Police to take no further action against former council leader over perjury allegations.

Police investigating allegations former Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell committed perjury when he appeared at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) say there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to take any criminal action against him.

• www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/120432/former-council-leader-richard-farnell-being-assessed-by-police-for-perjury

The first report from the inquiry found Councillor Farnell had ‘lied under oath’ when giving evidence about the town’s notorious Knowl View school, where children were abused over a period spanning more than 25 years.

The document branded Councillor Farnell – who has always strongly denied he misled the inquiry – as ‘shameful’ for refusing to take responsibility for the abuse that happened under his watch when he was leader of the council between 1986 and 1992.

And it added that it ‘defies belief’ he was unaware of the events involving the school.

The findings prompted Richard Scorer – the lawyer who represented Knowl View abuse victims – to call for perjury charges to be considered against Councillor Farnell.

In May 2018 the Metropolitan Police received a referral from Greater Manchester Police requesting the force reviewed an allegation of perjury by a witness to the IICSA.

But following a lengthy investigation the Metropolitan Police have written to Councillor Farnell to inform him they will not be taking matters any further following a ‘full review’ of the evidence.

The letter, signed by Acting Detective Chief Inspector Gail Granville states: “Having carefully considered all the material gathered that was subject to review, I have concluded there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the criminal standard that you wilfully, that is to say deliberately and not inadvertently or by mistake, made a statement that you know to be false or did not believe to be true.
“As a result, no further action will be taken by the Metropolitan Police in relation to the allegation.”

Councillor Farnell, who stood down as council leader just weeks after giving his evidence to the inquiry, has welcomed the decision.

He said: “I am really pleased that following a thorough 12 month investigation by the Metropolitan Police they have decided not to prosecute me for perjury.

“I have always maintained I told the truth to the inquiry and the Metropolitan Police’s decision vindicates this.

“There is not one scrap of evidence that I knew about the failings at Knowl View almost 30 years ago. The council’s most senior officers at the time  – the chief executive and directors of education and social services – all told the inquiry they did not inform me.

“The inquiry examined  over 100,000 pages of letters, reports and documents and not a single one was addressed to me or informed me about Knowl View.

“Several leading councillors at the time all told the inquiry that they too were kept in the dark by officers about Knowl View. “

Referring to Operation Clifton – an investigation into the alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse at Knowl View – Councillor Farnell added:

“ A previous two-year inquiry by Greater Manchester Police into allegations of a cover-up of Knowl View found there was absolutely no evidence to support this.

“The inquiry was handed a 16 page report of evidence proving beyond any doubt I was not informed about Knowl View which, bizarrely, they ignored.”

Councillor Farnell, who continues to represent the Balderstone and Kirkholt ward, said it has been ‘extremely stressful’ to have the allegation hanging over him for twelve months, but thanked the police for a ‘thorough investigation’.

He added: “I was always confident it would come to nothing because I told the truth to the inquiry and all the evidence supports this.

“However, we must never, never forget the victims in this tragedy. It was only under my leadership that the council apologised for its failings at Knowl View.”

When he stood down as council leader Councillor Farnell blamed a ‘small minority’ of Labour members for ‘undermining’ his leadership following the hearing.

He was later suspended by the Labour party and is yet to be reinstated.

But he has now been backed by his successor, current council leader Allen Brett.

Councillor Brett said: “I am delighted that, after examining all the evidence, the police have dropped the case.
“I have known Richard for over thirty years and he is a man of integrity and honesty. I am worried political opponents have been trying to make him a scapegoat in all of this.

“I know Richard has a lot of friends and supporters in the Labour Party who will be really pleased with the decision. I will be pressing for his suspension from the Labour Party to be immediately lifted.”
And he also received support from the leader of Rochdale Council’s Conservative group, Councillor Ashley Dearnley.

More – https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/127700/police-to-take-no-further-action-against-former-council-leader-over-perjury-allegations
Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter

Risk Of Child Abuse, Slavery And Domestic Violence In Gwynedd As 'High' Due To Lack Of Safeguarding Training,

The risk level at Gwynedd council has been judged as “high” when it comes to protecting children and adults from abuse, neglect, radicalisation, slavery, domestic violence and exploitation, say auditors. 

The council auditors could only offer “limited assurance” on Gwynedd’s safeguarding arrangements after random checks found some residential home staff had not received mandatory training.

Gwynedd council said steps are already underway to address the findings, but issues raised include some residential home staff not having completed the necessary “safeguarding of vulnerable adults” training, with others also requiring a refresher after more than three years had passed since their last session.

Auditors also found that some leisure centre staff had failed to complete “e-learning” modules on safeguarding adults, child protection and safeguarding and domestic abuse.

As a result, Gwynedd’s audit committee passed to discuss the findings of the report during a sub-committee meeting over the coming weeks.

In their summing up, the internal audit noted that, while nine out of 10 staff members at one leisure centre had completed the ‘Safeguarding Adults’, ‘Child Protection and Safeguarding’ and ‘Domestic Abuse’ modules in the last two years, only a “small number” of staff from the other centres had completed the safeguarding modules.

They had been told by one duty manager that this training was “under way” and that the intention was to get the workers to complete the training “in the coming weeks.”

The auditors confirmed that a sample of officers from the four homes were selected and each was found to have a current Disclosure and Barring Service  (DBS) disclosure.

However, the report added: “Not all (care home) staff had received safeguarding of vulnerable adults training, and cases were identified where it was necessary for the training to be renewed.

“Employees should receive classroom training for safeguarding every three years. The training of several staff dated back more than the three-year period with some dating back to 2010.
“The manager was aware of the situation and it was found that she had organised safeguarding training for 13 members of staff during the year to come.”

It added: “E-learning training records including ‘Domestic Abuse’, ‘Safeguarding Adults’ and ‘Child Protection and Safeguarding’ modules were checked, a small number of staff had completed these modules at the time of the audit.

“Managers were aware of the need to complete these modules, one of them identified the difficulties they have had to get access to all staff and also the need to ensure a supply of staff on duty while others complete the modules.

“It is not necessary for staff to complete the safeguarding modules as they already receive face to face training but in terms of the ‘Domestic Abuse’ module it is necessary for all council staff to complete the module.”

Responding to the findings, a Gwynedd Council spokesperson said that robust arrangements and procedures to ensure that residents are protected is “a priority.”

“Every member of staff is responsible for reporting on concerns or suspicion that individuals are being abused,” he added.

More - https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/17449306.auditors-judge-risk-of-child-abuse-slavery-and-domestic-violence-in-gwynedd-as-high-due-to-lack-of-safeguarding-training/

7 Managers And Three Members Of Staff Have Left Gisda, amid Bullying Claims.

Ten former employees at a homeless charity have said the chief executive's behaviour led them to leave their jobs.

Since 2011, seven managers and three members of staff have left Gisda, with many claiming to have been bullied.
The board of directors at the charity, based in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, said it had confidence in the ability of Sian Elen Tomos.
The youth charity is "committed to creating a healthy work space for its entire staff," the board added.
The BBC has spoken to 10 former Gisda employees who claim Ms Tomos's managerial style was the reason they left.

None were willing to do an interview publicly - but one agreed to speak anonymously.

Eileen - not her real name - said Ms Tomos "could make people feel very uncomfortable".
"Not taking into account what anyone else said, ignoring people and making it obvious in front of other people, turning her back on you as you were speaking to her and walking away," she explained.
"I've seen her walking out of a number of meetings. She would not speak to people for days. Not speaking at all. And she could be nasty to people too.
"I think she worked on people's weaknesses - bullyng, really."

"I didn't want to go to work," she added. "I think it affected young people too. They could see so much turnover.
"There was a feeling that she was untouchable. If anyone disagreed with her she got rid of them - or worked to get rid of them."

A letter sent to the board of directors and seen by the BBC shows a number of staff complained about the situation in 2017.

The BBC understands only three formal complaints have been made since 2011, but a number of former staff said they did not complain formally because they felt they would be ignored.

The letter noted staff felt "suspicious, dispirited, anxious and angry", and the charity needed to act decisively if the board wished "to avoid a morale crisis".
The letter finished by calling on the board to "consider the high level of staff turnover in the organisation".

Later in 2017, an independent report was commissioned by the charity in response to the grievances of two managers.

The BBC has seen a copy of the report, which states the grievances of the two previous managers and the complaints made by the chief executive about her staff, were partly upheld.

Acknowledging further issues at Gisda, the report made a number of recommendations.

These included to arrange mediation between Ms Tomos and the two former managers and the board should review its complaints procedures so complaints were acted upon and not ignored.

According to Eileen, who left months after the independent report was published, the recommendations were not acted upon.

Four other former members of staff who left after the report was published agreed.

To see positive change, Eileen said the charity should appoint a new board of directors and chief executive.

Ms Tomos and the chairman of the board of directors, Tudor Owen, were given the opportunity to respond separately to the claims.

More - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48044912

Official who OK'd Obama birth papers dies in crash - USA TODAY - 2013

From 2013 -

The Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate died in a small plane crash.

The plane, carrying a pilot and eight passengers, went down Wednesday in the water a half mile off the Hawaiian island of Molokai, the Maui Fire Department said. The lone fatality was Loretta Fuddy, who has served as state health director since January 2011. Tom Matsuda, the interim executive director of Hawaii's health insurance exchange, confirmed Fuddy's death.

Fuddy, 65, made national news in April 2011 when she verified the authenticity of certified copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Obama had requested the release to curb claims by so-called "birthers" that he was born in Kenya and not eligible to be president.

Makani Kai Air President Richard Schuman told Honolulu-based KITV that he spoke with the pilot of the single-engine turboprop Cessna Grand Caravan after the crash.

"What he reported is after takeoff ... there was catastrophic engine failure," Schuman said. "He did the best he can to bring the aircraft down safely and he got everybody out of the aircraft."
Schuman said the cause of the engine failure had not yet been determined. The National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the crash; NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that based on the location of the crash it was unlikely the plane will be recovered.

"Our hearts are broken," Gov. Neil Abercrombie said in a statement. "Loretta was deeply loved and respected. She was selfless, utterly dedicated and committed to her colleagues in the Department of Health and to the people of Hawaii. Her knowledge was vast; her counsel and advice always given from her heart as much as from her storehouse of experience."

More -  https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/

new model army spirit of the falklands

US preparing more charges against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site

On Wednesday, CNN reported US federal prosecutors confirmed there is
an “ongoing criminal investigation” of Julian Assange, the 47-year-old
founder of WikiLeaks. Prosecutors also indicated “affiliates” of Assange
are under investigation, this according to another newly unsealed
document.



According to the CNN report, at least one document related to
this investigation has been withheld from the public due to “ongoing
activity.”




The revelation, CNN reported, “confirms CNN and other news outlets’
reporting in recent days that WikiLeaks is connected to at least one
probe that could result in more criminal charges.”




The report confirms the warnings made by the WSWS and others that the
charges related to computer hacking leveled against Assange are merely a
pretext for his extradition to the United States, after which
additional charges would be brought against him.




On April 11, Assange was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in
London and arrested by British officials on the public charge of
conspiracy to bypass a password. That charge dated back to events in the
2011 WikiLeaks’ publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs.
Chelsea Manning turned over more than half a million documents exposing
US war crimes and corruption to WikiLeaks for publication.




The expulsion and arrest of Assange has been accompanied by an
unrestrained campaign of media vilification aimed at transforming
Assange into a non-person, undeserving of democratic rights.




But since Assange has been imprisoned in the maximum-security
Belmarsh prison, public comments made by leading Democrats and US media
officials indicate that charge was not the primary aim of the US
investigation.




Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that
Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account
for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian
government.” Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the
national security of the United States and our allies by publicly
releasing classified government documents and confidential materials
related to our 2016 presidential election.”




US, British and Ecuadorian governments have claimed Assange’s
extradition is proper because the US is indicting on a single charge:
attempting to help Chelsea Manning bypass a password. But this has now
been revealed to be only the pretext. The real reason the US wants
custody of the whistleblower was stated by Schumer and Engel.




On April 15, the WSWS wrote
that these statements demonstrate the extradition proceedings are being
conducted under false pretenses: “The single public charge is a cover.
The government is planning to interrogate Assange, compel him to provide
testimony and further prosecute him for exposing US war crimes.” (“Stop
the extraordinary rendition of Julian Assange!”)




In December 2017, US prosecutors told a federal judge they wanted to
keep secret the charges Assange might face because learning of them
might have caused him to flee the Ecuadorian embassy. According to CNN,
the recently unsealed documents indicate that a grand jury in Virginia
indicted Assange in 2018 and prosecutors again demanded the charges be
kept secret for the same reason, and added their worries about evidence
tampering and witness intimidation.


More - US preparing more charges against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq

The Life and Lies of Jeffrey Archer - Have I Got News For You

Post Office Trial: The ballad of Paula Vennells

Paula Vennells this week announced she'll be leaving the Post Office to join Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust as its Chair in April. In January she was awarded a CBE and on 7 Feb she was appointed as a non-executive board member to the Cabinet Office. She leaves her organisation fighting a class action which has the potential to sink it (see timeline here).
Paula Vennells' award and the appointments have outraged dozens of
former Subpostmasters who hold her ultimately responsible for what
happened to them - variously sacked, criminalised and ruined.

Ms Vennells joined the Post Office
in 2006. She was head-hunted after a career working for massive blue
chip companies. She started as a graduate trainee at Unilever, moved to
L’Oreal, then Dixons Retail, Argos and finally Whitbread. On her
decision to join the Post Office she told the Daily Telegraph:

“I felt I’d done the rounds in terms
of big corporate jobs and saw something in the Post Office that was
bigger and deeper, maybe it was something about giving back. If you work
for the Post Office you can’t just focus on the commercial side by
itself, it’s about community too. People care desperately for the Post
Office. Very often it’s the sub-postmaster or mistress that notices that
an elderly customer hasn’t turned up recently and finds out what’s
happened to them.”

This quote suggests there was a
moral and possibly even spiritual motivation behind her decision. She
acknowledges that the public care for the Post Office and recognises
this is largely because of the actions of Subpostmasters who "very
often" act in a socially-responsible community-minded way. She wanted,
in essence, to join the Post Office for the same reasons many
Subpostmasters joined - to make a good living, yes, but also to put
something back into the community.

What would Jesus do?

The Reverend Paula Vennells is an ordained christian minister. She preaches throughout the Bromham Benefice near her home in Bedfordshire. She has spoken about Faith in Business and how Jesus is her guide in what she does, as a review of one of her speeches records:

"Paula has taken biblical
inspiration from the young King Solomon, who showed humility in asking
God for a wise and understanding heart, so that he could rule his people
with justice (1 Kings 3:6-12).... She has sought to celebrate what is
good and deal decisively with what is not. She says communication should
be inspiring, but also well structured, and it should not duck
complexity – over-simple messages can leave people dissatisfied. In all
this she has found inspiration from the person of Jesus."

More - Post Office Trial: The ballad of Paula Vennells:

Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Meeting Concluded.

The Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on the 6th November, 2018,
have finally surfaced and have been presented to the Committee meeting
on the 31st January, 2019.



The meeting in November was held to receive the Care Inspectorate Wales
(CIW) Report AND the Annual Complaints Handling Report of the Supporting
Children and Families department.



Previous blog posts have publicised the emails sent to the members of
the Care Scrutiny Committee in which issues were raised with the
'accuracy' of the Complaints Report, authored and presented by Dafydd
Paul.



The minutes are, also, not an accurate record of the meeting and an
email was sent to the Democratic Services on the morning of the meeting
raising this point and asking for an explanation.



No reply was given and the meeting went ahead with the Minutes signed
and are now seen as an accurate record - they are not. I wonder if the
email was even presented to the Committee.



https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/400538



Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.



Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Meeting Concluded.:

Cyngor Gwynedd Councillor's Responsibilities And Constitution.

The Council's Constitution contains the rules and procedures for
making decisions and managing the Council's business.  In the
Constitution you will find information on the committee structure, its
procedures, the rights given to individual officers and members to make
decisions, the standards of conduct expected and the allowances paid to
members.

The Constitution is a large document which has been divided into a number of sections (see below).

https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Strategies-and-policies/Corporate-plans-and-strategies/TheConstitution.aspx

SECTION 1 - Introduction

SECTION 2 - Purpose, definition interpretation and amendment of the constitution

SECTION 3 - Getting information and getting involved

SECTION 4 - Full Council

SECTION 5 - The Cabinet

SECTION 6 - The Leader

SECTION 7 - Scrutiny Committees

SECTION 8 - The Standards Committee

SECTION 9 - Regulatory Committees

SECTION 10 - Joint Committees

SECTION 11 - Officers

SECTION 12 - Finance contracts and legal matters

SECTION 13 - Responsibility for functions – Summary

SECTION 14 - Access to information procedure rules

SECTION 15 - Budget and policy framework procedure rules

SECTION 16 - Financial procedure rules

SECTION 17 - Contract standing orders and procurement rules

SECTION 18 - Members' code of conduct

SECTION 19 - Planning code of practice

SECTION 20 - Code of conduct for employees

SECTION 21 - Protocol on member / officer relations

SECTION 22 - Whistleblowing Policy 

 https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Strategies-and-policies/Corporate-plans-and-strategies/TheConstitution.aspx

If you have any questions or observations on the Constitution, contact the Monitoring Officer: IwanGDEvans@gwynedd.llyw.cymru

Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Constitution And Councillor's Respo...:

Seemorerocks: The truth behind Venezuela's collapse

Seemorerocks: The truth behind Venezuela's collapse: Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017 Emersberger analyses the recent article by government critic...

Attempted Coup in Venezuela with Abby Martin, Greg Wilpert, Paul Jay

99% is ....... The Barnet Eye: Why the time has come to stop writing blogs

99% is ....... The Barnet Eye: Why the time has come to stop writing blogs: Every day I spend two/three hours writing and researching this blog. It is a Labour of love. Over the last ten and a quarter years, I've...

Seemorerocks: NZ globalist PM Adern hobnobs with the elite at Da...

Seemorerocks: NZ globalist PM Adern hobnobs with the elite at Da...: Hypocrisy comes to mind quickly. This article accurately points out the policies of this government. Adern is hobnobbing with spome...

In The Public Domain?: SKIDDER NEWS FLASH - ELING SUSPENDED!

In The Public Domain?: SKIDDER NEWS FLASH - ELING SUSPENDED!: Labour sources are contacting The Skidder this morning to say the Leader [sic] of bent Sandwell Labour Sandwell Council has been suspended b...

Brian Eno and David Byrne "The Jezebel Spirit"

Theatre of Hate -- Do You Believe In The Westworld?

Who robbed Tom Kennedy's farm at Killkillahara Thurles?

The Greatest Speech Ever - Robert F Kennedy Announcing The Death Of Mart...

The Great Dictator Speech (by- Charlie Chaplin ) with Subtitles HD

Pete North Politics Blog: Britain's sham democracy

 The Daily Mail reports
today that "Redundancy packages for two executives at the centre of
council mergers will cost taxpayers almost £1million. Nine local
authorities in Dorset will combine to form just two in April.

Senior staff losing their jobs are being handed payouts which vastly
exceed a cap on the public sector’s so-called ‘golden parachutes’. Jane
Portman, the managing director of Bournemouth Borough Council, is to
receive a pay and pension redundancy package of £473,000, it was
announced yesterday. Debbie Ward, chief executive of Dorset County
Council, has been awarded the same amount after leaving her post in
November".

You would think this would be bigger news, but it's not big news because
this is run of the mill. I've been keeping an eye on this exact sort of
story for more than ten years now and this is only newsworthy by way of
the figures involved being marginally higher than usual. It
occasionally makes the news but generally doesn't make it past above
local coverage. As offensive as it is, nobody has lifted a finger to do
anything about it. 

These sums of themselves are offensive in that nobody in local
government management is worth that much and especially not for
midranking authorities in the rural shires. But when you account for the
fact that council at the bottom end is still more than £1000, that's
hundreds of households threatened with bailiffs and imprisonment if they
don't cough up to finance these parasites.

Some 2.2 million
people were visited by bailiffs in the last two years. Citizens Advice
have found that one in three people have seen bailiffs breaking the
rules, 40 per cent have suffered intimidation and there has been a 24
per cent increase in problems since the Government’s reforms were
introduced in 2014. The reforms themselves did nothing to address the
problem of bailiffs being self-regulating and accountable to nobody,
further entrenching the rip off fee system. 

 
What's interesting in respect of these grotesque payouts is the circumstances
where Parliament, without seeking local consent, has passed legislation
for Dorset's nine councils to merge into two unitary authorities. Under
the plans, due to come into effect in April, Bournemouth, Poole and
Christchurch would merge. A second council would be formed from Dorset
County Council, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, Weymouth &
Portland and West Dorset. Why council mergers go anywhere near
Westminster for approval escapes me.

Christchurch Borough Council formally opposed the plans and launched a
legal challenge but in a joint statement, the leaders of the other eight
councils described the passing of the legislation as "an historic day
for local government" in the county. "These two new councils will have a
stronger, co-ordinated voice when bidding for government funding and
investment for things like road improvements, housing, schools and
economic regeneration; the things that benefit an area for all those
living within it".

More - Pete North Politics Blog: Britain's sham democracy

Bruce Springsteen - Streets of Philadelphia (Official Music Video)

The Corrs - Forgiven Not Forgotten

Sinead O'Connor - This is a Rebel Song

Sister Bliss - Deliver Me [2000]

Zack Hemsey - "Nice To Meet Me"

Saudi Arabia | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix

Stats for Lefties: Should I stay or should I go? Labour’s Brexit dile...

With the government having finally put its proposed Brexit deal on the table, and with a
Parliamentary vote imminent, the Labour Party and its 257 MPs face a dramatic
test of their Brexit position. 

Despite the vocal demands of the “People’s Vote”
campaign, Labour has declined to back a second EU referendum, and has instead
prioritised a general election so that Labour can form a government and
negotiate a Brexit deal that meets its “6 tests” for a good deal. As part of
this strategy, Labour will vote against the Tories’ Brexit deal - the idea is
that if the Tories’ Brexit deal cannot pass the Commons, then the government
will be forced to call a general election to obtain a mandate for May’s deal.
Labour can then win the election and renegotiate a new deal. If Labour cannot
obtain an election, then all options (including a second referendum) remain on
the table.

The nuanced approach of Labour’s policy has often left pro-EU campaigners frustrated and
angry – many ask why Labour doesn’t simply back a second referendum or support
stopping Brexit outright. The reasons for Labour’s complex strategy, however,
are equally complex, and in this article we’ll try take a look at the
statistics that illustrate Labour’s dilemma.

Part 1: Play to Win 

On the face of it, Labour’s base is mostly anti-Brexit. In
the most recent Survation poll (the most accurate pollsters in
2017), the pollster found that 65% of those who voted Labour in 2017 would vote
‘Remain’ in a second EU referendum. Other surveys have found that
90% of Labour members support ‘Remain’, and that 78%
of Labour members back a second referendum on Brexit. With the
Brexit vote having gone to Leave by only a 4pt margin (52-48) in 2016, and with
public opinion having slightly shifted towards Remain since 2016, you might
think Labour’s path is clear: it should follow the advice of its voters and
members, adopt a ‘Stop Brexit’ (or second referendum) manifesto pledge and win
the votes of the pro-EU 48%. Simple. 

But the problem Labour faces is this: the House of Commons isn’t elected through a
national popular vote. It’s elected through individual constituencies. And on
the question of Brexit, the vast majority of those constituencies lean more
strongly one way or the other than the nation as a whole. Within England, Wales and Scotland, just 18 constituencies recorded a vote that matched the national
figure (52% Leave, 48% Remain). 350 gave a higher vote share to Leave (on
average, 60% for Leave), whilst 264 gave a higher share to Remain than the
national figure (on average, 59% for Remain). And if Labour wants to become the
governing party, especially with an overall majority, it has to win dozens upon
dozens of constituencies where the voters backed Leave. 

In total, Labour needs to gain 64 new seats (and retain its current ones) to win an
overall majority. The smoothest path runs through the 76 seats where Labour is
behind the opposition by less than 10 percentage points. 42 of these voted Leave (with a 59% Leave vote, on average), and 36 voted Remain (with a 61% Remain vote, on average).

This in itself shows Labour’s challenge – it cannot win a majority without taking seats that
went heavily for Leave AND that went heavily for Remain. However, the challenge
is greater than it looks. Of those marginal seats, 23 of the 36 pro-Remain
seats are held by the SNP or Plaid Cymru, and taking seats from the two
nationalist parties doesn’t increase the number of anti-Conservative MPs in the
Commons. Labour could take every single one of these seats and it wouldn’t make
any difference: the Tories would still form the government.

The seats thatmatter most are the 54 Conservative-held Labour target seats. And of these 54
seats, a full 41 voted Leave (with an average Leave vote of 59%), and just 13
voted ‘Remain’ (with an average Remain vote of 57%). These 54 seats are listed
in the table below.

The upshot ofit all is this. Labour voters might be pro-Remain. Labour members might be
pro-Remain. And the national vote in 2016 may have been close. But in most of
the marginal seats that Labour must win in order to form the next government,
the voters leaned heavily towards Leave in 2016.

A Labour Party committed to overturning those people’s votes and keeping Britain in the EU
against their wishes might well win a handful of votes from the Liberal
Democrats, and take some seats from the SNP, but the price might well be losing
to the Tories in dozens upon dozens of marginal seats. That doesn’t sound like
a risk worth taking. Labour’s nuanced and unifying Brexit policy, that respects
the referendum whilst reaching out to Remain voters, may well be the only way
for the party to win in these marginal seats. After all, it’s that strategy
that saw Labour win 42% of the popular vote in England in 2017 – its highest
share of the vote since 1997.

Part 2: The Magnificent Six 

But Labour’selectoral challenge extends beyond their marginal target seats. There are a
total of 54 Labour-held seats where the party leads its opponent by less than
10 points, and to win power Labour must also hold all of these constituencies
(or all but a few of them). Of these, Labour is being challenged by the SNP in
6 of them, meaning that regardless of the result the seat will elect an
anti-Conservative MP. Of the other 48 Labour-held marginal seats in England and
Wales, the Tories are in second place in 46, with the other two being Labour/Lib
Dem marginals. And most of these (36, to be exact) voted Leave.

More -   Stats for Lefties: Should I stay or should I go? Labour’s Brexit dile...:

TMB Industry News: TMB apologises after intern tweeted 'wrong image'....

 The Tripe Marketing Board has apologised after tweeting an image which
was interpreted by a number of people as suggesting that UK Prime
Minister Theresa May had been chosen as a 'poster girl' by the TMB.

The error occured after an intern covering the

Mistaken cow image

TMB's Twitter account over the Bank Holiday weekend mistook an
instruction to post an image of a cow which had appeared next to the PM
on her recent pre-election photo opportunity tour of the UK.

More - TMB Industry News: TMB apologises after intern tweeted 'wrong image'....:

New Model Army - Vengeance (1984) (Full Album)

Red-Pieces with lyrics (good song)

All That Is Solid ...: Top 100 Tweeting Politics Commentators 2018

 It's the most
wonderful time of the year! As the curtains begin drawing on another
turbulent 12 months in politics, it's time to pour the mulled wine, help
yourself to a crafty mince pie and get down with that other venerable
annual tradition: the totting up of who's hot and who's not in the world
of political comment. At least where Twitter is concerned.



Every year there might be folks who've never clapped eyes on this time sink before, so let's recap the basics. These are not my top 100 commentators. I repeat, these are not my top 100 commentators. The people listed below are the hundred most followed commentators in the UK Twitterverse. But nothing is ever that simple, oh no. There are some exclusions. Sitting politicians
aren't included, so while Nigel Farage, for instance, has his nice LBC
gig he won't make his debut on this here list until next year - assuming
we survive the chill winds of Brexit - when the European Parliament has
dispensed with his services. Likewise, Brits abroad who earn their
moolah or infamy commenting primarily on US politics are barred too. In
plain English, no Mensch, and no Prison Planet twerp. And the final
condition is all of these have to regularly produce comment or analysis
outside of Twitter. People who just tweet and nothing else don't make
the cut.



If you're wondering why I do this, it originally began
as clickbait in the early days of Twitter (ask anyone on this list who
were around in the early days of political tweeting and their eyes will
grow misty with nostalgia). But as the novelty has worn off I've kept
with it because, well, the movements on the list over the years have
been plenty interesting. In the beginning one-writer-and-their-blog
outfits ruled the roost (even I made the first!), but gradually traditional
media power and reach asserted itself and Twitter became a crude
measure of the popularity of the people it featured. With very few
exceptions, radical, marginalised, and amateur pundits were squeezed out
and an establishment, um, established. And this was maintained by Very
Important People publicly tweeting and cross promoting the tweets of
other Very Important People. There are people on this list who rarely if
ever engage with the hoi polloi but are still very happy to
promote the works/books/hot takes of their mates, making it very
difficult - but not impossible - for outsiders to acquire the sorts of
followings amassed here.



Enough of the nonsense, here's this year's list with a brief analysis to follow!



1. (1) Jon Snow (1.33m followers)

2. (2) Robert Peston (938k followers)

3. (4) Laura Kuenssberg (890k followers)

4. (3) Nick Robinson (880k followers)

5. (5) Andrew Neil (834k followers)

6. (6) Owen Jones (760k followers)

7. (7) Paul Mason (602k followers)

8. (8) Krishnan Guru-Murthy (521k followers)

9. (9) Evan Davis (498k followers)

10. (10) Alastair Campbell (445k followers)

11. (11) Kay Burley (409k followers)

12. (12) Andrew Rawnsley (399k followers)

13. (14) James O'Brien (390k followers)

14. (13) George Galloway (301k followers)

15. (16) Faisal Islam (277k followers)

16. (30) Harry's Last Stand (252k followers)

17. (15) Guido Fawkes (248k followers)

18. (20) Jim Waterson (234k followers)

19. (19) George Monbiot (232k followers)

20. (17) George Osborne (229k followers)

21. (22) Maajid Nawaz (223k followers)

22. (NE) Carole Cadwalladr (222k followers)

23. (24) Mary Beard (214k followers)

24. (21) Fraser Nelson (207k followers)

25. (27) Marina Hyde (202k followers)

26. (26) Britain Elects (181k followers)

27. (25) Michael Crick (176k followers)

28. (23) Laurie Penny (176k followers)

29. (28) Cathy Newman (174k followers)

30. (32) Kevin Maguire (166k followers)

31. (39) Hugo Rifkind (164k followers)

32. (31) Mark Steel (163k followers)

33. (40) Jack Monroe (160k followers)

34. (29) Polly Toynbee (160k followers)

35. (42) Douglas Murray (156k followers)

36. (34) Hadley Freeman (148k followers)

37. (33) Tim Montgomerie (145k followers)

38. (38) Isabel Hardman (140k followers)

39. (36) David Allen Green (137k followers)

40. (35) Paul Waugh (133k followers)

41. (54) Julia Hartley-Brewer (132k followers)

42. (37) Adam Boulton (132k followers)

43. (61) Ian Dunt (130k followers)

44. (48) Emily Maitlis (128k followers)

45. (43) Iain Dale (124k followers)

46. (41) David Aaronovitch (123k followers)

47. (50) Andrew Marr (118k followers)

48. (51) Nick Ferrari (117k followers)

49. (47) John Rentoul (113k followers)

50. (49) Dan Hodges (112k followers)



More -  All That Is Solid ...: Top 100 Tweeting Politics Commentators 2018:

Zack Hemsey - "See What I've Become"

In The Public Domain?: 50 Shades of GMB's Sarah James!

Back in December, 2014 I had never even heard of Sarah James - employed
by the taxpayer as an employee of bent Labour Sandwell Council - but
farmed out as a full-time rep of the GMB Union at our cost.



The late "leader" of Sandwell Council, Dickhead/Cokehead Darren Cooper,
set up a massive trolling campaign in late 2014 against me and my wife.
Anyone who knew Cooper - who used to physically beat-up at least one
woman - was aware that he had a playground bully mentality. In December,
2014 he used social media to put up pictures of me taken covertly in
Oldbury Wetherspoons:

[Incidentally - Cooper is said to have died in a drink and drug fuelled
"session". Happily his death meant that all the - then 16 - troll
accounts (operated with the help of Andrew Hipkiss) abusing me and my
wife suddenly stopped tweeting! Even the BBC and others picked up on the
rumours of Cooper's drug-taking but all was hushed up - perhaps
unsurprisingly as the current Chief Constable of corrupt West Midlands
Police, Dave Thompson, thought he was the dog's bollocks - which, in one
sense, he was. A caller yesterday gave me interesting information that
his drug of choice was cocaine but perhaps his pal the Chief Constable
can provide some more information about that?]



In December, 2014 Cooper, trade union associates and others started a
vicious Twitter trolling campaign against me and my wife. This is all
documented by West Midlands Police including by DS Wayne Haynes. But, as
we know, WMP are in a corrupt relationship with Labour Sandwell Council
and Haynes was stopped from investigating further. Even when Cooper was
caught in a famous sting operation a senior WMP officer refused to
allow officers to investigate coke-head Cooper.



As regular readers know Cooper's friend Sarah James of the GMB launched a
vicious bullying attack on me on 19th December, 2014 which I blogged
the very next day. It is no surprise that this involved false
allegations of photography in Spoons:



http://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2014/12/skidder-shorts-no-22-hilarity-at.html



As you will see if you have read the piece, this evil bully (who I had
never met) carried on her assault on me via cyber-bullying - trying to
seek approval from the late Smethwick Scumbag and others. (See also
"Paul Reeves" below).



Several YEARS later this GMB liar has formed a (non-sexual) relationship
with another bully of the first order - Tom Watson MP (the right-wing
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party now receiving funds from, er, the GMB.
He is, of course, the nasty bastard and coward who made totally false
allegations of the vilest kind whilst Leon Brittan was dying and then
had to be forced to make a pathetic mealy-mouthed apology to his
victim's widow.)



Incredibly Watson is now trying to find the unknown Sarah a
parliamentary seat! She is trying to airbrush her nasty history and the
GMB Union have agreed to pay for her legal proceedings to try to do so.
Sarah had indicated that she wants to bankrupt me and pursue an Order
for Sale on my matrimonial home of 35 years to force myself and my wife
into homelessness at age 60 to silence me forever.



But she has lied about 2014 and also to the GMB about this and other
issues. The legal proceedings only cover a minor part of her original
and fantastical claims against me. There is more to come on this but
let's just examine one part of her vexatious claim which hard-working
GMB folk are paying for.



When she viciously bullied me in December, 2014 Sarah James's social
media sites were replete with references to the  soft-porn
sadomasochistic novels in the "50 Shades of Grey" series. So what? Each
to their own. BUT - at the time Ms James was advertising her connections
with the "White Ribbon Campaign".



More - In The Public Domain?: 50 Shades of GMB's Sarah James!:

ROLLO & SISTER BLISS Hide U

Smiley Culture - Police Officer 12''

Barbara Castle's files told of Westminster paedo cover up

Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor #Gwynedd Council - And The Other Reports..?...

 So Gwynedd Democratic Services were made aware of the Independent
Investigator's Report and the issue with the council refusing to accept
it, in January, 2018.



But what are Democratic Services and what do they do ?



It appears to be a service within the council that advises and caters to
the questions and needs of council members - the councillors.



Democratic Services are also the office to contact for an English
translation to be made available for webcast as all council business is
conducted in Welsh.





The October, 2017 Report highlighted failings with the Children's
department relating to social workers carrying out assessments through
to Child In Need Plans and records not being properly maintained.



The Ombudsman for Wales Report, April, 2018 into Gwynedd council
highlighted service failure and maladministration from 2010 to 2016
including withdrawing support before assessments that showed
'predetermination' i.e set up to fail.



The Investigation of the Data Breach and mishandling and censoring of personal information, in June.



An investigation that still leaves the legality of the two officer's
actions in question. Worse when it is realised that the same two
officer's were dealing with an Official Complaint at the time - badly.

So badly the Ombudsman 'recommended' retraining in the Statutory Complaints procedure for the officer's involved !!





So many Reports that have been brought to the attention of Audit, Care Scrutiny and Democratic Services over the last period.



The Care Inspectorate Wales Review was presented to Care Scrutiny at the
Extra-ordinary Meeting held on the 6th November to much praise and
backslapping from members.



This backslapping went on for so long that the meeting must have over
run and the presenting CIW officer had to leave the meeting before it
concluded.



The rush to get the Complaints Handling Report through before lunch was obvious.

There was no mention of the Department's annus horribilis regarding any
of the above Reports nor the fact it has been sixteen months since the
last annual Report.



Any pertinent questions that could/should have been asked were batted
away by both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of the
Complaints Report, Dafydd Paul, stating to the meeting they did not wish
to discuss individual cases.



Wow...and what of the serious concerns raised ?

                                                



The Care Scrutiny Meeting was also NOT webcast - much to one council member's quite obvious surprise.



A request had been put to Democratic Services for the meeting/webcast to
be to be translated, we were informed that this meeting would not be
webcast. After asking for an explanation an email was received stating
that webcasting hours were limited and then another, saying that it was
an extraordinary meeting and, as such, would not be webcast but a
translation would be available for any members of the public who
attended.



Very odd when all other council extraordinary Meetings were webcast !



A member of the public actually turned up for this meeting and visited
Siop Gwynedd, in Caernarfon for directions. The meeting was not on their
computers and no-one knew anything about it.



It was only due to those on the desk who asked and phoned around that the wherabouts of the meeting was eventually located.



The Annual Complaints Handling Report is a legal document that is used
by the Council, and other organisations, as an indication of the
Department's performance in carrying out its Statutory Duties.



This Report does no such thing.



And where are the Minutes of this Extra ordinary meeting of the Care Scrutiny Committee ?



More -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/



Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor #Gwynedd Council - And The Other Reports..?...:

Young Marble Giants - Colossal Youth -Full Album- HQ

working week - thought i d never see you again

Gwynedd Council Fail.: Why Blog About Cyngor #Gwynedd Council ?

I feel it is time for a recap of the events that led to this blog being created.

The 2010 Independent Investigation - with all points upheld - was highly
critical of Gwynedd SS and their management team in their treatment of
an autistic child. But the recommendations of the Report were not acted
upon and the child and family were ignored.

Our local MP, Liz Savile Roberts was contacted for help but her very
good friend at the council, Marian Parry Hughes, intervened and Liz then
ignored our request for a meeting to provide her with our evidence. Liz
has continued to ignore our correspondence.

At the time, the child was on a CIN plan managed by a social worker
whose attitude beggared belief, culminating in the social worker not
bothering to turn up for a review of the child's case. A meeting that
he, himself, had organised with parents and a teacher, letting them all
down and wasting everybody's time.

A complaint was raised about his behaviour and that of the Head of
Services. To say it was dealt with badly is an understatement and a
Stage 2 complaint repeatedly refused. (The Ombudsman has since
recommended that ALL officers involved in the complaint be given
re-training in the Statutory Complaints procedure)

So I began to blog the story of how Gwynedd Council have behaved.

I have been careful to name only those officers who have behaved badly
and deliberately not named one manager whom, I believe, had her arm
twisted by more senior managers to misrepresent the Investigation of the
censoring and mishandling of personal information and the Council's own
data breach.

Gwynedd Adult services were recently lambasted by the Ombudsman for how
they treated a young, autistic man. This case was only brought to the
Ombudsman's attention because the Complaints department had refused to
accept their complaint, also.

  If those named would like the right to reply they have only to contact
me. I am also willing to consider and/or publish their version of events
if they so wish.

I would also like to thank those who have supported the family in our
attempt to access services for 'high functioning' autistics and those
children that continue to fall between the gaps in services.


More - Gwynedd Council Fail.: Why A Blog About Cyngor #Gwynedd Council ?:

Faithless & Sabrina Setlur - Bring My Family Back

Dear government: an open letter about special needs education

We Emailed Medwyn Hughes - Bangor Councillor - In January.

In January of 2018 we sent an email to Richard Medwyn Hughes - 

Dear Richard,

My wife
and I came across a copy of the report you authored in your capacity as
Chair of the Audit and Governance committee dated 28 Sept, 2017. We also
discovered that you are Vice-Chair of the Care Scrutiny Committee for
Gwynedd Council.

I believe it is my families case that is mentioned in the report as
being referred to the Ombudsman, the reason for this being the
Council's refusal to escalate our complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints
procedure.

We raised other issues related to but different from our earlier
complaint and the Ombudsman advised us to raise this as a separate
complaint with the Children and Family Department.

Due to the difficult history of the families case we raised an
immediate stage 2 complaint with Customer Care, that was in May of last
year, which has still not been concluded.

We believe the Council has behaved in an obstructive and delaying
manner. There has been no proper communication or information
forthcoming from the Council during the process and a staggering lack of
transparency.

For your information we include a copy below of an email sent today to our MP, Liz Saville Roberts.

We note there is a Care Scrutiny Committee meeting later this month and ask if this meeting is open to the general public ?

Also, we would be happy to share and discuss our experiences with
anyone from either the Audit and Governance Committee or the Care
Scrutiny Committee to provide clarity on the situation regarding the
Customer Care department and how the Complaints procedure has been
implemented in our case.

For your information a stage 2 complaint was raised regarding the
ongoing issues in this case in 2010 and all points of complaint upheld
but recommendations never acted upon.

The Head of Children and Families has stated this report to be
irrelevant to the current situation - we do not agree. Yet another
example of the attitude that we have encountered for so many years.

The Department have repeatedly cited their disability criteria
along with the Equality Act and even the Social Services Care Act 2014
as a means to refuse services rather than provide much needed support.
This needs to change.

                                                                     ************************************



His response on the 10th of January 2018 was to CC the Democratic
Services Manager, Corporate Support Department, Vera Jones into the
email.

Dear ***********



I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 06/01/18.



I have asked the officers concerned about your issues.



The
Audit and Governance committee of which I am Chair tend not to look at
individual cases but at trends and practices involving circumstances
like this.



The Care Scrutiny Committee meetings are streamed live and are open to the public where space is available.



However as you have raised this issue  with me I have sent your email on.



No doubt an officer will be in touch as soon as possible.



In the meantime you should also contact your local councillor along with including your postal address to me in a future email.



Regards,

R Medwyn Hughes

Gwynedd Council Fail.: We Emailed Medwyn Hughes - Bangor Councillor.:

Peter Heppner - I Hate You

how did i forget?

Rotherham Child Exploitation : Panorama 15 June 2015

Censoring Personal Information - Data Breach Report Gwynedd Council 2018.

I emailed Morwena Edwards, Corporate Director of Social Services, on the 19th March, 2018.

“We are also concerned that you have been aware of a Data Breach by your Department for nearly a year and no-one from the Council has been in contact with us. The Investigator has been provided with evidence of the Data Breach and she says so in her Report”.

On the 29th March, we attended a meeting with an Information Manager at Gwynedd Council regarding us being given the names of children receiving services from the Council and Youth Justice team and to find out who censored our personal information (SAR) and whether the redactions were legal.
Copies of the names and local school that had been released by the department were presented to the Manager.

On the 22nd May, we had to return for another meeting as the Manager did not answer the questions in her initial Report and also misrepresented the physical and oral evidence we provided. There was also an issue with the Manager failing to respond to our emails but an apology was given for this.

The second meeting was attended by a Janet Roberts, who introduced herself as Corporate Support for the council. Mrs Roberts said very little during the meeting but did take note of the questions we wished to be answered by the person in the Children and Families Department who carried out the redactions to our personal information.

Now these questions were asked as part of our Stage 2 complaint first raised with the council in May, 2017 and was to have been answered by the Independent Investigator. 
Gwynedd council reported that the officer responsible for processing our SAR and for the redactions had left the Council and so was unable to be interviewed.

At this second meeting, Mrs Roberts informed us that the person who processed our SAR had indeed left the council but was then re-employed by the council and was NOW our named person within the Customer Care department dealing with another complaint.

Oh forgot to mention that the Investigation of the Data Breach was upheld. The release of the names of children receiving services should not have happened and the Report, June 2018, is as follows –
I write with reference to your complaint to the Council and in particular part 6 which relates to data and information.

The outcomes from the independent investigators report was that:

The complainants seek an explanation for the censoring of their own information and whether or not it is legal to do so. They seek an explanation from Melvin Panther as to how he thought it in any way appropriate or professional to speak about them in such a derogatory manner to another professional working with the family. In relation to the information containing other children’s details, they wish for this to be dealt with via the Council’s information/data protection security policy and procedure.
I will treat these matters in turn:

1. Censoring of information and redacted and unredacted emails.

Email dated 5^th of April 2016 10:48
You note that this had been provided to you in redacted and unredacted form and wish to know why it had been redacted.
The department have informed me that it was redacted because it was not thought appropriate to disclose at the time.
In my opinion this part of the email is your personal data since it relates to you and you can be identified by the information. There was no particular reason for it to be withheld and it should have been provided without redaction.

Email dated 27^th of June 2016 at 16:45

I have examined the part of this email which has been redacted.

I am satisfied that this part of the email has been redacted appropriately. Under the right of subject access, an individual is entitled only to their own personal data, and not to information relating to other people.

This part of the email relates to information relating to a third party, namely a social worker. Under section 7(4) of the Act an authority does not have to comply with a request if to do so would mean disclosing information about another individual who can be identified from that information except where the individual has consented or it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without that consent.

There was no consent in this case nor was it reasonable to comply without consent.

Email dated 5^th of July 2016 at 13:30

I have examined the part of the email which has been redacted.
As above, this information does not relate to you but to a social worker. It therefore does not constitute your personal data. As such, it was appropriate for the information to be withheld in accordance with the reasoning outlined above.

Email dated 13^th of July 2016 at 10:14

I have examined the part of the email which has been redacted.
I believe that this email should have been provided to you as it relates to you and is therefore your personal data.

2. An explanation from Mel Panther

As noted in previous correspondence, it is not within my remit to comment on the actions of another member of staff.

3. Emails containing other children’s details

I have examined the emails you provided me in this respect.

In a series of emails between two members of staff in January 2016 the names of children appear in the subject headings.

For a data breach to occur, the information in question must be personal data i.e. it must relate to an individual and allow them to be identified from the information.

In this case, it is not clear that a surname together with the name of a school would enable identification of an individual. However, the information confirms that the child is a child a need, which is sensitive information in itself.

It should also be noted that the name of this child had been redacted from the main text of an email in one instance and therefore there was a recognition that this was indeed third party personal data.
The name of another child also appears in the subject line of the same series of emails. This time there is a name and surname, which makes identification more likely. Again the information confirms that the child is a child in need, which is sensitive information in itself.

Having further considered the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance on determining what is personal data, which notes that someone can be identified from information we hold or ‘the means that could be used by a sufficiently determined and interested person’, I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities, this was personal data and therefore did constitute a data breach.

Therefore, the names should have been removed from the subject line of the emails before being disclosed to you as part of the subject access request.

At our meeting on the 23^rd of May 2018, you asked some further questions which have been addressed below:

4. Who made the decision to redact both emails?

In her role as the Information Officer, Angharad Hywel would in cases such as this routinely meet with her line manager at the time, Margaret Kenealy Jones to check the information which was to be shared. If she felt that some details noted within the information should be redacted, these would be identified and advice would be sought from her line manager. In this specific case, she met with her line manager to read through the information which was to be disclosed. During this meeting they discussed some documents which were deemed to contain information which could be misinterpreted or could impact the working relationship between the family and the Service. The officer received guidance in relation to redacting these documents.

5. Who asked for them to be redacted?

A decision was made between the Officer and the line manager at the time to redact the sentences in the email dated 5th April 2016 and the email dated 13^th of July 2016.

6. Did they consult with anybody?

No other officers were consulted.

7. What were the reasons for the redaction?

Having read the redacted sentences in the emails dated 5 April 2016 and 13^th July 2016, the Officer was of the opinion that these statements were the personal opinion about the family and that disclosing them could undermine the attempts to maintain a working relationship between the Service and the family. At the time of this Subject Access Request, and particularly during the timeframe in which this decision was taken, the Service had responded to a number of complaints and many of these were related to difficulties in the working relationship between the family and Mel Panther. It was imperative at this time, and in fact continues to be the case, that efforts were made to maintain a good working relationship between the Service and the family as the Service was focused on trying to ensure that *child* was provided with an assessment of his needs to ensure the best outcome for him.

Moving on to other points made in your email dated the 8^th of June 2018, I would note that no procedures have been broken in terms of the redactions made. The usual procedure for dealing with a subject access request had been followed, ie, information was collated, advice was sought regarding redaction, redaction was carried out and information that was disclosable was disclosed.
It is noted that a breach did occur, but this was due to an oversight, and was low risk in terms of the amount of personal information disclosed.

As I stated during our meeting, the question regarding the legality of the redactions is not one I can answer. The redactions were carried out in good faith for the reasons given above. Redacting information is necessarily a subjective task and does, and indeed, can vary from person to person.
In terms of a data breach, the matter will be dealt with via the usual procedure, which is that a report is prepared for the Council’s SIRO (Senior Information Risk Owner) Group.

I will remind the departments regarding the need to take particular care at all times with future subject access requests.

I am sorry that I am unable to add anything further regarding this matter – if you wish to take the matter further you may contact the ICO, whose details are noted below:

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/ or ring them on 0303 123 1113.

Anyone else spot the contradictions ?

More worryingly, the report states it was the two information officers alone who made the decision to redact but goes on to state the “question regarding the legality of the redactions is not one I can answer.”

An Official Report, written by an Information Manager, aided by Corporate Support with access to the entire Legal department at Gwynedd council can not answer to the legality of their Officers actions.
Hmm.

The SAR also reveals that one manager within the council would like to blame us for not reporting the Data Breach earlier.

The Data Breach was part of my complaint first raised with the council on the 25th May, 2017.
How did the council respond ?

See post – https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2017/05/gwynedd-council-respond-to-my-complaint.html

They were all on holiday.

More – https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/

99% is ....... The Barnet Eye: Yet another Capita Cock Up damages Barnet Council'...

99% is ....... The Barnet Eye: Yet another Capita Cock Up damages Barnet Council'...: Last night, the Barnet Eye, along with fellow bloggers Mr Reasonable and Mrs Angry attended the Audit committee meeting at Hendon Town Hall....