Talkswindon

Big Local Issues & Enquiries => Talkswindon WiFi Inquiry => Topic started by: Tobes on May 06, 2013, 11:03:40 AM

Title: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Tobes on May 06, 2013, 11:03:40 AM
Apparently.... Though if not blame, what about at least name...?

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10401193.W_fi_report_won___t_blame_individuals/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10401193.W_fi_report_won___t_blame_individuals/)

Quote
THE councillor leading the cross-party review into Swindon Council’s failed wi-fi project says the findings are likely to be published in June – but do not expect blame to be laid at the door of individuals.

Swindon Council agreed in October 2009 to invest up to £450,000 in the firm Digital City (UK) Ltd, to provide broadband access and other wi-fi related services across the Swindon borough.

But the infrastructure was only installed in Highworth and the firm never generated enough income to pay the loan back.

The council set up the firm under a joint venture partnership with technical partners aQovia UK Ltd and Avidity Consulting Ltd, a firm owned by businessman Rikki Hunt, who became the managing director of the new firm, based at the David Murray John Tower, in the town centre.

To investigate the fiasco, in November 2012, the council’s scrutiny committee established a task group of Labour councillors, Des Moffatt and Bob Wright, and Conservative councillors Peter Heaton-Jones and Brian Ford.

Coun Moffatt said publication of the group’s findings would have to wait until after the council’s AGM, on May 17, because there were no more scrutiny meetings beforehand, and the draft first had to be approved by the task group before being sent for comment to those involved in the wi-fi project.

He said: “Although we were desperate to get this dealt with on this side of the AGM, we failed, largely because of work and holiday commitments it would be unreasonable to expect some of our colleagues to cancel.”

Coun Moffatt said Coun Garry Perkins, Swindon Council’s director on Digital City, tried to rescue the situation and was not responsible for it happening in the first place.

But he said the report would not point the finger at which individuals were actually responsible.

He said there were legal reasons as the group could not blame people for incompetence without strong evidence.

But he said the group intended to make all its findings available. He said the review’s aim was to focus on lessons learnt and make recommendations to reduce the risk of it happening again.

He said: “Generally, it’s what the corporate council failed to do rather than any particular individual within the corporate council. “I made mistakes in early 2010 with wi-fi. They aren’t significant mistakes in the great scheme of things but I made mistakes in my role on scrutiny committee and my role as a long-service member of the Labour Party.”

“There was an element of ‘group think’ that wi-fi would solve all their problems, and as a consequence, no one individual was to blame. Dissidents were outside the loop.”

Coun Moffatt said he hoped the report would answer all outstanding significant” questions, but refused to be drawn on whether the report would reveal who agreed for Digital City to pay Mr Hunt’s Avidity Consulting £105,067 in consultancy costs between August 14, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

Mr Hunt told the Adver last week that the renumeration was something agreed initially between the shareholders. He said Swindon Council was represented in the discussions by officers, whom he would not name because it was not fair on them.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mr Grumble on May 06, 2013, 11:41:55 AM
Finally an internal report has been produced.  Just like the Croft one the system has reviewed itself and found that no-one is to blame.  What a shame.

I wonder if Cllrs Wright, Ford and Heaton-Jones concur with Cllr Moffatt?  Also it's odd that even Rikki Hunt agrees with them because he thinks it's not fair to name anyone too.   What this town needs is some real independent external reviews, don't you think?

Perhaps they'll take up sewing next? :crazy2:
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Tobes on May 06, 2013, 12:00:19 PM
I guess it all depends upon what people understand is the purpose of first scrutiny and then review.

Half a million pounds of tax-payers money has been spent with precious little to show for it - except that a significant proportion of it went into the trouser pocket of an individual.

Why will nobody be named?

Because the scrutiny process failed.
Because senior officers failed
Because too many councilors failed to understand the (obvious) implications of what was happening, or chose not to speak out for politically motivated reasons

Nobody will be named because to do so would harm all the parties.

Instead, damage limitation is the order of the day: By effectively suggesting that 'the whole council is to blame', the review body is in danger of effectively making sure that no key individual will end up taking any.

One individual has already stood down from the position they held when the decision was made, one is bankrupt - but several councilors who should (given the level of trust invested in them) be exposed to the criticism of the electorate and judged accordingly at the next election.

I don't think thats a fair way to conclude this whole sad affair. If lessons are going to be learned, there have to be some consequences for those at fault, surely?
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Smiler on May 06, 2013, 12:07:07 PM
Quote
I made mistakes in early 2010 with wi-fi.

How brave and reassuring that a councillor admits to his mistakes.

But what an opportunity this is for the Tories in West Swindon to rush out a leaflet with the headline - Cllr Perkins rescues wi-fi as Cllr Moffatt admits his 2010 wi-fi mistakes.

No doubt the Lib Dems will be rushing their leaflet out blaming it all on Labour.

Thank you brave Cllr Moffatt for being so honest :clap:
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Tobes on May 06, 2013, 12:14:18 PM
Quote
Coun Moffatt said he hoped the report would answer all outstanding significant” questions, but refused to be drawn on whether the report would reveal who agreed for Digital City to pay Mr Hunt’s Avidity Consulting £105,067 in consultancy costs between August 14, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

Lets just hope that councilor Moffat's laudable honesty given his earlier mistake isn't offset by a further disservice to Swindon's voters, eh?

Other poor judgments ought to be held to public account...
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mr Grumble on May 06, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Tobes, I think you've struck hammer 'squarely' on the chisel and I don't think the words brave and honest are what some would have used.  Perhaps silly and frank?

It will be interesting to see how frank Cllrs Wright, Ford and Heaton-Jones are.

What next?  Des Morgan running out of the Civic Offices hands held aloft saying no, no it was nothing to do with them, it was me all along  :2funny:
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Muggins on May 06, 2013, 01:11:58 PM
"Cllr Perkins rescues Wi-Fi"

But he didn't, did he?   

He maybe tried but he did not succeed.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Tobes on May 06, 2013, 02:47:20 PM
The story really does beg more questions than it answers in my opinion:
Quote
He said there were legal reasons as the group could not blame people for incompetence without strong evidence.

Is half a million quid pissed away with nothing to show and £100k of that in the pocket of an 'expert businessman' who is now a registered bankrupt, not strong evidence of something pretty obvious?

 :WTF:

Quote
But he said the group intended to make all its findings available. He said the review’s aim was to focus on lessons learnt and make recommendations to reduce the risk of it happening again.

I wonder if one will be to listen to the members of the public who clearly pointed out the obvious risks and what was almost certainly going to be failure?

Quote
He said: “Generally, it’s what the corporate council failed to do rather than any particular individual within the corporate council. “I made mistakes in early 2010 with wi-fi. They aren’t significant mistakes in the great scheme of things but I made mistakes in my role on scrutiny committee and my role as a long-service member of the Labour Party. There was an element of ‘group think’ that wi-fi would solve all their problems, and as a consequence, no one individual was to blame. Dissidents were outside the loop.”

'Outside the loop' reads like cant for outside of SBC. Its long been held by many, of whom I count myself, that far too many decisions and political trades appear to be made behind closed doors, subject to deals and exchanges of favour.  It also seems utterly bizarre to me that 'the loop' simply means anyone not a council officer or elected councilor - in other words, the entire people of Swindon are also being treated as outside the loop. NOBODY I spoke to, nobody here on TS, down the pub or in local business, NO-ONE outside of SBC appeared to think that this idea was viable. How could councilors appear to be so out of touch not just with their electorate, but with what appeared to be basic, clear common bloody sense?!

I have a feeling that May 17 is not going to see the recognition of institutional failure and most importantly, recognition of personal responsibility, that is required for anything really meaningful or lasting lessons to come. Instead, it appears hatches are being battoned down and ranks are closing. I hope I am wrong.

 :-\
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mart on May 06, 2013, 04:54:24 PM
He said there were legal reasons as the group could not blame people for incompetence without strong evidence.

So, half a million quid gone walkabout without the 'purchased' goods and services being received in return is not 'strong evidence'.

That implies it is perfectly possible to do SBC for half a million quid with minimal risk.

If only the enquiry had been pursued with the drive, determination, visionary thinking, unconventional processes and vibratory 'feckyou' approach that it's subject matter was it might have been considered to have achieved it's purpose.

Hands up anyone who is surprised.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Richard Symonds on May 06, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
If the report does not SAY WHY WHERE and WHEN and apportion accountability for what happened this will RUN and RUN and RUN.

Of course, Rod Bluh could have prevented all of this by just using an ounce of common sense, but sadly he didn't because he never makes or is prepared to own up to any mistakes.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 06, 2013, 05:13:25 PM
Quote
"Cllr Perkins rescues Wi-Fi

Muggins you are right he didn't save it at all.

It is true to say that Coun Perkins was not 'in at the start' of the saga.

It is also true that Coun Perkins thought he was up to the task of 'controlling' Mr Hunt. The problem is that by the time Coun perkins met with Mr Hunt (after the May election and after Mr Hunt had been given the second tranche monies - all £250k) it was too late - the money had gone.

Coun Perkins, in my view, had no intention of 'saving' Digital City or the propsoed free Wi-Fi service. he had but one aim and that was to protect the Conservative administration.

He did that in a number of ways including by attempting to traduce people like me. He cam very close to being called out as a lxxr on a number of occasions especially with regard to the Bathgate saga

Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: jennyb on May 06, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
From today's adver....

Quote
“There was an element of ‘group think’ that wi-fi would solve all their problems, and as a consequence, no one individual was to blame. Dissidents were outside the loop.”

Coun Moffatt said he hoped the report would answer all outstanding significant” questions, but refused to be drawn on whether the report would reveal who agreed for Digital City to pay Mr Hunt’s Avidity Consulting £105,067 in consultancy costs between August 14, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

Mr Hunt told the Adver last week that the renumeration was something agreed initially between the shareholders. He said Swindon Council was represented in the discussions by officers, whom he would not name because it was not fair on them.

I find these comments very disturbing. 

SBC is a local authority , not a venture capitalist or entreprenuer. It is not about blame, it is about accountability.

If you are being paid to do a job then you are accountable for the decisions you have made. This accountablity may cause much professional gain or much professional pain.

In the real world, where companies have to work hard to attract and retain customers who could vote with their feet and go elsewhere , accountablity is a critical element of any endeavour.

If this report does not name the organisations and individuals involved then it has failed in it's duty to the public. If the truth is not told and there are no sanctions then the same thing can happen again and again. 

Whoops.. it already has! The hapless Class Solutions and all it's tendrils have cost the people of Swindon millions in cash lost forever to education. Cllr Perkins was involved in this too.

Don't members of the WiFi review group have a duty to present the truth to the public?

No openness , no sanctions, no customers who can move elsewhere , no risk ... then why would behaviours change?
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 06, 2013, 05:19:48 PM
Quote
Generally, it’s what the corporate council failed to do rather than any particular individual within the corporate council.

Coun Moffatt is entitled to a view - the above does not accord with anything I have discovered which suggests that at least four senior officers failed to do their jobs in a way which could be described as satisfactory.

One of whom had very specific responsibilities for monitoring the finances of DC.

One mid ranking officer, holding a position of trust (as opposed to power) certainly prepared and offered up a report which had more holes in it than a string vest.

Of course it is possible that one of the conclusions in the report could be that the decisions made were political and not officer driven.

We will have to wait and see!!

Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 06, 2013, 05:28:44 PM
Quote
Mr Hunt told the Adver last week that the renumeration was something agreed initially between the shareholders. He said Swindon Council was represented in the discussions by officers, whom he would not name because it was not fair on them

This is the same Mr Hunt who claimed that the council approached him about the Wi-Fi scheme, whereas the Council are admanat Mr Hunt made the first approach.

This is the same Mr Hunt who claimed he helped set up SCS for free whereas we now know he received £82k

This is the same Mr Hunt who claimed he was a director of Forward swindon but wasn't

This is the same Mr Hunt who claimed to have tendered for CCTV in Broadgreen but hadn't

This is the same Mr Hunt who promised so much and delivered nothing

This is the same Mr Hunt who paid himself over £100k for 8 months 'work' and did it because to paraphrase the words of an advert "I'm worth it"

However. as Mr Hunt is so adamant that he was authorised to pay himself circa £12k per month, let the Council call his bluff and ask him to prove it.  They have run scared of Mr Hunt for so long over this saga, let them stop the rot and demand he tells them the names of the officers who authorised the payment

And for the avoidance of doubt, we all know the Council agreed the appointment would be a remunerated one, what we are asking is for SBC or Mr Hunt to confirm who authorised the specific amount.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 06, 2013, 05:34:38 PM
Quote
SBC is a local authority , not a venture capitalist or entreprenuer. It is not about blame, it is about accountability

Absolutely.  And someone has to accept responsibility for the failure of the scheme and for the 'brainless' decision to give Mr Hunt the second tranche of £250k.

Every officer who added a single word to the report in which it was stated the second payment was 'essential' and every councillor who accepted the report so unquestionningly despite my own plea that they should consider it very carefully and adopt a more resolute approach to the risk assessment, is equally culpable for the loss.

You are accountable and you are responsible and yes you are to blame every bit as much as much as Mr Hunt
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: jennyb on May 06, 2013, 07:29:35 PM
Quote
SBC is a local authority , not a venture capitalist or entreprenuer. It is not about blame, it is about accountability

Absolutely.  And someone has to accept responsibility for the failure of the scheme and for the 'brainless' decision to give Mr Hunt the second tranche of £250k.

Every officer who added a single word to the report in which it was stated the second payment was 'essential' and every councillor who accepted the report so unquestionningly despite my own plea that they should consider it very carefully and adopt a more resolute approach to the risk assessment, is equally culpable for the loss.

You are accountable and you are responsible and yes you are to blame every bit as much as much as Mr Hunt

In my opinion, officers and councillors who allowed this to happen have more to be concerned about than Mr Hunt. This gentleman is a salesman is he not. In this local authority he found the perfect patsy who appear not to be aware that if is sounds to good to be true then it probably is!

Do those who allowed this to happen deserve to remain in post?

In my experience they would have been out of the door quicker than Nero could have found his fiddle..

But then that was in the real world where money and customers mattered.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: bobwright on May 06, 2013, 07:38:56 PM
Very unusual using the Adver as the font of knowledge. As stated previously the alternative of no one is responsible is impossible.
The report is being produced and I think Des is wise to keep to the facts revealing responsibility.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Weebleman on May 06, 2013, 07:43:10 PM
Quote
Generally, it’s what the corporate council failed to do rather than any particular individual within the corporate council.

Coun Moffatt is entitled to a view - the above does not accord with anything I have discovered which suggests that at least four senior officers failed to do their jobs in a way which could be described as satisfactory.

One wonders if these "faceless beings" would be equally reluctant to raise their heads above the parapet to bask in their individual praise if the scheme had been a success........ I think NOT!
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Spunkymonkey on May 06, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
When I worked at the borough, I had a line manager who was very keen to try innovative new materials and/or ground breaking techniques. I remember him being very disappointed when his manager continually slapped him down and explained that SBC was a small unitary authority and could not afford to make mistakes. He argued that SBC should be using tried and tested materials and techniques (industry best practice) and leave the risky innovation to the larger authorities who could afford to get it wrong.

If Birmingham spend £100k on a trial project and it works, SBC might use it next time. If the trial is unsuccessful, £100k represents a small percentage of Birmingham's budget and they can afford to take the hit.

Have any of Swindon's risky innovative projects been successful?
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: jennyb on May 06, 2013, 07:52:01 PM
Very unusual using the Adver as the font of knowledge. As stated previously the alternative of no one is responsible is impossible.
The report is being produced and I think Des is wise to keep to the facts revealing responsibility.

Bob,

Glad to hear it.

Forgive me, but having seen the Croft review report my expectations are not high.

I did however hear Cllr Moffat state at the Croft Review [ which had a scope so narrow it was ridiculous]that the head of law and democratic services would not be involved in the completion of the WiFi review report.

I await the Wifi review report with interest. As I understand the protocol from the office of law and democratic services this report should be in the public domain some 8 days pre Scrutiny.

Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: jennyb on May 06, 2013, 07:57:24 PM
When I worked at the borough, I had a line manager who was very keen to try innovative new materials and/or ground breaking techniques. I remember him being very disappointed when his manager continually slapped him down and explained that SBC was a small unitary authority and could not afford to make mistakes. He argued that SBC should be using tried and tested materials and techniques (industry best practice) and leave the risky innovation to the larger authorities who could afford to get it wrong.

If Birmingham spend £100k on a trial project and it works, SBC might use it next time. If the trial is unsuccessful, £100k represents a small percentage of Birmingham's budget and they can afford to take the hit.

Have any of Swindon's risky innovative projects been successful?


It would appear that Class Solutions can't even find a market in Swindon. Millions spent to try to compete with real businesses.

Brought to fruition with secretive groups spending tax payers money for which no records appear to exist.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Rincewind on May 06, 2013, 09:49:18 PM
Very unusual using the Adver as the font of knowledge. As stated previously the alternative of no one is responsible is impossible.
The report is being produced and I think Des is wise to keep to the facts revealing responsibility.

For someone who is normally so eloquent and can talk the hind legs off a donkey, in this case you seem to be very brief but not to the point.   You seem to be saying that no one being responsible is impossible but at the same time endorsing Des saying no one is responsible...

Is he protecting all politicians or just some with such an economical statement?  I don't mind politicians running the town, however a tax payer voting for Perkins is like a chicken voting for Colonel Saunders and are the councillors on the review group now acting as agents?
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mickraker on May 06, 2013, 10:37:59 PM
And someone has to accept responsibility for the failure of the scheme and for the 'brainless' decision to give Mr Hunt the second tranche of £250k.

If you read other threads I think you may learn it was cabinet and scrutiny that decided after two goes at it to hand it over  :-\
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Richard Symonds on May 06, 2013, 10:51:14 PM
And someone has to accept responsibility for the failure of the scheme and for the 'brainless' decision to give Mr Hunt the second tranche of £250k.

If you read other threads I think you may learn it was cabinet and scrutiny that decided after two goes at it to hand it over  :-\

and I went to both and at Cabinet said to them that 'do you realize that you are jointly and severly liable for this money if things go wrong?,' at which point Rod Bluh leapt to his feet 'No we are not' and sat down!!  That should say it all really and how responsible that individual feels for any impending possibility of failure of anything with which he is or was associated.

So Scrutiny and Cabinet voted for this hand over of money without question and are just as culpable as anyone else in this disastrous sequence of incompetence!  The question remains who is to blame, or is it the electorate for voting in these people in the first place?

The only good that seems to have come out of all this is that the Lead Member for Finance no longer talks of the necessity for us to find alternative ways of raising money outside of normal Council Activity.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mickraker on May 06, 2013, 10:56:45 PM
Not yet anyway but would it be done as publically after the wifi  :-\
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 07, 2013, 07:49:20 AM
Quote
The only good that seems to have come out of all this is that the Lead Member for Finance no longer talks of the necessity for us to find alternative ways of raising money outside of normal Council Activity.

One of the most over used expressions, often heard from publicly funded organisations is - 'Where there are lessons to be learned we will learn them'

I hope Swindon Council will learn from there past errors. I suspect there will be a period of purdah where members shy away from anything which has the faintest whiff of a 'risky deal' more likely there will be a few 'wiser heads' saying "hold on - lets think this though"

Coun  Renard will not, I suspect, be enamoured of the Bluh fascincation for being 'the first' at everything, and I doubt he will be allowing offciers as much free rein as was displayed under the previous regime.

Having said all of that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Strong Leader/Cabinet model of Local Government has tendency to produce leaders who feel a need to assert their alpha side and demonstrate who is boss.

So the challenge, after Wi-Fi is over and it is not yet close to the finishing line, will be to continue keeping a close eye on the machinations of the Civic Offices, looking for the little things which officers slip into documents and which councillors overlook. It will also mean keeping an eye open on the machiavellian ways of polticians and asking the simple but quite effective question "why do they reallywant to do that"

Gone are the days when we will ever trust the word of a local politician without questionning their motivation. It's sad but they have brought it on themselves. Some by their actions and others by their inaction.

Des Moffatts mea culpa says it all - he knows that opposition councillors could and should have done more to stop the release of at least £250k plus over £20k of expenditure - he recognises that there should have been greater rigour dipslayed in seeking answers to questions asked and more, he is aware that the proof of 'something wrong' was presented but people simply turned a blind eye, closed ranks and defended the indefensible.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Moffatt on May 07, 2013, 04:58:58 PM
Groupthink explained
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_82.htm (http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_82.htm)
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Muggins on May 07, 2013, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from Des's link "Two well-known examples of Groupthink in action are the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster and the Bay of Pigs invasion. Engineers of the space shuttle knew about some faulty parts months before takeoff, but they did not want negative press so they pushed ahead with the launch anyway. With the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy made a decision and the people around him supported it despite their own concerns."

Puts the Wifi thing into perspective, doesn't it! 

The rest, the sort of recipe in the article, we've done that at training sessions and can be avoided most of the time, if everyone is asked individually, "What do you think" and then remarks debated.  'Course this should be after the training session on 'Assertiveness'.  And 'How to make meetings work' and "Barriers to good decision making".   

To speak up and then be made fun off in a snide and underhand way, does not lead to best decisions.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Spunkymonkey on May 07, 2013, 09:06:57 PM
Having been a member of Talkswindon for approx 6 months, I have read widely differing opinions on a diverse variety of topics.

It seems that wi-fi is the one topic that everyone agrees on. Says it all really.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mickraker on May 07, 2013, 10:54:55 PM
Having been a member of Talkswindon for approx 6 months, I have read widely differing opinions on a diverse variety of topics.

It seems that wi-fi is the one topic that everyone agrees on. Says it all really.

Groupthink maybe  :-\

Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: bobwright on May 07, 2013, 11:27:37 PM
For the record I am not faceless although I am partially colour blind.

I supported the idea of borough wide Wifi. I have already tried through Scrutiny, Cabinet and Full Council to get those responsible to step up. The council is now seeking an explanation for the use of the second tranche and the way it went about its release. This will be in a scrutiny report and this will be presented at a council scrutiny meeting, not through the Adver etc.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Tobes on May 08, 2013, 10:25:47 AM
Quote
This will be in a scrutiny report and this will be presented at a council scrutiny meeting, not through the Adver etc.

As this was public money, supposedly spent for the benefit of the public, based on a decision and clearance by publicly elected councilors before being squandered on and by another member of the public, can we (the public) ask why?!

The democratic process can only be served if those responsible are accountable to the public. Closed session scrutiny committees in which no one is held responsible or where the full details are not shared externally do nothing to dispel the accusation of cover-up.

There should be a full, frank and honest public joint statement made by the leaders of all three parties in my view.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Martin Wicks on May 08, 2013, 10:56:15 AM
it's one thing to say it must go to the scrutiny committee first. You wouldn't expect members involved in drawing up the report to discuss it with the Adver before that. However, the report should obviously be published and open to public scrutiny, and then those who drew it up should be free to discuss it.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: jennyb on May 08, 2013, 05:42:43 PM
Quote
This will be in a scrutiny report and this will be presented at a council scrutiny meeting, not through the Adver etc.

As this was public money, supposedly spent for the benefit of the public, based on a decision and clearance by publicly elected councilors before being squandered on and by another member of the public, can we (the public) ask why?!

The democratic process can only be served if those responsible are accountable to the public. Closed session scrutiny committees in which no one is held responsible or where the full details are not shared externally do nothing to dispel the accusation of cover-up.

There should be a full, frank and honest public joint statement made by the leaders of all three parties in my view.

well said!
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Des Morgan on May 08, 2013, 07:26:28 PM
Quote
it's one thing to say it must go to the scrutiny committee first. You wouldn't expect members involved in drawing up the report to discuss it with the Adver before that. However, the report should obviously be published and open to public scrutiny, and then those who drew it up should be free to discuss it.

As a vocal critic of the activities which led to the first loan being granted and the decision to make a further payment to Mr Hunt when it was obvious the company had all but failed ( a point confirmed bt SBCs Chief Executive who said it was clear from March 2010 the Company could not do what it was supposed to) I believe the report should be considered by Scrutiny as opposed to trawled in the SA.

However, the report was originally due to be presented to Scrutiny in January and we in May and fast heading towards June.

There are some who would not be surprised if the ploy of the Council, both corporate and political was to delay publication until the summer.  Moreover, there are fears that the Borough Solicitor will attempt to 'strike fear' in the hearts of the four councillors compiling the report by threatening them with all sorts of litigation if they name names.

Come to think of it - who would you think might have taken a robust approach to any leagl issues regarding DC - such as whether a legal charge had been taken out on the assest of Dc to cover the loan.  Oh silly me - the Council (corporate) and the Council (Political) maintained they had until I challenged their assertion.

I hope the report will be a warts and all expose - but i am not holding my breath.

I do suspect it will be 'uncomfortable reading' but possibly lacking any 'edge'
Title: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Outoftowner on May 08, 2013, 08:54:17 PM
When we do get the report ladies and gentlemen may I suggest one thing?
I suggest that we  say nothing at first but individually analyse the content, comparing the report with the facts as we believe them to be. Then double check any inconsistencies. Then PM one another comparing notes, then go public on TS and wherever else.
This ploy does risk losing any impetus generated by the report's publication so we must act very, very quickly once the report is in the public domain. 
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mart on May 08, 2013, 09:07:44 PM
So, I can't say it's bollocks yet then?
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: boothill on May 08, 2013, 09:55:29 PM
                             So, I can't say it's bollocks yet then?


ooh matron..what are you like, and in the presence of a Presbyterian philatelist at that  ?
Title: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Outoftowner on May 08, 2013, 10:44:57 PM
I would suggest Mart that a generalisation  like "Bollocks", would be quite acceptable and most likely, a very apt, overarching, description of the report. I'm just trying to make sure that the detailed comments are well thought through before we go back to the Council. We must pre- empt any whitewash judging by past events.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mickraker on May 09, 2013, 07:55:00 AM
Will it depend when detailed well thought through comments are presented. Before the meeting takes place at the meeting or after it  has taken place :-\
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: bobwright on May 09, 2013, 11:11:02 PM
Scrutiny is a meeting that in my time on the council has been open to the public. This has previously offered opportunity for public involvement and questions. This public involvement has also been documented on Talkswindon.

The Task Group has used the time allowed to investigate and produce the report. This was not and has not been at the direction of anyone. We are working to a brief.

I do not recognise a task group which is fearful

What pleasantries are used to describe the report or the task group goes with the territory. We knew that when we volunteered for the task group. I hope that these pleasantries will not be necessary but that will be down to others judgement on our work and findings.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Richard Symonds on May 10, 2013, 01:05:27 PM
The Adver Comments are very interesting and prove that the public are engaged as it is not the usual protagonists who are posting!!

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10401193.W_fi_report_won___t_blame_individuals/

Comments(60)

candid friend says...
10:09am Mon 6 May 13

Sounds like a concerted cover up is under way on this shabby scheme.
The first instance in Swindon's long history of development that there have been legitimate grounds for suspicion about corruption.
I'm amazed that Labour are a party to this cover up.
Were Labour councillors involved in agreeing to give the ratepayers money to a dodgy businessman.?
Only an outside independent inquiry will allay the suspicions about this sordid affair.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
whaddahey?! says...
10:30am Mon 6 May 13

"But he said the report would not point the finger at which individuals were actually responsible."

And so the cozy councilors club closes ranks once again so that those reponsibile for totally wasting half a million pounds at a time of penury, escape any direct criticism.

How does the enquiry serve democrasy, if the electorate aren't even made aware of the identity of those councilors who bear most responsibility?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
10:40am Mon 6 May 13

Naming and shaming is a mute point when we all know the lead Actors in this, but I do agree the enquiry should have been independent of the Council, after all the Scrutiny Committee (all party) said nothing was wrong.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
faatmaan says...
11:16am Mon 6 May 13

surely there is a statutory duty to disclose in whatever form the loss of public funds, whether through the National Audit Office or the Law as this constitutes misappropriation of public funds, as previously mentioned too many highly positioned people have too much to lose by implication or prosecution.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Always Grumpy says...
11:28am Mon 6 May 13

A complete cover up then and the grubby little individuals involved are going to get away scott free, while the local council tax payers end up footing the bill.
What a sordid little episode in Swindon's history this has turned out to be.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
11:38am Mon 6 May 13

Always Grumpy, and I suspect this is not the first and will not be the last. There needs to be a major look at the tendering policies involving SCS.

How jobs they do seem to cost 3 or 4 times what would reasonably be expected, from any other contractor.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Wellfire says...
11:43am Mon 6 May 13

I worked in the private sector all my working life and saw people lose their jobs over much smaller sums and better run operations than this. It was cronyism that caused the deal to be struck in the first place. It was cronyism that caused it to be monitored in such a sloppy manner and it's cronyism that is causing the cover up. It's a sorry episode that reflects no credit whatever on anyone concerned with it, whoever they may be.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
towny_gurl says...
11:47am Mon 6 May 13

What a cover up, seeing that this has been going on for so long waiting for members to come back from holiday would have been worth the wait.

What I have been wondering is, who made the decision for invest this money and what are their technical or business experience.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Oik1 says...
12:58pm Mon 6 May 13

"THE councillor leading the cross-party review into Swindon Council’s failed wi-fi project says the findings are likely to be published in June – but do not expect blame to be laid at the door of individuals. "

Well, what a pointless exercise that's going to be, lets save them the trouble, this was the problem,
Swindon Council agreed in October 2009 to invest up to £450,000 in the firm Digital City (UK) Ltd,................ they invested the money, got nothing in return and as it turned out it was a complete waste of £450,000 of tax payers money, this much we already know, we don't need a cross party review to tell us again, what we would like to know is (officially), who was responsible for signing the money away and what were all the players names that the money went to, can any of the money be claimed back and what safeguards have been put in place to stop another fiasco of this nature happening again and finally, are there grounds for legal action to be taken against those found to be responsible?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
fatman says...
2:39pm Mon 6 May 13

This matter imo should be handed to the Fraud Squad at Wiltshire Police to investigate NO IFS NO BUTS

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Davey Gravey says...
4:27pm Mon 6 May 13

This issue should be dealt with by somebody neutral and with no links to swindon or any councillor here. Can we as residents demand an independent enquiry?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
house on the hill says...
4:29pm Mon 6 May 13

I think most people will be disgusted but not surprised by this. Politicians are a slimy selfish uncaring bunch in the main who only do the job for their own gain and self importance rather than actually wanting to help people and this just proves it.

Politicians are like bananas, you very rarely find a straight one and when you do its chucked in the bin because it doesn't fit in with all the rest!

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Tohellinahandcart says...
4:31pm Mon 6 May 13

My company called Pie in the Sky needs £450,000 will the council lend me the money to get it up and running or will they send me to the bank. No prizes for guessing the answer to that one so why did Digital City get the cash.
The whole thing stinks.
This is a disgrace to the people of Swindon and what I would expect to happen in some third world banana republic.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Morsey says...
5:41pm Mon 6 May 13

Just look and see how much Council Tax payers' money has been ploughed into other 'private sector' business ... it must be quite startling?

The Oasis, the multitude of care homes for a start ... given away with Labour and LibDem approval, I understand, with no consultation or consideration to the public who actually owned them!

The theatres, The Link Centre ... they will be next ... and you and I cannot vote these people out whilst they strip the town of most of it's possessions with no influence from any objectors, all in the name of saving money ... to pay for other WiFi type schemes with private concerns I guess? ... It stinks big time!

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
roberto5 says...
7:30pm Mon 6 May 13

I thought this kind of thing only happened in third world countries? The Council have been proper done over with this one. All a bunch of thieving gits.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
faatmaan says...
7:45pm Mon 6 May 13

our two members of Parliament are keeping quiet !?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
peatmoor pirate says...
8:37pm Mon 6 May 13

Complete disgrace

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
semitonic says...
9:14pm Mon 6 May 13

RichardR1 wrote:
Naming and shaming is a mute point when we all know the lead Actors in this, but I do agree the enquiry should have been independent of the Council, after all the Scrutiny Committee (all party) said nothing was wrong.
We've been robbed.

And Robbo this has been pointed out to you many, many times but you still can't get it into your tiny brain that it's a "moot point" not a "mute point" you complete idiot.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
snow123 says...
10:03pm Mon 6 May 13

The problem is that there is no local government accountability. The two conservative MPs never speak up about important issues. So much incompetence in Swindon....The people responsible for WiFi waste need to be removed from their positions and barred from working in local government or acting as a councillor. Council tax payers are paying for a scheme which to those versed in IT obviously wouldn't work. Secrecy at SBC seems to permeate the whole council. What about other fiascos - mobile phone masts, Grove Road School, Redlands airfield and plans to extinguish it by allowing 200 plus houses to be built there to enable the EDA to go ahead (as SBC is legally liable under aviation law to compensate the Redlands owners), and those suffering noise from the A419 and the bus station, and landowners bullied at Blunsdon.... I'm sure others can add more examples.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
John Smith II says...
10:07pm Mon 6 May 13

So to what degree to the councillors in this grubby affair believe in accountability?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
I Could Do That says...
10:23pm Mon 6 May 13

It will be years (if ever) before everyone on this forum is seen to unanimously agree to the extent shown here.

Everyone is disgusted by the level of incompetence over this drawn out fiasco

It truly stinks

This is no time for a cover up.
It's time to end the corruption and arrogance

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
faatmaan says...
10:24pm Mon 6 May 13

can they invoke the 30 year secrecy rule ?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Swindonnationalist says...
1:26am Tue 7 May 13

This stinks of utter corruption... If the review was to be true to its supposed intentions, then it would, as a matter of course, name those directly and indirectly responsible for the lose of nearly half a million pounds of tax payers money!! It is beyond the pale that they expect the electorate to be happy for those responsible to be not held accountable for their huge failings.

This is a indictment of modern day British politics- The political class looking out for their own, at the expense of us, the British Taxpayer!!!!

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Phantom Poster says...
2:09am Tue 7 May 13

“There was an element of ‘group think’ that wi-fi would solve all their problems, and as a consequence, no one individual was to blame. Dissidents were outside the loop.”

...... what!!!!!!!!!!!

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Phantom Poster says...
2:13am Tue 7 May 13

I believe that I pay the council lots and lots of money to not 'group think'?? What does that mean anyway?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
house on the hill says...
7:03am Tue 7 May 13

This shows everything that is wrong about politicians, not only dishonest, but then try to cover it up afterwards. We don't live in a democracy at all they just do what the hell they want with no consequences, whoever is guilty in this case should be taken to court and charged but we all know it won't happen. Just what is the point in voting?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
umpcah says...
7:56am Tue 7 May 13

Pooh - what a stink !

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
nigelej says...
8:23am Tue 7 May 13

house on the hill wrote:
I think most people will be disgusted but not surprised by this. Politicians are a slimy selfish uncaring bunch in the main who only do the job for their own gain and self importance rather than actually wanting to help people and this just proves it.

Politicians are like bananas, you very rarely find a straight one and when you do its chucked in the bin because it doesn't fit in with all the rest!
That is a cracking post well said and humour with a point .Top post I think

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
9:52am Tue 7 May 13

Phantom,

'Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome.

Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.'

Explains many of the decisions taken by this council.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
AdderB says...
10:10am Tue 7 May 13

I believe I can 'name names' Bluh and Hunt got together and decided to fleece Swindon of £450k . Simples .

Fraud . Simples.

No inquiry needed . Can we have the money back please ? .

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
10:57am Tue 7 May 13

AdderB wrote:
I believe I can 'name names' Bluh and Hunt got together and decided to fleece Swindon of £450k . Simples .

Fraud . Simples.

No inquiry needed . Can we have the money back please ? .
Proving the above, in a court of law, would be nigh on impossible.

This was a bad business plan that was invested in by people who had no real idea what they were doing, what they would be getting or how they were going to actually deliver a service that was always going to be wholly unnecessary from the outset.

It just shows how easily politicians - most of whom have little to no experience, training or knowledge of the things they discuss and invest in - are able to be hoodwinked by business people in the private sector.

Still, at least SBC didn't invest £40 million in fake bomb detectors.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
A.Baron-Cohen says...
11:20am Tue 7 May 13

another report......another whitewash

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
LordAshOfTheBrake says...
11:45am Tue 7 May 13

Ringer wrote:
AdderB wrote:
I believe I can 'name names' Bluh and Hunt got together and decided to fleece Swindon of £450k . Simples .

Fraud . Simples.

No inquiry needed . Can we have the money back please ? .
Proving the above, in a court of law, would be nigh on impossible.

This was a bad business plan that was invested in by people who had no real idea what they were doing, what they would be getting or how they were going to actually deliver a service that was always going to be wholly unnecessary from the outset.

It just shows how easily politicians - most of whom have little to no experience, training or knowledge of the things they discuss and invest in - are able to be hoodwinked by business people in the private sector.

Still, at least SBC didn't invest £40 million in fake bomb detectors.
Maybe, but Perkins is a director and with that comes responsibility. Can't be too hard to find out whether certain things happened on his watch or prior to his joining the board.

The scrutiny committee seem to have admitted they didn't scrutinise; which suggests misconduct in public office.

The fact that the council agreed to go ahead with the "business" plan, with a company that was essentially a start up with little to no track record in the area to which the business was operating doesn't just show naivety, it demonstrates negligence and incompetence. If they had no idea what they were doing, they should not have been doing it.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
11:50am Tue 7 May 13


If they had no idea what they were doing, they should not have been doing it.

That would render most local, and national, government departments null and void.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
John~R says...
12:05pm Tue 7 May 13

Of course, it's not just the councillors who are to blame: Quote from the report above:
Mr Hunt told the Adver last week that the renumeration was something agreed initially between the shareholders. He said Swindon Council was represented in the discussions by officers, whom he would not name because it was not fair on them.

I wonder if those officers are among those who were sent away with golden parachutes?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...
12:10pm Tue 7 May 13

Ringer wrote:

If they had no idea what they were doing, they should not have been doing it.

That would render most local, and national, government departments null and void.
They already are null and void. You could quite easily decimate most government departments and suffer few negative consequences.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...
12:16pm Tue 7 May 13

Looking at it a different way - would you as an individual expect to borrow money from the bank to purchase a house without first doing some research of the area, what the house looked like, how many people could use your house, etc. If you were the bank manager, would you lend an individual a sum of money when it was obvious they could provide no clear way of paying it back?

Ignorance is not an excuse - in fact it almost makes the situation worse. As tax payers, we are "the bank", and as such if we are going to let government organisations use our money, we would rightfully expect them to be diligent and responsible with it. This is just one case in many where they have proven to be neither.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
12:30pm Tue 7 May 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:

If they had no idea what they were doing, they should not have been doing it.

That would render most local, and national, government departments null and void.
They already are null and void. You could quite easily decimate most government departments and suffer few negative consequences.
Could not agree more.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
1:09pm Tue 7 May 13

This article shows so many that have no idea whatsoever how to get to the truth of this issue--at least 2 failed candidates for councillors--one of which claimed to have made a FOI request.
Claims of fraud-corruption etc.
Another claim the police investigated already--they cannot--why?
Public Law has to be used.
The public must blame themselves for allowing this debacle to go on and on as after all you voted them in to represent you--they do not--never will as long as you let them get away with it.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
1:18pm Tue 7 May 13

itsamess3 wrote:
This article shows so many that have no idea whatsoever how to get to the truth of this issue--at least 2 failed candidates for councillors--one of which claimed to have made a FOI request.
Claims of fraud-corruption etc.
Another claim the police investigated already--they cannot--why?
Public Law has to be used.
The public must blame themselves for allowing this debacle to go on and on as after all you voted them in to represent you--they do not--never will as long as you let them get away with it.
Presumably, you, itsamess3 (the nuclear scientist extraordinaire), could quite easily put everything to rights - given that you know everything, and certainly more than anyone else here.

I'm sure the people of Swindon will thank you for your efforts.

When will you start?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
1:46pm Tue 7 May 13

Nice to see you admit that--it also shows why you have such a great ambition to get on the gravy train and become one of those councillors who will not listen to the voters--sort of blows your claim to have studied law as you have no idea whatsoever as to how ti get this issue resolved.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Davey Gravey says...
3:42pm Tue 7 May 13

itsamess3 wrote:
This article shows so many that have no idea whatsoever how to get to the truth of this issue--at least 2 failed candidates for councillors--one of which claimed to have made a FOI request.
Claims of fraud-corruption etc.
Another claim the police investigated already--they cannot--why?
Public Law has to be used.
The public must blame themselves for allowing this debacle to go on and on as after all you voted them in to represent you--they do not--never will as long as you let them get away with it.
Hahahahaha. What an absolute muppet you are. A laughing stock on this site.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
4:41pm Tue 7 May 13

itsamess3 wrote:
Nice to see you admit that--it also shows why you have such a great ambition to get on the gravy train and become one of those councillors who will not listen to the voters--sort of blows your claim to have studied law as you have no idea whatsoever as to how ti get this issue resolved.
When are you making a start on 'resolving the issue' then?

Of course, you'll not be doing anything. You can't do anything. You still think I'm an individual that has absolutely nothing to do with me (and who I've never even met).

Do keep it up, though. Your continual errors and spectacular lack of knowledge provide endless entertainment on here.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
8:56pm Tue 7 May 13

Davey

"Hahahahaha. What an absolute muppet you are. A laughing stock on this site.”

Are you a comedian? My post is quite correct--waste of time accusing individuals--the only way to resolve this problem is to take the Council to court under Public Law.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
9:18pm Tue 7 May 13

So which Public Law would that be oh Master of everything, we await your guidance, or not as is likely the case.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
9:34pm Tue 7 May 13

Tim/Ringer

"Of course, you'll not be doing anything. You can't do anything. You still think I'm an individual that has absolutely nothing to do with me (and who I've never even met)."

"Do keep it up, though. Your continual errors and spectacular lack of knowledge provide endless entertainment on here.”

That is your pitiful attempt to show your own complete lack of knowledge.
Don't worry--I will keep your true identity to myself for a little longer.

I have given the area of law to resolve this issue--go on--make yourself a hero and use it.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
9:57pm Tue 7 May 13

RichardR1 wrote:
So which Public Law would that be oh Master of everything, we await your guidance, or not as is likely the case.
Bob
You expended all your knowledge a few years ago and the council told you more or less to f/o.
Likewise you had to withdraw a JR by virtue of a fatally flawed argument. No surprise that you claim not to understand public law.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Pompey-Bound says...
12:19am Wed 8 May 13

I think it didn't work because it was incompatible with Robbo's very special military specification pier to pier network at UKIP campaign office aka the carps. It was all one big conspiracy by the stovepipe hat wearing bar keep!

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
9:42am Wed 8 May 13

itsamess3 wrote:
Tim/Ringer

"Of course, you'll not be doing anything. You can't do anything. You still think I'm an individual that has absolutely nothing to do with me (and who I've never even met)."

"Do keep it up, though. Your continual errors and spectacular lack of knowledge provide endless entertainment on here.”

That is your pitiful attempt to show your own complete lack of knowledge.
Don't worry--I will keep your true identity to myself for a little longer.

I have given the area of law to resolve this issue--go on--make yourself a hero and use it.
Do you even read the stuff you post? You claim to be the master of all, I challenged you to put your infinite knowledge into practice.

The best you can do is not tell anyone what you supposedly know and then tell them to act on it.

What a spectacular failure you are.

You also have absolutely NO idea who I am, as evidenced by the fact you constantly refer to me as being somebody else. I know exactly who you think I am (the fact that you still can't work out which one of the two you think it is does amuse me, given that I'm neither of them).

Do realise that it merely highlights how dim you are, side tracked and thrown off the scent by casual asides.

What hope for our nuclear industry, eh?

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Empty Car Park says...
9:52am Wed 8 May 13

How dull.

The evening in The Lava Lounge must have been
"Spectacular"

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
10:51am Wed 8 May 13

Ringadingdongdoda

Do read the headline of the article--there is a very big clue there.
The simple fact being-you claimed to have wide legal knowledge--despite not knowing the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Now here you are trying to tell me that you have no idea--given the headline-how to challenge the council via public law--well you really must be very dumb.
Not sure what being a nuclear scientist has to do with the article--other than your attempt to disrupt the comments section.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
1:17pm Wed 8 May 13

itsamess3 wrote...
Ringadingdongdoda

Seriously? From a grown adult?
itsamess3 wrote...
Do read the headline of the article--there is a very big clue there.

Yes, everyone knows individuals will not be taken to court, that's precisely what the article and the scrutiny group have already said. Well done, have a biscuit.
itsamess3 wrote...
The simple fact being-you claimed to have wide legal knowledge--despite not knowing the difference between manslaughter and murder.

I don't 'claim' to have legal knowledge, I *have* legal knowledge. I also know fully well what the difference between manslaughter and murder is. It's the CPS and judiciary who seem to have trouble with the distinction these days, not I.
itsamess3 wrote...
Now here you are trying to tell me that you have no idea--given the headline-how to challenge the council via public law--well you really must be very dumb.

As ever, you appear to have trouble reading plain English. I have not mentioned, at all, that I have no idea. It was you that blundered into the thread to imply that everyone else was too thick to know what to do but, quelle surprise, you knew exactly what to do. All I did was to merely call you out on your bluster. You've still not confirmed when you'll be swinging your massive legal powers into action.

There is only one, very, dumb person on this thread. His name starts with an 'i' and ends with a '3'.
itsamess3 wrote...
Not sure what being a nuclear scientist has to do with the article

I think we all are well aware that being a nuclear scientist most certainly has nothing to do with you.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
2:36pm Wed 8 May 13

Benicetotimhesaringe
r
You mean you have the scrutiny committees report--wow they gave you a copy before May 17th?
Next you will be telling us you have the cross-party review decision.
Sorry your legal knowledge is zero as you have proved time and again in your rants.
Hardly surprising you came to Swindon.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Ringer says...
6:50pm Wed 8 May 13

itsamess3 wrote:
Benicetotimhesaringe

r
You mean you have the scrutiny committees report--wow they gave you a copy before May 17th?
Next you will be telling us you have the cross-party review decision.
Sorry your legal knowledge is zero as you have proved time and again in your rants.
Hardly surprising you came to Swindon.

Coun Moffatt said the report would not point the finger at which individuals were actually responsible.


You really are incapable of reading plain English, aren't you?

No need to see the scrutiny report, the above has already been a matter of public statement and record.

Have you been drinking today, or something? You're acting even more bizarre than usual.

This has nothing to do with 'legal knowledge', simply a case of being able to comprehend simple English. You should try it sometime.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
8:37pm Wed 8 May 13

Still waiting to know what public law you intend to use, because surely if you are the only one who knows you have a Citizens duty to take action, as we all agree this cover up is unacceptable, don't we.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Empty Car Park says...
10:36pm Wed 8 May 13

How very dull

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
12:38am Thu 9 May 13

Ringer
"No need to see the scrutiny report, the above has already been a matter of public statement and record"

It does not matter what a single councillor says as the crux of the matter is the scrutiny report--which has not been published--and the cross party review--again not yet published.
No doubt the borough solicitor will scrutinise that to predict any banana skins and modify parts. A good public lawyer would get the orders to examine original documents.

I would remind you that despite your claims to have good command of reading and writing English--your standard is well below current gcse pass grade and overactive use of punctuation--likewis
e your claim to have legal knowledge--you fail every time--and try to cover it up by counter claims--never works.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
7:09am Thu 9 May 13

Bob

Do tell where I have said I intended to use any law. How do you reach your conclusion that I am the only one who knows public law.
Public law is statutory law in relation to public bodies. It sets out the rules and regulations as to conduct--more importantly--the decision making process.
I do agree there could have been a cover up--but until both reports are published very little can be done.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
RichardR1 says...
9:35am Thu 9 May 13

Because you keep telling us all Itsamess. No matter what references are given, statements made etc, everyone is wrong in your mind. So what public law could be used, if you don't want to serve your fellow rate payers.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
itsamess3 says...
2:22pm Thu 9 May 13

Bob
Read my previous post-very simple.

REPORT THIS POST » ?? REGISTER/LOG IN »
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2013, 04:41:20 PM
One of the pivotal aspects I remember was  the issue of there being "no need to go to tender " because it was not a procurement but an "investment" and that this had been the " legal " advice received.   

Graham Mack interviews with Rod Bluh and Garry Perkins were very revealing.

Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: bobwright on May 10, 2013, 05:52:31 PM
The way things normally work in council is those with the largest number of hands up win the vote. Very often parties vote in the same way but not always. When you describe a committee comprising of different parties as all party this does not show how the voting went only that people from different parties attended. Split or opposed decisions are the norm.

Those members who contribute to Talkswindon and have attended many of the council meetings concerning wi-fi know who has supported and opposed the project through voting and debate.

Tax payers money use is of interest to residents and politicians particularly when savings have to be made. Politicians are often challenged and are asked to justify decisions. That is why I keep banging on about an unnecessary new car park putting the council into further debt by £15m when we have surplus parking spaces.
Title: Re: W-fi report won’t blame individuals
Post by: Mart on May 10, 2013, 07:27:49 PM
The way things normally work in council

Ha bloody ha.