Gwynedd Council Fail.: SW Suspended For 2.5 Years - Cyngor Gwynedd Counci...: Gwynedd Social Services Senior Managers (again) Disabled social worker's Employment Tribunal. https://assets.publishing.service.gov...
Friday, July 26, 2019
Monday, July 22, 2019
Cyngor Gwynedd Council - OMG
A massive thank you to Luke Clements for highlighting our case. The full
Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -
It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report
refers to an investigator’s note saying the above. Not every day that
the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the
European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to
the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation;
concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to
influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to
a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.
For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.
Hopefully the local authority in question[2]
will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard
(and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these
deplorable events to occur.
In the next section we provide a résumé of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly – a highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
________________
The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A
and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year
earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter. Problems
persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other
things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child;
had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately
influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).
The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment
failures that occurred in September 2016. These dates are important, as
the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social
Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April
2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated –
in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did
not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for
assessment / support as ‘disabled children’. X had Autism and
Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not
specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint,
that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.
The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a
draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.
The draft report was shared with the council’s officers. The officers
were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was
‘very one sided’. A meeting with the council was arranged and before
this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’
that she had not been shown during the investigation.
It was at this
stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so
troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to
what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to
me’.[3]
The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six
senior council officers. She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was
being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an
‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was
‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence
of the process was being compromised’. The council however stated that
it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report,
‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’. In
this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:
The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the
final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in
particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs
A. In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that
provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria
as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.
Not only did the
council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally
misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not
the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been
repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014). X had
a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman
complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in
receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).
The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need
plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the
council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet
needs’.
This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a
local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal
obligations. What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the
level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO. We are well aware
of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful
of retaliatory action by authorities[4]
– but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the
ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking. Complaints’
investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council
members.
For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers
that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the
impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an
independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.
Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for
the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers /
members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________
We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was
unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this
on other occasions. We therefore asked Paul Kelly
– an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to
comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was
sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the
shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently
operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
_________________________
Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
I was lucky: the first local authority
to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the
twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After
many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but
not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a
good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my
Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was
confident in her level of independence from social care structures.
There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with
social care managers.
Much turned on the qualities of that
complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only
that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality
stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of
routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the
senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the
complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be
expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I
had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about
my findings and recommendations.
Even within that system there were some
awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority
did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close
as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be
accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the
complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been
conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My
mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager
beforehand.
What if there is no complaints manager
or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager
I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere
near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case
began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.
I have illustrated the good, what about
the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed
above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried
to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various
machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for
removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a
senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The
independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports
that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and
agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously
helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the
process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the
authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief
executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s
responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.
Why could this have happened? The
complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had
previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but
fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced
half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early
resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent
persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a
new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion,
misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I
were among the first to feel the chill.
Did we get any further work from
that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples
of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors
bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but
ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly
appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than
complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial,
without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely
that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious
and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.
Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three
featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I
checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I:
we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the
independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and
recommendations.
Thee overt attempts were three too
many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent.
Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with
plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed.
Was that anything more than coincidence?
With experience of a very well-run
complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available
and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and
training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing
very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for
records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite
some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation.
Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came
fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent
compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went
to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply.
More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities
refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved
with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid,
criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.
I have worked on Stage 3 review panels:
they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied
with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports
have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local
authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal
positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence
of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary
narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and
independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material
offered by complainants.
Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -
It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report
refers to an investigator’s note saying the above. Not every day that
the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the
European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to
the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation;
concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to
influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to
a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.
For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.
Hopefully the local authority in question[2]
will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard
(and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these
deplorable events to occur.
In the next section we provide a résumé of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly – a highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
________________
The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A
and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year
earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter. Problems
persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other
things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child;
had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately
influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).
The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment
failures that occurred in September 2016. These dates are important, as
the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social
Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April
2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated –
in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did
not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for
assessment / support as ‘disabled children’. X had Autism and
Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not
specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint,
that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.
The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a
draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.
The draft report was shared with the council’s officers. The officers
were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was
‘very one sided’. A meeting with the council was arranged and before
this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’
that she had not been shown during the investigation.
It was at this
stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so
troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to
what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to
me’.[3]
The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six
senior council officers. She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was
being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an
‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was
‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence
of the process was being compromised’. The council however stated that
it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report,
‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’. In
this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:
… the
overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was
unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the
impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I
have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it
has denied such). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it.
Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind
the Council has not identified anything specific by way of
‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did
act inappropriately.
overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was
unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the
impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I
have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it
has denied such). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it.
Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind
the Council has not identified anything specific by way of
‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did
act inappropriately.
The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the
final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in
particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs
A. In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that
provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria
as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.
Not only did the
council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally
misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not
the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been
repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014). X had
a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman
complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in
receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).
The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need
plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the
council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet
needs’.
This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a
local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal
obligations. What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the
level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO. We are well aware
of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful
of retaliatory action by authorities[4]
– but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the
ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking. Complaints’
investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council
members.
For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers
that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the
impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an
independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.
Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for
the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers /
members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________
We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was
unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this
on other occasions. We therefore asked Paul Kelly
– an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to
comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was
sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the
shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently
operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
_________________________
Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
I was lucky: the first local authority
to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the
twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After
many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but
not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a
good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my
Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was
confident in her level of independence from social care structures.
There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with
social care managers.
Much turned on the qualities of that
complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only
that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality
stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of
routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the
senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the
complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be
expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I
had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about
my findings and recommendations.
Even within that system there were some
awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority
did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close
as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be
accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the
complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been
conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My
mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager
beforehand.
What if there is no complaints manager
or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager
I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere
near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case
began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.
I have illustrated the good, what about
the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed
above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried
to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various
machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for
removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a
senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The
independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports
that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and
agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously
helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the
process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the
authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief
executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s
responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.
Why could this have happened? The
complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had
previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but
fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced
half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early
resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent
persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a
new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion,
misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I
were among the first to feel the chill.
Did we get any further work from
that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples
of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors
bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but
ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly
appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than
complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial,
without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely
that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious
and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.
Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three
featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I
checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I:
we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the
independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and
recommendations.
Thee overt attempts were three too
many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent.
Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with
plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed.
Was that anything more than coincidence?
With experience of a very well-run
complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available
and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and
training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing
very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for
records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite
some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation.
Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came
fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent
compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went
to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply.
More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities
refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved
with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid,
criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.
I have worked on Stage 3 review panels:
they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied
with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports
have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local
authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal
positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence
of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary
narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and
independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material
offered by complainants.
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Inaccuracies ? Ombudsman - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.
A copy of the Ombudsman for Wales Report 2019 has been sent to the
Cabinet Member responsible for Children and Young People, Dilwyn Morgan,
for his consideration.
In the meantime a couple of paragraphs from the Report -
52. The Regulations state that Stage 2 is an Independent Investigation.
The public’s expectation is just that – independent. In its ordinary meaning,that means free from influence or control in any way by other people. A delay and multiple versions of a report, naturally, leaves a complainant wondering if it is not independent after all. It comes as no surprise that
Mr & Mrs A were unhappy with the process. This was particularly given the Council’s clear reluctance to accept some of the recommendations made by the IIO, which I will comment on later.
The Council has said it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected. When commenting as part of this investigation, it has reiterated this view. However, it has not identified any particular inaccuracies. Having spoken with both the IIO and IP, it is clear that they considered the report to be accurate.
53. In reaching a view, I find the IP’s evidence persuasive. I place significant weight upon it given her function and experience in her role. I am persuaded by not only the IP’s evidence to me, but the certification she gave (twice) about the report (draft and final versions) being accurate, fair and that she endorsed the findings– see paragraphs 22, 32 & 49 above.
The IP’s function is to provide oversight and she considered the evidence together with the IIO. I note that the IP also recalls the IIO as saying she felt she was being “bullied”. The IIO said she felt “overwhelmed” – only she knows how she genuinely felt. The imbalance in the number present at the
meeting was, at least, sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised. Both the IP and IIO have described what happened as not usual.
Whether or not the Council intended to (and it says it did not), the overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it has denied such).
Something is so seriously wrong within Gwynedd council.
In the meantime a couple of paragraphs from the Report -
52. The Regulations state that Stage 2 is an Independent Investigation.
The public’s expectation is just that – independent. In its ordinary meaning,that means free from influence or control in any way by other people. A delay and multiple versions of a report, naturally, leaves a complainant wondering if it is not independent after all. It comes as no surprise that
Mr & Mrs A were unhappy with the process. This was particularly given the Council’s clear reluctance to accept some of the recommendations made by the IIO, which I will comment on later.
The Council has said it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected. When commenting as part of this investigation, it has reiterated this view. However, it has not identified any particular inaccuracies. Having spoken with both the IIO and IP, it is clear that they considered the report to be accurate.
53. In reaching a view, I find the IP’s evidence persuasive. I place significant weight upon it given her function and experience in her role. I am persuaded by not only the IP’s evidence to me, but the certification she gave (twice) about the report (draft and final versions) being accurate, fair and that she endorsed the findings– see paragraphs 22, 32 & 49 above.
The IP’s function is to provide oversight and she considered the evidence together with the IIO. I note that the IP also recalls the IIO as saying she felt she was being “bullied”. The IIO said she felt “overwhelmed” – only she knows how she genuinely felt. The imbalance in the number present at the
meeting was, at least, sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised. Both the IP and IIO have described what happened as not usual.
Whether or not the Council intended to (and it says it did not), the overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it has denied such).
Something is so seriously wrong within Gwynedd council.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Gwynedd Council Fail.: Disingenuous - Cyngor Gwynedd Council - 2019.
Well it has been a while coming but the Ombudsman for Wales has finally completed its investigation into Cyngor Gwynedd Council.
Council officer's and senior managers did indeed interfere with a
Statutory Complaints Procedure and the Independent Investigating Officer
used the words "bullied" and "overwhelmed" to express how her dealings
with the senior management team had made her feel.
The Ombudsman's Report also highlights a lack of knowledge of Procedure
AND Law by the Children and Family Department and their solicitors.
Something we have been saying for years now.
Our attempts to raise concerns have been thwarted by council officer's
gas lighting us to Councillors and even our MP. Our case has not been
helped by the personal relationships and history between them all.
The first Ombudsman's Report (2018) showed serious failings within the
Children and Family department from 2010 through to 2016 and also
highlighted serious failings with the Customer Complaints department. So
serious the Ombudsman advised that ALL those involved undergo
retraining in all aspects of Statutory procedures. (This has still not
been complied with)
We have been informed that the council have still not complied with
other aspects of the Ombudsman's Recommendations which begs the question
what happens when a council reneges on its promises to individuals and
Government Agencies ?
This second Ombudsman's report finds certain officers evidence (to its own Investigation) as "disingenuous".
From the Free Dictionary - disingenuous
adjective artful, artificial, counterfeit, crafty, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, delusory, designing, devious, dishonest, dodging, evasive, false, false hearted, feigned, fraudulent, hypocritical, insidious, insincere, lacking frankness, lying, mendacious, misdealing, misleading, parum candidus, prevaricating, scheming, shifty, sly, spurious, tricky, truthless, uncandid, underhanded, unethical, ungenuine, unprincipled, unscrupulous, unstraightforward, untrustworthy, untruthful, wanting in candor, wily, without truth
The above adjectives perfectly describe our experience of dealing with certain officers of Gwynedd Social Services.....
Our concerns with an officer - responsible for redacting and censoring
our personal information - leaving the council, not being interviewed
during the Investigation and then rejoining the council after the
interviews had been completed were NOT investigated by the Ombudsman.
Nor has the Ombudsman answered our fears that Care Records and Reports
have been subject to cherry picking and revision in order to support the
false narrative senior managers have constructed to cover for the
failings that two Independent Investigations and now two Ombudsman's
Reports have uncovered - over 10 years.
Lessons learnt ?
There is something seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Gwynedd Council Fail.: Disingenuous - Cyngor Gwynedd Council - 2019.:
Council officer's and senior managers did indeed interfere with a
Statutory Complaints Procedure and the Independent Investigating Officer
used the words "bullied" and "overwhelmed" to express how her dealings
with the senior management team had made her feel.
The Ombudsman's Report also highlights a lack of knowledge of Procedure
AND Law by the Children and Family Department and their solicitors.
Something we have been saying for years now.
Our attempts to raise concerns have been thwarted by council officer's
gas lighting us to Councillors and even our MP. Our case has not been
helped by the personal relationships and history between them all.
The first Ombudsman's Report (2018) showed serious failings within the
Children and Family department from 2010 through to 2016 and also
highlighted serious failings with the Customer Complaints department. So
serious the Ombudsman advised that ALL those involved undergo
retraining in all aspects of Statutory procedures. (This has still not
been complied with)
We have been informed that the council have still not complied with
other aspects of the Ombudsman's Recommendations which begs the question
what happens when a council reneges on its promises to individuals and
Government Agencies ?
This second Ombudsman's report finds certain officers evidence (to its own Investigation) as "disingenuous".
From the Free Dictionary - disingenuous
adjective artful, artificial, counterfeit, crafty, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, delusory, designing, devious, dishonest, dodging, evasive, false, false hearted, feigned, fraudulent, hypocritical, insidious, insincere, lacking frankness, lying, mendacious, misdealing, misleading, parum candidus, prevaricating, scheming, shifty, sly, spurious, tricky, truthless, uncandid, underhanded, unethical, ungenuine, unprincipled, unscrupulous, unstraightforward, untrustworthy, untruthful, wanting in candor, wily, without truth
The above adjectives perfectly describe our experience of dealing with certain officers of Gwynedd Social Services.....
Our concerns with an officer - responsible for redacting and censoring
our personal information - leaving the council, not being interviewed
during the Investigation and then rejoining the council after the
interviews had been completed were NOT investigated by the Ombudsman.
Nor has the Ombudsman answered our fears that Care Records and Reports
have been subject to cherry picking and revision in order to support the
false narrative senior managers have constructed to cover for the
failings that two Independent Investigations and now two Ombudsman's
Reports have uncovered - over 10 years.
Lessons learnt ?
There is something seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Gwynedd Council Fail.: Disingenuous - Cyngor Gwynedd Council - 2019.:
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
Saturday, May 18, 2019
A Perception Of Injustice AKA Gaslighting.
If you have ever made a complaint about a public body the chances are your valid complaint will be referred to at some point as a ‘perception of injustice’ as if your experiences are just illusionary. Gaslighting is commonly used to deflect criticism and deter persistent complaint. So when you are up against authorities in collusion to deny the facts, knowing that others can validate your experiences with their own life events is vital to maintaining your mental stability.
Tactic #1: Gaslighters override your reality.
At its heart, gaslighting is overriding your reality to the point that you question your own judgment. Like most things, there are degrees. It can be as small-scale as telling a child, “You can’t be hungry—you just had a snack,” or as large-scale as denying fully obvious facts, such as this 2015 story about a man who got married, posted the wedding photos on Facebook, and then told his long-distance girlfriend it was a figment of her imagination. To sum up, if the gaslighter had a mantra, it would be, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.”Tactic #2: Gaslighters aren’t out to destroy you; they’re out to make things easier for themselves.
Unlike in the movie, most gaslighters aren’t pursuing anything as concrete as a treasure chest of jewels. What they want is more psychological. The gaslighter wants control of the target on a specific set of terms, with the gaslighter in charge. For the same reason, gaslighting isn’t always conscious. Indeed, gaslighters don’t sit around stroking their goatees or petting a white cat while plotting to undermine your sanity. Instead, gaslighting comes from the need—conscious or unconscious—to control. Gaslighters work to undermine you so you can’t challenge them. Then the relationship can go the way they want. They get to have their cake and eat it, too, without the inconvenience of having to discuss things, compromise, or work together.Tactic #3: Gaslighting is often fueled by sexism.
Of course, gaslighting can be used by anyone against anyone—it’s not always gendered. But it’s often used as a form of emotional abuse against women. It “works” in part because it feeds off sexist stereotypes of women as crazy, jealous, emotional, weak, or incapable. For example, in an excellent 2014 paper published in Philosophical Perspectives, Dr Kate Abramson of Indiana University details a story where a female grad student discovers the male grad students have made a list ranking the female grad students by attractiveness. When she expresses that such a list is inappropriate, she is told she’s overly sensitive, that she’s policing innocent conversation among male friends, and really she’s just insecure about her ranking on the list, isn’t she? By not allowing their sexist behaviour to continue unchecked, the male students suggest she is acting like the stereotypical “crazy woman.”What just happened there? If a woman rings the alarm on sexist behaviour, gaslighters use sexist stereotypes to undermine the woman’s complaints. Instead of taking her seriously, each of her complaints might be refuted as a silly misinterpretation or dismissed as her being too sensitive. In this way, the sexist stereotypes are used to reinforce themselves—an uninterrupted pattern of circular logic: “See, she’s just another insecure, overly emotional woman we don’t have to listen to.”
Tactic #4: Gaslighters make disagreement impossible.
Once you are discredited, any argument you may have is casually written off. When credibility is undermined — you’re crazy, a liar, unstable, a failure, or have lost your mind—anything you say is automatically suspect and builds the case against you. Therefore, you can’t disagree or protest. And the louder your objections, the more your gaslighter can smile smugly and say, “See, I told you so.”Tactic #5: Gaslighters make you agree with their point of view.
Gaslighters need the world to conform to their standards. And they need the very individuals they gaslight to agree with them. Therefore, it’s not enough for gaslighters, for example, to insist that sexual harassers were just having a little fun. They need the target of the harassment to agree that it was all just a little fun. Ideally, the target would not only agree but also believe that she deserved to be undermined because she was being crazy, overly sensitive, or imagining things. Now, refusing to witness or substantiate your reality is invalidation. But gaslighting means getting you, the target, to invalidate yourself as well. Not only does no one take you seriously, you wonder if you can take your own experience seriously: your common sense, your feelings, your memory, even what you’ve seen before your very eyes. In other words, gaslighting not only invalidates your experience, it also makes you question your capacity to trust your experience in the first place. At this stage, your gaslighter has you right where they want you: beginning to doubt yourself and your ideas even when they’re not there to continue enforcing the message.As for Ingrid Bergman as Paula, she is validated in the end and Gregory is arrested, but not before she dishes out some gaslighting revenge of her own as he sits tied to a chair. In a final attempt to manipulate her, Gregory tells her to get a knife and cut him free, but as she pulls his knife from a drawer she proclaims, “There is no knife here; you must have dreamed you put it here,” before tossing it away and quipping, “I am always losing things.”
Whether in Hollywood or your own household, gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse. Isolation is a key ingredient to gaslighting, so if this article spoke to you, reach out. Having just one person validate your experience can be a lifeline that begins the process of reeling yourself in from all the lies to believing your own truth again.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Monday, May 13, 2019
Thursday, May 09, 2019
Police to take no further action against former council leader over perjury allegations.
Police investigating allegations former Rochdale council leader
Richard Farnell committed perjury when he appeared at the Independent
Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) say there is ‘insufficient
evidence’ to take any criminal action against him.
The first report from the inquiry found Councillor Farnell had ‘lied under oath’ when giving evidence about the town’s notorious Knowl View school, where children were abused over a period spanning more than 25 years.
The document branded Councillor Farnell – who has always strongly denied he misled the inquiry – as ‘shameful’ for refusing to take responsibility for the abuse that happened under his watch when he was leader of the council between 1986 and 1992.
And it added that it ‘defies belief’ he was unaware of the events involving the school.
The findings prompted Richard Scorer – the lawyer who represented Knowl View abuse victims – to call for perjury charges to be considered against Councillor Farnell.
In May 2018 the Metropolitan Police received a referral from Greater Manchester Police requesting the force reviewed an allegation of perjury by a witness to the IICSA.
But following a lengthy investigation the Metropolitan Police have written to Councillor Farnell to inform him they will not be taking matters any further following a ‘full review’ of the evidence.
The letter, signed by Acting Detective Chief Inspector Gail Granville states: “Having carefully considered all the material gathered that was subject to review, I have concluded there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the criminal standard that you wilfully, that is to say deliberately and not inadvertently or by mistake, made a statement that you know to be false or did not believe to be true.
“As a result, no further action will be taken by the Metropolitan Police in relation to the allegation.”
Councillor Farnell, who stood down as council leader just weeks after giving his evidence to the inquiry, has welcomed the decision.
He said: “I am really pleased that following a thorough 12 month investigation by the Metropolitan Police they have decided not to prosecute me for perjury.
“I have always maintained I told the truth to the inquiry and the Metropolitan Police’s decision vindicates this.
“There is not one scrap of evidence that I knew about the failings at Knowl View almost 30 years ago. The council’s most senior officers at the time – the chief executive and directors of education and social services – all told the inquiry they did not inform me.
“The inquiry examined over 100,000 pages of letters, reports and documents and not a single one was addressed to me or informed me about Knowl View.
“Several leading councillors at the time all told the inquiry that they too were kept in the dark by officers about Knowl View. “
Referring to Operation Clifton – an investigation into the alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse at Knowl View – Councillor Farnell added:
“ A previous two-year inquiry by Greater Manchester Police into allegations of a cover-up of Knowl View found there was absolutely no evidence to support this.
“The inquiry was handed a 16 page report of evidence proving beyond any doubt I was not informed about Knowl View which, bizarrely, they ignored.”
Councillor Farnell, who continues to represent the Balderstone and Kirkholt ward, said it has been ‘extremely stressful’ to have the allegation hanging over him for twelve months, but thanked the police for a ‘thorough investigation’.
He added: “I was always confident it would come to nothing because I told the truth to the inquiry and all the evidence supports this.
“However, we must never, never forget the victims in this tragedy. It was only under my leadership that the council apologised for its failings at Knowl View.”
When he stood down as council leader Councillor Farnell blamed a ‘small minority’ of Labour members for ‘undermining’ his leadership following the hearing.
He was later suspended by the Labour party and is yet to be reinstated.
But he has now been backed by his successor, current council leader Allen Brett.
Councillor Brett said: “I am delighted that, after examining all the evidence, the police have dropped the case.
“I have known Richard for over thirty years and he is a man of integrity and honesty. I am worried political opponents have been trying to make him a scapegoat in all of this.
“I know Richard has a lot of friends and supporters in the Labour Party who will be really pleased with the decision. I will be pressing for his suspension from the Labour Party to be immediately lifted.”
And he also received support from the leader of Rochdale Council’s Conservative group, Councillor Ashley Dearnley.
More – https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/127700/police-to-take-no-further-action-against-former-council-leader-over-perjury-allegations
Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter
The first report from the inquiry found Councillor Farnell had ‘lied under oath’ when giving evidence about the town’s notorious Knowl View school, where children were abused over a period spanning more than 25 years.
The document branded Councillor Farnell – who has always strongly denied he misled the inquiry – as ‘shameful’ for refusing to take responsibility for the abuse that happened under his watch when he was leader of the council between 1986 and 1992.
And it added that it ‘defies belief’ he was unaware of the events involving the school.
The findings prompted Richard Scorer – the lawyer who represented Knowl View abuse victims – to call for perjury charges to be considered against Councillor Farnell.
In May 2018 the Metropolitan Police received a referral from Greater Manchester Police requesting the force reviewed an allegation of perjury by a witness to the IICSA.
But following a lengthy investigation the Metropolitan Police have written to Councillor Farnell to inform him they will not be taking matters any further following a ‘full review’ of the evidence.
The letter, signed by Acting Detective Chief Inspector Gail Granville states: “Having carefully considered all the material gathered that was subject to review, I have concluded there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the criminal standard that you wilfully, that is to say deliberately and not inadvertently or by mistake, made a statement that you know to be false or did not believe to be true.
“As a result, no further action will be taken by the Metropolitan Police in relation to the allegation.”
Councillor Farnell, who stood down as council leader just weeks after giving his evidence to the inquiry, has welcomed the decision.
He said: “I am really pleased that following a thorough 12 month investigation by the Metropolitan Police they have decided not to prosecute me for perjury.
“I have always maintained I told the truth to the inquiry and the Metropolitan Police’s decision vindicates this.
“There is not one scrap of evidence that I knew about the failings at Knowl View almost 30 years ago. The council’s most senior officers at the time – the chief executive and directors of education and social services – all told the inquiry they did not inform me.
“The inquiry examined over 100,000 pages of letters, reports and documents and not a single one was addressed to me or informed me about Knowl View.
“Several leading councillors at the time all told the inquiry that they too were kept in the dark by officers about Knowl View. “
Referring to Operation Clifton – an investigation into the alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse at Knowl View – Councillor Farnell added:
“ A previous two-year inquiry by Greater Manchester Police into allegations of a cover-up of Knowl View found there was absolutely no evidence to support this.
“The inquiry was handed a 16 page report of evidence proving beyond any doubt I was not informed about Knowl View which, bizarrely, they ignored.”
Councillor Farnell, who continues to represent the Balderstone and Kirkholt ward, said it has been ‘extremely stressful’ to have the allegation hanging over him for twelve months, but thanked the police for a ‘thorough investigation’.
He added: “I was always confident it would come to nothing because I told the truth to the inquiry and all the evidence supports this.
“However, we must never, never forget the victims in this tragedy. It was only under my leadership that the council apologised for its failings at Knowl View.”
When he stood down as council leader Councillor Farnell blamed a ‘small minority’ of Labour members for ‘undermining’ his leadership following the hearing.
He was later suspended by the Labour party and is yet to be reinstated.
But he has now been backed by his successor, current council leader Allen Brett.
Councillor Brett said: “I am delighted that, after examining all the evidence, the police have dropped the case.
“I have known Richard for over thirty years and he is a man of integrity and honesty. I am worried political opponents have been trying to make him a scapegoat in all of this.
“I know Richard has a lot of friends and supporters in the Labour Party who will be really pleased with the decision. I will be pressing for his suspension from the Labour Party to be immediately lifted.”
And he also received support from the leader of Rochdale Council’s Conservative group, Councillor Ashley Dearnley.
More – https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/127700/police-to-take-no-further-action-against-former-council-leader-over-perjury-allegations
Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Risk Of Child Abuse, Slavery And Domestic Violence In Gwynedd As 'High' Due To Lack Of Safeguarding Training,
The risk level at Gwynedd council has been judged as “high” when it
comes to protecting children and adults from abuse, neglect,
radicalisation, slavery, domestic violence and exploitation, say
auditors.
Gwynedd council said steps are already underway to address the findings, but issues raised include some residential home staff not having completed the necessary “safeguarding of vulnerable adults” training, with others also requiring a refresher after more than three years had passed since their last session.
Auditors also found that some leisure centre staff had failed to complete “e-learning” modules on safeguarding adults, child protection and safeguarding and domestic abuse.
As a result, Gwynedd’s audit committee passed to discuss the findings of the report during a sub-committee meeting over the coming weeks.
In their summing up, the internal audit noted that, while nine out of 10 staff members at one leisure centre had completed the ‘Safeguarding Adults’, ‘Child Protection and Safeguarding’ and ‘Domestic Abuse’ modules in the last two years, only a “small number” of staff from the other centres had completed the safeguarding modules.
They had been told by one duty manager that this training was “under way” and that the intention was to get the workers to complete the training “in the coming weeks.”
The auditors confirmed that a sample of officers from the four homes were selected and each was found to have a current Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) disclosure.
However, the report added: “Not all (care home) staff had received safeguarding of vulnerable adults training, and cases were identified where it was necessary for the training to be renewed.
“Employees should receive classroom training for safeguarding every three years. The training of several staff dated back more than the three-year period with some dating back to 2010.
“The manager was aware of the situation and it was found that she had organised safeguarding training for 13 members of staff during the year to come.”
It added: “E-learning training records including ‘Domestic Abuse’, ‘Safeguarding Adults’ and ‘Child Protection and Safeguarding’ modules were checked, a small number of staff had completed these modules at the time of the audit.
“Managers were aware of the need to complete these modules, one of them identified the difficulties they have had to get access to all staff and also the need to ensure a supply of staff on duty while others complete the modules.
“It is not necessary for staff to complete the safeguarding modules as they already receive face to face training but in terms of the ‘Domestic Abuse’ module it is necessary for all council staff to complete the module.”
Responding to the findings, a Gwynedd Council spokesperson said that robust arrangements and procedures to ensure that residents are protected is “a priority.”
“Every member of staff is responsible for reporting on concerns or suspicion that individuals are being abused,” he added.
More - https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/17449306.auditors-judge-risk-of-child-abuse-slavery-and-domestic-violence-in-gwynedd-as-high-due-to-lack-of-safeguarding-training/
7 Managers And Three Members Of Staff Have Left Gisda, amid Bullying Claims.
Ten former employees at a homeless charity have said the chief executive's behaviour led them to leave their jobs.
Since 2011, seven managers and three members of staff have left Gisda, with many claiming to have been bullied. The board of directors at the charity, based in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, said it had confidence in the ability of Sian Elen Tomos.
The youth charity is "committed to creating a healthy work space for its entire staff," the board added.
The BBC has spoken to 10 former Gisda employees who claim Ms Tomos's managerial style was the reason they left.
None were willing to do an interview publicly - but one agreed to speak anonymously.
Eileen - not her real name - said Ms Tomos "could make people feel very uncomfortable".
"Not taking into account what anyone else said, ignoring people and making it obvious in front of other people, turning her back on you as you were speaking to her and walking away," she explained.
"I've seen her walking out of a number of meetings. She would not speak to people for days. Not speaking at all. And she could be nasty to people too.
"I think she worked on people's weaknesses - bullyng, really."
"There was a feeling that she was untouchable. If anyone disagreed with her she got rid of them - or worked to get rid of them."
A letter sent to the board of directors and seen by the BBC shows a number of staff complained about the situation in 2017.
The BBC understands only three formal complaints have been made since 2011, but a number of former staff said they did not complain formally because they felt they would be ignored.
The letter noted staff felt "suspicious, dispirited, anxious and angry", and the charity needed to act decisively if the board wished "to avoid a morale crisis".
The letter finished by calling on the board to "consider the high level of staff turnover in the organisation".
The BBC has seen a copy of the report, which states the grievances of the two previous managers and the complaints made by the chief executive about her staff, were partly upheld.
Acknowledging further issues at Gisda, the report made a number of recommendations.
These included to arrange mediation between Ms Tomos and the two former managers and the board should review its complaints procedures so complaints were acted upon and not ignored.
According to Eileen, who left months after the independent report was published, the recommendations were not acted upon.
Four other former members of staff who left after the report was published agreed.
To see positive change, Eileen said the charity should appoint a new board of directors and chief executive.
More - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48044912
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Official who OK'd Obama birth papers dies in crash - USA TODAY - 2013
From 2013 -
The Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate died in a small plane crash.
The plane, carrying a pilot and eight passengers, went down Wednesday in the water a half mile off the Hawaiian island of Molokai, the Maui Fire Department said. The lone fatality was Loretta Fuddy, who has served as state health director since January 2011. Tom Matsuda, the interim executive director of Hawaii's health insurance exchange, confirmed Fuddy's death.
Fuddy, 65, made national news in April 2011 when she verified the authenticity of certified copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Obama had requested the release to curb claims by so-called "birthers" that he was born in Kenya and not eligible to be president.
Makani Kai Air President Richard Schuman told Honolulu-based KITV that he spoke with the pilot of the single-engine turboprop Cessna Grand Caravan after the crash.
"What he reported is after takeoff ... there was catastrophic engine failure," Schuman said. "He did the best he can to bring the aircraft down safely and he got everybody out of the aircraft."
Schuman said the cause of the engine failure had not yet been determined. The National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the crash; NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that based on the location of the crash it was unlikely the plane will be recovered.
"Our hearts are broken," Gov. Neil Abercrombie said in a statement. "Loretta was deeply loved and respected. She was selfless, utterly dedicated and committed to her colleagues in the Department of Health and to the people of Hawaii. Her knowledge was vast; her counsel and advice always given from her heart as much as from her storehouse of experience."
More - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/
The Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate died in a small plane crash.
The plane, carrying a pilot and eight passengers, went down Wednesday in the water a half mile off the Hawaiian island of Molokai, the Maui Fire Department said. The lone fatality was Loretta Fuddy, who has served as state health director since January 2011. Tom Matsuda, the interim executive director of Hawaii's health insurance exchange, confirmed Fuddy's death.
Fuddy, 65, made national news in April 2011 when she verified the authenticity of certified copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Obama had requested the release to curb claims by so-called "birthers" that he was born in Kenya and not eligible to be president.
Makani Kai Air President Richard Schuman told Honolulu-based KITV that he spoke with the pilot of the single-engine turboprop Cessna Grand Caravan after the crash.
"What he reported is after takeoff ... there was catastrophic engine failure," Schuman said. "He did the best he can to bring the aircraft down safely and he got everybody out of the aircraft."
Schuman said the cause of the engine failure had not yet been determined. The National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the crash; NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that based on the location of the crash it was unlikely the plane will be recovered.
"Our hearts are broken," Gov. Neil Abercrombie said in a statement. "Loretta was deeply loved and respected. She was selfless, utterly dedicated and committed to her colleagues in the Department of Health and to the people of Hawaii. Her knowledge was vast; her counsel and advice always given from her heart as much as from her storehouse of experience."
More - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/
Friday, April 19, 2019
US preparing more charges against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
On Wednesday, CNN reported US federal prosecutors confirmed there is
an “ongoing criminal investigation” of Julian Assange, the 47-year-old
founder of WikiLeaks. Prosecutors also indicated “affiliates” of Assange
are under investigation, this according to another newly unsealed
document.
According to the CNN report, at least one document related to
this investigation has been withheld from the public due to “ongoing
activity.”
The revelation, CNN reported, “confirms CNN and other news outlets’
reporting in recent days that WikiLeaks is connected to at least one
probe that could result in more criminal charges.”
The report confirms the warnings made by the WSWS and others that the
charges related to computer hacking leveled against Assange are merely a
pretext for his extradition to the United States, after which
additional charges would be brought against him.
On April 11, Assange was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in
London and arrested by British officials on the public charge of
conspiracy to bypass a password. That charge dated back to events in the
2011 WikiLeaks’ publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs.
Chelsea Manning turned over more than half a million documents exposing
US war crimes and corruption to WikiLeaks for publication.
The expulsion and arrest of Assange has been accompanied by an
unrestrained campaign of media vilification aimed at transforming
Assange into a non-person, undeserving of democratic rights.
But since Assange has been imprisoned in the maximum-security
Belmarsh prison, public comments made by leading Democrats and US media
officials indicate that charge was not the primary aim of the US
investigation.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that
Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account
for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian
government.” Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the
national security of the United States and our allies by publicly
releasing classified government documents and confidential materials
related to our 2016 presidential election.”
US, British and Ecuadorian governments have claimed Assange’s
extradition is proper because the US is indicting on a single charge:
attempting to help Chelsea Manning bypass a password. But this has now
been revealed to be only the pretext. The real reason the US wants
custody of the whistleblower was stated by Schumer and Engel.
On April 15, the WSWS wrote
that these statements demonstrate the extradition proceedings are being
conducted under false pretenses: “The single public charge is a cover.
The government is planning to interrogate Assange, compel him to provide
testimony and further prosecute him for exposing US war crimes.” (“Stop
the extraordinary rendition of Julian Assange!”)
In December 2017, US prosecutors told a federal judge they wanted to
keep secret the charges Assange might face because learning of them
might have caused him to flee the Ecuadorian embassy. According to CNN,
the recently unsealed documents indicate that a grand jury in Virginia
indicted Assange in 2018 and prosecutors again demanded the charges be
kept secret for the same reason, and added their worries about evidence
tampering and witness intimidation.
More - US preparing more charges against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
an “ongoing criminal investigation” of Julian Assange, the 47-year-old
founder of WikiLeaks. Prosecutors also indicated “affiliates” of Assange
are under investigation, this according to another newly unsealed
document.
According to the CNN report, at least one document related to
this investigation has been withheld from the public due to “ongoing
activity.”
The revelation, CNN reported, “confirms CNN and other news outlets’
reporting in recent days that WikiLeaks is connected to at least one
probe that could result in more criminal charges.”
The report confirms the warnings made by the WSWS and others that the
charges related to computer hacking leveled against Assange are merely a
pretext for his extradition to the United States, after which
additional charges would be brought against him.
On April 11, Assange was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in
London and arrested by British officials on the public charge of
conspiracy to bypass a password. That charge dated back to events in the
2011 WikiLeaks’ publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs.
Chelsea Manning turned over more than half a million documents exposing
US war crimes and corruption to WikiLeaks for publication.
The expulsion and arrest of Assange has been accompanied by an
unrestrained campaign of media vilification aimed at transforming
Assange into a non-person, undeserving of democratic rights.
But since Assange has been imprisoned in the maximum-security
Belmarsh prison, public comments made by leading Democrats and US media
officials indicate that charge was not the primary aim of the US
investigation.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that
Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account
for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian
government.” Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the
national security of the United States and our allies by publicly
releasing classified government documents and confidential materials
related to our 2016 presidential election.”
US, British and Ecuadorian governments have claimed Assange’s
extradition is proper because the US is indicting on a single charge:
attempting to help Chelsea Manning bypass a password. But this has now
been revealed to be only the pretext. The real reason the US wants
custody of the whistleblower was stated by Schumer and Engel.
On April 15, the WSWS wrote
that these statements demonstrate the extradition proceedings are being
conducted under false pretenses: “The single public charge is a cover.
The government is planning to interrogate Assange, compel him to provide
testimony and further prosecute him for exposing US war crimes.” (“Stop
the extraordinary rendition of Julian Assange!”)
In December 2017, US prosecutors told a federal judge they wanted to
keep secret the charges Assange might face because learning of them
might have caused him to flee the Ecuadorian embassy. According to CNN,
the recently unsealed documents indicate that a grand jury in Virginia
indicted Assange in 2018 and prosecutors again demanded the charges be
kept secret for the same reason, and added their worries about evidence
tampering and witness intimidation.
More - US preparing more charges against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
Thursday, April 11, 2019
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:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)