Fallout from ‘that screenshot’ . . .

[DRiddle]

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.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Most intriguing ...

[Disgruntled voter]

You have my full attention.

[fred c]

Has the person who 'found' a medal in a draw been identified ?

[Inspector Knacker]

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'.

[jeffh]

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

[DRiddle]

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.

[fred c]

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.

[kevplumb]

https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/outgoing-hartlepool-mayor-to-be-awarded-steel-medal-as-councillors-keep-with-long-term-tradition-1-9427827

[crisstw]

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

[PKelly]

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.

[DRiddle]

•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.

[Inspector Knacker]

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?

[Inspector Knacker]

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.

[PKelly]

•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:

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.

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.