Posts

The E11 BID Co. and the re-ballot of 2012: was there full disclosure?

The second argument advanced by the refusniks at court can be summarised as follows. Argument Two: at the 2012 re-ballot, the E11 BID Co. failed to make full disclosure, calling into question the validity of the result 1. What follows is based upon two different pieces of evidence. 2. First, under the terms of the Baseline and Operating contracts that they signed in 2008, LBWF and the E11 BID Co. had various obligations, and in particular agreed to: (a) set up a Standard Services Review Panel, which was to meet at least two times ‘in each calendar year…throughout the duration of the BID Term’; [1] (b) annually review ‘the Standard Services to be provided and make such amendments to the level... »

The E11 BID Co. and its debts: the evidence

Over recent years, the E11 BID Co. has regularly been in the news, mainly for the wrong reasons. The latest, and most unsavoury episode, saw LBWF, operating on behalf of the E11 BID Co., take local Leytonstone businesses to court, gain a successful adjudication, and then call in the bailiffs, with the Waltham Forest Guardian reporting as follows: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13506732.Bailiffs_try_to_remove_chairs_and_tables_from_popular_restaurant_in_battle_over_E11_Bid_fees/ This post and its successor look at some of the background. Briefly, for those who don’t follow these things, the E11 BID Co. is a private business set up with the support of LBWF to improve the trading e... »

Barnett v. Dhedi: the denouement UPDATED

Regular readers of this blog will remember my earlier post describing a spat between Cllr. Peter Barnett and Cllr. Shabana Dhedi (sometimes Shabana Qadir), the essence of which apparently revolved around a late night Facebook exchange, the possible excuses that could be made for the Charlie Hebdo murderers, and some intemperate Anglo-Saxon. What was an obvious molehill soon became a mountain, with the on-cue involvement of sundry third parties, the parading of bruised feelings, and impassioned accusations of racism and ‘Islamophobia’. The upshot? Cllr. Barnett found himself suspended from the Labour whip, pending an investigation. That investigation has now happened, and Cllr. Barnett is res... »

Town Hall asbestos: new revelations

Before, during, and after its recent court case over asbestos contamination in the Town Hall, LBWF gave the impression that, having been made aware of the problem in early 2012, it then spent a large sum of money making the building safe. Thus, to give one example, a LBWF briefing dated 16 July 2012 states: ‘From 24th February – 19th May, the contractor carried out the decontamination work removing all dust and debris [Emphasis Added]. Where positive readings were recorded, any files that were exposed were deemed potentially contaminated. In some areas this is substantial’. However, it now appears that this happy picture is by no means the whole truth. Very recently, I have obtained a ... »

LBWF and the anti-terrorist Prevent programme: is it wise to keep it in the closet?

In early June of this year, I asked LBWF under the Freedom of Information Act for a list of its current Prevent contracts, with for each its start and finish dates, the name of the contractor, the value of the contract, and a brief description of what the contract aims to achieve. A few days ago, my request was refused, with LBWF arguing as follows: ‘Waltham Forest Council recognises the public interest in transparency and openness in local government; and in the context of this Freedom of Information request, such openness would increase public understanding and inform public debate about the aims and objectives of Prevent work in the borough. Additionally, disclosure would raise public awa... »

Page 72 of 84«7071727374»