WirralPC

13th February - Outcome of internal review It’s interesting to watch how the answers now change markedly. The council had tried to fob me off in their first response, assuming I wouldn’t have held the correct, accurate information. They had fibbed, But the ICO failed to find any ‘evidence to support my suggestion’ that they’d been dishonest and breached Section 77 of the Act (Fraudulent submissions or the altering / defacing / concealment of information.) MAKING FALSE DECLARATIONS AMOUNTS TO APPALLING, DISHONEST CONDUCT BY ANONYMOUS OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL , WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY OVERLOOKED BY THE ‘REGULATOR’. Internal review... [MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS / ITALICS] The response provided to you related to payments made to staff in settlement of an incident which comprised an internal grievance made by a number of staff relating to bullying and harassment which occurred during the timeframe set out in your question. I have found no evidence to support your assertion that records relating to this incident have been altered for any reason, and specifically that no records have been altered with the intention of preventing disclosure. Question 1: [Date of payment] As you point out the response to question 1 in relation to the above is incorrect. Settlement payments to the relevant members of staff were in fact made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013. It would appear that the date previously supplied to you was not checked for accuracy against the appropriate records. (THE COUNCIL’S FIRST RESPONSE FALSELY DECLARED JUST ONE INCOMPLETE DATE FOR WHAT SEEMED TO BE ONE PAYMENT: “MARCH 2013†– AFTER THIS CORRECTED RESPONSE, WE STILL HAVEN’T BEEN PROVIDED WITH FULL DATES FOR THE PAYMENTS) Question 2: [Amount of payment] The amount paid to members of staff in relation to this incident was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release details of the amount received by each member of staff would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. [i WOULD DISAGREE AND STATE THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF e.g. £2,345, £3,456, £4,567, £1,234, £1,234 alone, without attaching any dates, names, job positions, sections, departments, WOULD NOT RISK REVEALING ANY PERSONAL DATA BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMPLY ‘STERILE’AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC MONEY THAT CAN BE ADDED TOGETHER TO GIVE A TOTAL FOR HOW MUCH WAS PAID TO BUY THE SILENCE OF THE BULLIED MEMBERS OF STAFF. IT IS THE REVELATION OF THIS AMOUNT, HANDED ACROSS AS HUSH MONEY, TO PURCHASE THE SILENCE OF THE BULLIED EMPLOYEES, THAT THE COUNCIL FEARS WILL DAMAGE ITS ALREADY TARNISHED REPUTATION) Payments of this type are regulated by settlement [compromise] agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made. I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act. Question 3: [Reason for payment] I note the reason for the payments in this instance was given in the original response. Question 4: [Have the payment / circumstances been declared publicly?] I note response to this question was given in the original response in that details of the payments made / circumstances of the matter have not been declared publically. Following the comments made in your e-mail of 12 December 2013 I can confirm that all settlement payments are made following a procedure which involves consideration of the appropriateness of making such a payment and the amount. All Council finances are subject to audit checks. [HOWEVER, IN HEREFORDSHIRE, THIS APPEARS TO BE THE HIDDEN, BACK OFFICE WORK OF UNELECTED SENIOR OFFICIALS. THESE ANONYMOUS PERSONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED CARTE BLANCHE, AND UNHINDERED ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY PUBLIC CASH, TO PROTECT THE COUNCIL'S REPUTATION AT ALL COSTS. THE PROCESS APPEARS TO BE COMPLETELY UNMONITORED BY COUNCILLORS] Question 5: [Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc] I note that the subject matter for this incident was given in the original response. Question 6: [Copies of reports; aide memoirs; emails; letters; memoranda; notes; meeting minutes; meeting notes (verbatim or non-verbatim), whether in written or electronic format; and connected to meetings, council scrutiny committees; investigations (internal or external), and / or the processing of any payments] Documents relating to this incident contain personal data and sensitive personal data relating to members of staff, this information was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release the documents requested would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. [i SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE COUNCIL TO REDACT ANY NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS, BUT THE COUNCIL HAVE USED A SLEDGEHAMMER TO CRACK A NUT AND WITHHELD EVERYTHING, INCLUDING INFORMATION WHICH WOULD NOT JEOPARDISE THE PRIVACY OF THE MEMBERS OF STAFF INVOLVED, BUT WHICH WOULD THREATEN THE REPUTATION OF THE COUNCIL] As previously stated payments made in settlement of this grievance were regulated by settlement agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made. I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act. Question 7: [Outcome – e.g. whether employees involved are still employed by the council] This question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of people who received payments rather than the total number of people involved in the grievance. [THE QUESTION WAS VERY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. “EMPLOYEES INVOLVED†MEANS BULLIES AND TARGETS OF BULLYING, AND CERTAINLY NOT JUST ONE GROUP ALONE. THE INITIAL RESPONSE WOULD APPEAR TO BE A DELIBERATE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTION AND ANOTHER CALCULATED ACT OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION] I am informed that 55% percentage of employees involved in the grievance are still employed and 45% percent are no longer in the employment of the Council. [THE REQUEST DID NOT ASK FOR PERCENTAGES. THIS RESPONSE IS VAGUE, EVASIVE AND BORDERING ON THE DELIBERATELY OBTUSE. YOU DO NOT SAY “50% OF MY PARENTS ARE MALE AND 50% ARE FEMALEâ€.] Question 8: [Disciplinary action involved, if any] Again, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the grievance. Looking at this question afresh, considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that details of any disciplinary action that may have been instigated would be likely to identify particular individuals and as such would constitute personal information. [iT APPEARS THE REVIEWING OFFICER UPON REALISING THAT THE INITIAL RESPONSE OF ‘NONE’ WAS FALSE, AND A BREACH OF SECTION 77, IS BACK-PEDALLING AND NOW REACHING FOR SECTION 40(2) PERSONAL DATA EXEMPTION – THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND AMOUNTS TO DISHONEST CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND A FURTHER BREACH OF SECTION 77 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT] In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority. I therefore conclude that disclosure of details of disciplinary action, if any, would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal disciplinary procedures are by their very nature confidential. [RETREATING INTO LOCKDOWN, AND WITH A DESIRE TO COVER THE INITIAL DISHONESTY, THE REVIEWING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN EXTRA INSTANCE OF THE SECTION 40 AND SECTION 41 EXEMPTIONS WHICH DID NOT APPEAR IN THE FIRST RESPONSE] Question 9: [Number of employees involved in dispute / complaint] As per questions 7 and 8, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the grievance. I am informed that the number of people involved in the grievance was between 10 and 20. [TO GET THE PERSPECTIVE WRONG, AFTER PREPARING THE INITIAL RESPONSE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, RIGHT UP TO THE DAY OF THE TIME LIMIT, WAS AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ‘MISTAKE’ TO MAKE REPEATEDLY, IN FACT THREE TIMES. AS A RESULT OF OWNING UP, THE NUMBER INVOLVED OFFICIALLY GOES UP BY A FACTOR OF FOUR, FROM 5 TO POSSIBLY 20. ALSO, THE TENDENCY TOWARDS VAGUENESS CREEPS IN AGAIN “between 10 and 20â€] The exact number of those involved has not been given in this instance as considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that to provide the specific number of people involved could lead to identification of the same. [AGAIN, IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND REASON TO CLAIM THAT THE DISCLOSING OF NUMBERS ON THEIR OWN WOULD RISK IDENTIFYING “JOE and JOSEPHINE BLOGGS†AS TARGETS OF BULLYING BY SENIOR COUNCIL OFFICERS.] In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority. I therefore conclude that disclosure of the exact figure would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal grievance procedures are by their very nature confidential. [THE DEFINITION OF ‘PERSONAL DATA’ DOES NOT EXTEND TO AMOUNTS OF MONEY, WHICH MAKES THIS CONCLUSION UNSAFE. THE MONEY SPENT PROTECTING THE COUNCIL’S REPUTATION BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE READING THIS i.e. THE PEOPLE OF HEREFORDSHIRE. THEREFORE THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHIFTS MASSIVELY IN FAVOUR OF DISCLOSURE AND TOWARDS REVEALING THE AMOUNT SPENT IN COVERING UP THE BULLYING OF DISABLED EMPLOYEES BY 3 SENIOR STAFF. THESE STAFF HAVE SINCE DEPARTED, AND IT APPEARS THEY HAVE EVADED DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCOUNTABILITY. AGAIN, REVEALING THE MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC MONEY PAID TO BUY THE SILENCE OF THE DEPARTING OFFICERS WOULD REPRESENT A SMALL MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WOULD NOT JEOPARDISE THE BULLIES’ PERSONAL PRIVACY] Question 10: [Number of employees in receipt of payment(s)] I note that a response was given stating the number of employees who received a payment in settlement of an internal dispute / complaint. [DESPITE ME CLEARLY ASKING FOR THE PAYMENTS TO ALL INVOLVED, WHICH INCLUDED SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO BULLIES, THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE LARGER SEVERANCE PAYMENTS) Conclusion The information provided in answer to question 1 was incorrect. [AND THEREFORE REPRESENTS CLEAR PROOF THAT SECTION 77 FOIA WAS BREACHED] I consider that the use of the exemptions set out in Section 40(2) and Section 41 of the Act have been appropriately applied in the Council’s response questions 2 and 6. Responses to questions 3, 4, 5 and 10 were given in the original response. Questions 7, 8 and 9 had been answered from a narrow perspective; answers encompassing all those involved have been given above. If you are still dissatisfied with the handling of your request or you would like to pursue the matter further, you may wish to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF Yours faithfully Sam Smith Legal Executive

For info. Excerpt from The Freedom of Information Act, 2000: 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure. (1) Where— (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the M1Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled. (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted— (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

12th December 2013 – Paul Cardin – (requester’s) response. Dear Access To Information (Hereford Council's FoI section), Thank you for your responses to my initial request, which was 1 working day late and to my request for an internal review, which appears to amount to an apology / justification for being late, and not an internal review by a senior officer tasked with it, in accordance with the Act. I do not believe you have been thorough in your response, but I don't believe I can ask for another internal review. For this reason, please take this message as notice that I will be appealing to the Information Commissioner's Office in the following terms. Here is a link to an important and I believe relevant Section of the FOI Act (Section 77): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000... This deals with the offence of altering records with intent to prevent disclosure. I have a very different understanding of the facts attached to these issues and will attempt to list them in a series of detailed statements. These are sequential and relate directly to the questions asked in the original request and the responses that you as the data controller have provided. 1. Date of Payment (the number of payments is at least FIVE) Payment ONE - Between end of October 2012 and 7th November 2012 Payment TWO - Between 15th and 20th December 2012 Payment THREE - uncertain, but unlikely to be March 2013, as stated in your response. Payment FOUR - 26th July 2012 Payment FIVE - Between 26th July and end of August 2012 2. Amount of payment As you have stated an uncertain number of recipients of payments AND appear to have incorrectly stated the month of "March 2013" as the date of all payments, your ability to rely upon Section 40(2) is now diminished and questionable. As there were actually at least FIVE separate payments, this increases the likelihood that the sum involved could travel well into six figures. I believe there would be a legitimate and compelling public interest in knowing this amount, not just because Section 77 (altering records with intent to prevent disclosure) appears to have become engaged, but also because there appear to have been no checks and balances in the form of elected member scrutiny on these payments. 3. Reason for payment (see 2. above) 4. Have the payment circumstances been declared publicly? The legitimate public interest becomes more compelling if the data controller has sought to conceal what could be large, unscrutinised payments of public money from public oversight without good reason. 5. Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc. Whilst the desire to protect the council's reputation is understandable from an operational point of view, it should not be done as a first resort, and at the expense of the public interest. If bullying and harassment is occurring between public servants (and what looks like a large number of public servants) this should not be expediently concealed from the wider public using Section 40 of the FOI Act, which exists only to protect sensitive personal information - and not potentially scandalising events. 6. Copies of reports; aide memoirs; emails; letters; memoranda; notes; meeting minutes; meeting notes (verbatim or non-verbatim), whether in written or electronic format; and connected to meetings, council scrutiny committees; investigations (internal or external), and / or the processing of any payments. These items of correspondence / records could be carefully redacted in order to serve the legitimate and compelling public interest described above AND to protect the data privacy of the employees concerned. As stated earlier, if the misuse of Section 40(2) and Section 77 begin to play a prominent role here, the public interest will grow and the lack of public oversight to date will become a factor. Further, the data controller has made an admission that only SOME of the data involved is sensitive personal data. 7. Outcome e.g. whether employees involved are still employed by the council. Please refer to above link (Section 77 of FOIA - altering records with intent to prevent disclosure). In fact, 6 members of staff remain, 5 of whom are classed as disabled. In fact, 2 members of staff departed the council. In fact, 6 further members of staff were involved but are not referred to or accounted for within your responses to date. 8. Disciplinary action involved, if any. Grievance settlements in themselves would indicate guilt on the part of one or more employees. The question has to be asked "Why was there no disciplinary action". The public interest and public oversight, if there were any, would demand that the council's reputation does not "sweep all before it" and obviate the need to follow internal policies and procedures as regards a compelling case for disciplinary action e.g. in this case, the bullying of disabled members of staff. 9. Number of employees involved in dispute / complaint. Please refer to above link (Section 77 of FOIA - altering records with intent to prevent disclosure). Including the 3 (three) members of staff accused, the number of employees involved in the complaint is 11 (ELEVEN) 10. Number of employees in receipt of payment(s). These figures only appear to include payments made to staff who brought the grievance. Correct, democratic public oversight demands to know whether payments have been made to any of the other 6 staff involved. You are welcome to respond with further clarification, but please be advised that an appeal to the ICO is now in the pipeline, Yours sincerely, Paul Cardin

Notes for an appeal to First Tier Tribunal (before 10th September). Amongst other things... I asked for 'dates of payment' I didn't specify 'severance payments' alone I did specify other areas where payments had been made, which would include potential severance payments because these would be directly connected to the circumstances of these disputes The details of the payments I've requested are broad enough to include payments to all personnel involved, whether a bully, or a target of the bullying I cautioned the council against revealing the identities / job positions / sections / departments of personnel in receipt of payments (including bullies or targets of bullying) - in order not to infringe on their personal privacy. I asked the council to redact these details Job positions appear separately in the accounts statement previously posted by 'Flamboyant' Amounts of 'compensation for loss of office' appear separately in this accounts statement I asked for the date / amount / reason for payments made I asked for the number of employees in receipt of payments I stated it was vital to the legitimate and compelling public interest that the 'quantities in public money' were not redacted, but revealed 9th December - First Council Response Council provided: Q1. Date of payment? A. March 2013 (UNTRUE) Q2. Amount of payment? A. (Refused under Section 40(2)) Q3. Reason for payment? A. Grievance settlement. Q4. Have the payment / circumstances been declared publicly? A. No. Q5. Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc? A. Bullying & Harassment. Q6. Copies of reports, etc. etc. etc. whether in written or electronic format, connected to meetings, committees, investigations, processing of any payments A. (Refused under Section 40(2) and Section 41 - information given in confidence) Q7. Outcome e.g. Whether employees involved are still employed by the council. A. Three employees are still employed... two have subsequently left. (MAY BE UNTRUE) Q8. Disciplinary action involved, if any? A. None (MAY BE UNTRUE) Q9. Number of employees involved in the dispute / complaint? A. Five employees involved in complaint (UNTRUE) (HOW MANY INVOLVED IN DISPUTE NOT ANSWERED i.e. THE BULLIES WHO WERE COMPLAINED AGAINST) Q10. Number of employees in receipt of payments? A. Five employees were in receipt of payments (UNTRUE, AS DESPITE ME SPECIFYING AND ASKING FOR THE PAYMENTS TO ALL INVOLVED, THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DEPARTING BULLIES WHO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN GENEROUS SEVERANCE PAYMENTS)

I don't think everybody will have looked in detail yet at the original FoI request I made on 8th November 2013. It's worth looking at because you'll get a 'window' into the poor behaviour of these public servants. They were dishonest more than once in their response dated 9th December 2013 - probably not the person who actually sent the response, but whoever wrote it. Making false statements represents CLEAR breaches of Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act (the section dealing with fraudulent responses, concealment and/or removal / alteration of information). I knew they'd fibbed straight away, but it was later confirmed publicly when, during the internal review dated 12th February 2014, they described the inconsistencies as 'mistakes' / 'misunderstandings'. You don't spend week after week carefully drafting your first response to a controversial and potentially thorny subject and 'make howlers' while you're doing it. They just didn't know the extent of MY information and thought they could fob me off by spinning a few untruths. I'll post up some details later when I've gathered them together. It may be a little lengthy, but it will be worth it.

Thanks Cambo. I'm still considering what to do. Councillor Chappell got it wrong by the way, when he said, "compensation was paid". If bullied members of staff bring well-founded claims against their employer because they've been deliberately targeted by a group of thugs, as an employer, you CAN'T 'compensate' them. You're thinking about your OWN reputation - which is what dodgy councils do first and foremost. Because the stakes have been raised, you offer them enough public cash to buy their silence; and if you're clever about it, you may carefully slip in mention of how lucky they were not to become 'voluntary' redundant last time around, and how, if they sign on the dotted line, they'll get this cash plus a favourable viewing during the next round of redundancies; and how if they go ahead with their E.T. claim, things might just get a little uncertain re: their future employment at the council, so... let's have your loyalty. You know what to do, there's a good boy / girl. Compensation? NO. Hush money? YES. I suspect if those bullied staff want all this laid to rest, as the councillor mentioned, then there'll be very good reasons for that - see above. But what about the staff who remain after the axe has fallen? This behaviour won't go away, and there's a risk 'employment issues' will worsen. If you're mendacious enough, you'll VALUE getting away with it, SAVOUR the ICO protection you craved, and you're in the clear to fill your boots once again.

Dear stupidf, o This isn't the private sector o This isn't shareholders' or managers' money o This isn't 'business' o This is the public sector o This is public service o This was bullying o This was hidden pay offs to out of control thugs o This is an attempt to gloss over it by a public serving 'regulator' o This is more of our money being squandered to cover it all up o It's not private, so..... WE HAVE A STAKE IN IT (as do you...) Love, Paul

"I know nothing". Councillor, can I suggest you get yourself down to the CEO's office on Monday morning and ask some searching questions about what you've euphemistically described as 'employment issues'? This was a campaign of bullying against a large number of disabled staff by a determined group of senior officer bullies. Are you washing your hands of it? That's what it sounds like to me. I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I did a survey of compromise agreements and gagging clauses a few years ago, which took in 345 English Councils, including Herefordshire. Guess who was one of 53 councils who slammed the shutters down and never provided the information? How's your scrutiny? Obviously non-existent when it comes to 'employment issues' or to put It in plain language, concerted campaigns of bullying, followed by potentially six-figure golden goodbye pay-offs to the perpetrators, accompanied by gags and clean bills of health. Did you not notice the sudden, untimely departure of a number of senior staff? But more importantly, how is your scrutiny on abuse, in particular, child abuse? This particular bombshell remains unexploded in several as yet unknown areas of the country - but one thing's for sure, those members who aren't capable of controlling their senior staff may be sitting on a timebomb. http://www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/rotherham-abuse-which-53-councils-shut-up-shop-when-people-came-knocking/

Link to a more readable version of this decision notice on the ICO website: http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50531217.ashx The ICO case worker kicks off with: 1. "The complainant has requested information about severance payments...." I didn't. It's a lie.

Hello Bobby. Good to catch up with you. I suspect for this sort of controlling information the exemption used would be that of 'legal privilege' - which has been levelled at a few of my requests. There are a few different, related legal exemptions that may also cover it. The absurdity is that the data controller can engage any exemption initially. The months drag on. The ICO eventually get involved at your request, and may say, "This exemption is not applicable". The data controller then engages a different, related one. More months drag on, and if that doesn't work, another, and so on and so on. Have you made a request for this sort of information? I used to get frustrated when repeatedly hitting a brick wall, and would contemplate giving up. Have you noticed how some of them move at glacial speed and aim to grind you down, even if it takes them years?

If I was one of the disabled people who'd been bullied at this council, and still working there or not, I'd be checking through my compromise agreement for the presence of a penalty clause. These are phrased to deter the person from talking about the details of their agreement beyond their family, their union, their professional advisers and the tax people. They may state that in the event of a breach of the terms, any money that's been paid across in settlement of a claim will be recovered through the courts. The problem with penalty clauses such as this are that case-law has watered down their effectiveness over the years. In the past, abusive employers could get away with recovering the full amount. But now, they have to prove precisely what detriment has been suffered and claim a portion of the payment, accordingly. In the compromise agreement, if there's no penalty clause there to back up the gagging clause, personally I would feel emboldened to expose the council for the corporate bully and abuser that they are. If it could be shown that the council have lied (which I believe I've already done, but Gemma Garvey of the ICO stepped in to perversely say there was 'no evidence' of this) then I think there's a good chance of exposing the lies, winning this appeal and defeating them. But I'm not a lawyer !

When Wirral Council let senior officer abusers go (with Bill Norman as monitoring officer), they paid them off richly. As they bailed out, the figures soon went through the £1 million mark. You sit there wondering what compels a senior public servant to abuse his power and dip into council tax money again and again to get rid of the people around him. You wonder why the councillors have gone AWOL. And at the same time... what prevents those with the power from reaching for the disciplinary policy and procedure? Junior staff caught bullying or with their hands in the till are quickly disciplined and sacked after all. Through watching the process time and again, and by process of elimination, on Wirral, we've come to the conclusion that there is a very basic and irresistible reason for the shysters and power abusers to get rid of problem people using our money. Senior staff can be privy to very particular and very 'special' information which, if broadcast, would spell the end of the very top movers' and shakers' careers. This appears to be the only explanation. Deals are struck Abusers are not investigated Abusers are not disciplined CEOs and Monitoring Officers (with their own personal history of pecadilloes) pass by on the other side Abusers receive clemencies and clean bills of health Abusers are gagged Abusers are paid public money to keep their mouths shut Abusers walk into another job at another basket case, where the securing of new 'special' knowledge enables them to do it all over again The Information Commissioner, if approached, will stand full square behind the abusers of power What's driving it? Fear and self-preservation. We've seen it happen in Torquay. We've seen it happen on Wirral. We're witnessing everything unravelling now in Herefordshire. There's a very obvious connection between the above three, but as everyone must be aware, it's also happening up and down the country in countless other locations.

Yes. I'd view these as gagging clauses. My own council have described such clauses as "confidentiality clauses". They would draw a distinction and claim that "gagging clauses" are falling out of favour (the NHS has banned their use) and were done to prevent whistleblowers from speaking up in public. Whistleblowing aside, in my mind there is no difference between a gagging clause and a confidentiality clause, because they both have the same chilling effect on the signatory. As the legal head at Herefordshire travelled up a steep learning curve at Wirral Council during its darkest days, I'd imagine this council would adopt a similar position. If a person has agreed to receiving a potentially large sum of public money in settlement of a potential claim against their employer, but feels restrained from speaking about their experiences, and as a result has "a club dangling over their head" should they exercise their right to free speech in the future, then THAT is a gagging clause.

Here's a link to the original FoI request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_council_officers_scr

Hello All, I'm Paul Cardin from Wirral. Here's a decision notice from the ICO referring to bullying of disabled people and pay offs in public money to Herefordshire County Council staff. I believe a number of senior people have been encouraged to depart the council. The ICO for their part are standing behind the council, and appear to be insisting that the disabled persons affected have been consulted, and don't want their data released or their personal privacy breached. Is this true? Some local people out there might know different. This DN can be challenged and I believe the deadline is 10th September, if my maths is correct. If it's going to be challenged, it needs to be QUICK ! My contact details should be relatively easy to track down with a search engine.