ISL Residents Banned From Day Services

I am in possession of numerous documents that confirm East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has banned Independent Supported Living (ISL) residents from accessing day services since March 2020.

As part of their Care Plan, to develop their social and language skills and maintain a reasonably active lifestyle, an estimated 40 East Riding residents attended Mires Beck Nursery for between 1 to 5 days a week. This came to a halt at the start of the first Lockdown.

Mires Beck Nursery, North Cave has a capacity for 100 service users. Currently, up to 60 of these are being utilised, predominately by Hull City Council (HCC) which was happy for selected service users to return to Mires Beck last Christmas/New Year period. So why are East Riding ISL residents still banned?

Lottery Funding

In August 2020 Mires Beck was successful in their bid for Lottery funding to put in Covid 19 safety measures. This was to enable Mires Beck to take all service users back.  The £88,000 funding, as well as paying for additional staffing also funded:

  • PPE
  • Additional workbenches for new work areas
  • Hand wash stations for greenhouses
  • Sanitising stations
  • Covered walkways for queuing at distance into the building
  • Additional minibus hire
  • Additional driver cost
  • 3 portacabins hire
  • 2 temporary additional toilet block hires for 6 toilets.
  • Specialist disabled toilet
  • Orientation wayfinding
  • Wood burner for prop greenhouse
  • Sundries for craft per team

This funding, by the Lottery Commission, facilitated the safe return of all Hull/East Riding service users but not those from the East Riding who live in ISLs. They remain banned over 8 months later.

Why is this?


I have had sight of documentation that confirms that some East Riding ISL residents are still paying their original monthly charge to attend Mires Beck but they are banned from attending by Officers at East Riding Council.

ERYC fund the vast majority of the monthly charge which has equated to approximately £500,000 over the past 17 months. Service users have been told by East Riding Officials to continue paying since the beginning of lockdown for little or no face-to-face service. More specifically, in a letter to service users from East Riding, it states

‘pay your day care provider the same weekly amount that you did before the pandemic, even if you do not receive the same amount of service as before’

 ERYC Reason To “Ban”

I am informed that for East Riding ISL residents to return to Mires Beck specific approval must be given by ERYC

ERYC states that it “will not be able to offer a placement to those living in ISLs until they can be sure that the risk of cross-infection from people moving across services has reduced”.

Yet, after contacting Public Health England today it was confirmed that they have NO specific guidelines for this group of disabled individuals who reside in ISLs.

Why are East Riding ISL residents banned when all East Riding schools are open?

View From Mires Beck

ERYC Adult Services are clearly as shambolic as ERYC Children Service – ERYC: Over 500 Families In Crisis.

ERYC Adult Services need to sort this mess out as soon as possible for the good of disabled people who have been denied access to their routine and follow the UK Governments’ ethical framework for adult social care published in April this year.

I have referred my evidence to Caroline Lacey, ERYC Chief Executive, and ERYC Councillors requesting immediate and appropriate action for the benefit of all East Riding ISL residents.

Posted in ERYC | Comments Off on ISL Residents Banned From Day Services

ERYC: Over 500 Families In Crisis

East Riding residents will be shocked to learn that over 500 East Riding families are in crisis.

On 22 June 2021 Yvonne Rhodes, ERYC Head of Business Management and Commissioning confirmed:

“We have in excess of 500 people living at home with their families and we need to allow them to access services in order to support their carers, that isn’t about respite for carers it is about meeting our statutory duties to them and the looked after person. We consider most of those families as approaching crisis.”

It is impossible, and disingenuous, to claim over 500 families are “approaching crisis” as:

“In crisis is any event or period of time that will lead, or may lead, to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting a child or young person and their family if they do not receive early intervention or support.”

There is no such thing as “approaching crisis”. A family is either in crisis or not in crisis.

Crisis is when early intervention and prevention has not happened, this on many occasions can leave a child at risk of significant harm.

With over 500 families “approaching crisis” this demonstrates that Senior Officers and  Councillors at ERYC have failed to ensure the required early intervention and prevention.

To prevent more East Riding families from going into crisis it would appear to me that the only solution is to place ERYC Children Services in Special Measures.

Further Information

It would seem that ERYC has learnt nothing from the damning 2019 Ofsted Report.

ERYC Children Services are clearly spiralling out of control and not fit for purpose.

Posted in Children, ERYC | Comments Off on ERYC: Over 500 Families In Crisis

Yorkshire Post Embrace NYE and Strangeway

Last Saturday on Page 1, Page 6 and Page 16 the Yorkshire Post published that which the North Yorks Enquirer and Strangeway have been publishing for years – the failures of Scarborough Borough Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Page 1

Page 6

Page 16

Does this signal the start of the Yorkshire-based mainstream media publishing the truth about Yorkshire Councils instead of the “Press Releases” from Councils disguised as news?

What will be next?

Truth is great and it will prevail.

Posted in ERYC, Scarborough | Comments Off on Yorkshire Post Embrace NYE and Strangeway

Lisa Dixon Attempting Red-Herring

It is becoming clear, to both Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) Councillors and residents, that Lisa Dixon, SBC Director of Legal & Democratic Services is attempting a red-herring to cover up for her latest incompetence.

A simple review of Argos: Out For The Count confirms that there are two questions to consider and then two options that Cllrs must choose between.

Question 1

Did Alf Abbott vote twice?

The recorded vote will not state both Abbott – Against and Abbott – For, as Alf voted only once.

Of course, if a Cllr makes a mistake, they may correct this until such time as the result of the vote has been declared by the presiding officer. This is even more so the case,  if the mistake is due to a disability, as this would be what legislation terms a “reasonable adjustment”.

Alf did just this.

No, he did not vote twice.

Question 2

Can a Gang of Four (Cllr Siddons, Cllr Bastiman, Lisa Dixon and Mike Greene) overrule a decision of Full Council?

This is a 100% NO.

Option 1

The vote For by Cllr Abbott was lawfully cast and stands.

The motion is Carried – there must be a review.

Option 2

The vote Against by Cllr Abbott must not and cannot be corrected.

The motion was Lost – there must not and cannot be a review.

Simple Question

Cllrs must decide: Can a Cllr, especially one with a disability, who makes a mistake whilst casting their vote, correct that mistake, at least until such time as the result of the vote has been declared by the presiding officer?

I would suggest that Ms Dixon already knows the answer and needs to throw away her red-herring and with it, her ego.

Posted in Scarborough | Comments Off on Lisa Dixon Attempting Red-Herring

Argos: Out For The Count

The following is reproduced by kind permission of the North Yorks Enquirer.

  • – an “In My View”article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on events at the meeting of Scarborough Borough Council on Monday 6th September 2021, providing eye-witness testimony – followed by a brief analysis from Guest Author Andy STRANGEWAY, who was also present at the meeting. We hoped our presence might keep Mrs DIXON honest . . .



I attended the meeting, held in the Scarborough Spa (ostensibly for social-distancing purposes), in person. in company with Andy STRANGEWAY.

First allow me to comment that (i) the acoustics of the venue were totally ill-suited to the circumstances, (ii) the PA-system was wholly inadequate, with members complaining that they could not hear all speakers, particularly as many spoke either without the aid of the microphone or with the microphone held at too great a distance from their mouths, and (iii) Councillor RANDERSON [Lab.], Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods, complained (not for the first time) that the ‘loop’ feed (for members with hearing-aids) was not functioning correctly.

In short, only those in close proximity to speakers should be relied upon accurately to report what they heard. Andy and I were seated centrally for this very reason.

There was an extended debate on the motion proposed by Councillor Heather PHILLIPS [Con.] and seconded by Councillor David JEFFELS [Con.], which was set out as follows:

I will reserve comment on other aspects of this very fractious meeting for a later date.

Here follows my testimony as to the events surrounding the vote (4-minute video clip at the foot of this page) on Councillor PHILLIPS’ motion.

1) Councillor PHILLIPS requested a Recorded Vote.

2) It was pointed out by the Mayor that eight subscribers would be necessary for a Recorded Vote to take place. From my viewpoint, I could see more than enough members standing to confirm their support. Thus, the vote proceeded as a Recorded Vote, in accordance with Councillor PHILLIPS’ request.

3) The Councillors were then polled in alphabetical order, as is customary.

4) Mrs DIXON began by asking Councillor Alf ABBOTT whether he was ‘For’ or ‘Against’  the motion.

5) Councillor ABBOTT, who is elderly and suffers from impaired hearing, responded by mistakenly voting ‘Against’ the motion, which he immediately retracted and corrected to ‘For’, over a demeaning flurry of raucous laughter from the opposite – the Labour – end of the room, where Councillor Liz COLLING [Lab.] (Councillor SIDDONS’ so-called Deputy’) was heard to call out, in a jocular way, “We’ll take that!”.

6) It is conceivable, given the acoustic and PA problems, that Mrs DIXON was unable properly to discern Councillor ABBOTT’s immediately-corrected vote – ‘For’. Conceivable, but – in my view – highly unlikely. Several members have since chosen to use, with heavy irony, the expression “selective hearing”. Given the scope for doubt, why did Mrs DIXON not pause to allow the laughter to subside’, so that she – and all members – could take proper account of what wasCouncillor ABBOTT’s voting intention?

7) However, irrespective of whether or not Mrs DIXON could properly hear Councillor ABBOTT’s corrected vote, it was clearly heard by me, by Andy STRANGEWAY, by Mr StJohn HARRIS (Clerk to the meeting) and by Carl GAVAGHAN (Local Democracy Reporter), as well as most, if not all, members in close proximity at the Conservative end of the room. This would prove important.

9) When polling was completed (and I will here mention that there were some notable surprises – for example; out of Councillor Janet JEFFERSON’s Independent Group, both Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Ind.] (the people’s favourite to take over the Leadership of the Council) and Councillor John CASEY [Ind.] both voted ‘For’ the motion and Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF [Ind.] abstained, after having earlier ranted for what seemed like an age against the proposal. In 2019, she was against the proposal; when she was elevated to Cabinet, she was for it. Now she abstained. She seems to have run out of options).

Thus, three-sevenths of the Independent Group (on whom Leader Councillor Steve SIDDONS [Lab.] so heavily relies to maintain his so-called Lab./Ind. ‘alliance’),  jumped ship!

Moving on; Mrs DIXON then called a ‘Tie’ (i.e. equal votes both ‘For’ and ‘Against’). She did not specify the numbers. In such circumstances, the Mayor (on this occassion, Councillor Eric BROADBENT [Lab.]) holds a so-called ‘casting vote’, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

10) However,  a visibly unsettled Mrs DIXON elected first to confer with Clerk of the Meeting, Mr StJohn HARRIS – regrettably out-of-shot on the video.

This brief ‘confab’ took place off-microphone, some distance away from Mrs DIXON’s place on the rostrum, and may have been inaudible to most, if not all, members – or to me. But it was clear to me, from Mr HARRIS’s chastened demeanour, that he felt himself to have been over-ruled.

11) Bearing in mind that Mr HARRIS was positioned far closer to Councillor ABBOTT than Mrs DIXON, it was nothing short of bizarre to witness Mrs DIXON return to her position on the rostrum and repeat her earlier decision that it was a ‘Tie’, in spite of Mr HARRIS’ report.

12) At this point, the Mayor used his ‘casting vote’ ‘Against’ the motion and Mrs DIXON announced that the motion was thus defeated. Obviously, those ‘Against’ were happy as Larry.

Immediately thereafter, Andy and I left the meeting, thoroughly nauseated by the fact that Mrs DIXON appeared wilfully to have ignored the opinion of those better-placed (including the official Clerk) to confirm that Councillor ABBOTT had immediately corrected his erroneous call of ‘Against’, replacing it with a vote ‘For’. His true intention was clear to all.

Readers and Councillors have reminded me of an almost identical circumstance in which former Leader and Mayor of the Council – then-Councillor Tom FOX [Con.] – mistakenly voted ‘Against’ a crucial motion, then promptly corrected his vote to ‘For’. On that occasion, the correction was accepted by a smiling Mrs DIXON (those were the days!) without hesitation or demurral.

Thus, a precedent was set. But Mrs DIXON now appears to have forgotten this precedent – in an act, perhaps, of “selective memory”?

It should also be noted that Councillor Eileen MURPHY [Y.C.I.A.], was unwell at the meeting and forced to leave before the vote, supported by her daughter, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Roxanne MURPHY [Y.C.I.A.], both of whom were known to be ‘For’ the motion. Thus, any fair accounting of members’ views can only confirm that a democratic majority was indeed in favour of the motion).

Shortly after our departure, we were informed by several elected members that Councillor BASTIMAN and Mr HARRIS had apprised Mrs DIXON of her error and were told that the minutes of the meeting would be duly amended to reflect her error. Thus, it was clearly understood that the tally would be corrected. It was not a ‘Tie’, as Mrs DIXON had informed Full Council; in fact, the motion had carried by 20 votes ‘For’ the motion versus 18 votes ‘Against’; the Mayor’s ‘casting vote’, therefore, having been superfluous and accepted in error by Mrs DIXON. By then, many members had left the scene, so Mrs DIXON undertook to inform all members by email the following morning.

That is how matters stood until the following morning at 11:42 am, Tuesday 7th September, when, as promised, Mrs DIXON sent the following email to all members though the content was not entirely as anticipated:


Further to yesterday’s Council meeting and subsequent discussions in respect of the motion pertaining to the project to redevelop the former Argos building, I have looked into the matter further and in particular the legalities of member voting. In terms of Local Government decision-making a councillor is only permitted to vote once on any matter and after the matter is closed there is little scope to re-open the decision. Therefore at yesterday’s meeting whilst a councillor appeared to change his mind after casting his vote, from a legal perspective this would not be permitted. Yesterday’s decision must therefore stand. However in view of the closeness of yesterday’s vote on this motion and the seriousness of the issues and concerns raised by members at the meeting, discussions have now taken place with both the Leader and the Leader of the Group proposing the motion and it has been agreed that the Executive will implement the motion as proposed. For clarity that motion was:

Motion in respect of the project to redevelop the former Argos building

The Conservative Group on Scarborough Borough Council today call for residents of the Borough’s financial interest in the project to be protected by a full review of the business case in light of cost pressures being experienced in the building industry at this current time.

Our major concern is that this project is no longer good value for money and the increased costs involved will mean the hoped for return to be reinvested in other regeneration projects will never be realised.

In view of the above I will also be arranging for this email to be attached to the formal minutes of yesterday’s meeting.

Lisa Dixon


Scarborough Borough Council

Monitoring Officer

I have highlighted those two contradictory passages in red bold type, so that readers are mentally prepared for Andy STRANGEWAY’s analysis, which follows, below.

Meanwhile, allow me to conclude with some personal observations and opinions:

  1. It should not be forgotten that the ARGOS ‘regeneration’ is the Leader’s FLAGSHIP project. Were it not for ill-health, it would have been roundly thrown back on its heels by a clear 22to 18 of those members present. With three of the Independent Group defecting, as well as the two Greens, the writing is now emblazoned on the wall in block capitals. This vote, in essence, was a dry-run for the next Vote of No Confidence. It is especially noteworthy that the Portfolio Holder for Environment & Sustainability really has stabbed the Leader in the back this time – albeit, thank goodness, only metaphorically speaking. Make no mistake, SIDDONS’ floundering administration is on its last stumps – and not a moment too soon;
  2. The personal vituperation levelled at the motion’s Proposer, Councillor Heather PHILLIPS [], was utterly contemptible and it shames Mayor BROADBENT (who is a likeable chap and a fellow cat-lover) that he did not use his supposedly impartial gavel to bring the meeting to some semblance of order;
  3. It astonishes me that nowhere in a debate over ‘value for money’ did anyone from the administration seek to explain away the likely 50% reductionin future rents for the ground-floor retail units, where the proposed profitability element of the venture supposedly resides;
  4. In a debate centred on costings, what possible explanation can there be for the absence of the s.151 Finance Director, Mr Nick EDWARDS, who must surely be best-placed to advise members and surely had a duty to make himself available? And what of Commercial Director Mr Richard BRADLEY, who I am sure I saw hovering by the entrance to the room?
  5. Given that we have been informed that, even in light of build costs having increased to the tune of 30%, the developer stillconsiders the deal worthwhile, must it not be the case that, at 2019 prices, the developer must have effectively been granted a licence to print money? How does that represent ‘value for money’ to ratepayers?
  6. How many more times will we witness members throwing good sense and good conscience to the wind as votes divide on party political lines and not on the merits of the proposal? How can that produce good decision-making?
  7. My friends in Northallerton report that SBC is now widely viewed as being in terminal melt-down. All that remains is the matter of accountability. My guess is that the redoubtable Mr CORRIGAN is poised to deliver the coup de gràce. He will be worthy of our gratitude. I propose a statue.




Having witnessed the incompetence of Scarborough Borough Council for many years, I thought I had seen it all. But yesterday’s chaotic Council meeting, and the subsequent email to members today from Lisa Dixon, a solicitor, reached a depth to which I never thought even SBC would sink.

“Therefore at yesterday’s meeting whilst a councillor appeared to change his mind after casting his vote, from a legal perspective this would not be permitted.  Yesterday’s decision must therefore stand.”

When the law states MUST, that means MUST. Not should, or may. MUST.

So far so good.

“However in view of the closeness of yesterday’s vote on this motion and the seriousness of the issues and concerns raised by members at the meeting, discussions have now taken place with both the Leader and the Leader of the Group proposing the motion and it has been agreed that the Executive will implement the motion as proposed.” 

Excuse me, but who was involved in this these ‘discussions’, where it was agreed to act unlawfully? Since when did two Councillors have the right to overturn a resolution of Full Council?

Councillors, are you all mad, stupid or do you simply believe you are above the law? Or perhaps I am mistaken and senior Councillors can (as the Monitoring Officer maintains) lawfully countermand a decision made by Full Council the previous day?

Disability Legislation Ignored

At the meeting, I counted up to four members who had hearing impairments. I clearly heard Councillor Randerson state that he could hear “only one word in three”. At this point, the meeting was being conducted in direct contravention of disability legislation (i.e. unlawfully) and should have been suspended or abandoned until such time as the meeting was compliant with the relevant legislation.

Yet an hour or so later, Councillor Alf Abbott, who also has a hearing impairment, was materially disadvantage when he clearly failed to hear correctly and mistakenly voted against his own and his Group’s wishes.

On the one hand, as per the statement by Lisa Dixon, the vote MUST be adhered to.

On the other hand, disability legislation had already been breached and the fact brought to the attention of the Monitoring Officer, before the vote took place.

Legal Action Awaits

I would suggest that the patent incompetence of Lisa Dixon could result in three potential legal actions:

  1. North Yorkshire Police MUST take action against Lisa Dixon, the SBC Leader and SBC Leader of the Opposition for the actions confirmed in the email from Lisa Dixon;
  2. Councillor Alf Abbott is in a position to consider legal action against SBC for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by the breach of disability legislation;
  3. Judicial Review – grounds for a Judicial Review will be clear to many, including Mr Corrigan.

What an absolute shambles.

Posted in Scarborough | Comments Off on Argos: Out For The Count

Paul Lisseter Names Cllr Felicity Temple

On Sunday 28 March 2021 the late Paul Lisseter named East Yorkshire Constituency Conservative Association (EYCCA) Chairman, Cllr Felicity Temple, as being responsible for his shocking suspension.

Paul started by stating:

“I have still not been told the reason for my shocking suspension from the EYCCA, have not been told when I will be told the reason and haven’t been told when I will be told or when I will have the opportunity to answer to any allegations.”

and concluded by confirming:

“…Felicity Temple. In view of the fact that she is chairman of the EYCCA and therefore responsible for the appalling way my suspension has been handled…”

Could it be that Cllr Temple was focused on, and driven by, preventing Cllr Lisseter not voting for Cllr Jonathan Owen in the Spring vote for Leader of ERYC? I am informed that the vote was that close!

As Paul passed away just over two months later we can only imagine the stress that the actions, he himself alleged of Cllr Temple, had put him under.

In such circumstances, and with the clear statement by Paul, I  believe ERYC Conservative Cllrs must now consider suspending Cllr Temple. Or perhaps Felicity should jump before she is pushed?

Is there any honor left within the EYCCA? Let us not forget that Cllr Temple replaced Cllr “Bully Boy” Stathers as Chairman!

Perhaps Cllr Michael Lee, a fellow ERYC Driffield Cllr of Cllr Felicity Temple and the regional Chairman of the Voluntary Party for Yorkshire and the Humber (NB: A Conservative Party “Committee”) needs to consider how this affects his regional duties to the Conservative Party.

Could the East Riding Conservatives toxicity be spread to other areas?

Nowt Grows In Tory Field

It would appear that the Chairman’s Welcome to the EYCCA highlights the fact that there is nowt growing in their Tory field.

Further Information

The best (or should I say worst) is yet to come.

Posted in Conservative, ERYC | Comments Off on Paul Lisseter Names Cllr Felicity Temple

ERYC Planning Fiasco – Ignored Years Notice

I can reveal that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) was given a years notice to avert the Planning Fiasco that resulted in the Planning Inspectorate approving two applications by Gladman’s for:

Is Stamford Bridge Next?

In “Lisseter Files – I Never Bluff” I published a redacted email. Part of that which I redacted stated:

“…and failure to fulfill the commitment the Council gave to the Local Plan Inspector to review the plan by 2020 at the latest. Something he said was necessary for the soundness of the local plan.”

Why did ERYC sit back for a year and allow the Planning Fiasco to happen? Will this result in Gladman developing land in Stamford Bridge?

NB: ERYC is currently claiming they are appealing this decision, with further information due in October. They also claim that the “Judicial Review” will only cost £20,000. Does anyone spot the dishonesty?

Further Information

Posted in ERYC, Planning | Comments Off on ERYC Planning Fiasco – Ignored Years Notice

Vote Confirms Jonathan Owen Most Popular

I am rather amused to note obviously orchestrated Letters in both the Wolds Weekly and Hull Daily Mail attacking the ERYC Leadership of Tory Cllr Jonathan Owen while praising the previous Leadership of fellow Tory Cllr Richard Burton.

Cllr Jonathan Owen – The Most Popular

In the recent Lisseter Files Vote I announced that the “winner” was Tory Cllr Felicity Temple. The vote included:

  • Cllr Jonathan Owen – Current ERYC Leader
  • Ex-Cllr Stephen Parnaby – Former ERYC Leader
  • Cllr Mike Stathers – Disgraced former ERYC Deputy Leader
  • Cllr Felicity Temple – Despised former Conservative Group Secretary

A little birdie informs me that Temple and Stathers are instrumental in the talk of revolution (whoops have I leaked information?).

I highly recommend that both Mike and Felicity reconsider their plans as they both received a lot more votes than the person who received the least – current Leader Cllr Jonathan Owen. That makes Jonathan the most popular.

So there we have it, yet again certain ERYC Tories prove how out of touch they are with the public.

Well done Jonathan. The people have spoken.

Posted in Conservative, ERYC | Comments Off on Vote Confirms Jonathan Owen Most Popular

Lisseter Files – I Never Bluff

I have always stated that there would be a gradual reveal of the Lisseter Files. I am now informed that the East Riding Tories believe I am bluffing and that I hold no such files.

The Late Paul Lisseter

Paul Lisseter and I enjoyed extensive communication from 25 March 2021, following his suspension from the Conservative Party. This lasted for about a month with frequent, and often daily, exchanges. These emails form just a part of the Lisseter Files.

To assure those Tories who believe I am bluffing I offer the sample email below to the Court Of Public Opinion.

There is a lot more to follow.

Truth And Reconciliation

In the spirit of Truth and Reconciliation, I am always open to meeting with Cllr Jonathan Owen, ERYC Tory Leader, or Cllr John Holtby, ERYC Tory Deputy Leader for a coffee and a sticky bun.

NB: That which I stated in Lisseter Files Vote Winner – Felicity Temple will follow at a time that I choose. Unlike others, I am in no rush.

Posted in Conservative, ERYC | Comments Off on Lisseter Files – I Never Bluff

ERYC Twice Weekly Corruption Confirmed

I am astounded to receive information that confirms the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has disclosed in a Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) response that they have broken the law on a twice-weekly basis for the past year.

Mathew Buckley – EYRC Head of Legal and Democratic Services

An East Riding resident requested details “of the budget spent on defending legal actions in the ERYC area”.

When asked how many cases ERYC had lost over the last 12 months the response was:

“94 claims closed with settlement – total cost £529,544.69 (includes claimant’s damages, claimant’s legal fees and ERYC legal fees)”

That is almost twice a week that ERYC has broken the law by this measure alone. I doubt if less than 1% of residents will engage legal counsel in such situations. As such the 94 could account for up to 10,000 times that ERYC has broken the law in a year. Then there are other measures…

If an East Riding resident broke the law 94 times a year they would be in prison. If an East Riding business broke the law 94 times a year the business would be closed down.

What would happen to the resident or businesses if they broke the law up to 10,000 times and were found guilty for 94 of these?

As an Independent ERYC Ward Councillor between 2016 and 2019, I regularly stated that ERYC was corrupt to the core. This clearly demonstrates my position to have been correct. As confirmed by Transparency International:

“Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain it is wrong… plain wrong!”

It is clear who is benefitting from this abuse of entrusted power.

Will any ERYC Councillors hold ERYC to account for this?

How can Mathew Buckley continue to be employed by East Riding residents? The man has clearly failed.

NB: I have a full copy of the FOI Response.

Posted in Corruption, ERYC | Comments Off on ERYC Twice Weekly Corruption Confirmed