Posts

Documenting Past Failures: (11) some conclusions, part one

The previous ten posts in this series have looked at LBWF’s record of extensive failure over the past decade or so, and it is now apposite to offer some general conclusions. First, it is notable that, by and large, the cases examined share some common characteristics, which may be summarised as follows: (a) rule breaches On paper, LBWF has always possessed clear rules to govern programme inception and governance. Yet the evidence shows that these were often disregarded.  Contracts were procured without seeking the requisite number of bidders; contract documents remained unsigned, sometimes undated too; and monitoring and audit requirements, even when specified as mandatory, were not respecte... »

‘Create the impression that you’re constantly in your constituency without wasting too much of your time by being there’

According to Guido Fawkes, Labour’s Austin Mitchell has just come out with this nugget of advice for Parliamentarians: ‘“Constituents are a grudging lot and the people that turn to you for help are so clueless that they probably don’t vote anyway. It’s appearances that count, not work or surgeries.The days when you’d get away with a monthly visit – still less a yearly visit – are gone. You’ve got to live there, or pretend to… so create the impression that you’re constantly in your constituency without wasting too much of your time by being there.”’ (see http://order-order.com/#_@/MMp05VumkPS4JA)  Curiously, news reaches me simultaneously that one local MP already seems to have taken his advi... »

Town Hall asbestos: a closer look at LBWF’s defence strategy

The outcome of LBWF’s appearance at Southwark Crown Court on Friday last has been well reported in the Waltham Forest Guardian, see especially here: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/12979957.Council_asbestos_failings_put_workers_at__serious_risk____Judge/ However, there is one detail which certainly deserves greater attention than it has so far attracted. The case against LBWF was initially heard at Westminster Magistrates Court in January 2015. On this occasion LBWF pleaded guilty on all four counts, and advanced the mitigation that: (a) it was very sorry; (b) it had spent a large amount of money putting things right; and (c) it did not merit a substantial fine, because the only... »

Town Hall asbestos: Unison’s statement on today’s verdict

PRESS RELEASE UNISON in Waltham Forest Embargo: None Date: 29th May 2015 THE LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST FINED £66,000 FOR FAILING TO MANAGE ASBESTOS SAFELY AND PUTTING ITS EMPLOYEES HEALTH AT RISK The London Borough of Waltham Forest was fined today at Southwark Crown Court following their pleading guilty to two Charges under the Health and safety at Work Act 1974 section 2(1) and section 3(1), namely failure to protect their employees and failure to protect the public with a further two charges specifically relating to the Control of Asbestos regulations 2006 and 2012 regulation 4(8) which relate to the failure to manage asbestos in the Town Hall basement. Waltham forest Council had a... »

LBWF and the Town Hall asbestos scandal: new evidence emerges

LBWF is due in Southwark Crown Court on Friday 29 May for sentencing over its conviction for breaking health and safety legislation in relation to asbestos in the Town Hall. In the subsequent fall-out, further questions no doubt will be asked about how LBWF interacted with NPS London Ltd, since in formal terms the latter was a key player in the authority’s Asbestos Policy (for which see the ‘documents’ tab). It is already established that (a) policy or no policy, there was a good deal of confusion about the asbestos in the Town Hall, the dates when reports were received, who exactly was supposed to manage what, etc.; and (b) Shifa Mustafa (described by Chief Executive Martin Esom... »

Page 79 of 89«7778798081»