Evidence as per described in FOI request to DEFRA 31st December 2017
(17)
This as sent to the Board’s solicitor and all Selby Area Internal Drainage Board members.
Dear Mr Ware
As you leave some doubt as to whether you saw my communication with the Board of 13th January, I will begin again. All numbered references may be found at https://theselbysecret.weebly.com
You are termed “The Board’s solicitor.” In this capacity your client is the Board as a legal entity, and you thus owe a duty of care to this entity, to all constituent parts of the Board, and to the public at large. In order to fulfil your brief to supply me with relevant documents, you must necessarily acquaint yourself entirely with all of this matter. I therefore ask for your help and seek to inform your opinion.
The origin of all of this matter lies in the fact that, from1984 to 2003 the piece workers’ wage rates were more than halved. This injustice came about because Board members thought that the piece workers always enjoyed the annual “Staff” cost of living wage award, and the piece workers, on the other hand, believed that the Board members were voting every year to cut their wage rates. Thus both members and workers were denied the truth. This state of affairs has been compounded because contact between workers and Board members has been forbidden, as at (9) and (13
So, between 1984 and 2003 the piece workers of Selby IDB were brought almost to pauperisation by being denied any cost of living wage award. The crucial question here, and the one which no one will answer is “What party authorised this bizarre situation?” Here I refer you to a specific document as at (1) and ask you to verify this by consulting the minutes on which it is based. I ask to see same if these differ from (1).
It will be seen that the Clerk tells us that no minuted record whatsoever was made of piece worker treatment between 1982 and 2003. I am led to understand that boards are required by law to have minutes taken, which must provide a record of motions, votes and abstentions. I ask you then, as a solicitor, was any offence committed here? If so, what was this offence? Also, if no legal record of the piece workers’ treatment exists, how can your client, the Board as a legal entity, know of this part of its own business from 82 to 03? I also ask to see any document which informed the Board, as a legal entity, of the actuality of piece worker treatment 1982 to the present date. If these concerns are answered, many requests on the list which follows will be unnecessary, but this is up to you. As of now, I ask to see the minuted documents re the following decisions, which, as matters of persons’ rights, should, properly, have been made and recorded by the full Board.
1/ The decision to appoint your firm of solicitors to act for the Board in providing relevant documents.
2/ The 1984 decision to begin to deny the piece workers any annual cost of living wage award, this whilst the weekly paid workers and management continued to enjoy such an award. The randomised treatment which followed this decision, as described below, could not be reduced to any contract form for the Board to consider, therefore there was no contract to ratify, and neither the Board nor any other party can know of the piece workers’ treatment.
3/ The decision taken at fourteen meetings between 84 and 03 to deny the piece workers any wage award whatsoever.
4/ The decision taken at five meetings between 84 and 03 to allow the piece workers a meagre wage award.
In 2003 both Board and Inland Revenue were told that the piece workers were contractors, this despite the fact that their randomised treatment, which began in 1984, denied them any contract status whatsoever.
I therefore ask to see.
5/ The decision to tell the Inland Revenue that the piece workers were contractors.
6/ The decision taken in 2003 to abolish contractor piece work, something which had not even existed since 1984.
As a result of this decision the piece workers were put from their work for nine months without pay. In 2004 they were allowed to return to work, but without any explanation or apology. The Inland Revenue ruled that some piece workers had always been self employed in status, and others were employees, whereas in fact they all, at that time, had no employment status whatsoever.
I therefore ask to see.
7/ The decision in 04 to allow the piece workers to return to work, without giving them any explanation or apology, and for their pay rates to be based on those of the late 1980s, as they are to this day.
8/ The decision made in 04 to offer the piece workers a contract for the first time since the 1984 decision to deny the piece workers a contract.
9/ The decision to ask me to “Put in a “Claim” for “The Board” to consider, as
conveyed to me by two consecutive Board members, as at (2) and (7), and to not offer any explanation as to why this “Claim” was necessary.
10/ The decision to place Mr Price’s submission, which asked for piece worker treatment to be considered by the full Board, to the end that restitution should be made to them for damage suffered as at (8) “In the hands of the Board’s solicitor” rather than be placed before the full Board.
11/ The decision made in 2004 not to answer the District Auditor’s questions as at (14) which asked all questions as asked here fifteen years ago.
12/ The decision to distribute these questions to all Board members.
13/ The multiple decisions made to ignore submissions to the Board re piece worker treatment made by myself and Nigel Adams MP.
14/ The decision to advise Board members not to contact me, and to tell me not to contact Board members, on pain of legal action.
15/ The decision to appoint a solicitor to contact me as per the above decisions.
16/ The decision, as at (13), to authorise the solicitor to invite me to a meeting to discuss an unspecified matter, and, that if I did not comply in this, that any further contact would be forbidden on pain of legal action.
In all of this, please also bear in mind the Board’s obligations to me as a “Whistleblower.”
Yours Sincerely
W P Crooks
This as sent to the Board’s solicitor and all Selby Area Internal Drainage Board members.
Dear Mr Ware
As you leave some doubt as to whether you saw my communication with the Board of 13th January, I will begin again. All numbered references may be found at https://theselbysecret.weebly.com
You are termed “The Board’s solicitor.” In this capacity your client is the Board as a legal entity, and you thus owe a duty of care to this entity, to all constituent parts of the Board, and to the public at large. In order to fulfil your brief to supply me with relevant documents, you must necessarily acquaint yourself entirely with all of this matter. I therefore ask for your help and seek to inform your opinion.
The origin of all of this matter lies in the fact that, from1984 to 2003 the piece workers’ wage rates were more than halved. This injustice came about because Board members thought that the piece workers always enjoyed the annual “Staff” cost of living wage award, and the piece workers, on the other hand, believed that the Board members were voting every year to cut their wage rates. Thus both members and workers were denied the truth. This state of affairs has been compounded because contact between workers and Board members has been forbidden, as at (9) and (13
So, between 1984 and 2003 the piece workers of Selby IDB were brought almost to pauperisation by being denied any cost of living wage award. The crucial question here, and the one which no one will answer is “What party authorised this bizarre situation?” Here I refer you to a specific document as at (1) and ask you to verify this by consulting the minutes on which it is based. I ask to see same if these differ from (1).
It will be seen that the Clerk tells us that no minuted record whatsoever was made of piece worker treatment between 1982 and 2003. I am led to understand that boards are required by law to have minutes taken, which must provide a record of motions, votes and abstentions. I ask you then, as a solicitor, was any offence committed here? If so, what was this offence? Also, if no legal record of the piece workers’ treatment exists, how can your client, the Board as a legal entity, know of this part of its own business from 82 to 03? I also ask to see any document which informed the Board, as a legal entity, of the actuality of piece worker treatment 1982 to the present date. If these concerns are answered, many requests on the list which follows will be unnecessary, but this is up to you. As of now, I ask to see the minuted documents re the following decisions, which, as matters of persons’ rights, should, properly, have been made and recorded by the full Board.
1/ The decision to appoint your firm of solicitors to act for the Board in providing relevant documents.
2/ The 1984 decision to begin to deny the piece workers any annual cost of living wage award, this whilst the weekly paid workers and management continued to enjoy such an award. The randomised treatment which followed this decision, as described below, could not be reduced to any contract form for the Board to consider, therefore there was no contract to ratify, and neither the Board nor any other party can know of the piece workers’ treatment.
3/ The decision taken at fourteen meetings between 84 and 03 to deny the piece workers any wage award whatsoever.
4/ The decision taken at five meetings between 84 and 03 to allow the piece workers a meagre wage award.
In 2003 both Board and Inland Revenue were told that the piece workers were contractors, this despite the fact that their randomised treatment, which began in 1984, denied them any contract status whatsoever.
I therefore ask to see.
5/ The decision to tell the Inland Revenue that the piece workers were contractors.
6/ The decision taken in 2003 to abolish contractor piece work, something which had not even existed since 1984.
As a result of this decision the piece workers were put from their work for nine months without pay. In 2004 they were allowed to return to work, but without any explanation or apology. The Inland Revenue ruled that some piece workers had always been self employed in status, and others were employees, whereas in fact they all, at that time, had no employment status whatsoever.
I therefore ask to see.
7/ The decision in 04 to allow the piece workers to return to work, without giving them any explanation or apology, and for their pay rates to be based on those of the late 1980s, as they are to this day.
8/ The decision made in 04 to offer the piece workers a contract for the first time since the 1984 decision to deny the piece workers a contract.
9/ The decision to ask me to “Put in a “Claim” for “The Board” to consider, as
conveyed to me by two consecutive Board members, as at (2) and (7), and to not offer any explanation as to why this “Claim” was necessary.
10/ The decision to place Mr Price’s submission, which asked for piece worker treatment to be considered by the full Board, to the end that restitution should be made to them for damage suffered as at (8) “In the hands of the Board’s solicitor” rather than be placed before the full Board.
11/ The decision made in 2004 not to answer the District Auditor’s questions as at (14) which asked all questions as asked here fifteen years ago.
12/ The decision to distribute these questions to all Board members.
13/ The multiple decisions made to ignore submissions to the Board re piece worker treatment made by myself and Nigel Adams MP.
14/ The decision to advise Board members not to contact me, and to tell me not to contact Board members, on pain of legal action.
15/ The decision to appoint a solicitor to contact me as per the above decisions.
16/ The decision, as at (13), to authorise the solicitor to invite me to a meeting to discuss an unspecified matter, and, that if I did not comply in this, that any further contact would be forbidden on pain of legal action.
In all of this, please also bear in mind the Board’s obligations to me as a “Whistleblower.”
Yours Sincerely
W P Crooks