

Whitby Regatta – Fact & Flannel

An ‘In My View’ article

– by Nigel Ward

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The many supporters and admirers of the Whitby Regatta Committee (WRC) will perhaps be interested, following my ‘In My View’ article “REGATTA(S) AHOY!”, to learn of a letter dated 11th August (received on 13th August 2012) from the ‘Secretary’ of Whitby Regatta Limited (WRL), on behalf of the ‘President’, to the Whitby Town Clerk, Mrs Pam Dobson, of Whitby Town (Parish) Council.

Interested, indeed – but not, I imagine, best pleased. And rightly so – for the letter is evasive and misses the point completely

The writer, Mr R.I. Winspear (who styles himself ‘Secretary’) informs the Council that he writes at the behest of the ‘President’, Cllr Jane Kenyon, in response to a number of questions posed by the Finance & General Purposes Committee of the Whitby Town (Parish) Council. Mr R.I. Winspear is not presently registered as a Director of Whitby Regatta Limited at Companies House. He has no innate authority to address the Council on behalf of Whitby Regatta Limited; he has been delegated beyond his authority – whether by the ‘President’ or the Board of Directors of Whitby Regatta Limited remains unclear.

Amongst many smaller misconceptions stands one BIG one; the Council is offered the assurance that “a public meeting was held the Whitby Regatta Committee invited the townsfolk of Whitby to a public meeting at the Royal Hotel on 16 February 2012. The invitation was publicised in the Whitby Gazette with the discussion concerning becoming a CLG the main agenda item.”

What the writer omits to mention is that the formation of Whitby Regatta Limited, having been registered seven months previously on 5th July 2011, was already a done deal. Shop-window dressing.

It is therefore obvious that there was no legitimate consultation process, as I have consistently inferred.  This is not openness or transparency, it is ‘swallow the medicine that is already in your system and make believe the choice was yours’.

I have reproduce the letter, here below, with my annotations inserted between square brackets in bold italic script, [thus]. I have added some further observations directly following the letter.


WHITBY REGATTA

[including the traditional WR logo]

Patron: THE MARQUIS OF NORMANBY

Vice-Patron: THE PRESIDENT OF THE WHITBY FRIENDSHIP A. R. C., WHITBY FISHERMAN’S A.R.C. & SCARBOROUGH A.R.C.

P.O./Box 50, Whitby, North Yorkshire, YO21 3YN

Mrs P A Dobson

Town Clerk

WHITBY TOWN COUNCIL

Pannett Park

Whitby

YO21 1RE

11 August 2012

Dear Mrs Dobson,

Further to my letter of 30 July 2012 the Whitby Regatta Committee met on 9 August 2012 to address the concerns outlined in your letter of 24 July 2012. The President has asked me to respond on her behalf to each specific item [Noteworthy is the fact that the 'President' - Cllr Jane Kenyon - has delegated this task to another person, not a Director of Whitby Regatta Limited.], as follows:

1. For your records, the Whitby Regatta did not become a PLC as stated in your letter. PLC is the recognised acronym for Public Limited Company. Whitby Regatta became a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG).

The purpose of becoming a CLG was to protect the Whitby Regatta Committee from possible litigation in circumstances where the Regatta may not be able to service its debts if expenses outweigh income. [This is true. However, it does not explain JK's declaration on her Register of Interests as 'Whitby Regatta - Charitable Trust'.] Moreover, the Committee needed protection from the possibility of law suits if personal injuries were to occur to members of the attending public. The liability is now limited to an amount of £1.00. [This is facile and utterly false. Public & Employee Liability Insurance satisfactorily fulfills that desire and is in no way contingent upon the legal status of the organisation - be it the 'Whitby Regatta Committee', the 'Whitby Regatta - Charitable Trust', 'Whitby Regatta Limited' or any other corporate identity that it was legally able to assume.].

Becoming a registered charity was not an option as the Whitby Regatta does not act as a charity in the strict sense of the word. [This is also true. It beggars belief on what possibly grounds Cllr Kenyon stated to SBC's Gill Wilkinson that Charitable status had been appled for - that was an outright falsehood.]. Even if it were to become a charity there would still be a need to become a CLG to protect the Committee. This is a common procedure for most charities – MacMillan Cancer Support, RNLI (Trading), Guide Dogs for the Blind etc. [This is also utterly disingenuous; the examples cited are all trading arms of bona fide Registered Charities soliciting donations and providing charitable services on a national level. The Whitby Regatta Committee is not a trading body, it has never provided  charitable services.].

Becoming a Community Interest Company (CIC) was also not an option for the exact reasons as above. A Communtiy Interest Company can only be set up in either of two formats; “limited by shares” or “limited by guarantee”. [This is a non sequitur: It is clearly the case that the Whitby Regatta Committee is (or was) in possession of reserves built up over many years (if the "Welcome" Message in the Program is to be believed), so protection from debt does not presently arise. The matter of Public & Employee Insurance has been covered, above.].

In considering the possibility of becoming a CIG, [A what?] in tandem with either of the two formats, the Whitby Regatta took the following advice: [From whom? Why not cite the source?].

“Funding bodies each have their individual policies about what sort of organisation they will support; but many will be happy to support either kind of CIC if it offers the sort of services that the funding body approves. Howver, more funding bodies will support a CIC limited by guarantee the one limited by shares, because they know that the directors cannot take a dividend. As a rule of thumb, the more reliant your organisation is on external support (other than sales) to support its work the more suited it is for the “limited by guarantee” format.” [This makes the case for a Community Interest Company - not a Limited Company. In any case, the Articles of Association clearly DO make provision for payments to be made to Directors. The caveat 'other than sales' tells its own story; the Whitby Regatta Committee is not fundamentally about sales - sales are the province of trading Limited Companies; which begs the question "What is the real raison d'être of Whitby Regatta Limited?"].

2. The decision was made by the Whitby Regatta committee following research by our treasurer. Advice was taken from both a specialist and our local solicitor [Why not disclose their identities?] and with assistance from the information centre at Company House. [It is interesting to note that this error (ie: 'Company' House instead of 'Companies House' - its correct name) is the same error as in the statement published in the Whitby Gazette and dissected in my earlier article.]. As the committee instigated the move to CLG all committee members had the opportunity to become directors if they so wished. [There are presently 7 Directors. How many Committee Members wrere there, and how many declined to accept Directorships - and why?]. All members of the committee, including representatives of the rowing clubs were engaged in this process. [But apparently this information was not shared by the representatives of the Rowing Clubs - otherwise, how can one explain the complete ignorance of the matter on the part of life-long Regatta volunteers?].

The wording in section 4 was provided by our solicitor following their review of the constitution which was produced many years in the past. Although the wording does not specifically mention Regatta and Rowing it was considered adequate. [The Limited Company alleged to have been set up to run the Regatta in a new 'safer and more secure' legal format considers it 'adequate' to avoid any mention of the primary objective of running the Regatta?]. It does give reference to marine activities including yachting, yacht races and like events. It also refers to the use of yachts and marine craft. [How very reassuring; that presumably is intended to mitigate the grandiose aspirations of WRL to running 'wet docks', 'dry docks', 'cafés', 'motels', motor-cycle emporia and many other commercial activities.]. That being said, if it is considered necessary by the committee to review the wording to specifically include regatta and rowing we can, although making any changes will incur additional legal costs. [Indeed they will. And it is by no means as straightforward as the writer suggests. Nevertheless, he is conceeding that the registration of Whitby Regatta Limited may have been injudiciously conducted, and that there may be additional costs - one hopes not to be met from the aforementioned 'reserves'.].

3. The Directors are and were Committee members at the time of the change. They agreed to become directors on registration with Companies House. There has been no change to the personnel who voluntarily give up their free time to serve the local community in ensuring that the Whitby Regatta continues to be one of the main attractions on the North East coast. [Unfortunately, relatively few of those volunteers know for whose advantage they are now working. In the past, there was never a doubt. The Regatta has done more than survive - it has prospered. Nothing in this letter holds out even the doubtful promise that WRL serves any useful purpose or is a force for any interests but its own - whatever they actually may be. Talk on the 'inside circuit' is that it has been set up in preparation for taking advantage of the Asset Transfer opportunities that are available under the terms of the Localism Act 2011. The privatisation of all or part of Whitby Harbour has been in discussion for some time now, not least by Whitby Town (Parish) Council. Quite why the Regatta should wish to enter that arena is unclear.].

4. There is no change to the running of the Whitby Regatta. Involvement by the community remains the same as before. The future of the Regatta is to continue in the same format that it has in previous years – “A Regatta at Sea and a Carnival on Land”. [Indeed. So, since WRL offers no extra safeguard in respect of Public & Employee Liability Insurance, and no beneficial influence on any putative debt (other than potentially adding to costs for legal services and accountancy) what purpose is it really intended to serve?].

For your further information, the Whitby Regatta Committee invited the townsfolk of Whitby to a public meeting at the Royal Hotel on 16 February 2012. The invitation was publicised in the Whitby Gazette with the discussion concerning becoming a CLG the main agenda item. [How very transparent. The writer omits to mention that Whitby Regatta Limited was registered on 5th July 2011 - seven months before it appeared on the Whitby Regatta Committe Public Meeting Agenda. In short, a fâit accomplit.].

The decisions made by this committee have been taken to ensure the continuing success of the event and to create an environment that is safe and secure for all its members and participants both present and future. [Then they are very poor decisions indeed].

The Committee now believe that the specific concerns of the Town Council, outlined in your letter, have been answered full. [The Council has articulated only the most obvious concerns and not all of those. The letter falls a long way short of answering even those.]. However, if you consider that your members have any remaining issues or need further clarification, please notify those in writing to the President. [Who is, in fact, no longer the 'President' - at least not according to her Register of Interests, which now, belatedly, record the fact of her Directorship in a commercial Limited Company.].

Yours sincerely,

R.I.Winspear

Secretary

On behalf of The President of the Whitby Regatta [Mr Winspear, has, I fear, been delegated in accordance either with his willingness to accept a non-explanation or his capacity to spin out a yarn. The whole letter is an object lesson in opacity and misinformation. It may be that Mr Winspear was simply 'following orders', as the saying goes. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whitby Regatta is the trading name of Whitby Regatta Limited. Registered address: C/O 5 Bobbies Bank, Whitby, North Yorkshire. YO21 1EF Company Number: 7693284


It appears clear to me that the ‘Secretary’ has not been open, with the Council – though, in mitigation, I must add that it begs the question of whether or not the ‘President’ has been open with him.

Throughout the letter, Mr Winspear speaks of the “Whitby Regatta”; the “Whitby Regatta Committee”, the “Committee meeting”, and the “President” – none of which form any part of Whitby Regatta Limited. There is no mention of “the Board”, “the Chairman”, “the Managing Director” etc confirming that WRL in fact plays no practical part in the organisation of the Regatta.

His remarks addressing the Council’s concerns and issuing assurances, have completely missed the point that according to the legalities of the situation (and the public remarks made by Councillor Kenyon), ‘Whitby Regatta’ is now the trading name of Whitby Regatta Limited. The name and the logo – the ‘brand’, worth perhaps £250K – have passed to another legal entity free of charge (and perhaps the contents of the bank account, too). The ‘Committee’ no longer in any meaningful sense exists – neither does the office of ‘President’ – and all decision making powers are now vested solely in the Board of Directors of Whitby Regatta Limited, at an offical Board Meeting.

In short, Mr Winspear evidently does not understand the situation or the implications of the transfer to Whitby Regatta Limited and, in fact, has no mandate to comment on either its behalf.

The content of the letter makes it clear that, in the mind of Mr Winspear at least, both the Whitby Regatta Committee and Whitby Regatta Limited co-exist, side by side. This cannot be so. Either the Committee continues to exist and is responsible for the Regatta, or it has ceased to exist and has passed all of its responsibilities (and assets) to Whitby Regatta Limited.

Let me summarise, as I see it, the present circumstances of the Regatta:

STATUS

  • For the first time – and despite falsehoods claiming that the Regatta is a Charity – it has now been admitted that WRL is commercial, and the Regatta is not (and never has been) a Charity, which vindicates my earlier-expressed concerns.
  • Councillor Jane Kenyon has held out that the Regatta is charitable on her Declaration of Interest forms for NYP, NYCC and SBC and has, therefore, lied about the status of the Regatta and falsely stated that the Regatta had applied for charitable status, again vindicating my earlier-expressed concerns.
  • Although Directors cannot take a dividend or have shares, the letter glosses over the point that it is entirely possible and completely legal to draw down salaries – which means it is possible (and legal) to siphon funds out of the Regatta – a power that never previously existed and is contrary to the best interests and principles of the Regatta.
  • Mr Winspear seems to concede that the Articles of Association are inappropriate and in need of amendment (conceded only now that they have been widely publicized), again vindicating my concerns that the current set-up is inappropriate and even unworkable.
  • WRL has not submitted accounts, although it is over a year old and has already been legally responsible for the running of one Regatta (in 2011). Accounts submitted to Companies House (and normally available for public scrutiny) will not be full accounts and will not give a true insight into the finances of the Regatta. Who is responsible for preparing and submitting the accounts?
  • There is no mention of the tax position. Registered Charities are not liable for Tax; Limited Companies are.  Depending on turnover, the Company may also have to be registered for VAT and will certainly have to be registered for (and pay) Corporation Tax. This will involve the hiring of specialist Tax accountants, which will inevitably be expensive.

Clearly, these are additional costs that the Regatta has never before had to bear.

COSTS

  • What were the costs of setting up this Limited Company in terms of advice, purchase and registration of the Company, headed paper etc?
  • What will be the additional costs of changing the Company Memorandum and Articles of Association, (assuming that this can be done without a total reformation of the Company status, or the acquisition of a new Company)?
  • What will be the annual cost of preparing and submitting annual accounts to Companies House to complete the annual?
  • What will be the cost of creating and submitting the annual tax return?

These are all additional costs that the Regatta has never before had to bear, but with which it is now emburdened because of the move to commercial Limited Company status.

Because WRL is a commercial Linited Company, it may not lawfully solicit donations from the public without a Solicitation Statement. This may be expected to reduce annual income in an amount approximating last year’s collection of circa £1,600.

The effect of adopting corporate status will also significantly increase costs and significantly reduce income. If the purpose of WRL was truly to benefit the Regatta, it has clearly not been properly thought-through.

Which brings us to the liabilities of the Regatta:

LIABILITIES

  • The letter makes no mention of Public & Employee Liability Insurance cover secured either by WRC or WRL. If no such cover exists, this is a major failing and a breach of duty that imperils the Regatta organisers.
  • Courts can make Directors personally liable for debts, or for acts of criminal negligence. This may include a failure to properly insure. It is one thing to appear before a Court as a member of a voluntary Committee that organizes an annual local community event – to which the Court would certainly be sympathetic – and another thing entirely to appear before the Court as a Director of a commercial Limited Company that specifically declares its raison d’être to be the commercial management of public amenities and events, from which the Court (and the public) would reasonably demand a very much higher standard of expertise and care. The present arrangement thereby effectively increases the liability of the Directors.
  • The situation with the bank accounts is a critical matter. If the bank accounts of the former Committee have been closed and the funds transferred to the new WRL, then WRL is running the Regatta and is subject to tax. If, however, the bank accounts are still being operated by the Committee, then the Committee is unquestionably still running the Regatta, and still retains unlimited liability for it – while at the same time, both WRL and WRC are evading tax by not putting the receipts from the Regatta through WRL’s bank accounts and ledgers of account. This may be false accounting – a criminal offence.
  • It is clear that the Regatta is obtaining donations from the public on the basis that they are donating to a Charity, when in fact they are being deceived into donating to a commercial Limited Company. This may well constitute obtaining money by deception and/or false representations.

In summary, it would appear to me that the status of the Regatta is confused and opaque and beset by several legal pitfalls. Why?

Its costs have been increased. Where is the advantage in that?

Its liabilities have been increased. Where is the advantage in that?

Because WRC are, in de facto terms, apparently still running the Regatta (and WRL has, by the word of its own Articles of Association no specified part to play in this) then WRC is still liable for the debts, ostensibly having (a) adopted additional liabilities for taxation, (b) failed to satisfactorily insure, and (c) exposed themselves to the risk of prosecution for tax evasion and the unauthorized solicitation of donations to a Limited Company. Not clever.

It appears to be the case that all that has transpired, here, is that a commercial Limited Company has been incorporated and all the assets, name and logo of the Whitby Regatta transferred to it. WRL appears to be little more than a shell company without trading (the trading – if any – and the organisation continuing to be conducted through the Whitby Regatta Committee, as before. The WRL Memorandum and Articles of Association make it a perfect vehicle for a wide range of activities, far beyond running the Whitby Regatta.  

Qui bono? Who benefits?

That is the question that demands an answer from Councillor Jane Kenyon herself.


Related reading:

Whitby Regatta – limited or not?

REGATTA(S) AHOY!


15 Responses to "Whitby Regatta Ltd – Leaked letter"

  1. Jane Swales  August 17, 2012 at 7:48 am

    I will be be back in Whitby for Regatta Monday. If I see her, she will get a piece of my mind. She is disgracing the whole of local government. My husband says the Leader is tearing his hair out but no-one will make the first move. On the bright side, I hear she was swanning around the bars last night bitching about Real Whitby everywhere she went. Ha! I hope they bury her!

    Reply
  2. jean marshall  August 17, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    regarding the comments made by jane swales good on ya what is it she has got over everybody that no one will stand up to her,how dare she swan around in bars bad mouthing real whitby i dont know how she dare show her face in this town, i fear if the regatta goes the same way as her other buisness interests have gone it wont be long before its bankrupt the whole thing stinks

    Reply
  3. Richard Ineson  August 18, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Jane Kenyon, as Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority Management Board, North Yorkshire County Councillor, Scarborough Borough Councillor, and Portfolio holder for Finance, Procurement and Legal (SBC) must be ware that everything that she does will always be under scrutiny.
    The conduct of anyone in her position should like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion,
    “Meos tam suspicion quam crimine iudicio carere opertere” ,
    “My wife must be as free from suspicion of a crime as she is from the crime itself”.
    Her actions, at all times, should be informed by reflection upon how that conduct might be portrayed by The Press, or, in a court of law, and what inferences a jury might draw from that portrayal.
    Furthermore, the associates of public figures must also be persons of unblemished character and again, must not be even suspected of wrongdoing.
    There is an increasing acceptance of immoral and unethical conduct as being normal, but it is not normal and it is not acceptable, especially in anyone who is in office as a representative of the people.
    If the trust and confidence of the community is to be regained by the North Yorkshire Police Force, and maintained by the North Yorkshire County Council, and the Scarborough Borough Council and if the credibility of the Conservative Party is to be preserved, then, the correct course of action is for Miss Kenyon to resign from all of her public offices.
    Her failure to refute the various allegations which have been made about her, has inevitably turned public opinion against her, it is now time for her to make a decision as to her future, prevarication will serve neither her interests, nor those of the public bodies on which she serves, nor the people whom she represents.

    Reply
  4. Tim Hicks  August 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    I am concerned by teh content of mr Winspear’s bizare letter and have written to the Council in the following terms to Whitby Town Clerk in the email reproduced below. Readers will find the text of Mr Winspear’s letter mentioned in my email in Mr Ward’s article, above.

    Dear Ms Dobson,

    I am writing concerning the comments apparently received from a Mr R I Winspear as quoted in “Real Whitby”, which cause me some concern:

    Mr. Winspear is obviously completely out of his depth. He clearly does not understand that either the Regatta is being run by the Committee (WRC) or by Whitby Regatta Limited (WRL); it can’t be run by both or a mixture of the two.

    According to the statements made by WRL and Councillor Kenyon, WRC became defunct on the date the assets (including bank balances), liabilities and business were effectively transferred to WRL. The committee was then replaced by a Board of Directors. There is therefore now no WRC, no WRC President and no WRC Secretary. Normally, the Directors would appoint one of themselves as a Chairman and another as the Managing Director, so styling oneself “President” is meaningless and misleading. Mr Winspear states that the “directors cannot take a dividend” but misses or does not understand the point that the articles make provision for Directors to be paid for their work, which is unprecedented.

    Quite what position Mr Winspear thinks he holds and what he is doing writing to the council on headed company paper is unclear. He is not a Director and since Councillor Kenyon is not a President, his assertion that “The Committee now believe that the specific concerns of the Town Council, outlined in your letter, have been answered full. However, if you consider that your members have any remaining issues or need further clarification, please notify those in writing to the President.” is bizarre, given that the Committee and President legally do not exist and he has no authority to comment either on behalf of a nonexistent committee or on behalf of Whitby Regatta Limited.

    It is very important to know the date that the transfer took place. This is not a gradual process – it is a fixed time and date when WRL took over from WRC. The company was registered on the 16th of February 2012 and the majority of the Directors were appointed on the 25th of July 2011, so this would appear to me to be the date of the transfer, long before the meeting at the Royal Hotel. However, they need electing at a General Meeting of the company. When was this, if at all and who voted? It seems to me bizarre and I suspect that normal formalities may not have been followed.

    If as I suspect WRC has simply carried on as before, with its own bank accounts then there are very serious implications for all of the former Committee Members and the Directors in terms of the legality of their actions. It appears to me very poor that Councillor Kenyon delegated the task of responding to the Council to someone like Mr Winspear who is completely out of his depth, has no authority to comment and was not involved in the decision to form the company, instead of commenting herself, given that she masterminded the operation.

    I hope this matter will be resolved as a matter of urgency, the accounts submitted to Companies House and the tax returns made. Clearly a full explanation is still required.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Timothy Hicks FCA

    Reply
  5. Dave Red  August 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    “It is very important to know the date that the transfer took place. This is not a gradual process – it is a fixed time and date when WRL took over from WRC. The company was registered on the 16th of February 2012 and the majority of the Directors were appointed on the 25th of July 2011, so this would appear to me to be the date of the transfer, long before the meeting at the Royal Hotel. However, they need electing at a General Meeting of the company. When was this, if at all and who voted? It seems to me bizarre and I suspect that normal formalities may not have been followed.”

    It is all getting very hard to follow. The company was registered on 16 February 2012. The ‘majority’ of directors were appointed on 25 July 2011. The company does not exist (it comes into existence when it is incorporated) until it is registered or incorporated at Companies House, Cardiff. How can you appoint directors to a company that does not exist? You can not appoint directors to a company that has not been incorporated. You appoint directors to a company after it has been incorporated. Incorporation is the correct way to refer to this. True, the company is registered at Companies House but this procedure is called incorporation and not registration. There is also a procedure for appointing directors and company officers and the administration of other matters which is laid down in the Articles of Association and the Memorandum and must be adhered to. All company resolutions (decisions) on all matters must be recorded in the minute book by the company secretary. Various documents relating to the setting up and administration of the company have to be kept at an appointed address which is notified to Companies House and on application from a member of the public these documents can be viewed at the notified appointed place. Notes can be taken.

    I would suggest that somebody studies a book on the correct setting-up and administration of incorporated companies. With reference to current legislation regarding companies also.

    Reply
  6. Dave Red  August 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    I should have mentioned above that anybody who wishes to inspect the companies documents should make application to the company secretary of the particular company concerned. They have a set amount of time to comply with the request. If access is refused then Companies House should be involved.

    Reply
  7. Dave Red  August 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    If a company called Whitby Regatta Ltd has been incorporated and has then taken over the assets of an organisation called Whitby Regatta Committee then Whitby Regatta Ltd will have to show this on the opening accounts with a valuation. Accordingly Whitby Regatta Committee which presumably does not now exist would have to show in its final administrative documentation or final accounts if any were prepared the same assets at the same valuation which were taken over by Whitby Regatta Ltd. Has anybody got any views on this matter?

    Reply
    • Nigel Ward  August 21, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      If my info is correct, the Finance & General Purposes Comiitte of Whitby Town (Parish) Council will thrash their way to the bottom of this tonight. They may need your help!

      Reply
  8. Dave Red  August 22, 2012 at 10:59 am

    http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-fraudulent-companies

    Interesting link

    Reply
  9. whitby sense  August 23, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Nigel Ward
    expose the corrupt politician who leaked the letter
    its your duty

    Reply
  10. turnedoninpanties  August 23, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    “in my view” what a load of tosh—-seems like a witch hunt to me by folks with nothing better to do same folks commenting on every article….perhaps it all was started by rejected advances from nigel to jane…!

    Reply
  11. whitby sense  August 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    a brief google search on this subject will reveal a firm of london solicitors were involved in the process. work back from 5 bobbies bank nigel and of course a large firm of accountants have offices at that address
    As nigel has been careful not to make this connections maybe i should not either
    its easy to make assumptions my favorite is the accountancy cost increase do you really think the regatta didnt have accountancy fees before the change.
    We all wait with baited breath for the expose on whitby folk week ltd goth week ltd etc.
    it must be killing you and your cohorts that this years event was such a success. seemed to me the crowds were up and from what i hear the collections were up.

    Reply
  12. Ron L  August 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    turnedoninpanties – well said. I have been reading the comments on this thread and others and Mr Ward seems to have a bit of an obsession with Jane Kenyon.
    As you say, it seems like a witch hunt and it has gone too far.
    Let the woman get on with what she is best at which is representing the people of Whitby which she has done very well for a great many years.
    Jane Kenyon was doing her best for Whitby long before some of the agitators on here were ever heard of.

    Reply
  13. Dave Red  August 30, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Whitbysense, after reading your post it seems to me that you have not fully understood what has previously been written. You have missed the point entirely.

    Reply
  14. Jane Swales  August 31, 2012 at 7:35 am

    This is all about the Localism Act. Mr Cameron’s so-called Big Society. Mrs Kenyon has obviously got an eye on asset acquisition. When the failed harbour board is put out to pasture the harbour will be up fo grabs and the Town Council’s dream will be shattered. Whitby Regatta Ltd will be referred bidder. Whitby has been warned, thanks to Mister Ward. Keep up the good work, sir. No matter the swine, keep casting your pearls.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.