Forum Topics

TfL still manipulating and lying

If TfL were a national government, it would be up there with Russia, China and many despot countries for their constant misleading and use of unsubstantiated propaganda.It may not be as nasty as those places but the methodology remains the same. It would no doubt be unrecognised by the UK and sanctions applied.Then again. our Government is not exactly squeaky clean when it comes to telling the truth or misleading the public.However, it takes constant Freedom of Information requests to glean anything from TfL and their duck and dive approach to responding usually means 2 or three attempts before the answers start to emerge.They know that journalists and those who take the trouble to investigate further have limited time or resources or both and this appeases them.The latest claims on this websites lead story are completely unsubstantiated and based on policy and politically funded research. In other words organisations that will produce a report that vindicates what their paymasters policy requires.To take one example : To date there are no clear and definitive causes of Dementia. Whilst Alzheimers is now the generic word, Dementia is a range of diseases of which Alzheimers is one.It is as common in rural areas as it is in dense urban areas - as is Asthma. I have family who suffer both and live in a very rural part of England and one in Eire. Fact is, after decades of research,fund raising the causes are still not understood. It is so random in so many cases.TfLs claims about Hospital admissions are also unfounded. it is modelled propaganda. They have omitted the sources again and again.  B*******t baffles Brains and it seems it works.Our politicians are too lazy or afraid to do the hard work of proper fact finding and force TfL to be open and honest rather than sly and deceptive.The huge waste of money on the ULEZ which with diminishing non compliant vehicles already way below the figure TfL based the justification on in the first place - again by not even being honest to themselves but keen to please their political masters, could have made safer road surfaces and better general improvements London wide for all road users and provide a fully funded mandatory training and proficiency scheme to be reinstated for Cyclists and other non car users.It was the LCC that set this up in the first place and it ended with the demise of the GLC.

Raymond Havelock ● 1753d124 Comments ● 1713d

Complaints procedure rewritten to protect the CEO.

Complaints procedure rewritten to protect the CEO.The complaints procedure used to have 3 stages.  It has been reduced to 2.  It will no longer have a stage-three input from the CEO.  Instead, it will go straight to the local Government Ombudsman.  Nice for the CEO.  If the LGO finds the Council guilty of maladministration, the CEO will no longer be implicated.The CEO should be held accountable for anything and everything those under him do.  He is paid enough to take responsibility for their behaviour.   The change was discussed at the cabinet meeting of 10.11.21.  The rationale for trimming away the third stage was that it was found that the stage-three review did not change the outcome for the complainant. The same might be said of stage two, because the officers who review the response of the stage-one respondent (their colleague) act not with the honesty and impartiality required of a public servant but as “counsel for the defence” for their colleague.   The usual trick, even at stage one, is to claim the matter has already been dealt with. At the cabinet meeting, there was no discussion of whether the CEO should not still play a part in the process by being the second-stage respondent. So, now the CEO has no responsibility to investigate the behaviour of the senior officers below him, which one would have thought was one of his functions. The author of the proposal put before the Cabinet for this change was Alison Reynolds,who has control of the complaints procedure.  This is the Alison Reynolds who when asked to investigate a complaint against a senior colleague wrote “I have concluded that all of the matters raised as part of this case have now been addressed”  - even though she was the first person to address them  - and handn’t addressed them and didn’t! The complaints procedure is corrupted by senior officers who protect their senior colleagues by this quick-fix comment (“already dealt with”).  It has become institutionalised by repetition.

Andrew Farmer ● 1724d1 Comments ● 1724d

council fined by LGO for housing and compaints maladministration

Council found guilty of “severe maladministration” in respect of housing and its complaints procedure. No news to me and my neighbours.  We recall the horrors of the time the Council was operating a hostel at 354-6 Uxbridge Road - contrary to planning regulations.  More recently council officer Mark Wiltshire relicensed a landlord as “a fit and proper person” to hold a licence on a large HMO when he knew he had been housing tenants in filth and fire hazard (walls damp and mouldy, smoke alarm taped over, fire escape route blocked with old furniture and rubbish), and knew he was failing to prevent his tenants causing antisocial nuisance in the neighbourhood.   Shocking.  More shocking:  Wiltshire still has his job.  The complaints procedure?  We complained about him. It was dealt with by Helen Harris, Director legal and Democratic Services.  Required to respond within twenty days, she procrastinated for nearly five months!  The Council apologised for her “unacceptable” behaviour.  The complaint passed to officer Alison Reynolds. Before we had had a chance to request escalation, she had already refused to escalate the complaint. “I would like to advise you that the Council will no longer enter into any more correspondence with you or your associates”.  It was our right to request escalation. She corrupted due process, Shocking.  More shocking. She still has her job. History has repeated itself and will go on doing so under Mason.  He asked residents to email him with concerns about the borough.  I emailed him about this.  He ignored the email.  

Andrew Farmer ● 1739d1 Comments ● 1733d

Public Open Space Covenants & Stipulations on Council-held land

In the neighbouring London Borough of Hillingdon (our Prime Minister - The Right Hon. Boris Johnson's constituency), the Leader of the Labour Group of Councillors made the following Motion at Cabinet on 13th January 2022."That this Council believes that restrictive covenants on public & communal land plays an important role in ensuring that the value and enjoyment of the land is, and continues to be, preserved. Restrictive covenants enhance and protect our borough for our residents’ benefit and that of future generations.This Council, therefore, believes that it should set the example and do all within its power to uphold restrictive covenants especially on council land.This Council, therefore, calls on the Cabinet to abolish their current plans to remove the restrictive covenant in Yiewsley in order to develop on the recreation ground and library site.This Council calls on the Cabinet to enter into dialogue with local residents to devise alternative options for the use of the land in Yiewsley that complies with the restrictive covenants put in place to preserve the enjoyment and benefit for Hillingdon residents.Furthermore, this Council commits to uphold restrictive covenants across the borough for the benefit of residents."The above declaration in the Motion is reminiscent of the admirable Manifesto Pledge made by Cllr. John Cudmore, former Acton Councillor and the Leader of the Labour Group in Ealing at the time of his party's successful efforts to win the administration control of Ealing Council in May 1994 at the local 4-yearly election promising that the Council would respect the views of residents and protect the borough's conservation areas and green spaces from backland developments, etc.Victor Mishiku  16/1/2022"The Covenant Movement" Ealing.

Victor Mishiku ● 1735d2 Comments ● 1733d