HSE

Private Eye’s 2015 Rotten Borough’s Awards: LBWF triumphs again

January 13, 2016 ISIS, Prevent, Private Eye, Town Hall asbestos

Private Eye‘s annual Rotten Borough Awards are always a highpoint for local council watchers, and this year LBWF triumphs again, with no less than two citations, which read as follows: ‘COMBATING EXTREMISM: Until an undercover Channel 4 reporter discovered the truth, for two years Labour Waltham Forest council hired out a room for “ladies tea afternoons” to a group of burqa-clad women…who turned out to be an Isis supporters’ group’; and ‘WORKPLACE SAFETY: The London borough of Waltham Forest was fined £66,000 with £16,000 costs for failing to pro... »

,

Town Hall asbestos: new revelations

July 31, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

Before, during, and after its recent court case over asbestos contamination in the Town Hall, LBWF gave the impression that, having been made aware of the problem in early 2012, it then spent a large sum of money making the building safe. Thus, to give one example, a LBWF briefing dated 16 July 2012 states: ‘From 24th February – 19th May, the contractor carried out the decontamination work removing all dust and debris [Emphasis Added]. Where positive readings were recorded, any files that were exposed were deemed potentially contaminated. In some areas this is substantial’. However, it n... »

, , , ,

Private Eye reports the Town Hall asbestos scandal

June 15, 2015 Private Eye, Town Hall asbestos

See ‘Dust to Dust’, centre column, bottom of page. From Private Eye no. 1394, 12-25 June 2015. »

, , , , ,

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

June 2, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

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... »

, , , , , , ,

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

May 29, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

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) wh... »

, , , , , , ,

LBWF and the Town Hall asbestos scandal: new evidence emerges

May 27, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

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 exactl... »

, , , , , , , , , ,

LBWF and asbestos: how those potentially most affected are treated

April 23, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

A correspondent who worked in the Town hall for a number of years writes as follows: ‘After over a dozen emails and three interventions by my councillor…and after filling in a form (which was more suitable for a manager reporting on an industrial accident in their department) I have now been told the types of asbestos to which I may have been exposed. Talk about jumping through hoops ! I have written to my doctor to have this entered on my medical records. Of course, none of this answers the general point of how people who have been exposed but who didn’t see about it in the press ... »

, , , ,

Town Hall asbestos: now John Cryer MP comments, well sort of

March 30, 2015 John Cryer MP, MPs, Town Hall asbestos

In his March 2015 E-bulletin, the somnolent MP for Leyton and Wanstead John Cryer comments as follows: ‘I was troubled by some reports which have surfaced online about how Waltham Forest Council dealt with the discovery of asbestos at the Town Hall. This had the potential to cause ordinary council workers, officers and the councillors themselves serious, chronic health problems. I met with the Chief Executive to discuss this issue and others. However, I am given to understand that the Council made a report to the Health and Safety Executive as soon as the problems were discovered, some y... »

, , , , , ,

Town Hall asbestos: LBWF comments, at last: UPDATED

March 30, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

Stop press: Mr Fenwick provides a full reply to our e-mail of 20 March 2015.   26 March 2015 ‘Dear Mr Tiratsoo, Thank you for your email. Its contents are noted. The Council has provided a response to your original queries and explained the relationship between NPS(London) Ltd and the Council. Daniel Fenwick Director of Governance’   20 March 2015 ‘Dear Mr. Fenwick, Thank you for your e-mail. Most of it of course is entirely irrelevant to the points that we raised with Mr. Esom on 27 January 2015, points he has subsequently been so reticent about responding to. As t... »

, , , , , , , ,

Town Hall asbestos: LBWF comments, at last

March 23, 2015 Town Hall asbestos

On 27 January 2015, Trevor Calver and I called for LBWF Chief Executive Martin Esom to resign over the Town Hall asbestos affair. Here is the correspondence that followed in date order, beginning at the bottom with our initial e-mail.   20 March 2015 ‘Dear Mr. Fenwick, Thank you for your e-mail. Most of it of course is entirely irrelevant to the points that we raised with Mr. Esom on 27 January 2015, points he has subsequently been so reticent about responding to. As to the parts that are relevant, our response is as follows. First, your contention that there was a ‘discovery’ of as... »

, , , , , , ,
  • 1
  • 2