Monday, March 11, 2019
Saturday, February 23, 2019
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.
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:
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.
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:
Thursday, January 31, 2019
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.:
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.:
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
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
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...:
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
Sunday, January 27, 2019
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...
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
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...
Monday, January 14, 2019
Saturday, January 12, 2019
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.
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
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".
These sums of themselves are offensive in that nobody in local 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.
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.
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.
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
Monday, January 07, 2019
Thursday, January 03, 2019
Thursday, December 27, 2018
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...:
Friday, December 21, 2018
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
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'....:
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 |
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'....:
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Monday, December 17, 2018
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:
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:
Sunday, December 16, 2018
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!:
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!:
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Saturday, December 08, 2018
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..?...:
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..?...:
Friday, December 07, 2018
Thursday, December 06, 2018
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Monday, November 12, 2018
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.:
Monday, October 22, 2018
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Saturday, September 22, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
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:
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 27th 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 5th 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 13th 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.
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 23rd of May 2018, you asked some further questions which have been addressed below:
Moving on to other points made in your email dated the 8th 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/
“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:
- Censoring of information and redacted and unredacted emails.
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 27th 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 5th 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 13th 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.
- An explanation from Mel Panther
- Emails containing other children’s details
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 23rd of May 2018, you asked some further questions which have been addressed below:
- Who made the decision to redact both emails?
- Who asked for them to be redacted?
- Did they consult with anybody?
- What were the reasons for the redaction?
Moving on to other points made in your email dated the 8th 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/
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
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....
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Thursday, June 07, 2018
#Sandwell council leader tells MP ‘we don’t use confidentiality agreements’. Here’s one..
Earlier this year, Tory MP James Morris launched an extraordinary
attack in the Commons on Sandwell Council and its leader Steve Eling,
accusing the ‘moderate’-dominated council of becoming,
Eling not only denied but ‘rubbished’ the claim that the council had been using confidentiality agreements – telling local newspaper the Halesowen News that the council does not use them:
In spite of this denial, the SKWAWKBOX has obtained a copy of a Sandwell Council confidentiality agreement issued to one of its ex-employees. The confidentiality requirement is indisputable:
More - https://skwawkbox.org/2018/06/06/excl-sandwell-council-leader-tells-mp-we-dont-use-confidentiality-agreements-heres-one/
synonymous with local government incompetence, corruption, and cronyism.In addition, a Morris letter to Eling and the council’s chief executive attacked the use of ‘confidentiality agreements’ to silence ex-employees:
Eling not only denied but ‘rubbished’ the claim that the council had been using confidentiality agreements – telling local newspaper the Halesowen News that the council does not use them:
In spite of this denial, the SKWAWKBOX has obtained a copy of a Sandwell Council confidentiality agreement issued to one of its ex-employees. The confidentiality requirement is indisputable:
More - https://skwawkbox.org/2018/06/06/excl-sandwell-council-leader-tells-mp-we-dont-use-confidentiality-agreements-heres-one/
Wednesday, June 06, 2018
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Stage 2 Complaint Update Against #Gwynedd Council.
Today, the 25th of May, 2018, is the anniversary of our raising a Stage 2
complaint against Cyngor Gwynedd Council, on the advice of the
Ombudsman for Wales.
One year in a process that should take 28 days - and it is still not completed.
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
One year in a process that should take 28 days - and it is still not completed.
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Friday, May 25, 2018
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Cyngor #Gwynedd Council Censoring Of Information Update.
On the 23rd May, 2018, Cyngor Gwynedd Council finally released to us an unredacted copy of an email written by a Gwynedd Council manager containing our personal information.
They had no right to censor our personal information, this was done deliberately, to prevent us from reading unprofessional and disparaging comments made about us by a senior social work manager.It should have been released to us in October, 2016 in accordance with our Subject Access Request.
An Information Manager dealing with the issue says there was no legitimate reason for it to be redacted or denied us, this was not the only email that was redacted in this same manner, for the same reasons, from the same manager.
19 months to obtain all the information allowed us by Law under the Data Protection Act.
A process that should take a maximim of 40 days.
We now wonder whether or not the Council provided us with all that we were entitled to at that time.....or not...who knows ?
Something is so badly wrong within Gwynedd Council.
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Y Cneifiwr: My Diary: Lee Waters AM
Y Cneifiwr: My Diary: Lee Waters AM: In yet another shameless Private Eye rip-off , we are proud to begin another occasional series. This week it's the diaries of Lee Water...
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
#Gwynedd Children's Service Failure and Maladministration 2018.
On the 16th March, 2018, Gwynedd Council's Corporate Director and Head of
Social Services, Morwena Edwards, finally responded to our Stage 2
Complaint, nearly 5 months after the completed Report was received by
the Council.
The entire process has taken over 10 months to conclude - a process that according to Gwynedd's Statutory Policy should take 28 days.
Our complaint(s) were upheld by the 'Independent' Investigator and her Report - twice sanitised by the Council - still makes for some very interesting reading. But that is for another time.
The Data Breach and censoring of our personal information are currently being investigated as a separate complaint by Gwynedd's Information department. But we have now been told that the Manager is not able to deal with the issue of a senior manager, Melvin Panther, writing disparaging comments about the family to other agencies - so our complaint in this respect is still not concluded.
The official response from the Council is signed off by Morwena Edwards and she attempts to totally whitewash the highly critical Report into her department.
According to the Welsh Government Guidelines on Social Services Complaints, the Council were obliged to offer to meet with us to discuss the report and their response. They have not offered a meeting and as we have yet again been denied the opportunity to discuss the report and their response to it, we wrote in response to the Council.
We pointed out that the Children and Family department attempts to gloss over the systemic failings uncovered by the 'Independent' Investigator and still seek to blame anyone but themselves.
Social Workers and other Council Officers admit that the child's case was allowed 'to drift'.
Our reply to the Corporate Director(s) was that her response is nonsensical and farcical and disregards the failure of Social Workers and the appalling state of record keeping within the Children's department.
During this time, the Ombudsman for Wales has also been investigating Gwynedd Council.
Their Report upholds all our complaints and highlights maladministration and service failure by Gwynedd Social Services going as far back as 2010.
Yet this time Gwynedd Council have held up their hands to the Ombudman's Report and agreed to implement all the recommendations made - including certain officers being retrained in respect of the Council adhering to their Statutory Duties.
The Council would have received the Ombudsman's Report early last week. They have still not contacted us.
Something is so badly wrong within Gwynedd Council.
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
The entire process has taken over 10 months to conclude - a process that according to Gwynedd's Statutory Policy should take 28 days.
Our complaint(s) were upheld by the 'Independent' Investigator and her Report - twice sanitised by the Council - still makes for some very interesting reading. But that is for another time.
The Data Breach and censoring of our personal information are currently being investigated as a separate complaint by Gwynedd's Information department. But we have now been told that the Manager is not able to deal with the issue of a senior manager, Melvin Panther, writing disparaging comments about the family to other agencies - so our complaint in this respect is still not concluded.
The official response from the Council is signed off by Morwena Edwards and she attempts to totally whitewash the highly critical Report into her department.
According to the Welsh Government Guidelines on Social Services Complaints, the Council were obliged to offer to meet with us to discuss the report and their response. They have not offered a meeting and as we have yet again been denied the opportunity to discuss the report and their response to it, we wrote in response to the Council.
We pointed out that the Children and Family department attempts to gloss over the systemic failings uncovered by the 'Independent' Investigator and still seek to blame anyone but themselves.
Social Workers and other Council Officers admit that the child's case was allowed 'to drift'.
Our reply to the Corporate Director(s) was that her response is nonsensical and farcical and disregards the failure of Social Workers and the appalling state of record keeping within the Children's department.
During this time, the Ombudsman for Wales has also been investigating Gwynedd Council.
Their Report upholds all our complaints and highlights maladministration and service failure by Gwynedd Social Services going as far back as 2010.
Yet this time Gwynedd Council have held up their hands to the Ombudman's Report and agreed to implement all the recommendations made - including certain officers being retrained in respect of the Council adhering to their Statutory Duties.
The Council would have received the Ombudsman's Report early last week. They have still not contacted us.
Something is so badly wrong within Gwynedd Council.
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Monday, April 16, 2018
Monday, April 09, 2018
Sunday, April 08, 2018
Saturday, April 07, 2018
@Rachael_Swindon: A Dossier Of Racism In The Conservative Party
@Rachael_Swindon: A Dossier Of Racism In The Conservative Party: A dossier of racism in the Conservative Party. This dossier was put together from news reports in the local and national...
Thursday, April 05, 2018
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Y Cneifiwr: Council of Despair: A crock of something at the en...
Y Cneifiwr: Council of Despair: A crock of something at the en...: After another lengthy sojourn at the Beti George Clinic, this time claiming it was 'flu, Sali Malu Cachu is back. ______________ S...
JUSTICE DENIED: British children transported to be sex slaves by ...
JUSTICE DENIED: British children transported to be sex slaves by ...: On 1st March 2018, IICSA released its first report on the Child Migration Programmes that occurred within the UK for decades. The report...
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Monday, March 12, 2018
Sshh - Abuse In Telford.
Re the outcry over the child abuse scandal in #Telford and those calling
for an Independent Inquiry into those who failed the children....
Gwynedd Council - who were closed down after they failed the county's children in their own sexual abuse scandal of the 90's - have twice sanitised a recent 'Independent Report' into their Social Services department.
The abuse of children in Gwynedd and Clywd was only allowed to continue by those in authority maintaining a 'wall of silence' for decades.
Gwynedd Council, for whatever reason, chose to turn a blind eye and the whistleblower, Alison Davies - was actually sacked by the council for raising concerns.
It has become apparent that a 'wall of silence' still remains in Gwynedd with no-one willing or able to confront unprofessional and bad behaviour by senior managers within the council.
Sshh no criticism allowed.
The abuse of children in Telford began just after the creation of the New Town in the early 70's.
Just as in North Wales, the authorities at the then Wrekin Council and the local Police turned a blind eye. In fact, the local CID used to hunt down and return those 'children in care' who had fled from the abuse they were no doubt suffering in the council run homes in Wellington.
Sshh.
The authorities in North Wales sat on the Jillings Report into the abuse of children for 20 years - on the orders of the council's insurers - now Zurich International.
There was an Asian gang operating in Telford in the 70's as were White Gangs. There were also huge problems with #Unemployment #Racism and #Heroin. Too many unexplained deaths and mysterious 'suicides'.
The old Wrekin Council have questions to answer along with the now defunct Telford Youth Council, local Churches and the Police.
An Independent Inquiry into the abuse of children in Telford will fail just as in North Wales, Rotherham, Islington etc etc. No-one will be held to account.
An Independent Inquiry is too easily sanitised and the truth covered up - a Public Inquiry would stand a better chance at getting to the truth and the abusers and those who profited from the abuse punished.
But be in no doubt....the abuse of children and vulnerable people continues.
Sshh.....
More on Gwynedd council - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Gwynedd Council - who were closed down after they failed the county's children in their own sexual abuse scandal of the 90's - have twice sanitised a recent 'Independent Report' into their Social Services department.
The abuse of children in Gwynedd and Clywd was only allowed to continue by those in authority maintaining a 'wall of silence' for decades.
Gwynedd Council, for whatever reason, chose to turn a blind eye and the whistleblower, Alison Davies - was actually sacked by the council for raising concerns.
It has become apparent that a 'wall of silence' still remains in Gwynedd with no-one willing or able to confront unprofessional and bad behaviour by senior managers within the council.
Sshh no criticism allowed.
The abuse of children in Telford began just after the creation of the New Town in the early 70's.
Just as in North Wales, the authorities at the then Wrekin Council and the local Police turned a blind eye. In fact, the local CID used to hunt down and return those 'children in care' who had fled from the abuse they were no doubt suffering in the council run homes in Wellington.
Sshh.
The authorities in North Wales sat on the Jillings Report into the abuse of children for 20 years - on the orders of the council's insurers - now Zurich International.
There was an Asian gang operating in Telford in the 70's as were White Gangs. There were also huge problems with #Unemployment #Racism and #Heroin. Too many unexplained deaths and mysterious 'suicides'.
The old Wrekin Council have questions to answer along with the now defunct Telford Youth Council, local Churches and the Police.
An Independent Inquiry into the abuse of children in Telford will fail just as in North Wales, Rotherham, Islington etc etc. No-one will be held to account.
An Independent Inquiry is too easily sanitised and the truth covered up - a Public Inquiry would stand a better chance at getting to the truth and the abusers and those who profited from the abuse punished.
But be in no doubt....the abuse of children and vulnerable people continues.
Sshh.....
More on Gwynedd council - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Thursday, March 08, 2018
People First: Plaid's Poison Chalice -The Leadership of Carmar...
People First: Plaid's Poison Chalice -The Leadership of Carmar...: New Dawn in the Garden of Wales or just Old Hat? As Plaid Cymru in Carmarthenshire launch their campaign for the 2017 May elections you...
Thursday, March 01, 2018
In The Public Domain?: Oh Dear - Costigan Forgot Her Private Emails!
In The Public Domain?: Oh Dear - Costigan Forgot Her Private Emails!: Regular readers will know that Cllr Elaine Costigan was tapping up a company in Wednesbury called KTC Edibles for donations to her personal ...
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Saturday, February 03, 2018
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
In The Public Domain?: P*sspoor BBC Thrash Eling With Wet Lettuce Leaf!
#Sandwell
In The Public Domain?: P*sspoor BBC Thrash Eling With Wet Lettuce Leaf!: Time and time again we have seen the BBC fail to cover the corruption, cronyism, incompetence and bullying within their friends at Labour Sa...
In The Public Domain?: P*sspoor BBC Thrash Eling With Wet Lettuce Leaf!: Time and time again we have seen the BBC fail to cover the corruption, cronyism, incompetence and bullying within their friends at Labour Sa...
Monday, January 08, 2018
Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: 'Blindlingly obvious' - and those missing declarations of interest...
Via - Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: 'Blindlingly obvious' - and those missing declarations of interest...
As I mentioned in my end of year post (scroll down) I emailed the head of legal/monitoring officer Linda Rees Jones before Christmas raising a few concerns. One of these concerns was the revelation that the chief executive had not declared his 'Cardiff' interests which, in my opinion, he should have done; namely that he runs a property management company, he's a director of four private companies, owns leaseholds on several flats and is a registered landlord.
Ms Rees Jones (the email could have been written by Mr James of course) attempts to remove herself from the equation by saying that it is up to him to consider whether or not there is anything within these extra-curricular affairs which may be in conflict with the authority's interests. In my view, the problem with such a voluntary arrangement, for Carmarthenshire anyway, is that this is dependent upon the honesty and integrity of the senior officer concerned...
Ms Rees Jones also notes that there has been much 'blogging' about it all. Quite.
Whilst I have set out my reasons why I think this failure to declare could lead a potential for conflicting interests, and even costly judicial reviews, let alone the significance of the bad press which emerged over the summer, I also made a comparison with the failure, by the chief executive, to declare an interest when being bankrolled for his legal costs by the Executive Board in 2012.
That 2012 failure to declare was one of the reasons why the decision was declared illegal (or 'unlawful', if you like), this was in addition to the fact that such an indemnity was unlawful, full stop. It also led to an independent review of the entire way the council was governed and the conclusion from former lawyer and lay member of the Audit Committee that the council's internal legal advice was 'cavalier' and 'incompetent'.
Ms Rees Jones is of course, unwavering in her defence of Mr James, as if her job depended on it... and continues to argue that the Wales Audit Office were entirely wrong. Quoting various 'counsel's opinions', namely Mr Tim Kerr QC (who was brought in to defend Mr James and the Labour/Independent Exec Board at the time), one of the bizarre excuses was that as it was "blindingly obvious" to the Members that Mr James had a direct interest, a formal declaration was not required. The leap of logic continues with the unverified claim that it was she who gave the advice and not him.
I have pointed out that it is also "blindingly obvious" to Members that officers have a direct interest when pay policy or pensions are being discussed at full council, but those officers duly, and correctly file out of the chamber when such items arise.
In the real world anyone with a shred of integrity would have made a formal declaration and left the meeting. As for the 'advice', I have suggested that his presence alone was sufficient to influence the decision and, furthermore, she discussed the report with Mr James, and sought his advice and approval three days before the meeting, this was highly inappropriate to say the least. It didn't matter whether he spoke at the meeting or not, he'd already influenced the decision.
Oddly, when questioned about his presence at the 2012 meeting at the libel trial he had a sudden memory lapse and 'couldn't remember' if he'd been there or not. Yeah really. Far be it for me to suggest of course that he was not being entirely truthful when in the witness box.
As for the current state of affairs, and undeclared interests, it appears to me that governance is still dire and legal advice remains both cavalier and incompetent. In fact, it's blindingly obvious.
In an unrelated issue, the legal department are, it seems to me, currently taking it upon themselves to extend the Freedom of Information Act exemptions to prevent the release of the now scrapped City Deal Joint Working Agreement.
The 70 page document, covering the governance arrangements between the partner local authorities, led by Carmarthenshire, was scrapped in the Autumn and a new one commissioned. In refusing my request for the original draft the council acknowledged there were "public interest factors which favour disclosure in this case, namely transparency and furthering public knowledge in relation to a high profile project involving the expenditure of significant public funds", but used legal professional privilege to prevent its release.
Legal professional privilege (in this case relating to legal advice rather than impending litigation) is, in theory a reasonable and well tested means to protect lawyer/client correspondence and advice, but this is not a bundle of legal letters in the true sense of the law but a complete draft document not only of significant public interest but one that has also been made available to councillors elsewhere.
What this means is that the council can refuse to release documents which may, or may not have been wafted past a lawyer at some point. We wouldn't know. This could even be applied to documents and agreements which have been adopted such as the council's own constitution. Clearly that would be an extreme example, but the council are attempting to set a dangerous precedent regarding the legal exemption and as this is an important principle, I will be taking the matter up with the Information Commissioner in due course.
The full thread of the request and the responses can be read here.
Whilst I'm on the subject of the City Deal it seems that despite the questions hanging over governance arrangements, the level of public funding, etc council staff are being redeployed to work for the City Deal, and as recent advertisements for media and office managers show, this is on the council payroll. It seems that not only are 'cash-strapped' councils required to borrow (and pay interest on) unknown millions but will be funding the staff themselves.
Or perhaps it's just Carmarthenshire, whose chief executive happens to be the lead chief executive for the Deal and who is perhaps busy creating a personalised offshoot of the Kingdom of County Hall, leading us all up the garden path to, er, Wellness...or oblivion.
Councillors may wish to check for themselves that staff and resources are not being diverted away from frontline services to an organisation, a quango of sorts, which has yet to show its hand, let alone democratic accountability.
As I mentioned in my end of year post (scroll down) I emailed the head of legal/monitoring officer Linda Rees Jones before Christmas raising a few concerns. One of these concerns was the revelation that the chief executive had not declared his 'Cardiff' interests which, in my opinion, he should have done; namely that he runs a property management company, he's a director of four private companies, owns leaseholds on several flats and is a registered landlord.
Ms Rees Jones (the email could have been written by Mr James of course) attempts to remove herself from the equation by saying that it is up to him to consider whether or not there is anything within these extra-curricular affairs which may be in conflict with the authority's interests. In my view, the problem with such a voluntary arrangement, for Carmarthenshire anyway, is that this is dependent upon the honesty and integrity of the senior officer concerned...
Ms Rees Jones also notes that there has been much 'blogging' about it all. Quite.
Whilst I have set out my reasons why I think this failure to declare could lead a potential for conflicting interests, and even costly judicial reviews, let alone the significance of the bad press which emerged over the summer, I also made a comparison with the failure, by the chief executive, to declare an interest when being bankrolled for his legal costs by the Executive Board in 2012.
That 2012 failure to declare was one of the reasons why the decision was declared illegal (or 'unlawful', if you like), this was in addition to the fact that such an indemnity was unlawful, full stop. It also led to an independent review of the entire way the council was governed and the conclusion from former lawyer and lay member of the Audit Committee that the council's internal legal advice was 'cavalier' and 'incompetent'.
Ms Rees Jones is of course, unwavering in her defence of Mr James, as if her job depended on it... and continues to argue that the Wales Audit Office were entirely wrong. Quoting various 'counsel's opinions', namely Mr Tim Kerr QC (who was brought in to defend Mr James and the Labour/Independent Exec Board at the time), one of the bizarre excuses was that as it was "blindingly obvious" to the Members that Mr James had a direct interest, a formal declaration was not required. The leap of logic continues with the unverified claim that it was she who gave the advice and not him.
I have pointed out that it is also "blindingly obvious" to Members that officers have a direct interest when pay policy or pensions are being discussed at full council, but those officers duly, and correctly file out of the chamber when such items arise.
In the real world anyone with a shred of integrity would have made a formal declaration and left the meeting. As for the 'advice', I have suggested that his presence alone was sufficient to influence the decision and, furthermore, she discussed the report with Mr James, and sought his advice and approval three days before the meeting, this was highly inappropriate to say the least. It didn't matter whether he spoke at the meeting or not, he'd already influenced the decision.
Oddly, when questioned about his presence at the 2012 meeting at the libel trial he had a sudden memory lapse and 'couldn't remember' if he'd been there or not. Yeah really. Far be it for me to suggest of course that he was not being entirely truthful when in the witness box.
As for the current state of affairs, and undeclared interests, it appears to me that governance is still dire and legal advice remains both cavalier and incompetent. In fact, it's blindingly obvious.
*
In an unrelated issue, the legal department are, it seems to me, currently taking it upon themselves to extend the Freedom of Information Act exemptions to prevent the release of the now scrapped City Deal Joint Working Agreement.
The 70 page document, covering the governance arrangements between the partner local authorities, led by Carmarthenshire, was scrapped in the Autumn and a new one commissioned. In refusing my request for the original draft the council acknowledged there were "public interest factors which favour disclosure in this case, namely transparency and furthering public knowledge in relation to a high profile project involving the expenditure of significant public funds", but used legal professional privilege to prevent its release.
Legal professional privilege (in this case relating to legal advice rather than impending litigation) is, in theory a reasonable and well tested means to protect lawyer/client correspondence and advice, but this is not a bundle of legal letters in the true sense of the law but a complete draft document not only of significant public interest but one that has also been made available to councillors elsewhere.
What this means is that the council can refuse to release documents which may, or may not have been wafted past a lawyer at some point. We wouldn't know. This could even be applied to documents and agreements which have been adopted such as the council's own constitution. Clearly that would be an extreme example, but the council are attempting to set a dangerous precedent regarding the legal exemption and as this is an important principle, I will be taking the matter up with the Information Commissioner in due course.
The full thread of the request and the responses can be read here.
Whilst I'm on the subject of the City Deal it seems that despite the questions hanging over governance arrangements, the level of public funding, etc council staff are being redeployed to work for the City Deal, and as recent advertisements for media and office managers show, this is on the council payroll. It seems that not only are 'cash-strapped' councils required to borrow (and pay interest on) unknown millions but will be funding the staff themselves.
Or perhaps it's just Carmarthenshire, whose chief executive happens to be the lead chief executive for the Deal and who is perhaps busy creating a personalised offshoot of the Kingdom of County Hall, leading us all up the garden path to, er, Wellness...or oblivion.
Councillors may wish to check for themselves that staff and resources are not being diverted away from frontline services to an organisation, a quango of sorts, which has yet to show its hand, let alone democratic accountability.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)