Refund of £60 court fee for judicial review against Wirral Council

Administrative Court refund of £60 fee in The Queen on the application of John Brace v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

The graphic says it all really. Click for larger version.

Administrative Court letter and £60 cheque for refund of court fee

Prenton/Oxton Area Forum 1st November 2012 Part 1 Belmont Suite, Tranmere Rovers Football Club

Prenton/Oxton Area Forum 1st November 2012 Belmont Suite, Tranmere Rovers Football Club Part 1

Prenton/Oxton Area Forum
1/11/2012
Belmont Suite, Tranmere Rovers Football Club

1830 to 2030

Present
Louise Harland Davies (Community Engagement)
Cllr Tony Norbury Labour (Chair)
Steve Preston (Community Safety)
Sarah Goulding (Community Rep)
Kay Crook (Community Rep)
Brian Griffiths (Merseyside Police)
Ian Lowrie (Community Safety)
Chris McCarthy (Interim Director, Technical Services)
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr Paul Doughty
Paul Murphy (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service)
Cllr Patricia Williams
Cllr Alan Brighouse
Cllr Denise Realey (arrived late)

The Chair, Cllr Norbury welcomed people to the Area Forum and informed people he had been elected as a councillor in May [2012]. He asked people to introduce themselves and gave apologies for a number of people who couldn’t make it including the Lead Officer.

Chris McCarthy, deputising for the Lead Officer who wasn’t present read out a brief statement on the suspension of the Neighbourhood Forum funds. He said the fund was frozen as it was “non-essential” and there was a projected £17 million overspend.

Ed – at the time the projected overspend as of September 2012 was £13.2 million not £17 million as claimed, as the figure for £17 million was the position five months prior to the November Area Forum meeting (June 2012). However no-one will know the true figure until the 2012/2013 accounts have been audited in September 2013, until then it’s “just a guess” and falls into the selective quoting of statistics Wirral Council is famous for, where incorrect information supplied by others is repeated until some of the press and public believe it through repetition.

Merseyside Police and the leaked custody record

Merseyside Police and the leaked custody record

It’s nice to know that even during this Police and Crime Commissioner election the police staff are managing to leak a custody record to a member of the media (please note I’ve black boxed out most of it as proceedings are “active”) in relation to a charge of arson and breach of a restraining order on 31st October 2012. Wasn’t that the whole sort of thing the whole Leveson inquiry was supposed to address?

However the recently resigned Norman Bettison (infamous down to his role in Hillsborough) is a former Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, do you expect them to be following procedure or indulging in coverups?

I don’t see the point in making a complaint about this as invariably complaints about the police result in a whitewash. They usually don’t want to know about their own mistakes do they?

One day, maybe the police will stop leaking like a sieve, but I won’t hold my breath until it happens….

Wirral Council: Proposal not to pay £250 to employees earning less than £21000

Wirral Council: Proposal not to pay £250 to employees earning less than £21000

Wirral Council previously agreed back in March of this year (2012) (when it decided the Budget for 2012/2013) to pay all its employees earning less than £21,000 (which comes to over 2,000 employees) an extra £250 (net of National Insurance, Income Tax, pension contribution etc) in December 2012.

It was put thus in the budget and £600,000 was put aside for it. I quote from this document (which is the agreed Budget for 2012/2013, as agreed by Conservative and Lib Dem councillors (36)), but not the 29 Labour councillors.

“Our staff are those who are best placed to point out where we are failing and to tell us how we can improve the services that we will deliver. We are therefore investing to ensure we listen and properly engage with them in the future:”

…..

“We recognise the importance of leading by example as an employer and we will again make provision for a payment of £250 for our lower paid workers – those earning under a full time equivalent of £21, 000.

£600,000”

Now go forward to now and there’s a proposal to the December Council meeting not to pay this £250 to 2,470 employees earning less than £21,000. The linked document goes into the detail and shows it affects a higher proportion of their female employees (calling this an “unintentional disadvantage”), a higher percentage of black and ethnic minority employees, a higher percentage of non-Christian employees, a higher percentage of transgender employees and a higher percentage of its young (under 30) employees.

So what have they done to mitigate the impact of this? They state they’ve written to the 2,470 employees that would be affected by this and they’ve discussed it in meetings with the trade unions.

As to the reasons why it’s being done, as the music hall song chorus goes:-

It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor what gets the blame,
It’s the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn’t it a blooming shame?”

However if last March is a guide, then the Labour councillors will vote for this proposal and the Conservative/Lib Dem councillors will vote against. Labour have seven more councillors (plus Cllr McLaughlin can now vote as she’s no longer the Mayor). Conservative and Lib Dems have seven less. So whatever Labour decide will happen… and they tend to go by what the senior officers of the Council tell them to do.

This proposal (if it goes through which seems likely) just makes a small dent in the currently projected £13.2 million overspend. Quite what awaits the staff in the New Year is probably a much reduced workforce…. as to who is for the chop we’ll just have to wait and see.

Can We Choose a Better President Through Online Voting?

Why the 2012 American Presidential Election is a “two-horse race” despite $5 million given to produce a third party choice

Last spring, an organization called ‘Americans Elect’ attempted to create “the first nonpartisan, national online presidential primary”, as stated on their website. The initial funds for the organization (five million dollars) were contributed by Dr. Peter Ackerman, a New York venture capitalist.

Vote for Burns License: Creative Commons laverrue (Ludovic Bertron) http://www.flickr.com/photos/23912576@N05/3981899745/The goal of the organization was to have the 2012 election be a three party election, rather than a two party election – with the third contender being elected based not on their party, but on their political beliefs. Unfortunately, the idea did not get enough buy in, even from its own delegates, and Americans Elect had to bow out of the 2012 election by May.

The failure of American Elect, however, cannot solely be blamed on their attempt to organize a third party through online means. Third parties have always struggled to win states in the primaries, and even heavy-hitter, Ross Perot, was unable to win a single one in 1992. Online elections, on the other hand, have in fact been successful in other organizations – some of which are global and high-profile. This online success has led some experts to believe that the virtual party system does in fact have a future in the decade to come.

With the rise of social media, comes the ability to bring together an unlimited number of people with similar beliefs and goals. Activists can now initiate online petitions to counter almost anything, from banks foreclosing on houses, to government actions that potentially harm the environment. The reality is that it’s working. Companies are paying attention to the masses and changing business decisions and company practices, sometimes on a case by case basis. Why not apply this same “power of the people” towards the current structure of American politics?

The online nomination process would start with candidates answering questions using multiple choice answers, on relevant political issues. Then, supplemental material would be added to their “profile”, including videos and biographical data. Voters could then be shown, graphically, how each candidate matches up to their own personal stances, based on their answers to the same multiple choice questions. They would then be able to go to a page to “vote” for their preferred candidate, much akin to the Facebook “like” system. Some would argue that this approach is like online dating, for political parties, but it could actually offer a clear and concise picture, unmarred by other media sources.

Like any new and proposed process, there are potential benefits, and serious concerns.

Possible benefits for the online nomination system include:

  • Better educated voters — with all data on the candidates already in front of them.
  • Voters choosing a candidate who matches their beliefs, rather than their political party.
  • An increase in voter turnout, specifically for the state elections with historically low numbers.
  • Previously unknown candidates having a chance to go through.

On the other hand, concerns regarding online nomination systems include:

  • Reliability of online servers.
  • Online security concerns, including identity verification.
  • The possibility for fraud.
  • Gaining funding for third party candidates.

In reality, initiatives that were started online are already playing a part in today’s politics. Occupy Wall Street, for example, was a movement born of a blog post. Technology is changing how we “make a change”, and is inspiring uncounted groups of people to find alternatives to frustrating and previously held practices.

The hope for a new, less dysfunctional, political system could possibly drive the next election to be determined through an online nomination process. The future of American politics might one day be a digital battle, determined by how much we “like” our candidates.

Attached Images:
  •  License: Creative Commons laverrue (Ludovic Bertron) image source on Flickr

About author: Serge is the founder and managing partner at edictive.com. Edictive service the film, TV and broadcast industry with production tools and film marketing services.