As Bad As It Gets

for fawkes sake · October 16, 2012, 07: PM

It would indeed appear that a new low has been reached from an already extremely low base. We seem to now have a council that operates without limits and with equally limitless arrogance. Reading this, I no longer have even a smidgen of faith that HBC has the capacity to regulate itself.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/

marky · October 16, 2012, 07: PM

I remember all the fuss about this way back in April. So basically, the guys been caught out lying through his teeth and thought nothing of blaming everything on the Charity Commission when it wasn't true. I bet the CC will be delighted about that. f***i*g hell, you're right - how bad does it have to get before someone calls time?

mk1 · October 16, 2012, 10: PM

So the SCABs are liars-is it really news?

You lie with/lie for dogs and you get fleas

for fawkes sake · October 16, 2012, 10: PM

Surely the real story is over the now infamous second set of accounts and now we have an elected Councillor providing a false explanation - and all for an organisation that was awarded a rather large contract unchallenged to provide the Connected Care service. Wasn't it half-a-million pounds?
I'd say that someone is in deep poo here....

fred c · October 17, 2012, 08: AM

The theory of "Openess, Transparency & Accountability" apparently doesn`t exist within some cabals in HBC.

I can`t believe it can get any worse, but untill "The Mob" are turfed out, i fear it will.

Julie noted · October 17, 2012, 11: AM

I hope the comments regarding the alleged impugning of the competence of the Charity Commission is forwarded to them. They may want to open an investigation into the comments and the veracity of the audits.

With regard to the DDOS attacks, I likewise hope that the pressure is kept on the police to investigate fully.
However, we have to remember that the Cleveland Police Authority was labour run!!!!!! (And by people of an alleged dubious character).
What chance do we have, when you are up against such people?

for fawkes sake · October 17, 2012, 11: PM

That will be down to HTH as I can't see anyone else doing anything. I'm sure all within HBC will try to ignore the issue as usual, go back into Ostrich mode and hope it all goes away.

St Paul · October 18, 2012, 02: PM

This is really terrible. The Charity Commission do a lot of good work overseeing thousands of charities. To be falsely blamed for doing something simply to get someone else off the hook for political convenience is well out of order.

Julie noted · October 18, 2012, 03: PM

Somebody has their lines crossed here;
The Charity Commission have accepted the 2008-2009 accounts 'as read'.
They have not 'made a mistake', as they are not their accounts to make a mistake on.
The accounts, as they stand, are accepted by the Commission.

How do I know?
Because I have just rang and asked them (0845 300 0218).
So who, if anybody, is in the wrong here?

marky · October 18, 2012, 10: PM

Sorry, Julie but I just don't understand your post.
As I understand it, CAB attempted to explain the accounts by saying that the Charity Commission had made a mistake in posting the same accounts for two consecutive years. The reality was that when this site highlighted that the second year accounts were almost a duplicate of the first year accounts, it was actually Manor Residents who contacted the Charity Commission to ask them to take the second year accounts off their web site while they submitted a different version hurriedly put together.
I see no crossed-lines; what I see is something quite different and it has a name.

Julie noted · October 19, 2012, 08: AM

marky, I am only repeating what I was told by the CC; That they accepted the 2008-2009 identical accounts.
Nothing was changed by them; they hadn't made a mistake.
The published accounts were accepted.

Make of it what you will.
Why not ring the CC and ask the question because I, like you, am confused.

Julie noted · October 19, 2012, 10: AM

Apropos the Charity Commission;
You can access the audited accounts of charitees from the CC website; www.charitiescommission.gov.uk
it's an eye opener.

testing times · October 19, 2012, 10: AM

What is it that you're confused about, Julie? When the Charity Commission say they accepted the accounts 'as is' they simply mean that they don't actually do any checking of the accounts sent to them - they accept whatever they are sent. How else can you explain why they have 'accepted' two very different sets of accounts for the same year?
The only requirement they place on Chairites is that they submit accounts for public display within a set time period (something else Manor Residents don't seem to be very good at). The Commission doesn't do any auditing of the accounts itself.
No one has said that the Charity Commission has made a mistake other than Akers-Belcher which we now know to be untrue.

steveL · October 19, 2012, 11: AM

There would appear to be a possibility that MR is about to become the next Phoenix Centre for while Ms Wilcox moves into her Oval Office, it would seem that all is not well in the Manor. Here's an extract from an e-mail HTH received yesterday.

"I wanted to let people know that we are not all the same at Manor Residents and that some of us are very worried with what's going on. It's not just the taxis that are a problem there are lots of things going on. The phones no longer work and we've been told its a fault on the line but its been weeks and everyone knows its really because no one is paying the bills. We've also just been paid for the first time in weeks only this time we were told its the fault of the bank. We're not been told the truth."

The e-mail was anonymous, one of those hotmail accounts which disappears soon after it has been created, so there's no way of knowing how true all of this is. Even so, food for thought.