real whitby facebook group

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Whitby’s Jane Kenyon – The Mulberry Bush

101 Things To Do In Whitby

The most popular site articles – Click Here

“THE MULBERRY BUSH” By Nigel Ward

Further to my article on Councillor Jane Margaret Kenyon recently – and I am much heartened by the unprecedented public endorsement (800+ FaceBook ‘Likes’) – describing my attempts to have both elected representatives and paid public servants held to account, I hope readers will be interested in some of the background details.

Readers of my first article on this subject will recall that I conclude by calling upon Councillor Kenyon to openly and transparently address the following question:

  • “How can it be that the Chair of a British Police Authority can also be the Chief Financial Officer of a Corporation suspended for non-payment of debts who has concealed this and other interests and abused a position of trust to effectively censor legitimate scrutiny – yet remain Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Chair of the NYPA Management Board, Director of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., and Scarborough Borough Councillor Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement and Legal?

Or to resign . . .

I have, of course, meanwhile addressed that question to Councillor Kenyon through the auspices of the Senior Solicitor at SBC and Ms Kenyon’s Personal Assistant in her rôle as Chair of the NYPA.

I have received neither acknowledgement  nor response from either.

Entirely resulting from an examination of hundreds of documents (Registers of Interests, Minutes of Meetings, correspondence, Companies House reports, Court summonses and submissions, etc), the following concerns have become clear:

  • that Councillor Kenyon is presently an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation in the United States – Belvedere Computers Inc. (BCI) – which information she has for three decades wittingly to declare in her Register of Interests. Why?
  • that her life-partner, former elected member for NYCC, NYMNPA and SBC, Thomas William “Bill” Miller, is also presently an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation in the United States (BCI), which he himself also wittingly failed to declare in his Register of Interests – nor did either of them declare their respective life-partner’s status as an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation (BCI). Why?
  • that Councillor Kenyon was Company Secretary of Dales Timber Limited (DTL), a company that went bankrupt for circa £200,000, which information she has also wittingly withheld from declaring in her Register of Interests
  • that, as Company Secretary of DTL – a company enjoying a trading relationship with Ryedale District Council, the NYMNPA and NYCC – Councillor Kenyon failed to declare that conflict of interests. (There presents itself, therefore, the obvious suspicion that Councillor Kenyon’s failure to declare (and former Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller’s failure to declare) may have been motivated by a desire to benefit from the trading relationship between DTL and the three local authorities).
  • that Councillor Kenyon’s life-partner “Bill” Miller was a Director of Dales Timber Limited (DTL) and also failed to declare his interest or to separately declare his interest in a company that enjoyed a trading relationship with two authorities for which he was an elected member – and, as noted above, Councillor Kenyon similarly withheld that information, too; she had a duty to declare her relationship with ‘Bill’, and his interest in DTL (as well as, and separately to, her own), just as with BCI.
  • that in response to an entirely lawful question concerning these matters at a NYPA public meeting, Councillor Kenyon abused her position as Chair of that authority, making no response to the question (she should, of course, have ensured that the question was minuted, placed on the record her reasons for disregarding it, and moved on with the meeting) – instead of which, she evaded public scrutiny by having the questioner removed from the meeting by the police, on pain of arrest.
  • that the Minutes of that meeting do not record the form of words of the question (and are therefore not a true record) and that Councillor Kenyon, as Chair of the meeting, bears full responsibility for that deception by omission.

Let us be very clear, for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, that these concerns are in no sense frivolous and they are very far from trivial. They stand at the root of integrity in public life.

Councillor Kenyon’s political and administrative experience spans four decades (the Poulson affairs – about which, more I due course – was in 1972) ; she has without any shadow of a doubt played a leading rôle in the decision-making processes of several local authorities (and is, at this moment, and amongst other positions of responsibility, the Chair of the NYPA, the NYPA Management Board, Director of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement & Legal at SBC) that have each disbursed, over the years quite literally millions and millions of pounds from the public purse, yet the record indicates that she has been fundamentally dishonest for at least the last thirty years. And she cannot plausibly claim ignorance – which, in any case, forms no defence in law.

But there is more. Much more:

  • In response to an enquiry by Chartered Accountant Timothy Hicks FCA about these matters, NYCC’s Head of Legal & Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer Carole Dunn consciously misled Mr Hicks by stating she (Councillor Kenyon) has had no connection with Belvedere Computers Inc since November 1980 which predates her membership of the County Council. The issue of registering an interest simply would not therefore arise.” (One assumes ‘wittingly’ – the only alternative is that Councillor Kenyon wittingly misinformed her). As Mr Hicks pointed out in his article (See ‘Chief Officer Corruption in North Yorkshire Police’), this is quite simply untrue. To be clear, it does not matter how long Councillor Kenyon has been associated with BCI; what matters is that she still holds the position of Chief Financial Officer in that corporation; she therefore has been under a duty to declare that interest, whether it arose before or after she was elected – because she and her life-partner remain to this day Officers of a corporation that has been suspended on grounds of bankruptcy from trading, but still exists as a separate legal entity to this very day. The records show that Councillor Kenyon is Chief Financial Officer NOW, as I write. It is irrelevant that the corporation is in another country. And let us not forget that Councillor Kenyon does not deny the existence of this corporation, or that is bankrupt, or that she remains the Chief Financial Officer of the BCI.
  • In response to a question concerning her Company Secretaryship of Dales Timber Limited (DTL), Councillor Kenyon implicated NYCC Monitoring Officer Carole Dunn by having her (Dunn) provided false information in an official council letter, stating that Councillor Kenyon was ‘unaware’ that she had signed legal documents appointing her as Company Secretary of DTL, and/or ‘unaware’ that she had delivered these documents to Companies House for registration and/or ‘unaware’ that she had a duty to declare the fact.
  • Councillor Kenyon is the only elected member of NYCC and SBC and the North Yorkshire Police Authority who has for years declined to publish her interests on their respective web-sites – in my view, this can only be because she has attempted to restrict access to information likely to expose her unlawfully concealed business interests.

The above concerns were published less than a week ago and I have received no denial of them or any comment of any kind from Councillor Kenyon or any of the three Monitoring Officers.

There has been no denial.

Earlier this week, I wrote to Baroness Warsi and Lord Feldman – Co-Chairs of the Conservative Party – suggesting that Councillor Kenyon’s conduct may have risked bringing the Party into disrepute. Their Lordships declined to investigate, instead washing their hands of the matter by suggesting that I report the matter to the Monitoring Officers (as if I had not done so weeks ago), and, in the event that something was indeed amiss, to the police. I wrote back asking if they wished to make a statement to the public expressing confidence in Councillor Kenyon. Not a word has been forthcoming. In fairness, Baroness Warsi has other things on her mind; her own integrity stands at this moment under a very dark cloud. .

So, nothing from the Conservatives.  But Councillor Kenyon has shown a reaction.

Her Register of Interests is now published on the NYCC website (the same as every other elected member) and she has acknowledged that she was indeed Company Secretary of DTL (thereby tacitly confirming that she unlawfully withheld this information from the Register of Interests at the time) – though she continues to withhold the information that DTL enjoyed a trading relationship with the authorities on which she and her life-partner ‘Bill’ Miller were elected members – and that both she and he remain Officers of the bankrupt US corporation, BCI. In short, she is still continuing to withhold information that is required by law.

There remains some confusion about a very important point.

Information provided by SBC Legal Officer Gill Wilkinson and NYCC Monitoring Officer Carole Dunn, is diametrically conflicting. Gill Wilkinson has stated that failure to declare an interest within 28 days of it arising is a criminal offence; Carole Dunn has since stated that it is not.

Under Sections 29 – 34 of the Localism Act 2011, which received Royal Ascent in November 2011, failure to declare interests is a Criminal Offence.  So who is dissimulating here? And is she wittingly colluding with Councillor Kenyon to withhold the truth?

All of this is bad enough. In fact, it is truly disgusting. If Councillor Kenyon were not Chair of the Scarborough & Whitby Conservative Association, she should have been the subject of a vote of no confidence and inevitably sent packing. However, incredible as it may seem, even more grave concerns can be exposed:

  • Under the heading ‘Financial Transaction & Contracts’ on her SBC Register of Interests, Councillor Kenyon has listed ‘Specialist Recycling – occasional services’. What is that all about? Her life-partner, former SBC, NYMNPA and NYCC Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller used to have a company called Scarborough Skip Hire Limited (SSHL), now recorded as ‘dissolved’. Is this an additional instance of a company that was trading with some of Councillor Kenyon’s Councils – as per DTL? Is it one of many? Will Councillor Kenyon now disclose that information, please?
  • Councillor Kenyon registered an interest in Whitby Regatta in her SBC Register of Interests and has described herself for many years as Director and/or titular President. It was confirmed by SBC Legal Officer Gill Wilkinson recently that Whitby Regatta is a Charity – NOT a Limited Company (a Limited Company must, of course, have the word Limited in the name and cannot have a ‘President’), whose purpose was the administration of the Whitby Regatta.  Review of the Charities Commission web-site this week has revealed that there is, in fact, no such Charity listed.
  • An examination of Councillor Kenyon’s Directorships at Companies House has revealed that she is a Director of a company called Whitby Regatta Ltd (WRL – Reg.No 07693284, with Registered Offices at 5 Bobbies Bank, Whitby, YO21 1EF), which has seven Directors. It was registered on 5th of July 2011. Councillor Kenyon only placed this on her Register of Interest at some point since April 2012.
  • Astonishingly, a complaint made about Councillor Kenyon’s non-declaration received the following response from NYCC’s Senior Lawyer (Governance) Moira Beighton: “I can confirm that Councillor Kenyon has registered an interest relating to Whitby Regatta in her interests form and therefore your complaint of a non-declaration of this interest is unfounded and will not be placed before the Standards Committee”. Excuse me! This conveniently (and quite obviously) ignores the fact that Councillor Kenyon’s interest in a Limited Company remained undisclosed for nearly a year. The conclusion can only be that Councillor Kenyon has once again contravened the Code and the Localism Act 2011, having only registered her interest since her falsehood was discovered, and that, like Carole Dunn before her, Moira Beighton seems to have been either misled into, coerced into, or was of her own volition complicit in, concealing Councillor Kenyon’s deception.

So why did Councillor Kenyon declare on her SBC Register of Interests, over a period of years, a body that she fictitiously described as a ‘charity’ and a ‘charitable trust’, and then only last year form a Limited Company (WRL) – so named as to be innocently taken by the public to be the same hitherto voluntary organization that has administered Whitby Regatta successfully for 172 years?

Whitby Regatta is a traditional annual and much-loved event in Whitby, run by volunteers on a non-profit making basis, and financed in part by donations from the public.  It has now become incorporated covertly; therefore ‘legal ownership’ of the Regatta has passed from the traditional voluntary body to a Limited Company in the thrall of Councillor Kenyon. (WRL now effectively ‘owns’ Whitby Regatta – and any income therefrom?). Had it been registered as a Charity, full accounts would have had to be published, it would not be have been subject to tax, though it would have been subject to scrutiny from the Charities Commission and Trustees. Yet Councillor Kenyon has affirmed to her electors, via her Register of Interests, that its is a Charity. Now that it is registered as a Limited Company, control has passed to seven Directors (Councillor Kenyon, Mr Thomas McIvor Greer, Mr Stephen Thomas, Ms Rebecca Jane Turton, Mr Stephen John Greer, Mr Arthur George, all of whom give 5 Bobbies Bank, Whitby, as their addresses), and as such WRL is not bound to file full accounts to the same scrupulous standard, or to disclose information to the same meticulous level as would a Charity. Worse, the public are donating to what they believe to be a long established, voluntarily-run Charity, when they are, in fact, donating to a Limited Company, whose objective (like any Limited Company) is to trade for profit.

How can Councillor Kenyon remain as a Councillor and a member - let alone Chair – of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, when she has:

  • been serially disingenuous with the electorate, and consistently misleading the public for thirty years,
  • made false entries in official documents,
  • dissimulated in her Register of Interests,
  • concealed wrong-doing by a fellow elected member (life-partner ‘Bill’ Miller),
  • abused her position as Chair of a NYPA meeting by evicting a member of the public who challenged the integrity of her position,
  • wittingly misled (or perhaps coerced) the Monitoring Officers, who in their turn have themselves misled the public,
  • gained advantage from undisclosed trading with local authorities on which she sat as an elected member, thereby serially and routinely abusing the public trust?

Equally concerning is the role played by the NYCC and SBC Legal Officers, as well as Councillor Kenyon’s fellow Conservative Councillors, who have collectively turned a blind eye to serious misconduct.  Clearly, this is a terrible indictment of Councillor Kenyon, the Monitoring and Legal Officers, the Standards Committees of the three authorities on which Councillor Kenyon sits, and her Party – the Conservatives – whose commitment to ‘transparency and accountability’ was loudly trumpeted by our Prime Minister David Cameron, both before and after the 2010 General Election.

It has been demonstrated beyond any question that Councillor Kenyon – whose appalling financial performance with NYPA has been thoroughly exposed, both here on Real Whitby and in the national press – is in a position whereby it is no longer remotely tenable for her to remain in public affairs in any capacity at all.

I leave you now with Ms Kenyon’s remarks reported in the Yorkshire Post on 1st June 2012:

“My first love has always been the people I represent in my council work, the people of Whitby.”

Posted by on June 15, 2012. Filed under Nigel Ward - In My View. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

33 Responses to Whitby’s Jane Kenyon – The Mulberry Bush


  1. Jamie Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    This is disgraceful and there should be a demonstration outside her offices.

    She should be arrested and fired!

    Scum!

    • Nigel Ward Reply

      June 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      The Offence of Misconduct in Public Office

      The continued existence of the common law offence of misconduct in public office has recently been confirmed in a number of jurisdictions: Question of Law Reserved (No.2 of 1996) (1996) 88 A Crim R 417; Shum Kwok Sher v. HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381; Attorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 2003) [2005] 1 QB 73; Sin Kam Wah v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 192; R. v. Boulanger [2006] 2 SCR 49.

      The leading British case is Attorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 2003) (2005) 1 QB 73, in which the Court of Appeal (at para.61) defined the offence as follows:

      “The elements of the offence of misconduct in a public office are:

      (1) a public officer acting as such;

      (2) wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;

      (3) to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder;

      (4) without reasonable excuse or justification.”

      A public officer is, “an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public”: R. v. Whitaker [1914] 3 KB 1283, 1296. Wilful misconduct means “deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not”: Attorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 2003) [2005] 1 QB 73 [28]. The third element of the offence (discussed further below) encapsulates the requirement that the misconduct in question must be serious for a criminal conviction to be warranted. There is little judicial guidance on the fourth element of the offence, but it appears to be relatively self-explanatory.

      In accordance with general principles (R. v. Whitchurch (1890) 24 QBD 420; R. v. Mackenzie (1910) 6 Cr App R 64), a person who is incapable of committing the offence of misconduct in public office as a principal because he or she is not a public officer (or not acting as such) may nevertheless be convicted of conspiring to commit, or being an accessory (aid, abet, counsel or procure) to the commission of, the offence by a public officer: R. v. Llewellyn-Jones (1967) 51 Cr App R 4; R. v. Rees [2000] EWCA Crim 55; Attorney General’s Reference (No.5 of 2002) [2005] 1 AC 167, [3]; R. v. Miles [2006] EWCA Crim 2675; R. v. Nyack [2008] Crim 61; R. v. Ahmed [2008] EWCA Crim 1384; Belfast Crown Court v. Griffiths [2009] NICC 23.

  2. petra Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    As a charity it would have a registration number and under Section 5 of the Charities Act 1993 a registered charity with a gross income in excess of £10,000 in
    the preceding year has to state that it is a registered charity on the following documentation:
    1. all notices, advertisements and other documents issued by or on behalf of the charity and soliciting
    money or other property for the benefit of the charity
    2. all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques and orders for money or goods
    purporting to be signed on behalf of the charity
    3. all bills rendered by it and on all its invoices, receipts and letters of credit.
    So has anyone recieved any doccumentation from the company? Heep digging Nigel.

    Thanks to comments on the SEN I now know a bit about Charities, very helpful when people come knocking on my door.

  3. Al Roberts Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “As bent as fishhooks”.
    What a terrible set of people they are.
    Well done Nigel, and others, who have overturned the stones to root these cockroaches out.
    Now is the time for the NYCC and SBC councillors to show their true colours.

    • Nigel Ward Reply

      June 15, 2012 at 5:28 pm

      I wonder if this might apply?

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

      Misconduct in Public Office.

      Principle

      Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

      The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.
      Definition of the offence.

      The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 (‘AG Ref No 3′).

      The offence is committed when:

      a public officer acting as suchwilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.
      ________________________________________

      It is difficult to imagine an interpretation that could plausibly posit that a very serious breach of the public trust has NOT taken place.

    • Peter Hofschröer Reply

      June 16, 2012 at 4:27 am

      Haven’t they all already?

  4. Linda Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Think she’s confused love of Whitby people with lust for money. If she wants to represent the people of Whitby she should be honest, it might therefore be easier for her to resign.

    • Tim Thorne Reply

      June 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm

      If she loves Whitby so much why doesn’t she live there?

  5. jackie Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Such greedy, corrupt people. How can we protect our children from people like this?

  6. peter anderson Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    shame on her, has she not got the dignity and self respect to resign from all public life immediately,
    the arrogance is unbelievable.so much for the uk being a fair and true land.she and certain other people in positions of power act as the Kremlin did.they are sad, sick,GREEDY b******s. hang your heads in shame.the uk public do not want you.

  7. Peter Hofschröer Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 4:24 am

    As this information was not on their website, when asked to confirm if Dear Jane was a director of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., the following reply was received,

    “Cllr Kenyon resigned from her previous post as a director of the APA some weeks ago, hence she no longer appears on our website”

  8. Nigel Ward Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 7:15 am

    @PH: Thank you for that information.

    In addition to Ms Kenyon’s resignation from her Directorship of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., I can also report the resignation of another target of our investigations – Councillor Jim Preston of Scarborough Borough Council.

    For clarity, our investigation did NOT concern the matters reported in the Whitby Gazette and Scarborough Evening News in 2008.

    If my information that Councillor Preston is now under inevestigation by the police is correct, I shall not be pursuing the matter further.

    It is not the purpose or intention of our investigations to act as judge and jury.

    I cannot speak for the rest of the team. personally, I just want the self-serving and corrupt out of the game. For good.

    • Al Roberts Reply

      June 16, 2012 at 9:08 am

      There are signs that you are finding chinks in the armour of JK and her gang if, despite her unspoken “No Comment” attitude, she has resigned from a couple of positions of office, clearly a sign that the support from those offices/officers is becoming weaker, due to your efforts. Thank you.

      I doubt the game will ever be over for her, mainly because of the support from those around her with “power”, many of whom will intimidate those with lesser “say”. ie the councillors who must see what is going on but choose to remain silent.
      Time for them to speak out.

  9. richard ineson Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 7:40 am

    A sad indictment of a system which allows certain individuals to do as they please, i.e. they are above the law. As to how a person who has been the Chair of an organsiation, the NYPA whose staff have made free with the public purse, arousing comment from the House of Lords and our local Members of Parliament, as well as many members of the public, and, who was the company secretary of an organisation, supplying materials to four local authorities, SBC,NYCC, NYPA and NYMNPA, which company went bankrupt to the tune of £200,000, can then be put in charge of the finances of Scarbrorough Borough Council, is beyond belief, or is it? I think that we should be told.
    Trebles all round.

  10. Richard Ineson Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 8:23 am

    How long before the rats commence to desert the sinking ship?

  11. david clark Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 9:20 am

    “specialist recycling services occasional services”operates from land within the area where planning consents are ruled by nymnpa. cllr kenyon and cllr miller were at one time or another both members of nymnpa. i have all the details but it will take time to colate them. I will be back in touch with further information on Specialist Recycling Service.

  12. Bob Turner Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Irrespective of whether the rats desert the sinking ship or not it is imperative that these matters are pursued to their true and just conclusion. Far too many times have I, and no doubt others, experienced incidents whereby the mere exit of those responsible is viewed as a satisfactory conclusion and any attempts to pursue them is met with, “They have gone, lessons will/have been learned and nothing is to be gained by living in the past etc”. Arrant nonsense of course, unless these weasels are satisfactorily eliminated they will merely crawl out of a different piece of woodwork at some time in the future.

  13. MichaelWH Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 10:26 am

    800+ likes on Facebook is “unprecedented public endorsement”?! I’ve had more than that many likes on a single picture of one of my breakfasts! (To be fair it was a truly awe-inspiring breakfast.) And I didn’t need to spam a thousand different Google+ conversations to get there either.

    • Al Roberts Reply

      June 16, 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Mmmm sounds a tasty breakfast Michael.

      But not as tasty as the books cooked by JK for NYCC and SBC, which they swallowed without even touching the sides!

  14. Richard Ineson Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 11:08 am

    N.Y.P.A. – R.I.P. by Richard Ineson

    The North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYPA) is soon to be abolished; during recent years we have seen mismanagement of public money by this body and dishonourable conduct from senior police officers.

    The people of North Yorkshire have undoubtedly been badly served by both the members of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, the members of which are: -

    •Chair: Cllr. Jane Kenyon,
    •Mr. Bill Baugh,
    •Cllr. Carl Les,
    •Mr.Tony Hargreaves J.P.,
    •Cllr. Keith Orrell,
    •Cllr. Helen Swiers,
    •Cllr. Polly English,
    •Cllr. Fiona Fitzpatrick,
    •Cllr. David Ireton,
    •Cllr. Janet Jefferson,
    •Cllr. Brian Marshall,
    •Mr. Jason Fitzgerald-Smith,
    •Mrs. Erica Taylor J.P.,
    •Mrs. Rajinda Richards,
    •Dr. Craig Shaw,
    •Mr. Ian Whittaker J.P.
    and also the North Yorkshire Police Authority Management Board, the members of which are:-

    •Chair Cllr. Jane Kenyon,
    •Vice Chair Mr. Bill Baugh,
    •Mr. Tony Hargreaves J.P,
    •Cllr. Carl Les,
    •Cllr. Keith Orrell.
    The Management Board has delegated powers to enable it to ensure, that amongst many other things, the Authority (NYPA) operates in an open and transparent manner.

    The Authority (NYPA) has a high profile and standing. It monitors expenditure, (which presumably includes salaries and allowances paid to the employees of the Authority, including its Chief Officers) against the Authority’s budget.

    The actions of the NYPA have been criticised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who said that:

    “the Authority’s lack of control was unacceptable”

    and also by Hugh Bayley M.P., former M.P Phil Willis and Julian Smith M.P.

    But strangely, only eight out of seventy two Councillors supported a motion criticising Grahame Maxwell for wasting tax payers’ money.

    The most notable/outrageous/scandalous/disgraceful events in the recent past, which I can recall are:-
    The squandering of £500,000 on providing Volvo V70 and Range Rover vehicles for senior police officers who were not qualified to drive these vehicles on police business.

    The £28,000 shower installed in the office of then Chief Constable Della Canning.

    Then there is the matter of Peta Ackerley the wife of former Police Superintendent (in charge of NYPA police force training) who received £400,000 from the force in payments to her training companies, companies which, according to an audit report, ‘often got work without going through proper procurement procedures’.

    Superintendent Ackerley escaped disciplinary action after his application to retire , after thirty years service, was accepted by Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell; on this point, officers have the right to retire after thirty years, but where disciplinary charges are outstanding this right can be waived until the charges have been heard, in this case this was not done.

    Phil Willis, M.P. for Harrogate and Knaresborough at the time, said,

    “Hopefully, this brings to an end a period when NY Police had a cavalier attitude to accountability for public money”.

    High hopes indeed.

    Then there are the circumstances surrounding the early retirement of Assistant Chief Constable, David Collins in July 2009, who earned a £100,000 salary, and who went off on the sick in November 2008, claiming stress, and was still off work in June 2009, on half his salary.

    On 4th June, he attended a University of York conference and handed out flyers to delegates to promote his life coaching consultancy service.

    But, unfortunately for Mr Collins, one of the conference delegates was his former boss, North Yorkshire’s ex-Chief Constable Della Cannings, who promptly reported him to North Yorkshire Police Authority.

    They investigated and discovered Mr Collins was also offering mentoring services via the internet.

    The 49-year-old was allowed to back up his business qualifications with training while he worked as a policeman, but he did not have permission to seek customers for his business.

    Shortly after being discovered by Ms Cannings, Mr Collins went on holiday. When he returned he discovered that the police authority wanted to relieve him of his post.

    Instead Mr Collins, of Monk Fryston near Selby, successfully applied for retirement. Because of this, he will still receive a six-figure sum for his 30 years of service.

    Jeremy Holderness, the chief executive of North Yorkshire Police Authority, said:

    “Although the authority considered all options with regard to the conduct of Mr Collins in the circumstances, it was not possible to instigate formal disciplinary action against him as he was no longer a serving police officer.”

    There are other considerations here of course – if Mr.Collins was too sick to work, he was presumably claiming sickness/incapacity benefit, under the terms of which, the claimant is not allowed to do any work of any kind, perhaps the Dept. of Work and Pensions might have an interest in reclaiming any benefits which might have been paid in this case.

    The nepotism cases which resulted in the resignation/early retirement of Adam Briggs and Graham Maxwell.
    It has previously been revealed that the Independent Police Complaints Commission spent £100,000 investigating claims that Mr Maxwell and his deputy, Adam Briggs, unfairly helped relatives during a recruitment exercise for new police officers last year.
    Two counts of misconduct were upheld against Mr Briggs in December and he retired from the force earlier this year.

    But the main focus of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary action was Mr Maxwell, with tens of thousands of pounds mounting up in legal costs after the Chief Constable initially challenged the charge of gross misconduct.

    He only admitted the charge last month and was given a final written warning.

    The full police authority costs for bringing the cases against Mr Maxwell and Mr Briggs were £218,456. Around £19,000 was spent on inquiries involving both officers – but the bulk was spent solely on the Chief Constable’s case.

    If Mr Maxwell had admitted gross misconduct last October, most of the £200,000 costs could have been avoided. It is understood it may still have cost around £20,000 to carry out the formalities of a hearing.

    Skipton and Ripon Tory MP Julian Smith, who previously described Mr Maxwell’s position as “untenable”, said:

    “Taken with the one hundred thousand pounds spent by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the amount of money this investigation has cost so far is over a quarter of a million pounds.

    In addition, this is not necessarily the end of the money spent as these figures do not include any money spent by the force itself.

    Had the Chief Constable admitted his guilt late last year, instead of at the very last minute, hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money could have been saved on legal costs.

    It is deeply regrettable that during challenging financial times, the actions of the county’s leading police officer should have cost the Police Authority so much. Whether it’s been the communities of North Yorkshire or police officers themselves, the people I’ve spoken to have been very clear.

    They have been shocked by this situation and I think they will be even more surprised by these costs.”

    York Labour MP Hugh Bayley, who previously suggested the Chief Constable should consider his position, said:

    “With the police budget being so squeezed by the Government, it’s tragic that so much money has been spent on this. Money is desperately needed for front-line policing.”

    The police authority said it had nothing to add to a statement made last month which said Mr Maxwell “could have avoided organisational and personal turmoil and unnecessary cost to the council tax payer” if he had admitted his guilt late last year.

    Responding to a freedom of information request, the North Yorkshire Force said it had spent £1,171.00 on advice from legal counsel in relation to the inquiries into Mr Maxwell and Mr Briggs and also £1,763.88 on a public relations agency.

    Mr Maxwell declined to comment.

    The enquiry/hearing was held in secret, at a secret location, strange then that the North Yorkshire Police Authority Management Board proclaims that one of its aims is to ensure that NYPA operates in an ‘open and transparent manner’.

    Then of course, the revelations about enormous sums of money spent on ‘personal development’ by Adam Briggs and Graham Maxwell.

    NYPA chief executive Jeremy Holderness said the allowances were designed to ensure its Chief Constable and their deputy could “perform at the top of their game” and “develop into more senior roles”.
    He said:

    “Such allowances are not unfamiliar in policing, or indeed many other avenues of business, and they are seen to be quite reasonable in the circumstances of employment of senior professionals.”

    He said such allowances were generally beneficial, and called the IPCC response “disproportionate”, but said:

    “We agree that, in this instance, sadly the arrangements might not have operated as we would have wished and we have learned lessons for the future.”

    N.Y.P.A. – R.I.P.

  15. lez Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 11:45 am

    when’s the next public meeting where questions can be asked, if the last one who turned up was escorted out its quite simple, more are needed to turn up and each one ask the same question….

    with cameras… or a news person..

  16. Bob Turner Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Ha! Ha! I rest my case..

    “We agree that, in this instance, sadly the arrangements might not have operated as we would have wished and we have learned lessons for the future.”

  17. F L C Reply

    June 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Question for Nigel et al…

    Wasn’t it Kenyon and her buddies that suggested that “Nigel and the rest of the campaigners are just CONSPIRACY THEORISTS”?

    Sounds to me like we’ve got a big fat conspiracy right here, and it’s Kenyon/Miller and their buddies helping out with it…

  18. david clark Reply

    June 17, 2012 at 10:09 am

    I am the member of the public who asked the question at the nypa meeting, it was not all bad, when the police got me outside of the meeting room they were as nice as pie. Iam however concerned that the question as asked was not recorded,i shall be contacting nypa for an explanation. because of her exploits in the usa it is questionable wheather cllr kenyon should have been allowed to enter public life in this country in the first place. She has been an elected member of three councils since the early/mid 1980s to the presentday. The belvedere computers inc fiasco is still ongoing the corporation has not been dissolved. All the public authorities no about this how do i know I told them years ago.

  19. Carl Zacharia Reply

    June 17, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Another great article from Nigel Ward. His tenacity and investigative prowess is inspirational. I see that three of the top five posts on the Real Whitby website are deservedly Nigel’s.

    But there are questions that need answering, for example:
    We want to know if Councillor Jayne Kenyan and Bill Miller are the only directors or sole owners of DTL.-And did the tax payer incur any costs due to DTL’s bankruptcy.

    Will SCC and others- provide details of the contracts between themselves and DTL. We want to see evidence of legal compliance with respect to the tendering and procurement process.

    We want to see details of any contracts between Scarborough Skip Hire and SBC or Ryedale DC, and similarly, we want to see evidence of compliance in the tendering and procurement process.

    We want to see the accounts of Whitby Regatta, we want to know what public money was channelled in to Whitby Regatta and where that money was spent. We also want to see an account of public donations.

    In short, open up your books or get out….Or on second thoughts: Just get out!!
    Cllr Kenyan has sailed roughshod over the standards of public office as though she was The Titanic. Thanks to Nigel Ward, she has finally floundered on the rocks of public scrutiny. I’ll wager more miss-deeds will soon come to light as their associates scramble for the lifeboats in an attempt to distance themselves from the sinking ship that is Cllr Kenyan.

    And respect to Richard Ineson for his excellent comment above!

  20. admin Reply

    June 17, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Whitby Donkey Field Survey 51135 view(s)
    Whitby Goth Weekend 2012 20836 view(s)
    Whitby Gothic Weekend Photos / Pictures Gallery 13120 view(s)
    Whitby Winter Snow Gallery 12203 view(s)
    Old Pictures Of Whitby 11294 view(s)
    Save Our Whitby Piers Petition 8475 view(s)
    Whitby By The Sea 5639 view(s)
    Whitby Town Is Falling Down 4885 view(s)
    Jane Kenyon – Some Things You May Not Know !! 4755 view(s)
    Whitby People Photographs 4522 view(s)
    General Whitby Pictures – Whitby Photo Gallery 4090 view(s)
    More Problems For Chief Constable Maxwell 3663 view(s)
    Whitby Regatta 2012 3530 view(s)
    River Esk – Whitby Harbour Frozen Over !! 3528 view(s)
    The Great Whitby Rip Off !! 3446 view(s)
    Local Villages – Photographs From The Whitby Area 3026 view(s)
    Emmerdale Cast Sick Of Whitby 2980 view(s)
    Sirius Mining / Minerals And North Yorkshire Moors… 2950 view(s)
    Whitby ‘Jet d’Eau’ Whaling Memorial 2933 view(s)
    Mike Marshall – Yorkshire Coast Fossils 2585 view(s)

  21. ABC Reply

    June 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Whilst I believe in the right to silence, how can Councillor Kenyon and Councillor Miller ignore these grave allegations of the very serious criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office WITHOUT ANY COMMENT AT ALL and remain in office?

    Further, given that Councillor Kenyon is exercising her right to silence, how can the Conservatives and Councillor Carl Les (the Conservative candidate to be the new Crime Commissioner) continue to support her as a Councillor, -let alone as Chairman of the Police Authority- when she is openly the subject of arguably the gravest allegations of local authority corruption since the Poulson scandal in 1972, WHICH SHE DOES NOT DENY.

    The correct process now is for Councillor Kenyon to resign, sue, resolve the allegations and then to stand again as a Councillor if she is cleared. However, by supporting her and Councillor Miller, Councillor Les as the senior Conservative member of the Police Authority has failed to show leadership or to maintain the normal standards of public life when applied to members of his party accused of serious crime and corruption. He is obviously unfit for employment as the Crime Commissioner. Councillor Clark ws right when he said that the Police Authority had a culture of secrecy and should be sept away.

    ABC (Anyone But Carl) Les for Crime Commissioner

  22. Bucko Reply

    June 18, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Nice to see the site continuing to bring such underhand matters out of the shadows and into the public eye.
    I may have to send you some photo’s of the fish pass at Ruswarp obstructed by sandbags in the name of constructing a ‘green energy project’.
    Breaking the law and compromising fish runs before its even been built!

  23. Jamie Reply

    June 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    You local people need to get out their with video camera or go into their offices and demand an explanation, they are supposed to be public servants , therefore its about time they started serving you!

  24. jackie Reply

    June 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Bucko please send the photo’s

  25. Pingback: Corruption in North Yorkshire – Cllr Jane Margaret Kenyon not fit to hold Public Office |

  26. Norman Scarth Reply

    June 21, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Resignation? That’s like suggesting a bank robber should resign as Chairman of the Bank Robbers Association, but remain a member. Though I don’t believe in violence, I can’t stop my thoughts straying towards ropes & yardarms.

  27. Vanda L Reply

    June 22, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    “Does the Law choose its enforcers or do the enforcers choose the Law?”
    (first posted 3rd May 2012)

    It would seem there is a conflict of interest for the local authorities Legal Teams (SBC, NYCC, NYPA & NYMN) and with ‘upholding the Law’.

    Come on Carl Les and Ruth Potter – do you really want the PCC’s job?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

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