gdj
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by gdj
-
-
The story was that he is `working` an equivalent of a day a week for a company set up in a tax haven to help new `hedge funds' to avoid paying tax. So a double whammy for his constituents and taxpayers generally. If true, (and any inaccuracies would be a valid reason for pulling it) it would mean that he was taking taxpayers money for full time representation of his constituents (yet not doing it full time) and also helping to reduce the amount of money the government has available to spend on services.
Interesting that a man who claimed that his mortgage and other expenses difficulties were caused by a muddle and not by deliberate actions should be so sought after for his financial acumen.
It was Jess Phillips whose byline was above the piece. I thought when I saw it that it was a new departure in journalism for the HT - to expose our local movers and shakers to some scrutiny - alas I was wrong - Jess had made the terrible mistake of publishing an important news item that she thought ought to be made public, instead of just publishing Bill Wiggins' press releases as is the normal practice at HT. I wonder how she is feeling.
This is an interesting web page. Make sure you scroll right down to the bottom left hand corner.
I may be able to get hold of the HT piece tomorrow. If Colin is agreeable I will post it on here - but I don't want to do so if there was legal reason for the HT pulling it....
-
I think the T and F group report represents a huge amount of work and to have produced it in such a short time, due to the urgency of the situation, is a credit to the group members. The large numbers of recommendations on how HC, WVT and the CCG need to improve is also telling.
A couple of phrases are, I think, particularly damning of the Directors and Assistant Directors involved:
that the Executive ..... be asked to honour its obligations.....
They shouldn't need to be asked.
..officers from all three organisations acknowledged and agreed that it had been a systems mistake not to engage with all service users before an announcement had been made in July....
Are these people incapable of accepting that they, personally, made decisions to not comply with statutory obligations. "it wasn't me, guv, it was the system"
the group is not satisfied with the explanations as to why the parents were not better informed by the council, the CCG and the WVT ....
Well said. There are certain senior managers who's instinct is to push through decisions, knowing that they may be unlawful and to deal with any legal difficulties if anyone notices or has the determination to challenge them. This time they came up against a group of parents, and the T and F group who were willing to do the challenging.
The report is really excellent at spelling out the `respite care' legal situation and I learnt a lot by reading it.
A couple of questions that I hope won't be taken as criticisms because they are meant mainly as suggestions that may already be being addressed or were not possible due to time limits.
The group consulted the former head of one of the special schools (and his wife) - why not consult the current heads of the three special schools in the county who will have a more up to date knowledge of the families and children involved?
Did you consult any other local authorities to see if there are models of this kind of care provision that are found to work within current budget constraints - and how they are made to work? I sometimes think that in Herefordshire there is a tendency to just talk to ourselves when an outside perspective can be useful.
Did you consult any of the national charities (NASEN, SCOPE, etc) about what happens elsewhere and how the circle can be squared between families' needs and personalised budgets and local government/Health authority budgets?
And perhaps more for the long term ... could there be economies by combining provision with a neighbouring county or counties depending on where a family lives?
As to the legal challenge - I see the frustration from Cllr Chappell and from the families. They are actually on the same side so it shouldn't be impossible to put any legal action in abeyance until it is seen what progress is made. One of the main themes in the report is the lack of information and communication - so to give an excuse to restrict communication even further seems very counterproductive at this point but there may need to be a time when HC officers need an outside authority to force them to comply with their obligations.
-
If its of any help, if you use the on line small claims court procedure the papers are served from Northampton, no matter where the claim arises. So research how to defend against 'small claims' and if it is a valid route for these so called fines
-
I think a separate thread for Ledbury rd would be good, as suggested.
Has anyone been watching "The special needs hotel" on Channel5? Residential training for young adults with SEND running a hotel called Foxes in Somerset. Looks good, I wonder if Herefordshire sends young people there or if it could be a model to be copied.
-
So just over 12 months ago Herefordshire Council thought that Bill Norman's role was so important that he needed to be upgraded to Assistant Director level and had to be paid more in recognition of this fact.
In the interim it has emerged that there is to be an almighty battle with Amey with millions of pounds at stake - so legal expertise is going to be vital.
Now it seems that the position is `redundant', except for one part of the role that can go to Bill's underling.
Redundancy is a minefield for councils. Herefordshire could find itself having to include all his previous `service' years in other councils in any calculation unless his payoffs from those negated any ongoing employment rights. Let's hope that the Hoople HR experts and the scrupulous councillors who recruited Bill were absolutely clear from the outset that they weren't going to be stung for a large contractual sum when he inevitably left after 2+ years (you need to be employed for 2 years to get redundancy so the timing of this is perfect for him to get some money and go off to find another host organism - assuming he hasn't already got one lined up).
Perhaps Peter Robinson has driven a hard bargain so ensure a senior manager leaving the council doesn't get more money than they are absolutely entitled to (he doesn't want Herefordshire to suffer like Bristol City council did when their finance director left a couple of years ago).
-
I thought some of you might be interested in this new project by Private Eye. They have produced an interactive map showing land and buildings owned by offshore registered companies (a well known tax avoidance tactic). You can zoom in and see which bits of Hereford and Herefordshire are owned in this way.
Who'd have thought that the Imperial in Widemarsh St, leasehold, would be owned via the Cayman Islands, for example?
Here is the link. They also allow anyone who knows a bit more about any of these to let them know the details.
-
Shouldn't the Council's lawyers be advising Mr Baird and colleagues of their legal duty in this situation?
I'm sure if Paul Cardin was still active here he would have something to say about Bill Norman's attitude to unlawful treatment of the disabled.
So I hope he doesn't mind me posting this link in which our legal director finds an ingenious way to get his then employers (Wirral Council) off the hook regarding disability discrimination - arguing that the unfair treatment was not because they were disabled, their disability was just a unrelated issue. This link taken from Paul C's webstie:
(Paul also has a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to an MP, essentially saying that Bill Norman was wrong)
Perhaps our councillors will remember this track record when considering the legal advice that we are all paying handsomely for.
-
Why don't they have some kind of tracking device. A £100 smartphone can be tracked - surely when you have something costing as much as a landrover a device could be fitted in a place that thieves couldn't immediately get at. Especially when they are being targeted.
-
I agree. And what a beautiful picture.
Do any organisations make sure that new roads (SC2 etc) have ways for hedgehogs to cross? I think I once read about tunnels for them.
-
Thank you Chris,
The reason for my comments are that Geoff Hughes was a trustee during the time that the ROF was acquiring the council assets. Bearing in mind his role in the council, and who pays his wages, he should not have been part of an organisation that was damaging council interests. If, as you say, all people connected with education and within the council were opposed to the school, then again he should not have continued to be part of ROF at that point. You say he is is not a trustee `now'. The Charity Commission and Company Check websites still have him as a trustee - when did he actually leave that role?
I would also point out that Blackfriars was vacated very fast and before the staff had anywhere to go in order to facilitate the school. I don't believe that the council was obliged to declare it as redundant and if they had not, then the school which you say the council opposed, would have been at least delayed - someone chose not to oppose it then. Also, as the school is no longer resident at Holme Lacey, has the council made any moves to recover that asset?
I know that you (and, to be fair, Graham Powell) have opposed free schools, but the council as an institution has not publicly made any statements to that effect. A council statement stating that the two MPs had forced through the school against the wishes and advice of local education professionals would be the brave thing to do - but I suspect that Tory political tribalism overrides the wellbeing of local children.
ps Did you take on board the Legal points about the Ledbury Rd closure in the other thread?
-
I would be pleased if this works, but the financial implications look worrying for local students. This is one of the lowest wage areas in the country but students would need to find a lot of money to attend.
From the Telegraph:
QuoteQ. How much will fees be?
NMITE has not yet decided. It is a not-for-profit private university, so it is not limited to a £9,000 cap on fees. The University of Buckingham, which operates under a similar model, charges £12,444 a year for undergraduates, for instance.
Q. As it is a private university will I be entitled to a student loan?
Yes, but only up to £6,000 a year less than the £9,000 a year that standard university students can get.
So higher fees and lower loans - students may need to find up to £6000 per year whilst they study. And the comparable New University of Buckingham isn't doing all that well.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016
Let's hope, if things progress, they emulate Warwick and Bristol.
-
Totally correct, they should address the security here by having security guards on trains not placing women in a separate compartment.
..and that is one of the areas that would undoubtedly be raised in a proper consultation - and it is consultation that is being suggested (with women only carriages also being part of that consultation).
And I don't think anyone is suggesting `placing' women in a separate compartment - just giving women the option if they want to take it.
-
This story is again national- in the Times Educational Supplement. The school did badly in the GCSEs. To be fair, many of its students are only there because they struggle with academic subjects and the idea is to teach them more employment skills. However as the Conservatives stick rigidly to the 5 GCSE (A*-C) criteria for every other school, it has to be used to judge this one as well.
Just remember: Over £3 million build costs (taxpayer), 22 staff including principal and deputy (both well over £50k), Blackfriars land and building (over £1million lost to the council and therefore to other local schools). Half the predicted pupils, three Heads on 2 years etc
A free school has spoken of its “disappointment†after just one of its students hit the government’s benchmark of five good GCSE including English and maths.
It means that records will show that at Robert Owen Academy, a 14-19 free school in Hereford, only 4 per cent of its cohort met the target in this summer’s GCSE results.
The HT has this in the printed copy but hasn't dared to put it on line yet (they have been cheerleaders for the whole project and even deleted comments that questioned it - banning at least one poster for daring to suggest that they should ask more questions
)So, Jesse Norman, Bill Wiggin, Geoff Hughes - would you describe yourselves as "disappointed" like the school does, or "embarrassed, ashamed, and apologetic"?
Is this a better use of money than Blackmarston and 1 Ledbury Road?
Children let down, taxpayers let down and local schools undermined for a Conservative political experiment facilitated by Herefordshire Council.
-
A few points on the original question:
- It wasn't Corbyn's idea - he was asked if he would consider it as a way of making women feel safer on public transport and he said that he would be open to consulting and talking to women about the idea. As a male, I have no right to argue against it,
- It is good that a politican is able to acknowledge that there is a problem, that women do often feel threatened and vulnerable (for good reason) and to be ready to consider and consult on measures that might improve it.
- I think that there is a world of difference between giving women a place where they may feel safer, and an oppressive segregation imposed and enforced by men - and it is the former that is being suggested. To start likening it to enforced segregation in strict religious communities is nonsense.
-
Just to bring you up to date. Have been working with parents of Autistic children and there has been some movement with officers of WVHT and Council. Still some way to go and work to do but these things always take time. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated.
Chris,
As per my posts, it is unlawful for the local authority/health authority to review or change the Local Offer without consulting the parents and young people and publishing both the response from those groups and the consequent response from the local authority. If that wasn't done, as seems to be the case, then the council and health authority have acted unlawfully. Chris Baird's statement that they planned to inform parents at a later date seems to reinforce the idea that his actions were unlawful - it implies a deliberate decision to withhold the plans/proposals. Have you put that to the officers concerned?
-
And another document. The children classified as having SEND are, unfortunately, victims of the council's obsession with `Transformation'. This document is a contender for the world record for cramming in council management jargon, but you just need to scroll down to section 3.2 (f) to see, in code, the plan to close 1, Ledbury Road.
Even in obscure documents like this one, they couldn't bring themselves to spell out what they actually meant by the phrase:
Complete phase 2 of short breaks re-commissioning by March 2016 to further develop the use of community or family based, rather than institution based, respite care
Here is the link
One of the progamme `sponsors' is Cllr J Millar, so other councillors who have been kept in the dark could have a word with him.
-
I don't think this has been included in the discussion yet. There has to be a `Local Offer' in which Health Authorities (CCG) and the local authority (Herefordshire council) publish clearly what is offered to children with Special Needs and their families. The acronym is SEND (special educational needs and disabilities). There is statutory guidance (i.e. compulsory guidance) published by the government. Here are some extracts. I have put some of the words in bold.
In this Code of Practice, where the text uses the word ‘must’ it refers to a statutory requirement under primary legislation, regulations or case law. The bodies listed in paragraph iv. must have regard to the Code of Practice. This means that whenever they are taking decisions they must give consideration to what the Code says. They cannot ignore it. They must fulfil their statutory duties towards children and young people with SEN or disabilities in the light of the guidance set out in it. They must be able to demonstrate in their arrangements for children and young people with SEN or disabilities that they are fulfilling their statutory duty to have regard to the Code. So, where the text uses the word ‘should’ it means that the guidance contained in this Code must be considered and that those who must have regard to it will be expected to explain any departure from it.
......local authorities, in carrying out their functions under the Act in relation to disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs (SEN), must have regard to:
• the views, wishes and feelings of the child or young person, and the child’s parents
- the importance of the child or young person, and the child’s parents, participating as fully as possible in decisions, and being provided with the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions.
Participating in decision making
1.3 Local authorities must ensure that children, their parents and young people are involved in discussions and decisions about their individual support and about local provision.
And from the guidance for health professionals; in a section on the local offer
It should also include:
• universal, preventative services and specialist services
• therapy services including speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy and services relating to mental health, such as arts therapies (these must be treated as special educational provision where they educate or train a child or young person)
• wheelchair services and community equipment, children’s community nursing, continence services
• palliative and respite care and other provision for children with complex health needs
• other services, such as emergency care provision
But then:
Local authorities must consult children with SEN or disabilities and their parents and young people with SEN or disabilities in preparing the Local Offer and reviewing it. Local authorities must also publish comments from them about the Local Offer along with details of what action they intend to take in response
So Chris Baird's apology about not letting the parents know about 1 Ledbury Rd sooner is extremely wide of the mark. He had a statutory duty to consult them (and the children, as far as possible) about any change to provision in advance, and to publish the consultation. He also has a statutory duty to explain why he hasn't done so. I don't think that "you weren't supposed to find out yet" will quite meet this duty.
For those of you with enough time to look at the full documents:
-
I wonder whether even the Hereford Times will be able to ignore this story about their favourite institution.
The comments are interesting about the Robert Owen academy too. 49 pupils and 22 employed adults - and still it is failing.
-
Still here as well. Just being careful for various reasons. I still learn a lot from this forum and will contribute when I can.
GDJ
-
I hear the muffins were far too rich for Herefordian taste, some say they had risen too much and yet much of them somehow seemed half baked.
-
John - it looks like a party trying to do the right thing for its communities. Perhaps I could suggest a couple of areas that could be added and also a couple of questions.
Question on housing: It seems that new housing is very rarely "supported by local communities" - you will be a hostage to fortune if you say that locals who already own a house have to agree to new ones being built nearby. A radical approach would be to say that housing will be placed proportionately where possible in the city, towns and villages. You could also use as much council owned land as possible for affordable housing thereby removing the land cost from the overall cost. Developers are often demonised but who else is going to build houses? And can you impose the maximum multiple of council tax on empty and holiday homes and use the revenue for provision of housing?
A quote: " Developers - people who want to build houses in the countryside - opposed by conservationists. Conservationists - people who already own a house in the countryside."
And what seems to be an omission.
There is a large number of nurseries and childminders and also the children's centres that have been neglected through insufficient funding and the machinations of various senior officers over the last few years ( the recent inspection reports on childrens centres were inevitable and no surprise to anyone except, it seems, the cabinet member responsible). A drive to support work with vulnerable very young children and their parents would pay long term dividends. There is a wealth of evidence that money spent in early interventions in education, health and social/family wellbeing is repaid many times over through not having to pay large sums later on to try to repair damaged lives. You could make early intervention both an ethical and a financially sensible part of the education/social care part of the manifesto.
And another: The number of children with special educational needs is increasing in the county and has been for several years. These young people can be seen as individuals with charm, personality and soul - or they can be seen as a financial liability. Make the first of these views the one that explicitly drives your policy. One way to do this, again financially sensibly, is to provide local residential care and education for those who need it and support for parents who have to come to terms with their children's conditions and then cope with it for many years.
Hope these things can be thrown into the mix but I realise everyone will have their own opinions. But the fact you've opened up your draft manifesto for public comment deserves a lot of credit.
GDJ
-
This story in the HT also begs the question that if this is the way that Big Al operates, on how many other issues has he managed to silence councillors? It could explain the eerie silence from councillors (with some exceptions) whenever the council as an institution is embarrassed. Perhaps a Councillor could let us know....?
a propos nothing - does anyone remember the 1980s tv series "The Beiderbecke Affair". Two characters in it were referred to as Big Al and Little Norm. Do you think this should be working names of our Chief Exec and Legal Director?
-
There is a list of 'protected characteristics' that prevent employees being unfairly treated. There is legal protection from unfair treatment due to colour, race, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, married status, age, disability and gender realignment. There are severe penalties if this law is broken. Perhaps deliberately, whistleblowing isn't on the list. But if the politicians are serious, it is a change that would do most to protect whistleblowers. And the individuals responsible for breaking that law could be held accountable.
-
I'm sure we've all been delighted by the deluge of positive stories about Bill Wiggin in the HT - and are grateful to Gary Bills-Geddes for the unquestioning way he reprints press releases from Bill's pr person.
Today's is particulary good. Bill is seen with a poorly child and quoted:
QuoteMr Wiggin said: “Charities are an essential part of the UK medical research environment and the science budget is vital to supporting their research.
“By funding the day-to-day running of science facilities, the next government will ensure that researchers can concentrate on finding the next life saving cure."
There is lovely photo too. I don't know how to get it on here but the link is:
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11783223.MP_backs_Government_funds_for_heart_research/
Ahh!
By chance, I happened upon this article from another local newspaper elsewhere in the country: The Worksop Guardian.
They too have an MP with a similar interest in helping the sick. Their MP Kevin Barron is quoted:
QuoteSir Kevin said: “Charities are an essential part of the UK medical research environment and the science budget is vital to supporting their research.â€
“By funding the day-to-day running of science facilities, the next government will ensure that researchers can concentrate on finding the next life saving cure. If we are to prevent and treat devastating conditions like cardiovascular disease, we need continued investment in pioneering research.â€
Sir Kevin is then photographed.
Great minds think alike.
)
Bill Wiggins v Hereford Times
in Open Forum
Posted
For the record; this is what we're not supposed to have seen. So don't read it!
I thought I told you not to read it!