There has been significant repercussions connected to the screenshot which appears to prove there was potential intent to spend £1,975 on a gold medal for Paul Beck (the liar).
Various people's inboxes have been pinging all day. More to follow.
Most intriguing ...
You have my full attention.
Has the person who 'found' a medal in a draw been identified ?
Call me old fashioned, but surely being Mayor is honour enough.
By the way, I won't call it a medal as it demeans the meaning of the word to me, it's a piece of rather tasteless, expensive bling for 'just being there'.
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on November 10, 2018, 09: AM
Call me old fashioned, but surely being Mayor is honour enough.
By the way, I won't call it a medal as it demeans the meaning of the word to me, it's a piece of rather tasteless, expensive bling for 'just being there'.
Let's not forget that the Mayor, as chairman of the council, receives an EXTRA £7900
So you can imagine the atmosphere within HBC now that they KNOW a picture of Beck's proposed/purchased/cancelled/found in a drawer Gold medal clearly made it's way out of HBC and onto social media.
No doubt CAB was fuming. That screen shot definitely lost them some votes in the last election and exposed the frivolous attitude to spending despite bleating about government cuts.
So what has HBC and Gill done about it? Updated and re-circulated their whistle blowing policy document.
I've had a read through it (i had about 35 copies sent to me within minutes of its distribution, as did other people i know who follow these things).
Here's the interesting paragraphs.
7.2 Unproven Allegations
If an employee or worker makes an allegation in the public interest and if this is not
confirmed through the investigation, no action will be taken against him/her. The
Council will also try to minimise any negative effects of an allegation being
investigated and not confirmed.
7.3 Deliberately False Allegations
The Council will take disciplinary action against any employee deliberately
making allegations they know to be false or unfounded, whether frivolously or
maliciously. Action will also be taken against any employee or worker inventing or
otherwise falsifying facts in order to make a complaint.
7.4 Other Procedures
If a matter is raised under the Whistle-Blowing policy which could more
appropriately be dealt with under another procedure the Monitoring Officer will
consult the appropriate Chief Officer who would institute the other more
appropriate procedure.
Obviously those paragraphs are open to interpretation to an extent. But be clear, HBC are not exactly encouraging whistle blowing and promising to protect them. The document goes on and appears to not absolutely 100% guarantee anonymity to whistle blowers.
6.2 Anonymous Allegations
Anonymous allegations are difficult to investigate and, for that reason, cannot
always be given the same consideration as formal written allegations. In
considering whether any action is to be taken the seriousness and credibility of the
allegations will be taken into account as will the feasibility of investigating them
and the reason(s) for anonymity being maintained.
6.3 Confidentiality
It is much easier to investigate concerns when those raising them are willing for
their names to be disclosed if necessary in the investigation. However if
employees and workers specifically ask for their names not to be disclosed then
this will be respected subject only to any requirement to disclose under any
obligation, as a matter of law or required good practice. This may, in some
situations impede the investigation. If the only evidence of wrongdoing or
malpractice is that of the complainant as an eyewitness of the complainant then
he/she will usually need to be prepared to make a statement.
That paragraph, 6.3 is highly likely to put off anyone wanting to raise a concern or issue about something.
This is all very ironic when one consider's the "heroic" whistle blowing (A.K.A totally unproven allegations) SAB tried to use to save himself and/or get a payout when he was sacked for lying and gross misconduct.
Be assured people, HBC in it's current form is broken. People on here have long suspected it, but the actions of the CEO in light of a screen shot of a £1,975 medal going public demonstrate just HOW broken it is.
The problem they face of course is that two CEO's have largely allowed the the SCABS, Cranney et all to do what they like for two long. Officers and staff at ALL levels are sick of the situation and information is leaking out of HBC and from external contractors on a MASSIVE scale.
Social media is making it very easy for information to become public and HBC can't control to flow of information in the way that they perhaps could in pre-social media days.
The real way of course to stop it is not allow stupid decisions to be made in the first place.
Finally, be assured Gill and Chris, there are simply TOO many people leaking information for you to 'find the culprit(s)'. They have no faith in the internal HBC procedures to do ANYTHING other than cover it up. So they're using other avenues like social media and getting the information into the hands of people prepared to highlight it more publicly who don't fear repercussions.
The whistleblowers are also operating at all levels within your staffing structure. Oh and Christopher, a lot of the leaks come from the Labour Party who are still trying to get rid of you and your ilk.
P.S To prove that, Rob Cook will be the next Mayor after Christmas. That info came from you're group who aren't capable of keeping their gobs shut.
P.P.S Happy saturday.
Quote from: DRiddle on November 10, 2018, 09: AM
So you can imagine the atmosphere within HBC now that they KNOW a picture of Beck's proposed/purchased/cancelled/found in a drawer Gold medal clearly made it's way out of HBC and onto social media.
No doubt CAB was fuming. That screen shot definitely lost them some votes in the last election and exposed the frivolous attitude to spending despite bleating about government cuts.
Only to be expected, except by the numbnuts running the show...
So what has HBC and Gill done about it? Updated and re-circulated their whistle blowing policy document.
Again fully expected, by all who take an interest in HBC & the Clowncil.
I've had a read through it (i had about 35 copies sent to me within minutes of its distribution, as did other people i know who follow these things).
Here's the interesting paragraphs.
7.2 Unproven Allegations
If an employee or worker makes an allegation in the public interest and if this is not
confirmed through the investigation, no action will be taken against him/her. The
Council will also try to minimise any negative effects of an allegation being
investigated and not confirmed.
7.3 Deliberately False Allegations
The Council will take disciplinary action against any employee deliberately
making allegations they know to be false or unfounded, whether frivolously or
maliciously. Action will also be taken against any employee or worker inventing or
otherwise falsifying facts in order to make a complaint.
We all know action will and has been taken against council employees regardless.
7.4 Other Procedures
If a matter is raised under the Whistle-Blowing policy which could more
appropriately be dealt with under another procedure the Monitoring Officer will
consult the appropriate Chief Officer who would institute the other more
appropriate procedure.
Why would any officer raise any problem with the monitoring officer....There are numerous instances of officers being pressurised by 'higher authority'
Obviously those paragraphs are open to interpretation to an extent. But be clear, HBC are not exactly encouraging whistle blowing and promising to protect them. The document goes on and appears to not absolutely 100% guarantee anonymity to whistle blowers.
Whilst there is a policy of keeping councillors 'Dropped Bo***x 150% anonymous.
6.2 Anonymous Allegations
Anonymous allegations are difficult to investigate and, for that reason, cannot
always be given the same consideration as formal written allegations. In
considering whether any action is to be taken the seriousness and credibility of the
allegations will be taken into account as will the feasibility of investigating them
and the reason(s) for anonymity being maintained.
Whilst anonymous allegations by councillors will be believed 100% even if patently untrue.
6.3 Confidentiality
It is much easier to investigate concerns when those raising them are willing for
their names to be disclosed if necessary in the investigation. However if
employees and workers specifically ask for their names not to be disclosed then
this will be respected subject only to any requirement to disclose under any
obligation, as a matter of law or required good practice. This may, in some
situations impede the investigation. If the only evidence of wrongdoing or
malpractice is that of the complainant as an eyewitness of the complainant then
he/she will usually need to be prepared to make a statement.
aka. Sign a resignation letter.
That paragraph, 6.3 is highly likely to put off anyone wanting to raise a concern or issue about something.
Ditto
This is all very ironic when one consider's the "heroic" whistle blowing (A.K.A totally unproven allegations) SAB tried to use to save himself and/or get a payout when he was sacked for lying and gross misconduct.
1 Rule for LabMob Councillors.....1 Rule for everyone else.
Be assured people, HBC in it's current form is broken. People on here have long suspected it, but the actions of the CEO in light of a screen shot of a £1,975 medal going public demonstrate just HOW broken it is.
In common parlance.... A seismic example of Arso Callapso
The problem they face of course is that two CEO's have largely allowed the the SCABS, Cranney et all to do what they like for two long. Officers and staff at ALL levels are sick of the situation and information is leaking out of HBC and from external contractors on a MASSIVE scale.
Social media is making it very easy for information to become public and HBC can't control to flow of information in the way that they perhaps could in pre-social media days.
The Corbyn Pixies are attempting to use their own brand of Integrity.
The real way of course to stop it is not allow stupid decisions to be made in the first place.
As Forrest's Mom used to say "Stupid is as Stupid Does"
Finally, be assured Gill and Chris, there are simply TOO many people leaking information for you to 'find the culprit(s)'. They have no faith in the internal HBC procedures to do ANYTHING other than cover it up. So they're using other avenues like social media and getting the information into the hands of people prepared to highlight it more publicly who don't fear repercussions.
Genuine employees who want the best for their town and have realised they have to try and make a difference in their own way.
The whistleblowers are also operating at all levels within your staffing structure. Oh and Christopher, a lot of the leaks come from the Labour Party who are still trying to get rid of you and your ilk.
P.S To prove that, Rob Cook will be the next Mayor after Christmas. That info came from you're group who aren't capable of keeping their gobs shut.
Time to do away with a Mayor who also Chairs the Council.....There are other councillors who deserve the Honour of Being the towns Mayor...
P.P.S Happy saturday.
https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/outgoing-hartlepool-mayor-to-be-awarded-steel-medal-as-councillors-keep-with-long-term-tradition-1-9427827
This should be the councils whistleblowing policy as defined by the government...https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing
There should be no repercussions at all, just a thorough investigation of any blown whistles and if there is no wring doing then all is fine.
Whistleblowers should have the right to be completely anonymous if they choose and anything they report should still be investigated 100%.
HBC is a rotten organisation because of poor leadership
I've a lot of experience with writing and managing policies for businesses, including confidentiality, information security and whistleblowing.
My understanding of this, is that a HBC employee took a photo of a computer screen showing an internal system detailing an "incriminating" purchase then leaked it on social media.
For me, this doesn't come under whistleblowing.
Whistleblowing covers very specific scenarios:
•a criminal offence, eg fraud
•someone's health and safety is in danger
•risk or actual damage to the environment
•a miscarriage of justice
•the company is breaking the law, eg doesn't have the right insurance
•you believe someone is covering up wrongdoing
It could be argued, that this person thinks they're highlighting someone covering up wrongdoing, but that is not the case here. The wrongdoing being covered up MUST be one of the specific things above that final point, which this clearly is not.
The council was and is entitled to spend money on that medal if they wish to do so. However, morally, against the backdrop of cuts/austerity it would be the wrong thing to do.
There is also a political aspect to this too, someone making dodgy decisions. However, that does not fit into the criteria either.
The other thing that has happened here, is that a council employee has breached information security policy.
They have also leaked confidential data into public domain via social media.
If they believed they were blowing the whistle and did not trust the internal processes, they should have told some form of prescribed person (local government ombudsman, police or whoever is applicable).
If a whistleblower goes to anyone else, including the media, or in this case, social media, they lose all their rights.
In my eyes, although not without merit, this person deserves to face disciplinary action and those who've tried to use them to further political gain, have put them at risk.
•you believe someone is covering up wrongdoing.
Find me a tax payer in Hartlepool who thinks potentially spending £1,975 on a gold medal for Paul Beck is RIGHT. . .
The person or persons who leaked the information did the right thing. They did the ONLY thing they felt they could do to stop it.
HBC is broken under its present leadership, even the Labour Party know it.
The way I see it, it's merely revealing how our money is being spent. Do we not have a right to see if our money is being spent on ostentatious jewellry?
Quote from: kevplumb on November 10, 2018, 01: PM
https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/outgoing-hartlepool-mayor-to-be-awarded-steel-medal-as-councillors-keep-with-long-term-tradition-1-9427827
Forget steel, Iron Pyrites aka Fools Gold would be more fitting.
Quote•you believe someone is covering up wrongdoing.
Find me a tax payer in Hartlepool who thinks potentially spending £1,975 on a gold medal for Paul Beck is RIGHT. .
DRiddle,
I mentioned in my lengthy comment, that the wrongdoing being covered up had to be one from:
•a criminal offence, eg fraud
•someone's health and safety is in danger
•risk or actual damage to the environment
•a miscarriage of justice
•the company is breaking the law, eg doesn't have the right insurance
I also said:
QuoteIt could be argued, that this person thinks they're highlighting someone covering up wrongdoing, but that is not the case here. The wrongdoing being covered up MUST be one of the specific things above that final point, which this clearly is not.
The council was and is entitled to spend money on that medal if they wish to do so. However, morally, against the backdrop of cuts/austerity it would be the wrong thing to do.
There is also a political aspect to this too, someone making dodgy decisions. However, that does not fit into the criteria either.
I'm not saying that the person who leaked this was doing the wrong thing, however they have not engaged in whistleblowing.
They have most likely broken the terms of their employment to highlight poor political behaviour. That's not the same and if they did so knowing they risked their job and weren't truly whitlstleblowing, then all power to them. But I suspect they were led to believe they were whistleblowing by people who are politically involved and that doesn't reflect well on those people if true.
HBC never gives an open honest and transparent answer to any questions.
I know from submitting FOI requests and questions to full council.
If they don't play by the spirit of the rules of public service then what option is there ?
I also wonder if the gold medal giving was such a good thing then why wasn't it ever a public and publicised event ?
Apparently someone could think that the gold medal was to ensure that the mayor donated half of the funds earned during his term as mayor to an organisation that noone knows what it is, it's not declared as a charity or a business, but is in receipt of public funds... if this is what a person at hbc thought, then maybe they thought it was an illegal act if purchased or cover up of a potential illegal act if hidden, perhaps?
Whatever, there's a far bigger local politics story going to break this evening.
It seems to me you are all falling into line with the Council and the apologists agenda. Stop making the leaker the story and concentrate on the medal purchase intent. Feck all the dancing on the head of a pin. Bollocks to breaches of the codes of conduct. The grubby truth is out so use it to batter Labour.
It has nothing to do with "poor disciplinary procedure"....It has to do with poor management decisions and procedures, anyone who believes it's ok for HBC to operate an policy o f keeping the ratepayers in the dark about the pisspotical use of their money needs to give their head a shake.
QuoteIt seems to me you are all falling into line with the Council and the apologists agenda. Stop making the leaker the story and concentrate on the medal purchase intent.
Mk1,
No. This is not what real whistleblowing is and attempting to cast leaking political information as whistleblowing makes it harder for those who need to use the whistleblowing process for it's intended purpose. I also re-iterate, leaking to social media is not whistleblowing and provides no protection for the whistleblower.
QuoteThe grubby truth is out so use it to batter Labour.
This just proves that the motivation is political point scoring (valid or not).
Quote from: PKelly on November 10, 2018, 09: PM
This just proves that the motivation is political point scoring (valid or not).
You can claim the high ground and eschew that which works pretty effectively for them. I think those who play with fire deserve a bucket of petrol thrown over them.
Aegrescit medendo?
QuoteI think those who play with fire deserve a bucket of petrol thrown over them.
Which is all well and good until the person who supplied the petrol in good faith, being assured they would be protected thing gets convicted of being an accessory.
Not sure your paraphrasing of Virgil is entirely relevant, but I suppose it sounds clever to some.
Quote from: PKelly on November 10, 2018, 10: PM
Which is all well and good until the person who supplied the petrol in good faith, being assured they would be protected thing gets convicted of being an accessory.
The screenshot here was was not its first outing. I believe it was considered ok on a forum heavily policed by the anti-Belcher Labour faction.
Quote from: PKelly on November 10, 2018, 10: PMNot sure your paraphrasing of Virgil is entirely relevant, but I suppose it sounds clever to some.
Quot homines tot sententiae: suus cuique mos.
There is absolutely no way a HBC officer or employee would dare go through official channels to whistleblow or to try to stop wasteful expenditure. The system and staffing structure toward the upper end of the pay scales is broken. Why do you think so many senior officers have left in recent times? Nobody dares speak out through the proper channels.
Quote from: PKelly on November 10, 2018, 10: PM
QuoteI think those who play with fire deserve a bucket of petrol thrown over them.
Which is all well and good until the person who supplied the petrol in good faith, being assured they would be protected thing gets convicted of being an accessory.
Not sure your paraphrasing of Virgil is entirely relevant, but I suppose it sounds clever to some.
You're sounding awfully like a 'suit' looking down from the moral high ground
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on November 11, 2018, 02: PM
You're sounding awfully like a 'suit' looking down from the moral high ground
He is always demanding
his right to 'free speech' whilst denying the same to anyone on Facebook who dares to expose his double-standard. A contrary who would write a(nother) 32 page blog 'proving' the sky was green if he saw anyone here say it was blue.
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on November 11, 2018, 02: PM
Quote from: PKelly on November 10, 2018, 10: PM
QuoteI think those who play with fire deserve a bucket of petrol thrown over them.
Which is all well and good until the person who supplied the petrol in good faith, being assured they would be protected thing gets convicted of being an accessory.
Not sure your paraphrasing of Virgil is entirely relevant, but I suppose it sounds clever to some.
You're sounding awfully like a 'suit' looking down from the moral high ground
Absolutely agree!!!
Somebody clearly knows better than the rest of us....
As you would.
The only fly in the ointment being while you were busy looking down and pontificating on the irrelevant, someone was selling the moral high ground for 'executive' housing.
Quote from: mk1 on November 11, 2018, 02: PM
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on November 11, 2018, 02: PM
You're sounding awfully like a 'suit' looking down from the moral high ground
He is always demanding his right to 'free speech' whilst denying the same to anyone on Facebook who dares to expose his double-standard. A contrary who would write a(nother) 32 page blog 'proving' the sky was green if he saw anyone here say it was blue.
He really is a 'Full Sack'........you can't get anything else in a full sack....
He has had to start his own FB Page because he has been turfed off so many others, having said that, he does have a loyal following on there, himself and 5 others.
The information should have been in the public domain as should have been on the expenditure spreadsheets for items under 5k which is published. If it is not on there leads to the question why not and what else has been excluded. and on whose instructions.