The new Lord Mayor of Sandwell, Derek Rowley, selected the excellent Sandwell Women's Aid ("SWA") as his mayoral charity and he was out in his togs last night at The Mayor of Sandwell's Dinner where, happily, at least £300 was raised for SWA.
I cannot tell whether Rowley was at the secret "Labour Group" meeting held on the night before the full Sandwell Council meeting of 4th December, 2012 because these meetings are, er, secret.
What I can tell you was that the record shows that he was MOST DEFINITELY at the actual Council meeting of 4th December whereby those Sandwell "Socialists" who were in attendance unanimously voted through Eling's disastrous unlawful and discriminatory "amendment" to the CTR - Council Tax Reduction - scheme (see my blog "Local Media Blackout on New Sandwell Council Scandal" dated 5th August, 2014).
We can only surmise that Eling and his Cabinet colleagues had discussed this amendment with their flock of sheep at the secret Labour meeting as a High Court Judge last week described how they had not apparently discussed it with anyone else, including officers of The Council! In a thoroughly damning judgment, Mr Justice Hickingbottom described the unlawfulness of the decision, castigated the abysmal failure to consult and found the policy discriminatory.
The action was brought by the Child Poverty Action Group on behalf of 3 vulnerable women - one homeless, one with mental health issues and one fleeing domestic violence - just the sort of unfortunate folk you might think Labour would support. The Judge found (and this was NOT disputed by Sandwell Council) that Sandwell Labour had, in fact, shafted 3,600 (Three Thousand Six Hundred) of the most vulnerable members of society by its decision and I wouldn't mind betting that SWA assisted a number of Labour's victims. In addition, this unlawful and discriminatory policy - cheerfully approved by the whole Labour Group present at the meeting including the hypocritical ROWLEY - has cost in excess of £1 million (as a direct result of this discrimination Labour lost a grant of £675,000, incurred massive legal costs and will have to compensate as many of the 3,600 they screwed who come forward to make a claim - plus the associated admin costs involved in all this). It seems Rowley will pay lip service to women's rights but, in his political actions, vote for policies which are directly detrimental in practice to them
There are a tiny handful of decent Labour Councillors - I am told Bob Piper is one - but no public apology has been made by any of them to date for this outrage. On the contrary, the oafish "leader", Cooper, has said the Council may appeal and that the decision was somehow "right". Perhaps he is just too thick to appreciate the Judge's ringing denunciation of Sandwell Labour's "unanimous" decision and his criticism of "the evidential void" that surrounded Labour's decision making-process in this case (if it can be described thus).
Sandwell Council were comprehensively hammered by the Judge on all six legal arguments and SWA should note the specific finding that Sandwell Labour has breached s149 Equality Act, 2010.
Of course, voluntary organisations in Sandwell are in a "Catch 22" situation since many are dependent to a greater or lesser degree on Council funding. In return the Politburo expect them to toe the party line and any opposition to Labour is likely to lead to immediate threats of "sanctions". If you do not believe me ask any of the organisations connected with The Public about the events of precisely one year ago...... It is no surprise, therefore, that it fell to an outside body - The CPAG - to deliver the coup de grace.
Sandwell Women's Aid do invaluable work and if you have read this post I urge you to make a
donation to them. I hope they receive shed-loads of money this year and keep up the good work but it should be noted that this was not an isolated incident of Sandwell Labour changing policy "on the hoof" (eg the ice-rink scandal) and all Sandwell charities and voluntary groups must be aware of the Council's current modus operandi under the moronic Cooper who believes he has "a mandate" to force through whatever he pleases - usually with no consultation whatsoever (eg ice-rink again). Third Sector organisations must be alert to this. They must demand to be heard and to make sure their specialist knowledge is taken into account where applicable. If your organisation is too afraid to do this for fear of retaliation please send your concerns to me (anonymously if necessary) and I will do the necessary or try to get an "outside" group like CPAG to help.
My personal view is that Eling must resign (or be sacked if he won't) and the Labour Councillors should be individually surcharged for the £1m plus loss brought about by their unlawful action but, the latter at least, is unlikely to happen. If those who voted for this are not, individually, man or woman enough to publicly apologise to the 3,600 who suffered at their hands and to the taxpayer for the substantial financial losses then someone should defy Cooper and Co and step forward to express contrition on their behalf. May I suggest Councillor Derek Rowley, The Lord Mayor of Sandwell.
PS. Returning to a familiar theme ie the fact that all policy is agreed in secret Labour meetings so that the public Council meetings are just rubber-stamping exercises (see blogs passim) the High Court Judge was clearly not aware of this "system" and expressed surprise that the full Council had managed to get through the entire agenda on 04/12/12 in just 39 minutes - including, of course, Eling's disastrous amendment referred to above. The Judge would have been even more surprised to note that in that 39 minutes there was a lot of time spent on "non-business" items including a minute's silence for Alderman [sic] Vera Jones followed by no less that SIX oral tributes from Councillors. There was also an item welcoming back Cllr Sidhu from illness and an item announcing the Mayor's forthcoming events. Thus the business part of the meeting where the comrades pushed this through was considerably shorter than stated. Is it any wonder that such horrendous mistakes are made when there is no debate whatsoever.
Finally, The Chief Executive and the Head of Legal & Governance usually sit in on full Council meetings but the minutes do not show whether they were there on 04/12/12. If they were - what on earth were they doing allowing a major policy change to be made in this manner (although, as above, this is not an isolated incident)?
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone number - 07599 983737
Friday, 8 August 2014
Thursday, 7 August 2014
Can you help me? Local Sandwell knowledge required!
There is a very bad smell arising from the sale of, er, three former public conveniences by Sandwell Council. They have failed to adequately answer my Freedom of Information Act request regarding this and, for reasons unknown (!), the Council is deliberately trying to make it difficult (and expensive) for me to establish the facts - which is where you come in Dear Reader. But please, permit me to tell you the story so far.....
On 15th August, 2012 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“SMBC”) purported to sell 3 former public conveniences to “Central Property Line”. On the basis of “information received” I put in a Freedom of Information Request asking for full details of the sale on 12th June, 2014 via WhatDoTheyKnow.com “Sale of Three Public Conveniences”.
On 15th August, 2012 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“SMBC”) purported to sell 3 former public conveniences to “Central Property Line”. On the basis of “information received” I put in a Freedom of Information Request asking for full details of the sale on 12th June, 2014 via WhatDoTheyKnow.com “Sale of Three Public Conveniences”.
English Law does not permit a business to trade simply using
a trading name – such as “Central Property Line”. Putting it simply, a business
must be either (1) a limited company/plc or (2) a limited liability
partnership; or (3) an “ordinary” partnership (eg ab & cd t/a Central
Property Line) or (4) a sole trader (eg ab t/a Central Property Line).
My researches showed that there were 2 limited companies
called “Central Property Line Limited” at different times (both of which have
been struck off the register at Companies House) and the first was operating
from the same Oldbury address as “Central Property Line” but SMBC initially confirmed
in writing that the sale was NOT to either the first or the second versions of the Limited Company.
Thus, SMBC initially stated that the sale was simply to
Central Property Line. This is a nonsense since no such entity can legally
exist. The legal documents conveying the property to the purchaser MUST have given
the full trading title but Mr David Willetts, a Property Manager at SMBC, is
refusing to disclose this (and, as we shall see, other material information).
Whether this is all upon his own initiative or whether he is “only obeying orders”
remains to be seen. The fact is that SMBC’s legal department probably did the
conveyancing of the property and even if they did not, they must have access to
the file which will show in seconds the true legal identity of the purchaser.
I should say that although my Request was made on 12th
June, 2014 there was no reply within the statutory time limit and so on 27th
July, 2014 I was forced to apply to SMBC for a formal internal review. I then
received a letter dated 30th July, 2014 apologising for the delay
which was said to have been due to a “communication
breakdown” and which gave me some interesting information but NOT the key
details I asked for – ie name of purchaser, price for each plot and Land
Registry title number for each plot. Willetts argued that I could obtain the
price and title numbers from HM Land Registry and he has maintained that line when I followed this up. But it is not quite as simple as
that and this is where I need your help.
I do all the work on The Skidder on a voluntary basis and
incur quite a bit of expenditure on company searches, voters roll checks and
Land Registry searches. If I don’t get this right, I waste money. The Land
Registry site is not very user friendly and it is easy to get the wrong
property (as I did at first with regard to Terry Duffy House). Working on the
basis that SMBC will continue to try and impede my enquiries (whilst lying to
me – see below) can you help me identify the three sites with a degree of
certainty so that I can proceed with the Land Registry searches. A copy of a Google Earth shot or simply a good description sent to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
will be much appreciated. Anonymity guaranteed!
SMBC have told me that the three sites as listed below were
valued by Mr J Page, the District Valuer at a cost to the taxpayer of £1,200 as
follows:
Albert Street, Oldbury - £35K
Jervoise Lane, West Bromwich - £50K
The Shambles, Wednesbury - £45K.
And this is where things start to get really odd. Mr
Willetts has confirmed that the properties were NOT auctioned NOR offered for
sale on the open market. Although not offered on the market SMBC mysteriously received
ONE BID in respect of each property and then sold the bogs to that secret
bidder after “negotiations”. As above, Mr Willetts would not state the correct
legal title of the purchaser nor the price for each plot.
Tonight, things have taken a bizarre turn since someone else
at SMBC has now WRITTEN stating that the negotiations were NOT with Central Property Line
but with Central Property Line Limited -
co no 04373028. She does not say the sale was to that Company but all this
cannot be true since that version of Central Property was STRUCK OFF &
DISSOLVED by Companies House on 15TH DECEMBER, 2009 nearly THREE
YEARS BEFORE the sale! Someone somewhere is not telling the truth!
Clearly if SMBC will not come clean the Land Registry
searches are required. My information so far, is that one of the plots –
Jervoise Lane - was almost immediately auctioned after this transaction. Please
help me correctly identify the three sites.
I will give you details of the two Limited Companies in case
anything “rings a bell” particularly as the first incarnation of the Company also
had its registered office at 36 Birmingham Street, Oldbury although I must make it clear that I am merely repeating what is on the public record and I make absolutely no suggestion of impropriety against any of the individuals named at this point in time.
The first Central Property Line Limited - co. number 04373028 – was incorporated in
2002 and struck off in 2009. The Company Secretary was IMRAN MAJID, then of
Tyseley and the Director/Sole Shareholder was IFTIKHAR ALI, then of Sparkbrook.
The second Central Property Line Limited – co number
07661284 – was incorporated on 7th June, 2011 and struck off on 24th
September, 2013 so that it was in existence when these sales were made. A Mr
TALIB MAHMOOD was initially involved but resigned as a Director on 12th
December, 2011 leaving a sole director and shareholder – ABDUL NAEEM QUYAM then
of Warley Road, Oldbury. (I should say here that this gentleman
is not, as far as I can tell, the same person as Abdul Quyyam of our old friends, Five Star Taxis in Dudley.).
I will, of course, be reporting all this to the Information
Commissioner when I appeal in the next few days. Unless, of course, SMBC want
to give me the true facts in the interim…..
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no. 07599 983737
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Are Sandwell Council Lying About Senior Officers' Pay?
"There are only seven people at Sandwell Council earning over £100,000 per annum." So said the Sandwell C-S's - aka The Express and Star - yesterday. Presumably this information was fed to them by Sandwell Council and, as ever, they simply accepted this as gospel truth and spewed it out as fact.
I immediately speculated on Twitter yesterday that this MUST be false and that Labour Sandwell Council were fiddling the figures to refer to salary only and deliberately ignoring other payments - particularly pension contributions. (Incidentally, Labour Sandwell has recently introduced a "salary sacrifice scheme" for its employees and such schemes are generally more advantageous to higher-rate taxpayers - I will be doing a FoI Request about this to see how many of the Sandwell "Magic Circle" have signed-up).
The figures that follow are slightly historic in that they are from the audited accounts of Sandwell Council for the year ended 31st March, 2014:
TOTAL REMUNERATION INCLUDING PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS:
Chief Executive £164,519
Dep Chief Exec £142,626
Dr Legal & Gov £128,138 (Hooray - a pay rise for Neeraj up from £124,251!)
Dr Strategic Resources £132,512
Dr Imp & Efficiency £120,092
Dr Adult Social Care £104,789
Dr Regen & Economy £108,614
Well there is 7 for a start-off so what is this?:
Dr Street Scene £108,614
Dr Homes & Comms £108,614
Dr Neighbourhoods £108,614
Public Health £179,197 (Dr Middleton retired 31/03/14 - cost of replacement?)
But wait, there is more!
The Director of Learning and Culture was not in post for the whole year but KMPG, the auditors, say "the annualised salary is £101,687".
The Director of Children & Families is also said to have departed in April, 2013 but KMPG refer to an annualised salary of £101,687 for this post. It is also said that the statutory role of Director of Children's Services has been outsourced to a private company. That's been cheap, I'll bet!
But there is more! Under KMPG's list of "Other Employees", ie those outside the "Magic Circle":
Band 100,000 - 104,999 - one employee - schools
Band 115,000 - 144,999 - one employee - schools
And so the question is simply this - have some of these very highly-paid employees left SMBC between 31st March and yesterday or did Labour Sandwell Council lie to the Express and Star? Tell us Express and Star who gave you this information and why you didn't bother to check it?
(Apologies that my tables seem to have gone "wonky" between draft and finished product!)
(Apologies that my tables seem to have gone "wonky" between draft and finished product!)
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
Local Media Blackout on New Sandwell Council Scandal
The "Socialists" at Labour Sandwell Council have shafted 3,600 of the most vulnerable members of our society and lost-out on a large grant due to their incompetence. You would think that might be newsworthy but the BBC and the C-S's at the Express and Star don't "do" anti-Sandwell Labour stories. You will have to read The Guardian or The Skidder to discover another tale of woe from the Oldbury Kremlin.
A couple of years ago Council Tax benefit was fazed-out and replaced by local authorities operating Council Tax Reduction schemes. Initially the staff at The Kremlin appear to have done a fairly reasonable job in devising the scheme (apart from inadequate public consultation) and had done an Equality Impact Assessment. The joke "cabinet" of Sandwell Council approved the scheme and it went before the full Council (aka "the rubber stamp") on 4th December, 2012.
Regular readers will know that Sandwell Council is almost entirely Labour and that they don't believe in open democracy. Instead there is a secret "Labour Group" meeting the night before the full Council meeting where the comrades decide future policy privately. The actual public meetings are then, indeed, a simple "rubber-stamping" exercise lasting a matter of minutes (Private Eye did a piece on this). Presumably, someone - possibly Councillor Eling - raised a query since, just like that, Labour decided to change the agreed scheme overnight by introducing a residence test. (This is a regular modus operandi for the comrades eg see the ongoing ice rink scandal).
Without going into the legal stuff, Labour were afraid that "benefit tourists" would suddenly start migrating to the dog-shit splattered streets of Sandwell from other parts of Britain and the EU and so decided that to qualify for the scheme, claimants must have lived in the Borough for two years before claiming.
"Councillor" Eling (supposedly "anal" about detail) put the amended scheme to the sheep at the full Council meeting and they duly bleated their approval (see further below).
The Socialists in Sandwell are anti-enterprise and do little to raise the aspirations of the long-suffering population. They spend most of their time trying to screw money out of the taxpayer via the Central Government in Westminster or else borrowing colossal sums from the likes of Barclays to fund a constant stream of leisure centres and other vanity projects. They do reckless deals like the multi-million pound BT shocker and that with the College for The Public building - which they then attempt to keep secret. You would think the least they could do was look after the disadvantaged in the Borough but they cannot even manage that as evidenced by the disastrous Children's Services department and their unequal rip-off of women workers over many years.
In this case, Sandwell were desperate to devise a scheme that entitled them to an additional £675,000 of taxpayer loot from Westminster and as far as I can see they would have got this had they implemented the scheme as draw-up by the hard-pressed Council officers. But the politicians had to go an interfere with the result that last week the Council was utterly humiliated in a High Court case brought, ironically, by those notorious "right-wingers" the, er, Child Poverty Action Group on behalf of 3 unfortunate victims of the scheme (see Winder & Others -v Sandwell MBC).
The Judge delivered a crushing verdict against Sandwell Council on all 6 arguments relating to the residence test. It is clear from paragraph 45 of his judgement that Mr Justice Hickingbottom was totally unaware of the secret Labour Group meetings the night before Council meetings as he was bemused how, where and when the decision had been made to change the scheme and there was no evidence before him that the Labour councillors had given any thought to the legality of their actions or to the likely discriminatory consequences. He assumed that Eling had at least considered the changes beforehand since HE raised the matter at the full Council meeting. There was no evidence before him that Sandwell's ludicrous "cabinet" had reconsidered the matter. He SPECIFICALLY noted that there was no proper discussion of the revised scheme at the full Council meeting which dealt with a substantial agenda in just 39 minutes! (See my post of 17th April, 2014 - Skidder Shorts No. 7 for the Private Eye piece).
The Judge decided that the scheme was "ultra vires" ie that Sandwell Labour had purported to assume powers that they did not legally have so that the scheme was unlawful. That was enough to sink the Council but he also decided:
1. Consultation by the Council was woefully inadequate (regular readers will not be surprised with regard to this eg the ice-rink scandal; closure of The Public; the conversion of The Public into a college: the huge payments to the likes of The Albion Foundation and The Celebration Statue - the list goes on and on). In this case, Sandwell claimed that a link on their website constituted adequate "consultation" even though the linked page did not ask for a response! The Judge stated that proper consultation may have prevented the Council "from plunging into the unlawfulness into which it did plunge" (ouch!)
2. The scheme was discriminatory - particularly towards women (Ed Mili-bland this is your party!);
3. The Labour Councillors failed to take into account material considerations - plain incompetence from the comrades - many of whom have plenty of time on their hands as they don't work);
4. The scheme was contrary to EU law as being a barrier to freedom of movement;
5. The scheme was a breach of s.149 of the Equality Act, 2010 (please note again Ed Mili-bland).
It is difficult to see a more comprehensive and critical judgment against this flawed policy but the idiotic Labour Leader - Cooper - said SMBC were "considering an appeal" - which just about says it all......
And the consequences of this - I am assuming that there will have to be financial compensation for the 3,600 (three thousand six hundred) poor vulnerable people who were shafted by Labour. Their will be large legal costs in respect of this case and, would you believe it - as a specific result of the Labour Councillors unlawfully changing the scheme they have LOST the grant of £675,000 whilst making large-scale redundancies and cuts across the Borough.
This million-pound plus fiasco is ENTIRELY down to the gross incompetence of the Labour Councillors who did not consult their officers before changing the scheme. My view is that they should be individually surcharged for this substantial loss. Anyone agree with me?
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737
A couple of years ago Council Tax benefit was fazed-out and replaced by local authorities operating Council Tax Reduction schemes. Initially the staff at The Kremlin appear to have done a fairly reasonable job in devising the scheme (apart from inadequate public consultation) and had done an Equality Impact Assessment. The joke "cabinet" of Sandwell Council approved the scheme and it went before the full Council (aka "the rubber stamp") on 4th December, 2012.
Regular readers will know that Sandwell Council is almost entirely Labour and that they don't believe in open democracy. Instead there is a secret "Labour Group" meeting the night before the full Council meeting where the comrades decide future policy privately. The actual public meetings are then, indeed, a simple "rubber-stamping" exercise lasting a matter of minutes (Private Eye did a piece on this). Presumably, someone - possibly Councillor Eling - raised a query since, just like that, Labour decided to change the agreed scheme overnight by introducing a residence test. (This is a regular modus operandi for the comrades eg see the ongoing ice rink scandal).
Without going into the legal stuff, Labour were afraid that "benefit tourists" would suddenly start migrating to the dog-shit splattered streets of Sandwell from other parts of Britain and the EU and so decided that to qualify for the scheme, claimants must have lived in the Borough for two years before claiming.
"Councillor" Eling (supposedly "anal" about detail) put the amended scheme to the sheep at the full Council meeting and they duly bleated their approval (see further below).
The Socialists in Sandwell are anti-enterprise and do little to raise the aspirations of the long-suffering population. They spend most of their time trying to screw money out of the taxpayer via the Central Government in Westminster or else borrowing colossal sums from the likes of Barclays to fund a constant stream of leisure centres and other vanity projects. They do reckless deals like the multi-million pound BT shocker and that with the College for The Public building - which they then attempt to keep secret. You would think the least they could do was look after the disadvantaged in the Borough but they cannot even manage that as evidenced by the disastrous Children's Services department and their unequal rip-off of women workers over many years.
In this case, Sandwell were desperate to devise a scheme that entitled them to an additional £675,000 of taxpayer loot from Westminster and as far as I can see they would have got this had they implemented the scheme as draw-up by the hard-pressed Council officers. But the politicians had to go an interfere with the result that last week the Council was utterly humiliated in a High Court case brought, ironically, by those notorious "right-wingers" the, er, Child Poverty Action Group on behalf of 3 unfortunate victims of the scheme (see Winder & Others -v Sandwell MBC).
The Judge delivered a crushing verdict against Sandwell Council on all 6 arguments relating to the residence test. It is clear from paragraph 45 of his judgement that Mr Justice Hickingbottom was totally unaware of the secret Labour Group meetings the night before Council meetings as he was bemused how, where and when the decision had been made to change the scheme and there was no evidence before him that the Labour councillors had given any thought to the legality of their actions or to the likely discriminatory consequences. He assumed that Eling had at least considered the changes beforehand since HE raised the matter at the full Council meeting. There was no evidence before him that Sandwell's ludicrous "cabinet" had reconsidered the matter. He SPECIFICALLY noted that there was no proper discussion of the revised scheme at the full Council meeting which dealt with a substantial agenda in just 39 minutes! (See my post of 17th April, 2014 - Skidder Shorts No. 7 for the Private Eye piece).
The Judge decided that the scheme was "ultra vires" ie that Sandwell Labour had purported to assume powers that they did not legally have so that the scheme was unlawful. That was enough to sink the Council but he also decided:
1. Consultation by the Council was woefully inadequate (regular readers will not be surprised with regard to this eg the ice-rink scandal; closure of The Public; the conversion of The Public into a college: the huge payments to the likes of The Albion Foundation and The Celebration Statue - the list goes on and on). In this case, Sandwell claimed that a link on their website constituted adequate "consultation" even though the linked page did not ask for a response! The Judge stated that proper consultation may have prevented the Council "from plunging into the unlawfulness into which it did plunge" (ouch!)
2. The scheme was discriminatory - particularly towards women (Ed Mili-bland this is your party!);
3. The Labour Councillors failed to take into account material considerations - plain incompetence from the comrades - many of whom have plenty of time on their hands as they don't work);
4. The scheme was contrary to EU law as being a barrier to freedom of movement;
5. The scheme was a breach of s.149 of the Equality Act, 2010 (please note again Ed Mili-bland).
It is difficult to see a more comprehensive and critical judgment against this flawed policy but the idiotic Labour Leader - Cooper - said SMBC were "considering an appeal" - which just about says it all......
And the consequences of this - I am assuming that there will have to be financial compensation for the 3,600 (three thousand six hundred) poor vulnerable people who were shafted by Labour. Their will be large legal costs in respect of this case and, would you believe it - as a specific result of the Labour Councillors unlawfully changing the scheme they have LOST the grant of £675,000 whilst making large-scale redundancies and cuts across the Borough.
This million-pound plus fiasco is ENTIRELY down to the gross incompetence of the Labour Councillors who did not consult their officers before changing the scheme. My view is that they should be individually surcharged for this substantial loss. Anyone agree with me?
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737
Casino Costs "Cock-Up" by Sandwell Labour
Sandwell Labour are very quick to ditch their so-called principles when it suits them as the Birchley Island casino fiasco shows. I don't like to say I told you so...but....
Can I ask you to quickly have a look at my blog of 4th March, 2014 - "Hussain Hoaxed! Red Faces at the Kremlin?" which tells the brilliant story of local jester Kev Beresford humiliating Mahboob Hussain - the Deputy "leader" of Labour Sandwell Council - and also the serious stuff about Birchley Island ie the huge amount of money wasted there by Sandwell Labour plus the business about the casino.
Sandwell Labour specifically said in 2006 that they would not have any more casinos in the Borough and, since then, have also hammered High Street bookies. Of course, wealthy local MP - the expenses-guzzling Tom Watson - has also joined-in with his campaign against fixed-odds betting terminals (although he did spectacularly cock everything up by voting in the wrong lobby following a parliamentary debate on this subject).
In the Socialist paradise that is Sandwell it seems anyone can come along and gain Labour's support for a development just by promising that it will create a few jobs - look at the developing ice-rink scandal if you don't believe me. And so when Grosvenor Casino wanted a new casino to be built by St Modwen Sandwell Labour suddenly discovered they were not anti-gambling at all in an area of high-deprivation but actually rather liked the idea. Thus the spin machine whirred into action ably assisted by the arse-lickers at The Express and Star who slavishly toe the Sandwell Labour line. (Why?)
Labour still had the small difficulty of their 2006 casino ban but due to a legal loophole Grosvenor Casinos argued that they could simply transfer an existing licence that had been granted before the 2006 ban to the new site. Despite the potential for this place to bring financial misery to so many, the Comrades down at The Kremlin then backed the project as it would "create" jobs. Hussain trumpeted the scheme via the Wolverhampton C-S's who, on 17th February, 2011, were happy to assist the Council with an article modestly headed: "Oldbury Casino Scheme Brings Jobs Joy"!
It is not, of course, the way of the Pyongyang-style regime in Oldbury to "consult" on policy. "Labour Group" make all material decisions in secret meetings and then try and force them through (see again the continuing ice-rink scandal). And so the transfer of the existing casino licence was permitted but the Politburo had totally failed to take into account the interests of another casino operator in Sandwell, Clockfair, who duly went to court to have the transfer declared invalid.
I won't burden you with the history of the legal tussles but suffice to say that the High Court ruled that the decision to transfer the licence had not been correctly handled and that Sandwell Council would have to consider the whole matter afresh. The Socialists still wanted the wretched scheme to proceed but as the legal difficulties mounted it quietly faded away.
Now I sat and read the whole of the High Court judgment in this particular case although via an unofficial transcript put up on the internet by lawyers involved in the case. Normally, there is a costs order made at the end of a judgment but there wasn't one here. I surmised that either this part had simply been omitted from the "unofficial" transcript or else the decision as to costs had been reserved to a future date noting, at that stage, the legal disputes were ongoing (although the transcript would normally say "Costs reserved...."). Our legal system generally awards costs to be paid by the loser of a case to the winner. Whilst there where claims and counter-claims in this case it was clear from the transcript that in no sense of the word had Labour Sandwell Council "won" this case.
I was very surprised therefore, when the Wolverhampton C-S's wrote an article about the legal costs on 28th January, 2014 suggesting that they were "only" £5,800 and that Sandwell Council were, in any event, going to recover these from the two casino operators involved so that there would be no cost to the taxpayer. Let us have a closer look at the spin from the Express and Star and from the other Deputy "leader" of Labour Sandwell, Councillor Steve Eling (a man who, incidentally, has been described to me as being "anal" about detail):
"He (ie Eling) said: “We had to pay a total of £5,800 in employing a counsel and a solicitor to deal with this matter In the High Court and we were able to get a contribution from one of the companies involved towards the costs.”: and
Mystified by these statements given the case transcript I sent a Freedom of Information Request to The Kremlin and, for once, got a straight answer.
Some of the work was done by Sandwell Council's own huge legal department - headed by £124,000 per annum Neeraj Sharma - and so we won't know how much that work actually "cost" the taxpayer. Most of the work was done by an external solicitor and a barrister was, indeed, appointed for the High Court part of the legal tussles.
But far from the figure of £5,800 suggested by Eling (and excluding VAT which is not relevant here) the actual costs were:
External Solicitor - £12,500.38p (ex Vat); and
Barrister - £9,000.00p (ex Vat).
That is a total of £21,500.38 although Sandwell Council did manage to recover, er, £3,000 from one of the other parties.
THUS ELING, THE TAXPAYER HAS BEEN STUNG FOR £18,500.28p IN RESPECT OF A PROPOSED CASINO DESPITE LABOUR BANNING MORE CASINOS IN 2006! SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR "COMRADES".
When I first floated this fiasco I was publicly mauled by Labour Councillor Bob Piper along the lines that I didn't know what I was talking about. Well Bob, as the lawyers say: Res Ipsa Loquitur!
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone number: 07599 983737
Can I ask you to quickly have a look at my blog of 4th March, 2014 - "Hussain Hoaxed! Red Faces at the Kremlin?" which tells the brilliant story of local jester Kev Beresford humiliating Mahboob Hussain - the Deputy "leader" of Labour Sandwell Council - and also the serious stuff about Birchley Island ie the huge amount of money wasted there by Sandwell Labour plus the business about the casino.
Sandwell Labour specifically said in 2006 that they would not have any more casinos in the Borough and, since then, have also hammered High Street bookies. Of course, wealthy local MP - the expenses-guzzling Tom Watson - has also joined-in with his campaign against fixed-odds betting terminals (although he did spectacularly cock everything up by voting in the wrong lobby following a parliamentary debate on this subject).
In the Socialist paradise that is Sandwell it seems anyone can come along and gain Labour's support for a development just by promising that it will create a few jobs - look at the developing ice-rink scandal if you don't believe me. And so when Grosvenor Casino wanted a new casino to be built by St Modwen Sandwell Labour suddenly discovered they were not anti-gambling at all in an area of high-deprivation but actually rather liked the idea. Thus the spin machine whirred into action ably assisted by the arse-lickers at The Express and Star who slavishly toe the Sandwell Labour line. (Why?)
Labour still had the small difficulty of their 2006 casino ban but due to a legal loophole Grosvenor Casinos argued that they could simply transfer an existing licence that had been granted before the 2006 ban to the new site. Despite the potential for this place to bring financial misery to so many, the Comrades down at The Kremlin then backed the project as it would "create" jobs. Hussain trumpeted the scheme via the Wolverhampton C-S's who, on 17th February, 2011, were happy to assist the Council with an article modestly headed: "Oldbury Casino Scheme Brings Jobs Joy"!
It is not, of course, the way of the Pyongyang-style regime in Oldbury to "consult" on policy. "Labour Group" make all material decisions in secret meetings and then try and force them through (see again the continuing ice-rink scandal). And so the transfer of the existing casino licence was permitted but the Politburo had totally failed to take into account the interests of another casino operator in Sandwell, Clockfair, who duly went to court to have the transfer declared invalid.
I won't burden you with the history of the legal tussles but suffice to say that the High Court ruled that the decision to transfer the licence had not been correctly handled and that Sandwell Council would have to consider the whole matter afresh. The Socialists still wanted the wretched scheme to proceed but as the legal difficulties mounted it quietly faded away.
Now I sat and read the whole of the High Court judgment in this particular case although via an unofficial transcript put up on the internet by lawyers involved in the case. Normally, there is a costs order made at the end of a judgment but there wasn't one here. I surmised that either this part had simply been omitted from the "unofficial" transcript or else the decision as to costs had been reserved to a future date noting, at that stage, the legal disputes were ongoing (although the transcript would normally say "Costs reserved...."). Our legal system generally awards costs to be paid by the loser of a case to the winner. Whilst there where claims and counter-claims in this case it was clear from the transcript that in no sense of the word had Labour Sandwell Council "won" this case.
I was very surprised therefore, when the Wolverhampton C-S's wrote an article about the legal costs on 28th January, 2014 suggesting that they were "only" £5,800 and that Sandwell Council were, in any event, going to recover these from the two casino operators involved so that there would be no cost to the taxpayer. Let us have a closer look at the spin from the Express and Star and from the other Deputy "leader" of Labour Sandwell, Councillor Steve Eling (a man who, incidentally, has been described to me as being "anal" about detail):
"He (ie Eling) said: “We had to pay a total of £5,800 in employing a counsel and a solicitor to deal with this matter In the High Court and we were able to get a contribution from one of the companies involved towards the costs.”: and
Councillor Eling confirmed: “Our role in this case was limited to being the licensing authority.
“We should be able to recover our full costs rather than them being paid for by the council taxpayer.”
(Readers - ask yourselves why the Express and Star are doing this? If you find the answer, let me know).Mystified by these statements given the case transcript I sent a Freedom of Information Request to The Kremlin and, for once, got a straight answer.
Some of the work was done by Sandwell Council's own huge legal department - headed by £124,000 per annum Neeraj Sharma - and so we won't know how much that work actually "cost" the taxpayer. Most of the work was done by an external solicitor and a barrister was, indeed, appointed for the High Court part of the legal tussles.
But far from the figure of £5,800 suggested by Eling (and excluding VAT which is not relevant here) the actual costs were:
External Solicitor - £12,500.38p (ex Vat); and
Barrister - £9,000.00p (ex Vat).
That is a total of £21,500.38 although Sandwell Council did manage to recover, er, £3,000 from one of the other parties.
THUS ELING, THE TAXPAYER HAS BEEN STUNG FOR £18,500.28p IN RESPECT OF A PROPOSED CASINO DESPITE LABOUR BANNING MORE CASINOS IN 2006! SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR "COMRADES".
When I first floated this fiasco I was publicly mauled by Labour Councillor Bob Piper along the lines that I didn't know what I was talking about. Well Bob, as the lawyers say: Res Ipsa Loquitur!
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone number: 07599 983737
Monday, 4 August 2014
Skidder Shorts No. 15 - Trouble in (Socialist) Paradise?
Here is a fascinating Freedom of Information Request from a Mr Robert Fellows. I do not know the gentleman but hope he will get in touch.
We all know that there was no proper consultation regarding closure of The Public. The moronic Sandwell Council Labour "leader", Cooper, binned a massive petition, ignored letters and many other representations and tried to suggest that his press office reading Twitter somehow constituted proper consultation (when in any event the social media comment was overwhelmingly pro-Public). (I will be blogging soon about the serious kicking Sandwell Council got in the High Court last week - particularly as the BBC & the Wolverhampton C-S's seem to have "overlooked" it - when you will see that a total lack of consultation was evident in that matter too).
As ever motormouth MP Wealthy Tom Watson was absolutely useless. He finally announced that he would make The Public his "priority" & less than 6 hours later Sandwell Council sent the e-mail axing it. With friends like him, who needs enemies......!
Mind you, expenses-guzzler Watson is standing for re-election soon and this looks like a classic "arse-covering" manoeuvre to deflect any flak away from himself. It is also noteworthy that as Watson heaves his said arse onto every single "leftie" bandwagon that passes, he feels the need to have assistants/ researchers and two of them are actually Labour "councillors" at Sandwell - Frazer and the cipher Moore (who is also a "commode" member)! Should be some interesting discussions going on between that trio!
Watters also makes great play of being an anti-secrecy campaigner but has not chosen to intervene in the cover-up by Sandwell Council and Sandwell College of details of the scandalous financial "deal" stitched up between the two of them at the taxpayers' expense. The Council and College then awarded the multi-million pound contract to Interserve without putting it out to tender. They have fought tooth and nail to keep the facts secret even though they are both publicly-funded bodies and they have refused to answer Freedom of Information requests. Thanks to the good offices of Mr Darryl Magher this has now been taken all the way to The Information Commissioner, but still the grasping College and Pyongyang-style Council are refusing to provide the facts. Ask yourselves why? Ask Watters, the great champion of freedom (not), what he has to say about it?
Wealthy Watson famously wrote a blog entitled "Tommy'll Fix It". I think it is far more likely that "Tommy'll F*ck It Up".
Here is the FoI request:
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
I would like to see the responses to the 2013 questionnaire
distributed by Tom Watson to the businesses and community groups at
The Public, based on the contact list provided by its then managing
director Linda Saunders.
As this is my second request for this information, will you please
deal with it more carefully that my first request 1-671778179/ILO,
which produced the following reply:
'The Council is not aware of any report compiled by Tom Watson with
information relating to companies based at The Public and as a
consequence does not hold this information.'
According to a letter sent to me by Tom Watson dated 1st July 2014
'All consultation responses were forwarded in hard copy to Sandwell
Council. The responses yielded, in my personal view, rich data and
information pertaining to the organisations that used The Public.'
On request I am happy to provide you with a full copy of this
letter. My own MP Adrian Bailey also has a copy.
May I request that you forward (in whatever format) the data and
information that Tom Watson is referring to.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Fellows
I would like to see the responses to the 2013 questionnaire
distributed by Tom Watson to the businesses and community groups at
The Public, based on the contact list provided by its then managing
director Linda Saunders.
As this is my second request for this information, will you please
deal with it more carefully that my first request 1-671778179/ILO,
which produced the following reply:
'The Council is not aware of any report compiled by Tom Watson with
information relating to companies based at The Public and as a
consequence does not hold this information.'
According to a letter sent to me by Tom Watson dated 1st July 2014
'All consultation responses were forwarded in hard copy to Sandwell
Council. The responses yielded, in my personal view, rich data and
information pertaining to the organisations that used The Public.'
On request I am happy to provide you with a full copy of this
letter. My own MP Adrian Bailey also has a copy.
May I request that you forward (in whatever format) the data and
information that Tom Watson is referring to.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Fellows
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no. 07599 983737
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Twitter Troll No. 2 - Double Header - Darren Cooper and Paul Kerton
My trolls like to have a go at me via my wife who many of you will know, Linda Saunders - made redundant by the closure of The Public.
Regular readers will have seen my earlier blog about Linda's formal complaint to Labour Sandwell Council about Darren Cooper, "The Turdmeister" and joke "leader", in "Unsuccessful Complaint to Sandwell Council" of 8th May, 2014 wherein one of his "classic" tweets was to threaten to drive over and confront her at her new place of work. The complaint got nowhere with Sandwell Council (now there's a surprise).
After a period of relative calm Mr Paul Kerton (see Twitter Troll No. 1 - Paul Kerton) crawled out of the swamp on 29th June alleging that The Public "failed because of its management".
Now it gets really weird.
On 2nd July Linda, in the course of her new job, had a meeting with a Labour Birmingham Councillor - let us call him "BC". After the meeting BC tweeted to Linda:
"Good to see you earlier - looking forward to working together".
This prompted Sandwell Labour Council Leader Darren Cooper to tweet to "BC":
"Have you met Linda's lovely husband @bcrover or @[my personal account] the side they both don't want you to see. Hope you are well :)"
It seems that this clear attempt to queer Linda's pitch was too much even for The Turdmeister and he had second thoughts and took it down. It seems to have only been live for minutes or even seconds and I have no idea if "BC" actually read it. Fortunately my Skidder "team" were able to capture it and I have obviously kept a copy. But then things get stranger still. On 3rd July, up pops Kerton again and HE then tweeted TO "BC":
"I'd be careful working with her. Look what her husband @bcrover does to former colleagues. He stalks them".
Kerton is, of course, an employee of Sandwell Council. For good measure he then sent two tweets addressed to Linda's new employer. Whilst Linda very rarely retweets my tweets he said:
"@[new employer] don't you think the husband @bcrover of your acting exec @[linda] stalking ex employers of hers reflects badly on you", and
"@[new employer] isn't @[linda] retweeting her husband @bcrover tacit approval of his tactics? I'd question her suitability".
The use of the term "acting exec" shows than someone had been doing research about Linda. You won't find these on Kerton's twitter feed as they too have been taken down but, once again, my lovely team captured it all. It seems they were "live" for sometime and so I believe they were seen by the intended recipients.
Then a cryptic one again from Mental Health Trust Governor Cooper on 4th July referring to a place where Linda does voluntary work:
"Had an interesting conversation with people at xxxx today :)"
We both got the message that he was trying to intimidate both of us us but just to make sure The Turdmeister rubbed it in on 9th July:
"Interesting conversation this morning with the good people at xxxx. They aren't happy with the tweeting of some #investigation".
Still unable to silence me Cooper tried a further desperate and potentially libelous throw of the dice on 27th July addressed to me rather than to Linda:
"...currently looking into the accounts of the former Public arts centre".
Cooper has no opposition in Sandwell apart from The Skidder and its supporters, and UKIP, and feels that he is immune from the consequences of his actions - as too, apparently, does Paul Kerton. Cooper's employers - an NHS MENTAL HEALTH TRUST of which he is, incredibly, also a GOVERNOR - are well aware of his activities but couldn't care less and, of course, he has surrounded himself at the Kremlin with a cohort of highly-paid "yes-men and women" too afraid to try and curb his excesses. He has the local media including the BBC dancing to his tune too (one junior reporter recently took an interest in all this but was "spiked" by his editor). And so folks, The Skidder team fight on alone - bloodied but unbowed!
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone number: 07599 983737
Regular readers will have seen my earlier blog about Linda's formal complaint to Labour Sandwell Council about Darren Cooper, "The Turdmeister" and joke "leader", in "Unsuccessful Complaint to Sandwell Council" of 8th May, 2014 wherein one of his "classic" tweets was to threaten to drive over and confront her at her new place of work. The complaint got nowhere with Sandwell Council (now there's a surprise).
After a period of relative calm Mr Paul Kerton (see Twitter Troll No. 1 - Paul Kerton) crawled out of the swamp on 29th June alleging that The Public "failed because of its management".
Now it gets really weird.
On 2nd July Linda, in the course of her new job, had a meeting with a Labour Birmingham Councillor - let us call him "BC". After the meeting BC tweeted to Linda:
"Good to see you earlier - looking forward to working together".
This prompted Sandwell Labour Council Leader Darren Cooper to tweet to "BC":
"Have you met Linda's lovely husband @bcrover or @[my personal account] the side they both don't want you to see. Hope you are well :)"
It seems that this clear attempt to queer Linda's pitch was too much even for The Turdmeister and he had second thoughts and took it down. It seems to have only been live for minutes or even seconds and I have no idea if "BC" actually read it. Fortunately my Skidder "team" were able to capture it and I have obviously kept a copy. But then things get stranger still. On 3rd July, up pops Kerton again and HE then tweeted TO "BC":
"I'd be careful working with her. Look what her husband @bcrover does to former colleagues. He stalks them".
Kerton is, of course, an employee of Sandwell Council. For good measure he then sent two tweets addressed to Linda's new employer. Whilst Linda very rarely retweets my tweets he said:
"@[new employer] don't you think the husband @bcrover of your acting exec @[linda] stalking ex employers of hers reflects badly on you", and
"@[new employer] isn't @[linda] retweeting her husband @bcrover tacit approval of his tactics? I'd question her suitability".
The use of the term "acting exec" shows than someone had been doing research about Linda. You won't find these on Kerton's twitter feed as they too have been taken down but, once again, my lovely team captured it all. It seems they were "live" for sometime and so I believe they were seen by the intended recipients.
Then a cryptic one again from Mental Health Trust Governor Cooper on 4th July referring to a place where Linda does voluntary work:
"Had an interesting conversation with people at xxxx today :)"
We both got the message that he was trying to intimidate both of us us but just to make sure The Turdmeister rubbed it in on 9th July:
"Interesting conversation this morning with the good people at xxxx. They aren't happy with the tweeting of some #investigation".
Still unable to silence me Cooper tried a further desperate and potentially libelous throw of the dice on 27th July addressed to me rather than to Linda:
"...currently looking into the accounts of the former Public arts centre".
Cooper has no opposition in Sandwell apart from The Skidder and its supporters, and UKIP, and feels that he is immune from the consequences of his actions - as too, apparently, does Paul Kerton. Cooper's employers - an NHS MENTAL HEALTH TRUST of which he is, incredibly, also a GOVERNOR - are well aware of his activities but couldn't care less and, of course, he has surrounded himself at the Kremlin with a cohort of highly-paid "yes-men and women" too afraid to try and curb his excesses. He has the local media including the BBC dancing to his tune too (one junior reporter recently took an interest in all this but was "spiked" by his editor). And so folks, The Skidder team fight on alone - bloodied but unbowed!
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone number: 07599 983737
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)