Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Omnishambles Update 45

There might be some interesting news today regarding the barrister's 'settlement' with Chris Grayling. I saw this on Facebook:-
Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has balloted its members: "Do you wish to continue No Returns and days of action until all the cuts and reductions in (solicitors') contracts are abandoned." It has come about because a lot of the barristers were unhappy that CBA negotiated a deal with MOJ without consulting with their members. Look out for the results on 9th April!!!
As we know the MoJ has a bit of history where trying to save money and negotiate contracts are concerned and this is interesting news in the Daily Express regarding that troublesome business with court interpreters:-
The Courts and Tribunal Service, run by the Ministry of Justice, spent £15,537,821 on interpreters last year compared with £7,940,128 in 2012. But the total is likely to be higher as the figures relate to a Government outsourcing contract with Capita and do not include bookings made elsewhere. 
Justice Minister Shailesh Vara, responding to a Parliamentary query, said the increased outlay was partly due to “changes made to the contract” in May 2013 and an estimated 20 per cent increase in the number of interpreters needed at court hearings. Mr Vara said: “The number of bookings made off-contract has substantially decreased since the start of 2012 with those bookings moving on to the Capita contract.” He insisted that major financial savings had been made under the changes.
Just like the Maria Miller story, the prisoner book ban story refuses to go away, as discussed here on the politics blog:-
Hopes for a negotiation over the ban on prisoners receiving books looked less and less likely today, as campaigners started to lose patience with Chris Grayling. The justice secretary received a letter asking for a face-to-face meeting yesterday but has so far failed to reply. The letter was signed by leading authors, including Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Julian Barnes, Ian McEwan and Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time author Mark Haddon.
"Only this morning former Children's Laureate - and my nine-year-old daughter's favourite author - Jacqueline Wilson spoke out in favour of the campaign on BBC Breakfast," Andrew Neilson, director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, told Politics.co.uk.
"With public support growing, we urge the Ministry of Justice to relax this ban on loved ones sending books and other essentials to prisoners. Give prison governors back their discretion to allow such parcels through and the Howard League and English PEN would be the first to congratulate the lord chancellor on a common sense decision that will benefit both prisoners and society as a whole."
Grayling has shown little sign of backing down on his ban on prisoners receiving parcels, with the MoJ carrying out a robust media response to the campaign, including sending journalists photos of contraband being hidden in gifts sent to inmates. Those efforts were undermined when prison officer representatives said they had never had any complaints about security screening parcels sent in to inmates.
I absolutely love this blog post entitled 'How to commission public services in 10 easy steps'. Here's a taster, but see the whole thing here:-

1. Create a waffle-doc
To justify spending a lot of money, you need a waffle-doc. Gather words from local  consultations, surveys, strategies and reports and numbers from performance indicators, demographics and trends. Collect historical information on service provision by individual organisations. Desktop research will yield enough waffle to fill several hundred pages.

2. Call it a Needs Assessment
It is not your job to question the validity of the words or their representation of reality, it’s your job to stitch them together and add a front cover. If the words have been published elsewhere, they are true. What you produce isn’t a Needs assessment. It’s a Frankenstein’s Monster of jargon, half-truths, gamed data, old data and numbers too big to be useful; made credible only by the title and careful formatting. It’s called a Needs Assessment because you Needs it. Welcome to the first stage of the commissioning cycle.

waffle 1

8. Get lies
To your great surprise, discover the provider has fabricated the achievement of targets and outcomes in a variety of ingenious ways. Search for the provider’s principles and find none. Learn that the provider is sticking rigidly to the service level agreement regardless of people’s actual needs. Discover that people who need counselling for agoraphobia in their own homes are being offered participative arts workshops or nothing. Only act on this ‘anecdotal evidence’ if you think someone will find out. If it only affects the people receiving the service, do nothing. If councillors, the media or board members make a fuss, show them the official performance reports to clarify any misunderstandings. It’s not your fault, you put the service user at the heart of the commissioning process.

Lie


9. Blame the provider
Issue a warning to the provider and employ more people at your end to monitor the service level agreement. Hold more meetings and ask for more performance reports. Don’t be surprised if the provider raises their costs in response. Professional performance report writers cost big money. If blaming the provider risks them blaming you back, blame the people who signed off the Needs Assessment. They signed off both the truth and the future.

Blame

10. Start again
Because it’s a circle, you start again, taking care to employ the same excellent provider as last year and putting the service user at the centre of everything you 
do write. .


Finally, here's a service that might be useful for all those remaining potential bidders out there 'Crisis Communication Planning:-



37 comments:

  1. The prison book ban has now attracted the attention of the British Psychological Society, and this report suggests that its causing some friction amongst the lib dems.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/04/09/liberal-democrats-finally-rebel-over-prison-book-ban

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liberal Democrat MPs have finally begun to rebel against the party leadership over the ban on sending prisoners books.

      A handful of Lib Dems have tabled an early day motion in parliament lodging their protest against the restriction, which is the subject of a campaign by leading authors.

      Bob Russell, Mike Crockart, John Hemming and Mike Thornton tabled the motion alongside Ian Swales as primary sponsor. Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders also lent it his support.

      The move is a significant kick in the teeth for the Liberal Democrat leadership, which has doggedly defended the Ministry of Justice policy despite criticism from across the political spectrum, including the Green party, Ukip and Labour.

      The EDM reads:

      "That this House is deeply concerned by the ban on all prisoners receiving books as gifts under the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme which will have a detrimental effect on prisoner rehabilitation; notes that the ban has been opposed by eminent writers including Mark Haddon, Philip Pullman and Carol Ann Duffy; further notes that to deny prisoners the books they need in order to improve their skills and support their learning is both unreasonable and counter-productive given that reading goes hand-in-hand with education, rehabilitation and humanity; and urges the government to reverse the ban as soon as possible by exempting books from the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme."

      Senior Lib Dem figures like Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes have been vocal in their support for the ban, saying that prisoners can have up to 12 books in their cell at one time. They can either purchase their books using funds earned in jail or borrow from the prison library.

      But penal experts scoffed at that defence, saying prison libraries are often extremely limited and unable to get books from outside. The meagre wages paid out to prisoners during the week leave little room for purchasing novels.

      Some senior Lib Dem sources have expressed private discomfort with the ban, but have not been willing to come out express their opposition to the move in public, although the presence of party support for the EDM may make them think again.

      Chris Grayling's ban on prisoners being sent books is part of his Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, a new "spartan" set of rules for inmates intended to push them toward rehabilitation courses.

      Delete
  2. Don't care what some lib dems are doing. The whole house of charlatans and greedheads can go f*ck itself as far as I am concerned. Didn't want to agree with Russell Brand, but deep down knew he was right. Just hope that the bucket of water i have waiting for any MP's that come to my door won't count as assault. Until the UK population rise up against this shower nothing will change.

    You may detect i am a little demotivated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gareth you are correct the neoliberal agenda ( Privatisation of the State for the benefit of the rich) is a the heart of this agenda. So what does the individual do if there is no one to vote for?? How does one fight back? This is the key question. I suppose we need to organise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, there's always the People's Assembly: http://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The People's Assembly is organising a national demonstration and free festival on Saturday 21 June. Help make it massive!

      Demonstrate Saturday 21 June
      Assemble 1pm, BBC HQ, Portland Place
      London W1A 1AA. March to Parliament

      This government remains addicted to austerity, forcing millions towards poverty. We'll be demanding the alternative. Join us!

      What you can do today:
      Get involved in your local People's Assembly group
      Order publicity
      Get your trade union / campaign to support
      Spread the word on social media
      Sign the #PeoplesPetition
      Donate! Help us raise £30,000 for the demo

      1) Get involved with your local People's Assembly group.
      Local groups are organising transport, leafleting, street stalls, rallies and meetings. If there's no group near you, set one up! Get in touch with the office for help. Click here to find your group.

      2) Leaflets and Posters
      Leaflet your street or estate and ask your friends / workmates to do the same.
      Download the new leaflet:
      A5 Leaflet

      Stick up posters in your window, workplace, university. Download the artwork:
      A2 Poster
      A3 Poster

      You can order leaflets and posters from the national office (you will need to cover postage costs). Please email office@thepeoplesassembly.org.uk with the subject line 'DEMO PUBLICITY'

      3) Ask your trade union branch or region, local trades council, or community group to support the demonstration.

      4) Spread the word on social media:
      Invite your friends to the Facebook event

      5) Sign the #PeoplesPetition for the alternative
      The People's Assembly launched a petition just before budget day. In just 48 hours over 4,000 people signed! We will be running this petition as part of the national demonstration. Keep sharing, ask your friends and workmates to sign, and of course sign it if you haven't already!

      6) Urgent financial appeal - help us raise £30,000 for the demonstration
      We've estimated that the cost of putting on this demonstration is going to come to at least £30,000. See our budget below. (this is separate from local groups transport and publicity).

      We're committed to making sure the demonstration happens - but this means we urgently need to raise these funds. What we can achieve with the demonstration depends entirely on how much money we raise.

      Delete
    2. This is exactly how the major civil unrest that we saw in Greece began 18mths- 2years ago, and for the same reasons!
      It's probably wrong but I can't help a feeling of excitement at that prospect.
      I'm one of Camerons 'hard working people', but I'm sick to the back teeth of them.
      They are just greedy parasites who care nothing for social values or the average person- just about taking everything they can for themselves.
      This is the most filthy government
      that I can ever remember.
      Bring it on and get them out.

      Delete
  5. Is this a sign of the real mess TR is in?
    Its unbelieveable, truely is.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/g4s-uk-government-lifts-contracts-ban-after-electronic-tagging-scandal-1444110

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A moratorium on scandal-hit G4S winning public contracts in the UK has been lifted by the government.

      G4S was engulfed by the electronic tagging scandal that emerged in mid-2013.

      It was discovered that the outsourcing and security giant had been overcharging UK taxpayers on its Ministry of Justice contract to carry out the electronic tagging of offenders.

      The firm is still under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and it has agreed to repay £108.9m to the government.

      The government said it would not consider G4S for new public contracts until it was satisfied that the company's culture and processes had changed after a number of scandals of which the electronic tagging debacle was the latest.

      As a result, G4S embarked on a "corporate renewal" programme to refresh itself.

      "The changes G4S has already made and its commitment to go further over coming months are positive steps that the government welcomes," said Cabinet Secretary Francis Maude, announcing that the firm

      "However, corporate renewal is an ongoing process and the government places a strong emphasis on their full and timely implementation of the agreed corporate renewal plan."

      G4S said it has now consolidated all of its UK government contracts into one department and put them under new leadership.

      "We are pleased that the government has given a positive assessment of the steps we have taken to rebuild their confidence in our services," said Ashley Almanza, chief executive of G4S.

      "Our UK renewal programme forms part of a wider programme of change to strengthen the governance and performance of the Group as a whole and, while significant progress has been made, much remains to be done.

      "Today's ministerial statement marks an important milestone in rebuilding our relationship with the UK government."

      G4S has been at the centre of a number of damaging scandals in recent years. One of the most high profile failures was on its contract to provide security staff to the London 2012 Olympic Games.

      Just weeks before the event was to start G4S had to admit that it was unable to provide enough staff to cope with the Games. The government was forced to call in the Army to help and G4S had to pay millions of pounds in compensation for breaching its contract.

      Delete
  6. Some news on the next move from our legal friends regarding the legal aid cuts.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-consultation-unlawful-solicitors-claim/5040782.article

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Criminal solicitor groups have taken the first step towards a legal challenge to the government’s decision to press ahead with cuts to criminal legal aid.

      Accusing the Ministry of Justice of carrying out an ‘unlawful’ consultation, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA) and the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) have sent a letter of claim in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review to the ministry.

      Delete


  7. Stephen Hubbard
    Rehabilitation Programme
    102, Petty France
    London
    SW1H 9AJ

    T 020 3334 2844
    E​xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx

    www.gov.uk

    K Star
    mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx



    Our Reference: 88934

    8th April 2014


    Freedom of Information Request

    Thank you for your letter of 5th March, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

    How much has been spent by the MOJ on consultancy fees associated with the transforming rehabilitation project between 1/04/13 to 1/04/14?

    Linked to this request - Can you provide an accurate financial break down of the consultancy costs associated with the TR programme. Can you also provide a list of all of the consultants appointed and the fees that they received for their services?

    I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for, and I am pleased to provide some of this to you.

    Between 1st April 2013 and 31st January 2014, the period covered by the Programme’s most recent Management Information Pack, I can confirm that £9.5m was spent by the Department on consultancy related to the Rehabilitation Programme. We use external advisors and consultants for complex projects where there is a strong business case and the specialist skills are not available in-house. On the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, we are seeking specialist advice from a range of providers to protect the taxpayer and ensure we get best value for money out of the reformed system. The cost of the implementing these reforms is affordable within the context of the overall MoJ budget and our commitment to deliver annual savings of over £2 billion by 2014/15.

    You have asked for a financial breakdown of consultancy costs associated with the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme. This is as follows – financial advice to procurement (including “anti-gaming”) - £950k; development of shadow bid and advice on business readiness testing (including confirmation of investability of commercial model and system testing support) - £1,238k; legal advice to procurement (including support in contract drafting) - £2,945k; people transition and related services (including the People Transition Service to support Trusts in transition to the new CRC / NPS model) - £4,139m; other essential consultancy work - £259k. These figures represent a tiny fraction of the annual value of what the new Community Rehabilitation Company contracts are worth.

    You also asked for a list of all the consultants appointed and the fees they received for their services. This information is exempt from disclosure as it is intended for future publication. We are not obliged to provide information that is intended for future publication (Section 22 (1) of the Act). In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information ahead of publication, despite the exemption being applicable. In this case, I have concluded that the public interest favours withholding the information.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Has Rendon done the honourable thing yet and stepped down from his post? He is an absolute disgrace and the level of anger amongst rank and file members cannot be under estimated! One thing you can be sure of a lot of people will not rest until he does! I for one will be campaigning for him to quit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rendon's self serving behaviour is indicative of the level of corruption at Chivalry Road. I have long thought that napo has been in bed with management and this blatant nest feathering on Rendon's part is the last straw for me. This man needs to be exposed for the hypocrite that he is. Maria Miller finally did the right thing today and I think Rendon should also fall on his sword. Furthermore, how many other senior officials have been busy colluding with NOMS over the past two years when they should have been protecting their members? Why are members also not outraged that £140,000 of their hard earned subs have been used to pay off that sex pest Ledger??? How much of that could have been put to use fighting this crazy and dangerous privatisation? Why are members not leaving this corrupt so called trade union in their droves. The whole thing stinks!

    ReplyDelete
  10. i worked with tom rendon and he always seemed a decent chap with integrity.No one can criticise one for thinking of their career but if he did apply it raises obvious questions about credibilty and would be ironic to say the least he should make a statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a PO and Napo member allocated to CRC and what I don't understand is why shouldn't Tom apply for an ACO job in CRC? As of 1st June there will be no probation trusts: there will be two entirely new bodies CRC and NPS and he has to work for one of them. Why does it matter which one? I think all the fuss about Tom highlights what a lot of people are still to get their heads around which is that NPS is not the status quo and no-one can continue working for the Trust they are currently working for. We all have to work for a new company or resign from probation entirely. So I ask again, is the problem that Tom has (allegedly) applied for an ACO post or that he has applied for an ACO post in a CRC? Either seems fine to me.

      Delete
    2. If TR isn't a done deal as Tom has told all on the shop floor, and you're the chair of the union actively involved in trying to stop the implementation of TR then you can't have much faith or confidence in any success in that fight, otherwise your career as ACO in a CRC would be very short lived indeed. How hard are you going to fight for something if it means the destruction of your choosen career path?
      Applying for a post in a CRC doesn't make Tom a bad person, but doing so whilst being the chair of the union fighting against privatisation obviously ( or at least to my mind) creates a very confusing and conflicting message to the union membership.
      It doesn't make him a bad person, but I do feel he's made a very poor decision.

      Delete
    3. But where should he apply for a post? He has to work in one or the other!

      Delete
    4. buy why should he apply now- he has a job as chair for a few months more. Does he expect CRC to hold off requiring him to take up duties until his term in office expires- or is he ready to resign?

      Delete
  11. Hmm, G4S now able to bid for government contracts. I feel a great disturbance in the force.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26958650

    ReplyDelete
  12. Security firm G4S will be considered for government business again after it was barred from bidding for new contracts in a row about overcharging.

    The company agreed to repay £109m after an audit found it charged too much for providing electronic prisoner tags.

    The Serious Fraud Office is examining G4S and Serco over the contracts.

    But the Cabinet Office said G4S had taken "positive steps" to change its practices and engaged "constructively" with the government.

    The firm has not bid for any government work since the Ministry of Justice started an investigation a year ago into its supply of electronic monitoring tags for prisoners in England and Wales since 2005.

    After an audit by accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, it emerged that G4S - which insisted it had asked for the review itself - and Serco had overcharged the government by "tens of millions of pounds".

    'Corporate renewal plan'
    The chief executive of G4S apologised to MPs last November amid claims that the company had charged for the tagging of prisoners who were either in jail, dead or abroad.

    Continue reading the main story

    Start Quote

    The changes G4S has already made and its commitment to go further over coming months are positive steps that the government welcomes”

    Francis Maude
    Cabinet Office minister
    G4S also made the headlines in 2012 after it failed to provide all its contracted security guards for the London 2012 Olympics.

    This prompted extra military personnel to be called in to fill the gap and left the firm with losses of £88m.

    The Cabinet Office said G4S had taken steps to address weakness in its operations and its "corporate renewal plan represented the right direction of travel to meet our expectations as a customer".

    After an independent review, the company will be able to bid again for government work, although this will be dependent on it implementing changes in a "full and timely manner".

    Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said: "The changes G4S has already made and its commitment to go further over coming months are positive steps that the government welcomes."

    Mr Maude said the government would continue to monitor the firm's compliance with its undertakings, adding that he hoped "this will enable our confidence to grow".

    The decision will not affect any potential action taken by the Serious Fraud Office, although ministers said they were reassured that the firm would act quickly if any new information emerged from the continuing investigation.

    G4S said it would now seek to bid for contracts where it had "proven expertise".

    "Today's ministerial statement marks an important milestone in rebuilding our relationship with the UK government," its chief executive Ashley Almanza said.

    "As part of our overall programme to strengthen the governance, management and performance of our UK government business we have consolidated central government contracts into a single business unit under new leadership and enhanced contract management processes."

    The SFO is also scrutinising two G4S facility management contracts for UK courts. The firm has agreed to pay £4.5m to the Treasury for overcharging on these deals as part of its overall settlement.

    The government also reached a £70.5m settlement with Serco this year over claims of overcharging on tagging contracts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets not forget Serco who's just brought Mr. Soames in two months earlier then his original start date to speed up corporate renewal!
      I don't think it's rocket science when you look at the timing of these two moves and compare it against the projected timescale for TR, to see where its going to lead to.
      It's disgusting to even consider either one of them for further contracts whilst their both still under investigation for fraud.

      Delete
  13. https://www.criminalbar.com/latest-updates/news/q/date/2014/04/09/the-results-of-cba-ballot-2014/

    The CBA votes to accept the ‘deal' and suspend further action

    The CBA membership were balloted on the following question:

    "DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE ‘NO RETURNS’ AND DAYS OF ACTION UNTIL ALL THE CUTS AND REDUCTIONS IN [SOLICITORS’] CONTRACTS ARE ABANDONED?"

    The total number of votes cast were 1878

    629 'Yes' votes were cast being 33.49% of the total number of votes cast.

    1249 'No' votes were cast being 66.51% of the total number of votes cast.

    Accordingly, the ballot is in favour of acceptance of the deal and the suspension of further action.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 20:30 - are you serious? If you cannot see the hypocrisy and the conflict of interest in Rendon applying for a CRC senior management job then I am frankly speechless!

    With regard to Serco and G4S being rehabilitated - quelle surprise!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am serious. Doesn't he have to work for NPS or CRC?

      Delete
    2. I would assume he's already been "sifted" - but has chosen to apply for the post, which is where I suspect the conflict arises for those expressing their anger/dismay/disgust.

      Delete
    3. Why shouldn't he? It depends what he does if he gets the role as to if there is a conflict with napo or not. We shouldn't make assumptions without all the info. And on that point, we can comply or not with TR in any role we have. Why not have some in positions of power? Which is probably why he won't get it.

      Delete
  15. Well what can you say to that. Incredible skipping middle management and strength to ACE. Sorry it's not very good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know many probation officers with the qualifications and previous and experience to be an ACO. Many POs have previously held senior management roles prior to joining probation, have been CEO of their own companies, even hold MBAs there is no reason for them not to apply for ACO roles if they choose.

      Delete
    2. Being an ACO is not the issue. The issue is about seeking to join a private company whilst at the same time having a major responsbility in fighting to stop that private company coming into existance.

      Delete
  16. I agree wholeheartedly with the last post. Rendon is the CHAIR of napo. He is supposed to be fighting privatisation vehemently on behalf of the members who elected him to protect their hard won terms and conditions. The fact that Rendon has allegedly applied for a SENIOR MANAGEMENT ROLE for a PRIVATE COMPANY is absolutely outrageous. His position is now completely untenable in my view and he should do the decent and honourable thing now he has been caught out attempting to feather his own nest with the very people we are supposed to be fighting!

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK I now see where we disagree. In my view we are fighting the staff split, the abolition of probation trusts and the creation of both NPS and CRC. I see NPS and CRC as bad as each other in this process given that he was to work somewhere it doesn't offend me if he has applied for a CRC post any more than it would if he applied for an NPS post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon 13:21 - I think you are missing my point completely. If Rendon had simply been allocated to CRC as a PO grade officer (which is what I understand his current grade is) then that is not an issue because he has absolutely no control over that. However, my concern (and the concern of many members) is that he has gone out of his way to apply for a SENIOR MANAGEMENT role with a private company. As our chair he has been (or has been pretending to be) for the last two years to be vehemently against private companies taking over our Service. To go out of his way and apply tor a senior post with a private company suggests that he agrees with the whole TR project. As our elected chair members expect him to do everything in his power to fight this process. We don't expect him to be applying for a senior position in the very organisation(s) that seek to destroy this Service by driving down costs and making a profit from human misery. If you still fail to understand that he has done anything wrong then I am quite frankly astounded!

    ReplyDelete
  19. anon 1818 My point is that the organisations destroying this service are both CRCs AND NPS. I agree that he should explain his actions for the purpose of transparency especially as so many members are unhappy with what he has allegedly done. I will reserve judgment until then. I completely understand if others choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon 18:47 - At least we agree that he should explain his actions. I think we should keep up the pressure after all we do pay his wages and expect him to act honourably on our behalf all times. So come on Rendon - you owe us an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he can not expect to be appointed and remain chair of NAPO - they would have to appoint a temporary person to take the role or require him ti resign as NAPO chair - he is not we hope available for any other job at this time.

      Delete
  21. Anon 22:52 - I agree. However, as far as I understand it he was not appointed - he went to the assessment centre but was not successful. I still stand by my original assertion that he really does need to make a statement and let members know what on earth he was thinking about when he applied to join the other side. We pay his salary and we deserve an explanation. In the long term I still stand by my belief that his position is now completely untenable.

    ReplyDelete