Tried buying a new PC from Lenovo but they refused to deliver it at a convenient time. Cancelled the order. They then asked for a review so I submitted the following:
Still waiting for a refund
Never delivered because of Lenovo’s ridiculously inflexible delivery policies which forced me to cancel the order after several conversations with employees who said changing the delivery date was ‘against the rules’. Eventually forced to cancel the order and ask for a refund. Three weeks later I am still asking for a refund and still haven’t had one. The computer may or may not be good but the service is absolutely lousy
Surprise, surprise I got the following from Lenovo:
“Computer says no,
“Our staff has read your review and values your contribution even though it did not meet all our website guidelines. Thanks for sharing, and we hope to publish next time!”
Still waiting for a refund…. have called their helpless line three times. They just laugh at me and say I'll get my money back within six working days of the PC arriving back in Amsterdam (if it ever does).
LATER: Lenovo blame a system update and claim they will have it sorted in within five working days and may then considfer a refund. However it's noe been more than a month and if this is any guide to the value of their computers then they are in real trouble.
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Thursday, December 18, 2025
Birmingham taxpayers bung unions £1 million
Bankrupt Birmingham Council has smashed the £1 million trade-union time-off barrier.
In the 2024-25 financial year, taxpayers allowed 60 employees to spend more than half their working hours on union work at a cost of £1,099,124.66. The year before, it was 46 people and £777,412.
Meanwhile, as the council spends millions so we can all get on our bikes, it’s not above paying its staff’s parking fines for them.
In November, the taxpayer paid out £420 in parking fines via council credit cards. In fact, the council has paid at least £25,000 in employees’ parking fines since April 2021 though that’s probably an under-estimate as not all such payments are recorded as ‘penalty charge notices’.
And taxpayers are now on the hook for electric cars as well.
According to the council’s own credit card data, taxpayers were charged £4,920 for topping up electric vehicles – even though they were also billed £4,246 for council old bangers polluting its clean air zone.
All this driving around is clearly necessary – last month the council’s well-travelled credit cards forked out over £11,000 at hotels as far afield as Kensington, Ealing, Manchester and Oxford.
But it seems odd the council is pursuing its war on the motorist (£540,000 for speed bumps last month) while allowing its own staff to park where they want, drive what they like and motor wherever they choose. Maybe on union business.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Time to end the BBC's poll tax and give viewers a windfall
Now there is renewed debate over the future of the BBC, isn’t it time to privatise the corporation by swapping every TV licence for one share in the business?
Amid all the talk of subscriptions and paywalls and the future of BBC radio, nobody seems to ask who it belongs to – the licence-payers.
So, if it is to become a revenue-generating business – rather than relying on the licence fee poll tax – the owners deserve a pay-off.
BBC could easily become commercially viable rival to people like Netflix and Apple TV. It is an extremely valuable entity with (despite recent failings) a global reputation, some very successful programmes and a valuable back-catalogue. It could become a major player in the media industry.
It would probably attract interest from a range of media businesses which would have to acquire shares in the BBC. Those shares belong to every licence holder – one licence equals one share.
This windfall to licence-payers would leave us free either to hold onto our shares or sell them at the prevailing market rate as viewers would be required to subscribe and/or endure advertisements if they wanted to use BBC services.
We no longer need a State broadcaster. But if the BBC entered the commercial world, it should thrive. Privatisation would be a new era for the BBC, not some sort of punishment (though no doubt that's how it would be portrayed in some quarters). And by giving every licence-holder one share, it would ensure every viewer had a vested interest in the success of the corporation in its new guise.
Tell Sid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz94q0v4kq2o
Amid all the talk of subscriptions and paywalls and the future of BBC radio, nobody seems to ask who it belongs to – the licence-payers.
So, if it is to become a revenue-generating business – rather than relying on the licence fee poll tax – the owners deserve a pay-off.
BBC could easily become commercially viable rival to people like Netflix and Apple TV. It is an extremely valuable entity with (despite recent failings) a global reputation, some very successful programmes and a valuable back-catalogue. It could become a major player in the media industry.
It would probably attract interest from a range of media businesses which would have to acquire shares in the BBC. Those shares belong to every licence holder – one licence equals one share.
This windfall to licence-payers would leave us free either to hold onto our shares or sell them at the prevailing market rate as viewers would be required to subscribe and/or endure advertisements if they wanted to use BBC services.
We no longer need a State broadcaster. But if the BBC entered the commercial world, it should thrive. Privatisation would be a new era for the BBC, not some sort of punishment (though no doubt that's how it would be portrayed in some quarters). And by giving every licence-holder one share, it would ensure every viewer had a vested interest in the success of the corporation in its new guise.
Tell Sid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz94q0v4kq2o
Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Dumbo Dimbo and the BBC poll tax
As David Dimbleby, the hereditary BBC Royalty correspondent, bites the hand that feeds him, the corporation thanked its viewers for paying for the programme.
The BBC, struggling for relevance and support in the streaming era and despite its dubious and downright libellous editorial decisions, failed to spot the irony.
While it is employing a Dimbleby whose family made its name bowing and scraping to the Monarchy, the turncoat is now attacking the Monarchy’s alleged wealth (who thinks they will really sell the Royal stamp collection or any of the valuable paintings held on the nation’s behalf?).
His immensely tedious programme went on ad nauseam about how rich the Royals are thanks to tax-dodging deals with the likes of George Osborne. And he made it clear we taxpayers have no choice but to endure these rich and privileged Royals lording it over the plebs.
It’s worth remembering the BBC is funded by their own special unavoidable poll tax which raises £3.8 billion. The Royal family costs us £132 million.
The BBC, struggling for relevance and support in the streaming era and despite its dubious and downright libellous editorial decisions, failed to spot the irony.
While it is employing a Dimbleby whose family made its name bowing and scraping to the Monarchy, the turncoat is now attacking the Monarchy’s alleged wealth (who thinks they will really sell the Royal stamp collection or any of the valuable paintings held on the nation’s behalf?).
His immensely tedious programme went on ad nauseam about how rich the Royals are thanks to tax-dodging deals with the likes of George Osborne. And he made it clear we taxpayers have no choice but to endure these rich and privileged Royals lording it over the plebs.
It’s worth remembering the BBC is funded by their own special unavoidable poll tax which raises £3.8 billion. The Royal family costs us £132 million.
Sunday, December 07, 2025
Birmingham’s £650 million bad debt disaster
No business can expect to survive for long if it doesn’t collect the money it's owed and any business which doesn’t bother to chase up its debts deserves to go bust.
Birmingham Council, as we know, went bankrupt because it had an equal pay liability of maybe £750 million and an £80 million overspend on its Oracle computer system.
Perhaps even these disasters need not have doomed the council if it were not for the fact that it is apparently incapable of collecting the money it’s owed.
The commissioners sent to restore order from chaos reveal in their third letter to the Government, published this month, just how incapable the council really is.
What with unpaid council tax, unpaid business rates, over-paid housing benefit and so on, the council – which wrote off £30 million in bad debts last year – is chasing an astonishing £650 million it’s owed.
The commissioners say: ‘There is effective senior leadership of the finance function, which is a positive starting point; however, the structure below the Director still has a significant number of temporary staff and there are capability deficiencies in some key functions. The Council has a plan to address these staffing inadequacies, and it is important that this is resolutely applied.
‘To demonstrate the scale of the task, one area that requires modernisation is in respect of ‘accounts receivable’. Debt levels remain high at c.£650m and whilst there is a programme to improve the position, the long legacy of poor or non-existent debt collection in some service areas means that this will be a resource-intensive multi-year programme.’
I did ask the council how much of that £650 million it realistically expected to recoup (no response) but I reckon we can all guess the answer.
This, surely, is an even greater scandal than its ludicrous over-spending on computers or its failure to deal with Tony Blair’s time-bomb legislation on equal pay. No wonder the commissioners don’t plan to give up their lucrative part-time work for another three years.
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/1686/third_birmingham_city_council_commissioners_letter_published
Birmingham Council, as we know, went bankrupt because it had an equal pay liability of maybe £750 million and an £80 million overspend on its Oracle computer system.
Perhaps even these disasters need not have doomed the council if it were not for the fact that it is apparently incapable of collecting the money it’s owed.
The commissioners sent to restore order from chaos reveal in their third letter to the Government, published this month, just how incapable the council really is.
What with unpaid council tax, unpaid business rates, over-paid housing benefit and so on, the council – which wrote off £30 million in bad debts last year – is chasing an astonishing £650 million it’s owed.
The commissioners say: ‘There is effective senior leadership of the finance function, which is a positive starting point; however, the structure below the Director still has a significant number of temporary staff and there are capability deficiencies in some key functions. The Council has a plan to address these staffing inadequacies, and it is important that this is resolutely applied.
‘To demonstrate the scale of the task, one area that requires modernisation is in respect of ‘accounts receivable’. Debt levels remain high at c.£650m and whilst there is a programme to improve the position, the long legacy of poor or non-existent debt collection in some service areas means that this will be a resource-intensive multi-year programme.’
I did ask the council how much of that £650 million it realistically expected to recoup (no response) but I reckon we can all guess the answer.
This, surely, is an even greater scandal than its ludicrous over-spending on computers or its failure to deal with Tony Blair’s time-bomb legislation on equal pay. No wonder the commissioners don’t plan to give up their lucrative part-time work for another three years.
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/1686/third_birmingham_city_council_commissioners_letter_published
Thursday, December 04, 2025
Police stitch-up over Maccabi Villa ban
Why is anyone surprised the West Midlands Police have been exposed for fabricating evidence to justify banning away fans from Villa Park for the Europa League match against Maccabi Tel Aviv?
After all, the force has a history of stitching people up.
Admittedly, in the past, the Serious Crime Squad was bent on locking up villains but the football fiasco is at one with the WMP’s long and ignoble tradition of falsifying evidence to deliver the verdict they first thought of.
It could just be the oxymoron of police intelligence was even worse than usual and they really did believe Maccabi Tel Aviv played a match against West Ham as described in the report leading to the ban (Chief Constable Craig Guildford blames ‘social media scraping’).
Yet they didn’t bother to check with, let alone consult, those who policed games that really did take place at Chelsea and Stoke City.
All this and a great deal more was made clear in the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee’s meeting with Mr Guildford and soon-to-be-abolished crime commissioner Simon Foster on Monday.
Also giving evidence was Lord Mann, the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, who said of the police justification for the ban: ‘I think the evidence has been fitted to try to get a solution—which is a solution, because if you do not have the Israeli fans, there is no conflict.’
After the hearing, former Dudley North MP and Villa fan Lord Austin wrote in ‘The Telegraph’: ‘It’s clear that not only have West Midlands Police failed to tackle the growing spectre of flagrant extremism on their own streets, there is legitimate concern the force is actively placating it.’
Asked by an MP if he still had ‘full faith’ in the Chief Constable, Mr Foster replied with 350 words of waffle ending: ‘The matter has not yet concluded, but to date, I am confident in, and satisfied with, the response that the chief constable has provided so far.’
At a football club, when the chairman says something like this, it’s time for the manager to start clearing his desk.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/01/police-used-fictitious-game-in-report-led-ban-israeli-fans/
After all, the force has a history of stitching people up.
Admittedly, in the past, the Serious Crime Squad was bent on locking up villains but the football fiasco is at one with the WMP’s long and ignoble tradition of falsifying evidence to deliver the verdict they first thought of.
It could just be the oxymoron of police intelligence was even worse than usual and they really did believe Maccabi Tel Aviv played a match against West Ham as described in the report leading to the ban (Chief Constable Craig Guildford blames ‘social media scraping’).
Yet they didn’t bother to check with, let alone consult, those who policed games that really did take place at Chelsea and Stoke City.
All this and a great deal more was made clear in the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee’s meeting with Mr Guildford and soon-to-be-abolished crime commissioner Simon Foster on Monday.
Also giving evidence was Lord Mann, the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, who said of the police justification for the ban: ‘I think the evidence has been fitted to try to get a solution—which is a solution, because if you do not have the Israeli fans, there is no conflict.’
After the hearing, former Dudley North MP and Villa fan Lord Austin wrote in ‘The Telegraph’: ‘It’s clear that not only have West Midlands Police failed to tackle the growing spectre of flagrant extremism on their own streets, there is legitimate concern the force is actively placating it.’
Asked by an MP if he still had ‘full faith’ in the Chief Constable, Mr Foster replied with 350 words of waffle ending: ‘The matter has not yet concluded, but to date, I am confident in, and satisfied with, the response that the chief constable has provided so far.’
At a football club, when the chairman says something like this, it’s time for the manager to start clearing his desk.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/01/police-used-fictitious-game-in-report-led-ban-israeli-fans/
Monday, December 01, 2025
Waste not, want not for high-flying diners
Birmingham Council spent £36,000 paying off tenants’ rent arrears in October which may explain why they aren’t too fussed about spending £8,895 renting a three-bedroom holiday home in Harborne.
The money spent on preventing homelessness comes from ‘the Government’ (ie taxpayers nationwide rather than just Birmingham taxpayers) and, since 2022, it totals £3.7 million.
As for the holiday home, Noormak Nights, it’s a three-bedroom apartment with some reasonable reviews on booking.com
The council is very accommodating: If you’re still looking for somewhere to rest your head, why not try one of the hotels enjoyed on the council credit card? In October, £10,500 went on hotels including £3,600 for a couple of days at Coulsdon Manor Hotel and Golf Club in Surrey.
The council’s cradle-to-grave generosity extends to funerals too. It spent £18,000 last month with its ‘preferred partner’ Wesley Media for providing audio, visual, and webcasting services for funerals bringing the total since May 2022 to £160,000.
And then there’s the real high life – a meal at 24 Stories, ‘Birmingham’s highest and most spectacular restaurant, with breath-taking views and iconic rooftop cocktail bar’. Starters range from £12 to £21, chicken’s £32, cod £33. A council credit card forked out £363 there on November 1. Nothing’s too good for the workers…
Oh, and while the bin strike is set to continue until after the next local elections, the city that can’t collect the rubbish is spending £8,867,500 buying 375,000 wheelie bins, 345,000 slop buckets and 345,000 external food caddies ‘to support Birmingham City Council's Waste Transformation Programme’.
The money spent on preventing homelessness comes from ‘the Government’ (ie taxpayers nationwide rather than just Birmingham taxpayers) and, since 2022, it totals £3.7 million.
As for the holiday home, Noormak Nights, it’s a three-bedroom apartment with some reasonable reviews on booking.com
The council is very accommodating: If you’re still looking for somewhere to rest your head, why not try one of the hotels enjoyed on the council credit card? In October, £10,500 went on hotels including £3,600 for a couple of days at Coulsdon Manor Hotel and Golf Club in Surrey.
The council’s cradle-to-grave generosity extends to funerals too. It spent £18,000 last month with its ‘preferred partner’ Wesley Media for providing audio, visual, and webcasting services for funerals bringing the total since May 2022 to £160,000.
And then there’s the real high life – a meal at 24 Stories, ‘Birmingham’s highest and most spectacular restaurant, with breath-taking views and iconic rooftop cocktail bar’. Starters range from £12 to £21, chicken’s £32, cod £33. A council credit card forked out £363 there on November 1. Nothing’s too good for the workers…
Oh, and while the bin strike is set to continue until after the next local elections, the city that can’t collect the rubbish is spending £8,867,500 buying 375,000 wheelie bins, 345,000 slop buckets and 345,000 external food caddies ‘to support Birmingham City Council's Waste Transformation Programme’.
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Doubleplus-ungood
Rachel Reeves's Budget was a nightmare but Kemi Badenoch was excellent.
Anyway, here's a short vid to accompany my new book "The Ministry of Theft". https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I2za5IKHUkc
Anyway, here's a short vid to accompany my new book "The Ministry of Theft". https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I2za5IKHUkc
Monday, November 24, 2025
The Ministry of Theft - special Rachel Reeves Budget edition
My new novel “The Ministry of Theft” is published this week and it can be downloaded for free on Amazon Kindle from Monday to Friday this week as a Rachel Reeves Budget Special. At least there’s something that might cheer you up as you count the cost of Rachel from Customer Complaints’ depredations.
Set largely in the Black Country in the very near future, it’s all over for the rich. Banned from leaving Britain. Forced to work for the maximum wage. Subject to a new wealth tax. There’s not much point in building a business any more.
When engineer Dipak Patel’s company goes bust because the Government won’t pay its bills, he doesn’t give up. Instead, he uses his expertise to help develop the State’s vastly expensive nuclear fusion programme.
When the Government finds out, Dipak’s wo
rk is confiscated by a jealous State, and his hopes disappear. He tries to get a job on the programme but finds himself accused of murder and sentenced to death.
If you’ve read “1984” or “Atlas Shrugged” (Liz Truss’s first love token to her MP lover Mark Field), it’s vaguely reminiscent of both of though nowhere near as good except it won’t detain you as long and might be mildly more amusing.
And unlike a speech by Rachel Reeves, “The Ministry of Theft” is entertaining, satirical, short and free.
(Alternatively, you can get a proper paperback version for a fiver which has the added benefit that the author may make a few pence from his endeavours)
Oh and there's a new video about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/I2za5IKHUkc?feature=share
Set largely in the Black Country in the very near future, it’s all over for the rich. Banned from leaving Britain. Forced to work for the maximum wage. Subject to a new wealth tax. There’s not much point in building a business any more.
When engineer Dipak Patel’s company goes bust because the Government won’t pay its bills, he doesn’t give up. Instead, he uses his expertise to help develop the State’s vastly expensive nuclear fusion programme.
When the Government finds out, Dipak’s wo
If you’ve read “1984” or “Atlas Shrugged” (Liz Truss’s first love token to her MP lover Mark Field), it’s vaguely reminiscent of both of though nowhere near as good except it won’t detain you as long and might be mildly more amusing.
And unlike a speech by Rachel Reeves, “The Ministry of Theft” is entertaining, satirical, short and free.
(Alternatively, you can get a proper paperback version for a fiver which has the added benefit that the author may make a few pence from his endeavours)
Oh and there's a new video about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/I2za5IKHUkc?feature=share
Thursday, November 13, 2025
Brum's cyclepaths on the road to ruin
Irony of ironies, Birmingham Council is spending another £580,000 expanding the coverage of its ‘average speed’ cameras.
You’d think this was a waste of money given it’s almost impossible to drive at any reasonable speed through much of the city thanks to its long-term campaign against motorists.
Still, you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has yet switched to bicycles, which may explain why the city is spending £4 million on its Big Birmingham Bikes Provision and £2.3 million teaching kids to cycle.
In case cyclists still feel neglected, the city’s paying £22,652 to a Mr Paul Baker to ‘conduct intercept surveys of cyclists’ and another £8,500 for ‘bicycle counter equipment’ as well as £50,000 for ‘a series of e-cargo and cycling support projects to increase cycling uptake’ and over £200,000 on air-quality monitoring.
Meanwhile, the city’s latest contracts register shows its agreed to spend at least £5.6 million on 20 mph zones, bollards and road closures, double yellow lines and ‘modal filters’ to prevent through traffic, all designed to make life difficult for drivers.
Then there’s speed limit reductions from 40 to 30 at ‘multiple locations’ which will cost £305,331.65, civil engineering works for number-plate recognition cameras are costing £169,019.88 though that’s less than the £165,220 going to Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd and a bit more than the £136,934 for a transport planning secondee from Constella Public Ltd.
Flowbird Smart City UK gets £140,000 for the repair and maintenance of pay and display parking machines ‘required by the Council to ensure that citizens are able to pay for their parking sessions in a timely and efficient manner’.
Oddly, the council is giving Guardian Angels Catholic Primary School £56,240 to buy ‘a saloon or estate car’ while Calthorpe Academy gets £36,027 and Cadbury Sixth Form College has to make do with only £23,385.20 under the same heading.
It’s bizarre the city is buying cars for colleges when it’s now planning to waste £14.3 million on cycle lanes along the A45 Coventry Road – a scheme opposed by more than two-thirds of those who thought it worth bothering to express an opinion in the face of the council’s arrogant intransigence. Birmingham: the city of cyclepaths.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-council-defends-cycle-route-32683731?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1760545372
You’d think this was a waste of money given it’s almost impossible to drive at any reasonable speed through much of the city thanks to its long-term campaign against motorists.
Still, you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has yet switched to bicycles, which may explain why the city is spending £4 million on its Big Birmingham Bikes Provision and £2.3 million teaching kids to cycle.
In case cyclists still feel neglected, the city’s paying £22,652 to a Mr Paul Baker to ‘conduct intercept surveys of cyclists’ and another £8,500 for ‘bicycle counter equipment’ as well as £50,000 for ‘a series of e-cargo and cycling support projects to increase cycling uptake’ and over £200,000 on air-quality monitoring.
Meanwhile, the city’s latest contracts register shows its agreed to spend at least £5.6 million on 20 mph zones, bollards and road closures, double yellow lines and ‘modal filters’ to prevent through traffic, all designed to make life difficult for drivers.
Then there’s speed limit reductions from 40 to 30 at ‘multiple locations’ which will cost £305,331.65, civil engineering works for number-plate recognition cameras are costing £169,019.88 though that’s less than the £165,220 going to Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd and a bit more than the £136,934 for a transport planning secondee from Constella Public Ltd.
Flowbird Smart City UK gets £140,000 for the repair and maintenance of pay and display parking machines ‘required by the Council to ensure that citizens are able to pay for their parking sessions in a timely and efficient manner’.
Oddly, the council is giving Guardian Angels Catholic Primary School £56,240 to buy ‘a saloon or estate car’ while Calthorpe Academy gets £36,027 and Cadbury Sixth Form College has to make do with only £23,385.20 under the same heading.
It’s bizarre the city is buying cars for colleges when it’s now planning to waste £14.3 million on cycle lanes along the A45 Coventry Road – a scheme opposed by more than two-thirds of those who thought it worth bothering to express an opinion in the face of the council’s arrogant intransigence. Birmingham: the city of cyclepaths.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-council-defends-cycle-route-32683731?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1760545372
Monday, November 10, 2025
The BBC a has reached its sell-by date
It’s time to do something about the BBC now we know it can’t be trusted.
Like every taxpayer-funded quango, it has its own smug opinions and woke agenda. The difference is the BBC used to be one of the world’s most reliable sources of news. Alas, no more.
So what should we do? The answer is privatisation. Make the BBC (with the possible exception of the World Service) fight for customers and money like all its competitors.
It doesn’t deserve a guaranteed income when it can tell lies and squander millions like so many other quangos.
Privatisation is easy. Just scrap the licence fee and invite viewers to subscribe instead.
The added benefit of axing the broadcasting poll tax would be that every TV licence could be automatically converted into one share in the new business. Who knows, those shares might be worth something one day? If you see Tim, tell him.
Like every taxpayer-funded quango, it has its own smug opinions and woke agenda. The difference is the BBC used to be one of the world’s most reliable sources of news. Alas, no more.
So what should we do? The answer is privatisation. Make the BBC (with the possible exception of the World Service) fight for customers and money like all its competitors.
It doesn’t deserve a guaranteed income when it can tell lies and squander millions like so many other quangos.
Privatisation is easy. Just scrap the licence fee and invite viewers to subscribe instead.
The added benefit of axing the broadcasting poll tax would be that every TV licence could be automatically converted into one share in the new business. Who knows, those shares might be worth something one day? If you see Tim, tell him.
Wednesday, November 05, 2025
ICAEW’s bonfire night bombshell
This is the text of a letter sent to the chairman of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales:
To: Peter Wyman, Chair, ICAEW Board, with copies to the Chairs of Audit & Risk Committees & ICAEW President
Letter of Concern: Formal Concerns Raised by Elected Employee Representatives Regarding the Collective Consultation Process
5 November 2025
Dear Mr Wyman,
We write in our capacity as Elected Employee Representatives for employees identified as being at risk, following the proposed restructuring announced on 6 October 2025.
In accordance with our responsibilities under the collective consultation framework, we consider it both appropriate and necessary to raise serious concerns with our employer when we believe there may be breaches of regulatory obligations or governance standards, or matters that could adversely affect employees, the organisation, or the wider public interest. Despite repeated efforts to engage constructively with Pamela Harding, Chief People Officer, as the designated lead for this process, we regret that our concerns have not been adequately acknowledged or addressed. As responsible employees and representatives, we cannot in good conscience disregard these issues, as doing so would compromise our integrity and, we believe, the best interests of ICAEW.
We wish to emphasise at the outset that we do not oppose the principle of organisational change, nor do we dispute the strategic direction or rationale underpinning the new ICAEW strategy and its associated pillars. We recognise the importance of transformation in ensuring ICAEW remains relevant and resilient. However, we have significant concerns regarding the way the consultation process has been conducted, the absence of transparent and meaningful information, the lack of clarity beneath the strategic rationale, and the resulting detrimental impact on employees and organisational integrity.
1. Lack of Transparency and Procedural Integrity
We are concerned that the collective consultation and related individual redundancy processes have not to date been conducted in accordance with the legal standards of transparency, procedural fairness, and meaningful engagement required under employment law and expected of a public interest body.
From our direct involvement, it is evident that material deficiencies were present before the formal commencement of consultation. These include:
· Inadequate preparatory work · Incomplete or inconsistent data validation · Insufficient provision of meaningful consultation with, and provision of information to, both representatives and affected employees, particularly below the Chief Officer and Managing Director levels.
In our view, the process has not met the statutory threshold for meaningful consultation, nor does it reflect the governance standards that ICAEW is expected to uphold. The absence of procedural rigour raises concerns regarding compliance with relevant statutory duties, including those under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and associated case law. We are also concerned that these deficiencies may undermine the business rationale for the proposed restructure, despite the significant investment ICAEW has made in the project.
2. Deficiencies in the Foundational Stages of the Restructure
The Discovery Process (Stage 1), intended to establish verified, up-to-date information on job roles and organisational structure, appears to have been substantially incomplete. In the absence of robust baseline data, subsequent assessments of redundancy risk and business need are inherently speculative and unreliable.
Similarly, the Role Selection Process (Stage 2) lacks the necessary clarity, consistency, and transparency. We have not received a sufficient explanation of the methodology, or criteria used to designate roles as “at risk.” In some cases, roles identified for redundancy appear to be replicated under different titles, while other roles not flagged as redundant have been materially altered or removed. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns about the credibility and fairness of the process and may render decisions made on this basis legally and procedurally unsound.
3. Inadequate Preparation and Governance
Given the scale and complexity of the proposed restructure, we believe that insufficient preparatory and governance measures were in place prior to launching consultation. This has given rise to operational and procedural issues, including:
• A significant data breach that identified all colleagues at risk, affecting 150+ employees and breaching their right to confidentiality in the consultation process.
• An apparent failure to ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to the HR1 notice, resulting in its return for resubmission.
• Poor scheduling of consultation and pillar meetings, and the lack of accurate or comprehensive meeting notes being circulated.
• The repeated rejection, without adequate justification, of reasonable requests to use Teams transcription for internal and confidential record keeping purposes, including requests made on grounds of reasonable adjustment.
• Deadlines established by HR or leadership are frequently not met, with insufficient resources within the HR team and related areas frequently cited as the primary reason.
• Insufficient training and support for employee representatives, limited to a one- hour presentation by ICAEW’s legal advisers.
• The absence of clear documentation or agreed terms of reference underpinning consultation meetings.
• Avoidable stress and fatigue experienced by employee representatives due to the above factors.
• We do not believe that a full and proper equality impact assessment has been completed, which can create significant legal, reputational, and procedural risks for the organisation.
We were informed at the outset of the consultation on 6 October that the ICAEW Board had approved the restructure and the commencement of the consultation based on the proposed structure. However, on 3 November we were advised that, following the Board meeting on 30 October, nine of the new roles proposed in that structure within the Chief Information Officer pillar would no longer proceed at this stage. We were told this decision followed further Board discussions regarding the IT roadmap, which is still being developed and agreed.
This development calls into serious question why these roles were included in the original proposals if the underlying roadmap was not yet finalised, and why the proposed structure has been altered after the Board had reportedly given its approval. Such inconsistencies raise broader concerns about the transparency and governance of the process, and about whether decisions are being made on a fully informed and robust basis. They also undermine confidence among both staff and representatives that the consultation is being conducted with the necessary clarity and due diligence
We now understand, as confirmed by Pamela Harding earlier today, that this change to the CIO pillar alone may have the effect that the consultation process needs to be restarted.
4. Insufficient meaningful consultation and pre-determined outcomes
We have concerns that procedural breaches of the requirement to consult meaningfully have impeded or undermined the collective consultation and any subsequent individual consultations. For example, it appears that the required three-stage consultative process regarding ‘pooling’ has not been sufficiently met. Furthermore, during some consultation meetings and communications, comments have been made to suggest that some issues had been pre-determined, such as the structures which would not change, thereby undermining the consultative nature and purpose of the consultation process itself.
5. Insufficient Consideration of Role Interdependencies and Wider Organisational Impact
We are concerned that the restructure has not adequately considered the operational interdependencies between job roles, nor the broader organisational impact of proposed changes. A meaningful assessment of restructuring implications requires a thorough understanding of how roles interact across departments and functions. We believe that the current approach fails to account for the potential impact of changes to “at-risk” roles on those not formally identified as such. This oversight may result in material changes to roles that are not currently flagged, which, in turn, could render them “at risk” under the principles of fair consultation and role mapping. We also believe that a broader, more inclusive consultation process is necessary to fully understand the implications of the restructure and determine whether it will achieve its stated objectives.
6. Restriction of Consultation Scope
When the need for broader workforce involvement was raised with Pamela Harding, we were advised that, for legal reasons, only employees formally identified by ICAEW as being “at risk” could be included in the consultation process. We are not persuaded that this interpretation reflects the full extent of the legal or best-practice obligations under collective consultation frameworks.
In our view, meaningful consultation, particularly in the context of a restructure of this scale, should include broader engagement with employees whose roles may be indirectly affected, or whose input could inform a more robust and inclusive process, restricting participation solely to those deemed “at risk” risks undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the consultation.
7. Misleading Information
We are concerned that, on at least two occasions, Pamela Harding seems to have misled the Representatives regarding the following:
During a collective consultation meeting, one of the Employee Representatives said that the role of a Representative in the collective consultation process appeared similar to that of a Trade Union Representative. Pamela Harding dismissed the comment as an invalid comparison, and the point was shut down as incorrect. However, on investigation, it was shown that the comparison was generally valid, leaving the Representatives feeling that they had been misled.
When the Representatives said they wanted to facilitate an informed consultation process, Pamela Harding noted that inviting certain employees at risk to attend some pillar consultation meetings was not possible, as it would constitute a breach of the procedural process. This point arose in the context that Pillar Head, David Franklin, had been allowed to have two employees who were not at risk attend a Pillar meeting because of their particular knowledge and insight, which would help ensure a productive consultation.
However, after a subsequent call with ACAS, an Employee Representative was told there was nothing in the legislation that said or implied that an employee at risk could not attend a consultation meeting of this nature if they were asked to do so by an Employee Representative (particularly when based upon a similar rationale as articulated by David Franklin, which received support from Pamela Harding). Representatives are particularly concerned by this incident, as the information they were given appears to be incorrect and undermines trust and confidence and impedes a meaningful consultation process.
These incidents raises concerns that Representatives may have been given unreliable information or misled in other respects, casting a shadow on the integrity of the consultation process more generally.
8. Detrimental Impact on Morale, Wellbeing, Trust & Confidence, and Institutional Credibility
The cumulative effect of these issues has led to a rapid and marked erosion of morale and trust among both at-risk and unaffected employees. Many staff members, at risk or not, perceive the process as predetermined, and feel excluded from a genuine dialogue regarding their futures within the organisation. The wellbeing of many staff has also been greatly impacted. The collaborative culture previously characteristic of ICAEW has been seriously adversely affected. In fact, some employees have gone so far as to describe the current culture within the organisation as increasingly toxic.
As a public interest entity, ICAEW must maintain an unimpeachable standard of fairness, transparency, and ethical governance. The manner in which this restructuring process has been managed risks undermining both internal confidence and external reputation. Recent media reports have already drawn negative attention to these matters, likely to the detriment of ICAEW’s standing.
9. Insufficient Effort to Explore Redundancy Mitigation Measures We are further concerned that the organisation has not meaningfully explored potential mitigation measures to avoid or reduce redundancies, including:
• Voluntary redundancy schemes.
• Flexible or reduced working hours.
• Job sharing arrangements.
• Retraining or redeployment strategies.
While we understand that over 100 new roles have reportedly been introduced in the UK, many appear to be concentrated in highly specialised areas such as technology, which may not be accessible to most displaced employees. Earlier and more inclusive consideration of mitigation options could have reduced both the scale of redundancies and their human impact.
We also note with concern that new/vacant roles have been advertised during the consultation period, despite being linked to a proposed organisational structure that has not yet been finalised or agreed. At the time of writing, the consultation remains ongoing, and the counterproposal stage has not yet concluded. In this context, the publication of new roles appears premature and risks undermining the integrity of the consultation process. It may reasonably be interpreted as indicative of a predetermined outcome, which is inconsistent with the legal requirement for genuine and meaningful consultation under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and associated case law.
Request for Independent Review and Corrective Action
Considering the issues outlined and the potential procedural and reputational risks to ICAEW, we must express that our continued participation as employee representatives within the current consultation framework is becoming increasingly untenable.
We submit this correspondence in good faith, with the intention of safeguarding both employees' interests and the organisation's long-term integrity.
Should evidence be required to further substantiate any of the above we would be happy to provide this information.
We therefore respectfully request that the Board initiate an urgent, transparent, and independent review of the consultation process. Such oversight would help restore fairness, confidence, and trust, and ensure that the restructure is implemented in a manner consistent with ICAEW’s ethical standards and statutory obligations.
We further request that the consultation be paused pending the outcome of this independent review, and that its findings be transparently disclosed to all stakeholders.
We would appreciate a formal response to this Letter of Concern within fourteen calendar days of receipt, given the urgency of the matters raised.
We reserve all rights to amend or supplement this Letter of Concern as appropriate. We also rely on the protections afforded to us, collectively and individually, under applicable legislation, including, but not limited to, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Yours sincerely,
Elected Employee Representatives x 14
On behalf of Affected Employees, ICAEW Email – icaewemployeerepresentatives@gmail.com
To: Peter Wyman, Chair, ICAEW Board, with copies to the Chairs of Audit & Risk Committees & ICAEW President
Letter of Concern: Formal Concerns Raised by Elected Employee Representatives Regarding the Collective Consultation Process
5 November 2025
Dear Mr Wyman,
We write in our capacity as Elected Employee Representatives for employees identified as being at risk, following the proposed restructuring announced on 6 October 2025.
In accordance with our responsibilities under the collective consultation framework, we consider it both appropriate and necessary to raise serious concerns with our employer when we believe there may be breaches of regulatory obligations or governance standards, or matters that could adversely affect employees, the organisation, or the wider public interest. Despite repeated efforts to engage constructively with Pamela Harding, Chief People Officer, as the designated lead for this process, we regret that our concerns have not been adequately acknowledged or addressed. As responsible employees and representatives, we cannot in good conscience disregard these issues, as doing so would compromise our integrity and, we believe, the best interests of ICAEW.
We wish to emphasise at the outset that we do not oppose the principle of organisational change, nor do we dispute the strategic direction or rationale underpinning the new ICAEW strategy and its associated pillars. We recognise the importance of transformation in ensuring ICAEW remains relevant and resilient. However, we have significant concerns regarding the way the consultation process has been conducted, the absence of transparent and meaningful information, the lack of clarity beneath the strategic rationale, and the resulting detrimental impact on employees and organisational integrity.
1. Lack of Transparency and Procedural Integrity
We are concerned that the collective consultation and related individual redundancy processes have not to date been conducted in accordance with the legal standards of transparency, procedural fairness, and meaningful engagement required under employment law and expected of a public interest body.
From our direct involvement, it is evident that material deficiencies were present before the formal commencement of consultation. These include:
· Inadequate preparatory work · Incomplete or inconsistent data validation · Insufficient provision of meaningful consultation with, and provision of information to, both representatives and affected employees, particularly below the Chief Officer and Managing Director levels.
In our view, the process has not met the statutory threshold for meaningful consultation, nor does it reflect the governance standards that ICAEW is expected to uphold. The absence of procedural rigour raises concerns regarding compliance with relevant statutory duties, including those under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and associated case law. We are also concerned that these deficiencies may undermine the business rationale for the proposed restructure, despite the significant investment ICAEW has made in the project.
2. Deficiencies in the Foundational Stages of the Restructure
The Discovery Process (Stage 1), intended to establish verified, up-to-date information on job roles and organisational structure, appears to have been substantially incomplete. In the absence of robust baseline data, subsequent assessments of redundancy risk and business need are inherently speculative and unreliable.
Similarly, the Role Selection Process (Stage 2) lacks the necessary clarity, consistency, and transparency. We have not received a sufficient explanation of the methodology, or criteria used to designate roles as “at risk.” In some cases, roles identified for redundancy appear to be replicated under different titles, while other roles not flagged as redundant have been materially altered or removed. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns about the credibility and fairness of the process and may render decisions made on this basis legally and procedurally unsound.
3. Inadequate Preparation and Governance
Given the scale and complexity of the proposed restructure, we believe that insufficient preparatory and governance measures were in place prior to launching consultation. This has given rise to operational and procedural issues, including:
• A significant data breach that identified all colleagues at risk, affecting 150+ employees and breaching their right to confidentiality in the consultation process.
• An apparent failure to ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to the HR1 notice, resulting in its return for resubmission.
• Poor scheduling of consultation and pillar meetings, and the lack of accurate or comprehensive meeting notes being circulated.
• The repeated rejection, without adequate justification, of reasonable requests to use Teams transcription for internal and confidential record keeping purposes, including requests made on grounds of reasonable adjustment.
• Deadlines established by HR or leadership are frequently not met, with insufficient resources within the HR team and related areas frequently cited as the primary reason.
• Insufficient training and support for employee representatives, limited to a one- hour presentation by ICAEW’s legal advisers.
• The absence of clear documentation or agreed terms of reference underpinning consultation meetings.
• Avoidable stress and fatigue experienced by employee representatives due to the above factors.
• We do not believe that a full and proper equality impact assessment has been completed, which can create significant legal, reputational, and procedural risks for the organisation.
We were informed at the outset of the consultation on 6 October that the ICAEW Board had approved the restructure and the commencement of the consultation based on the proposed structure. However, on 3 November we were advised that, following the Board meeting on 30 October, nine of the new roles proposed in that structure within the Chief Information Officer pillar would no longer proceed at this stage. We were told this decision followed further Board discussions regarding the IT roadmap, which is still being developed and agreed.
This development calls into serious question why these roles were included in the original proposals if the underlying roadmap was not yet finalised, and why the proposed structure has been altered after the Board had reportedly given its approval. Such inconsistencies raise broader concerns about the transparency and governance of the process, and about whether decisions are being made on a fully informed and robust basis. They also undermine confidence among both staff and representatives that the consultation is being conducted with the necessary clarity and due diligence
We now understand, as confirmed by Pamela Harding earlier today, that this change to the CIO pillar alone may have the effect that the consultation process needs to be restarted.
4. Insufficient meaningful consultation and pre-determined outcomes
We have concerns that procedural breaches of the requirement to consult meaningfully have impeded or undermined the collective consultation and any subsequent individual consultations. For example, it appears that the required three-stage consultative process regarding ‘pooling’ has not been sufficiently met. Furthermore, during some consultation meetings and communications, comments have been made to suggest that some issues had been pre-determined, such as the structures which would not change, thereby undermining the consultative nature and purpose of the consultation process itself.
5. Insufficient Consideration of Role Interdependencies and Wider Organisational Impact
We are concerned that the restructure has not adequately considered the operational interdependencies between job roles, nor the broader organisational impact of proposed changes. A meaningful assessment of restructuring implications requires a thorough understanding of how roles interact across departments and functions. We believe that the current approach fails to account for the potential impact of changes to “at-risk” roles on those not formally identified as such. This oversight may result in material changes to roles that are not currently flagged, which, in turn, could render them “at risk” under the principles of fair consultation and role mapping. We also believe that a broader, more inclusive consultation process is necessary to fully understand the implications of the restructure and determine whether it will achieve its stated objectives.
6. Restriction of Consultation Scope
When the need for broader workforce involvement was raised with Pamela Harding, we were advised that, for legal reasons, only employees formally identified by ICAEW as being “at risk” could be included in the consultation process. We are not persuaded that this interpretation reflects the full extent of the legal or best-practice obligations under collective consultation frameworks.
In our view, meaningful consultation, particularly in the context of a restructure of this scale, should include broader engagement with employees whose roles may be indirectly affected, or whose input could inform a more robust and inclusive process, restricting participation solely to those deemed “at risk” risks undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the consultation.
7. Misleading Information
We are concerned that, on at least two occasions, Pamela Harding seems to have misled the Representatives regarding the following:
During a collective consultation meeting, one of the Employee Representatives said that the role of a Representative in the collective consultation process appeared similar to that of a Trade Union Representative. Pamela Harding dismissed the comment as an invalid comparison, and the point was shut down as incorrect. However, on investigation, it was shown that the comparison was generally valid, leaving the Representatives feeling that they had been misled.
When the Representatives said they wanted to facilitate an informed consultation process, Pamela Harding noted that inviting certain employees at risk to attend some pillar consultation meetings was not possible, as it would constitute a breach of the procedural process. This point arose in the context that Pillar Head, David Franklin, had been allowed to have two employees who were not at risk attend a Pillar meeting because of their particular knowledge and insight, which would help ensure a productive consultation.
However, after a subsequent call with ACAS, an Employee Representative was told there was nothing in the legislation that said or implied that an employee at risk could not attend a consultation meeting of this nature if they were asked to do so by an Employee Representative (particularly when based upon a similar rationale as articulated by David Franklin, which received support from Pamela Harding). Representatives are particularly concerned by this incident, as the information they were given appears to be incorrect and undermines trust and confidence and impedes a meaningful consultation process.
These incidents raises concerns that Representatives may have been given unreliable information or misled in other respects, casting a shadow on the integrity of the consultation process more generally.
8. Detrimental Impact on Morale, Wellbeing, Trust & Confidence, and Institutional Credibility
The cumulative effect of these issues has led to a rapid and marked erosion of morale and trust among both at-risk and unaffected employees. Many staff members, at risk or not, perceive the process as predetermined, and feel excluded from a genuine dialogue regarding their futures within the organisation. The wellbeing of many staff has also been greatly impacted. The collaborative culture previously characteristic of ICAEW has been seriously adversely affected. In fact, some employees have gone so far as to describe the current culture within the organisation as increasingly toxic.
As a public interest entity, ICAEW must maintain an unimpeachable standard of fairness, transparency, and ethical governance. The manner in which this restructuring process has been managed risks undermining both internal confidence and external reputation. Recent media reports have already drawn negative attention to these matters, likely to the detriment of ICAEW’s standing.
9. Insufficient Effort to Explore Redundancy Mitigation Measures We are further concerned that the organisation has not meaningfully explored potential mitigation measures to avoid or reduce redundancies, including:
• Voluntary redundancy schemes.
• Flexible or reduced working hours.
• Job sharing arrangements.
• Retraining or redeployment strategies.
While we understand that over 100 new roles have reportedly been introduced in the UK, many appear to be concentrated in highly specialised areas such as technology, which may not be accessible to most displaced employees. Earlier and more inclusive consideration of mitigation options could have reduced both the scale of redundancies and their human impact.
We also note with concern that new/vacant roles have been advertised during the consultation period, despite being linked to a proposed organisational structure that has not yet been finalised or agreed. At the time of writing, the consultation remains ongoing, and the counterproposal stage has not yet concluded. In this context, the publication of new roles appears premature and risks undermining the integrity of the consultation process. It may reasonably be interpreted as indicative of a predetermined outcome, which is inconsistent with the legal requirement for genuine and meaningful consultation under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and associated case law.
Request for Independent Review and Corrective Action
Considering the issues outlined and the potential procedural and reputational risks to ICAEW, we must express that our continued participation as employee representatives within the current consultation framework is becoming increasingly untenable.
We submit this correspondence in good faith, with the intention of safeguarding both employees' interests and the organisation's long-term integrity.
Should evidence be required to further substantiate any of the above we would be happy to provide this information.
We therefore respectfully request that the Board initiate an urgent, transparent, and independent review of the consultation process. Such oversight would help restore fairness, confidence, and trust, and ensure that the restructure is implemented in a manner consistent with ICAEW’s ethical standards and statutory obligations.
We further request that the consultation be paused pending the outcome of this independent review, and that its findings be transparently disclosed to all stakeholders.
We would appreciate a formal response to this Letter of Concern within fourteen calendar days of receipt, given the urgency of the matters raised.
We reserve all rights to amend or supplement this Letter of Concern as appropriate. We also rely on the protections afforded to us, collectively and individually, under applicable legislation, including, but not limited to, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Yours sincerely,
Elected Employee Representatives x 14
On behalf of Affected Employees, ICAEW Email – icaewemployeerepresentatives@gmail.com
Monday, November 03, 2025
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
As Rachel from Customer Complaints prepares to squeeze the not-very-rich until the pips squeak and even Reform-led councils like Worcestershire threaten to increase tax by ten per cent, what about all the ways the public sector wastes our money?
Over the past few months, I’ve looked at various ways our cash is squandered and it never stops. The depressing truth is Birmingham’s apparently-not-bankrupt-after-all city council is so confused about money its most recent publicly-available spreadsheets seem to duplicate many of its payments.
Maybe the council is coughing up twice for the same job and hasn’t noticed, perhaps its laughable Oracle system is still not up to the job or is it user-error?
Still, for an organisation where money’s too tight to mention, it’s instructive to trawl through its most recent contracts database where you will find almost £15 million going on next year’s European Athletics Championships, £13.3 million on temporary accommodation with Metropolitan Surveyors Ltd and £499,000 on a ‘support hub for sanctuary seekers’.
Then there’s £9,800,000 to POhWER for advocacy services, ‘empowering people to have a voice and to make a real difference to their lives.’
Things are obviously not going swimmingly otherwise why spend £6.4 million with KPMG on ‘Consultancy, Support and Capacity to aid recovery and improvement plans’ or £121,200 in three months on two business analysts from PWC?
Maybe they just can’t get the staff, given they’re spending £18,900 just to recruit a new ‘executive director, city operations’.
They’re obviously worried about the birth-rate as £150,000 is going on a project to ‘deliver a bespoke Creative English programme, tailored to focus on pre-pregnancy health and wellbeing and risk factors that impact on infant mortality’.
Meanwhile it’s £19,032.83 to Birmingham City University to research the use of hookahs, bongs and shisha pipes (‘responses are completely private’), £92,960 on cricket nets in Sparkhill and £24,800 to a PR firm for ‘conceptual creative writing and content production for Birmingham City Council’s Birmingham Growth Story campaign’.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Coming soon: Birmingham’s war on motorists
Maybe the council is coughing up twice for the same job and hasn’t noticed, perhaps its laughable Oracle system is still not up to the job or is it user-error?
Still, for an organisation where money’s too tight to mention, it’s instructive to trawl through its most recent contracts database where you will find almost £15 million going on next year’s European Athletics Championships, £13.3 million on temporary accommodation with Metropolitan Surveyors Ltd and £499,000 on a ‘support hub for sanctuary seekers’.
Then there’s £9,800,000 to POhWER for advocacy services, ‘empowering people to have a voice and to make a real difference to their lives.’
Things are obviously not going swimmingly otherwise why spend £6.4 million with KPMG on ‘Consultancy, Support and Capacity to aid recovery and improvement plans’ or £121,200 in three months on two business analysts from PWC?
Maybe they just can’t get the staff, given they’re spending £18,900 just to recruit a new ‘executive director, city operations’.
They’re obviously worried about the birth-rate as £150,000 is going on a project to ‘deliver a bespoke Creative English programme, tailored to focus on pre-pregnancy health and wellbeing and risk factors that impact on infant mortality’.
Meanwhile it’s £19,032.83 to Birmingham City University to research the use of hookahs, bongs and shisha pipes (‘responses are completely private’), £92,960 on cricket nets in Sparkhill and £24,800 to a PR firm for ‘conceptual creative writing and content production for Birmingham City Council’s Birmingham Growth Story campaign’.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Coming soon: Birmingham’s war on motorists
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow! You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
The clear implication is this is another ‘extreme weather event’ caused by man-made climate change and we must brace ourselves for a return to the Middle Ages to rid ourselves of all polluting energy sources before it’s too late and we’re all doomed.
But note the use of the word ‘modern’ because these 185 mph winds are not the worst in history. Back in 1780, the Caribbean was hit by no fewer than three hurricanes in one month.
The first October hurricane ‘decimated Jamaica’s Montego Bay to the extent that scarcely a vestige remained’. The second, the Great Storm, saw winds of 200 mph, threw cannons through the air, deposited a warship on the top of a Barbados hospital and stripped bark from the trees. It left 22,000 people dead. The third hit Cuba and Barbados where 6,000 people were killed, according to historian Nathaniel Philbrick’s “In the Hurricane’s Eye”.
Philbrick says the devastation caused the Spanish, French and British navies to change their strategies, which contributed to the United States winning independence. The point being that ‘extreme weather events’ are not a modern phenomenon. Even if the climate is changing, and even if we are partly responsible for it, the weather has always been with us. It’s always been fearsome, unpredictable and beyond our control. It’s wise to be a BBC-sceptic even if you’re not a climate-change sceptic.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2022/07/the-great-hurricanes-of-1780/
Thursday, October 23, 2025
Jess and the disappearing majority
It’s very unfair making Yardley MP Jess Phillips take responsibility for the grooming gangs inquiry especially as there’s no chance it will come to any conclusion that states the bleedin’ obvious.
That would be more than Jess’s job’s worth because she will be fighting not merely the grooming-gang victims but a large proportion of her own Birmingham electorate.
Jess has seen her majority fall from 16,574 in 2017 to a mere 693 last year after a campaign of fear and intimidation against her and her supporters.
Given the state of politics in Birmingham, it seems unlikely Jess could have been given a more exposed role than that of Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls.
Quite why another grooming gangs inquiry is necessary is open to question. We all know the terrible truth. We all know nobody will do anything about it. We all know an inquiry will take ages, cost a fortune and change nothing.
And in the meantime Jess Phillips, a decent MP worthy of respect, will lose her seat to some violent non-entity.
That would be more than Jess’s job’s worth because she will be fighting not merely the grooming-gang victims but a large proportion of her own Birmingham electorate.
Jess has seen her majority fall from 16,574 in 2017 to a mere 693 last year after a campaign of fear and intimidation against her and her supporters.
Given the state of politics in Birmingham, it seems unlikely Jess could have been given a more exposed role than that of Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls.
Quite why another grooming gangs inquiry is necessary is open to question. We all know the terrible truth. We all know nobody will do anything about it. We all know an inquiry will take ages, cost a fortune and change nothing.
And in the meantime Jess Phillips, a decent MP worthy of respect, will lose her seat to some violent non-entity.
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Whoops
Region UK
Sector Public Sector, Health and Not For Profit
Offering Organisation Design
Buzzwords
ActivityQ Data analytics Organisation design Organisation effectiveness OrgMaps Target Operating Model (TOM)
The Challenge
ICAEW – the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales – is the leading professional membership organisation for accountants and finance professionals in the UK.
ICAEW was struggling to maintain it’s competitive edge, driven by a lack of member focus and an unclear value proposition. At the same time, the organisation was suffering from siloed working, outdated processes, and widespread duplication of activity, impacting efficiency and effectiveness. Recent organisation design efforts had been driven by individual preferences and had led to increased confusion and a lack of accountability, highlighting the need for an organisation-wide review using OD best practice.
Q5 was asked to review the organisation and develop a new Target Operating Model, aligned to their new strategy, and design the organisational structure for the leadership teams down to two layers below the CEO.
Our Approach
Conducted 45+ stakeholder interviews
Held three half-day workshops with the ‘Design Team’ comprised of all ICAEW leadership team members
Developed a set of design principles and identified five key value drivers to guide the OD
Analysed ICAEW’s People Data using Q5’s OrgMaps tool, deep-diving into spans and layers, tenure, salary and grading
Surveyed the whole organisation using Q5’s Organisational Effectiveness survey (76% response rate) to uncover key pain points and themes to explore further
Quantified activities for the top 60 managers in the organisation using ActivityQ to quantify and justify design decisions
Presented a series of significant design recommendations to the Steering Group, as findings emerged from our quantitative and qualitative analysis
Key Outcomes
Developed a new Target Operating Model, centred around ‘Member experience’, organised across eight key pillars, each led by an executive team member
Defined organisational structures for all roles down to N-2 (two layers below the CEO), encompassing the key leadership roles in the organisation
Identified opportunities for cost-saving, to be explored further in detailed design
Developed 30+ team charters for the key teams experiencing the most change
Developed a high-level implementation plan, including a People Impact Assessment and Comms plan
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
The enemy within
Do we really have any state secrets worth stealing? I somehow doubt it.
Our Prime Minister may have misled Parliament and so on but the idea that we have top secret intelligence the Chinese are desperate to acquire seems a bit far-fetched to me.
Yes, they nick all our innovations and then reproduce them much more cheaply (a friend is seriously tempted by a Land Rover clone at half the price of the British-made vehicle).
But once a product is on the open market, it’s difficult to stop competitors fashioning their own cut-price versions which may, or may not, be inferior to the original.
But, serious though industrial espionage may be, that’s not the issue with the collapsed trial.
It just seems unlikely there’s anything much the Chinese or any other not-enemies might covertly glean that would somehow undermine our country and our way of life.
That’s happening already without any help from China or other not-enemies of the state.
Our Prime Minister may have misled Parliament and so on but the idea that we have top secret intelligence the Chinese are desperate to acquire seems a bit far-fetched to me.
Yes, they nick all our innovations and then reproduce them much more cheaply (a friend is seriously tempted by a Land Rover clone at half the price of the British-made vehicle).
But once a product is on the open market, it’s difficult to stop competitors fashioning their own cut-price versions which may, or may not, be inferior to the original.
But, serious though industrial espionage may be, that’s not the issue with the collapsed trial.
It just seems unlikely there’s anything much the Chinese or any other not-enemies might covertly glean that would somehow undermine our country and our way of life.
That’s happening already without any help from China or other not-enemies of the state.
All that glitters with our gold
Isn’t it great to see Richard Parker, Mayor of the West Midlands, supporting local consultants to the tune of well over £800,000 in August alone?
From big companies to small digital marketing experts, Mayor Parker continues to spread our money far and wide.
He even paid £27,500 to the Trades Union Congress for its advice on adult education not to mention £72,500 for Oxford Innovation to dispense business advice to small companies.
Then there’s August’s £297,000 spent on agency staff not to mention the £38,800 which went to our very own LinkedIn for staff recruitment costs.
Oh and he’s just paid £253,000 to Wolverhampton Council to meet its Mayoral election costs which is obviously a bargain.
Probably the most exciting payment was the £650 spent marketing ‘cycling for everyone’ with Amanda’s Face Painting, Glitter and Gems. I’m sure everyone looked lovely.
https://www.facebook.com/Amandasfacepaintingglitterandgems/?locale=en_GBThe
From big companies to small digital marketing experts, Mayor Parker continues to spread our money far and wide.
He even paid £27,500 to the Trades Union Congress for its advice on adult education not to mention £72,500 for Oxford Innovation to dispense business advice to small companies.
Then there’s August’s £297,000 spent on agency staff not to mention the £38,800 which went to our very own LinkedIn for staff recruitment costs.
Oh and he’s just paid £253,000 to Wolverhampton Council to meet its Mayoral election costs which is obviously a bargain.
Probably the most exciting payment was the £650 spent marketing ‘cycling for everyone’ with Amanda’s Face Painting, Glitter and Gems. I’m sure everyone looked lovely.
https://www.facebook.com/Amandasfacepaintingglitterandgems/?locale=en_GBThe
Saturday, October 11, 2025
Brum coughs up for its own clean-air zone
While drivers entering Birmingham’s ‘clean air zone’ have paid out more than £100 million, it seems one group of motorists is exempt from the charge – the council’s own employees.
Since June 2021, they have used the bankrupt city council credit cards 2,500 times to meet the cost of the £8-a-day charge for using an old banger (£50 for HGVs, buses and coaches) in the city centre. This comes in at £388,084.
In October 2021, the council paid £19,766 in clean air zone credit card claims and the figure has been falling ever since, presumably because employees now walk to work to save the planet. However, even this August the city forked out £4,752 on its credit cards in clean air charges on employees’ vehicles.
The credit cards’ travels include £19,293-worth of Uber rides and £4,425 on taxis as well as £10,438 on Eurostar journeys and £4,500 with Virgin Atlantic.
I wonder if staff zapped by the council’s anti-car speed-limit reductions – apparently a ‘road-safety emergency’ and nothing to do with raising money – will get their fines paid by the taxpayer as well.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/36885229/speed-limits-changed-birmingham-city-road-laws/
Since June 2021, they have used the bankrupt city council credit cards 2,500 times to meet the cost of the £8-a-day charge for using an old banger (£50 for HGVs, buses and coaches) in the city centre. This comes in at £388,084.
In October 2021, the council paid £19,766 in clean air zone credit card claims and the figure has been falling ever since, presumably because employees now walk to work to save the planet. However, even this August the city forked out £4,752 on its credit cards in clean air charges on employees’ vehicles.
The credit cards’ travels include £19,293-worth of Uber rides and £4,425 on taxis as well as £10,438 on Eurostar journeys and £4,500 with Virgin Atlantic.
I wonder if staff zapped by the council’s anti-car speed-limit reductions – apparently a ‘road-safety emergency’ and nothing to do with raising money – will get their fines paid by the taxpayer as well.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/36885229/speed-limits-changed-birmingham-city-road-laws/
Saturday, October 04, 2025
Andy Burnham's chauffeur-driven car habit
Andy Burnham, the Man Who Would Be PM, certainly knows how to live like a king if his £4,000-a-month chauffeur-driven limousine habit is anything to go by.
The alleged ‘King of the North’, ‘Prince Over the Manchester Ship Canal’ and ‘Old Pretender’ racked up a £12,765 bill with Prestige Chauffeurs Ltd between April and June this year.
In the first quarter of this year, he spent £9,315 on Prestige cars (the fleet includes Volvo V90 Estates and E Class Mercedes). In the last quarter of 2024, the bill was £12,416.
Oddly, the Mayor’s ‘transparency reports’ for June to September have been ‘cleansed’ to reveal only £333,000 of ‘legal liabilities’ out of an apparent total spend of £205 million.
Still, between April and June last year, the Mayor spent £11,940 on Prestige Chauffeurs bringing the total for four (non-consecutive) quarters to £44,711.
In the most recent quarter, this spending is mostly listed as being incurred by the Mayor’s Office. In earlier spreadsheets it’s listed as ‘Officers Travel & Subsistence’ so it’s possible the cars are being used by the Head of Paperclips or some other important functionary.
Otherwise, the Manchester Mayor’s spending is on a depressing par with his counterpart in the West Midlands with tens, or hundreds of thousands, doled out to organisations which seem to have been set up with the sole aim of providing a safe space for taxpayers’ money to be thrown in the vague hope that some of their pious promises may actually amount to something.
For instance, Greater Manchester Combined Authority paid £392,000 to Change Grow Live, a health and social care charity which turned over £307 million in 2023-4 and has £43 million in the bank. It coughed up £148,000 to We Are With You, a drug, alcohol and mental health charity who boast their social media content was viewed more than a million times. And another £195,000 went to Turning Point, who provide ‘free and non-judgmental support’.
Mind you, when I saw they’d paid £46,000 to a company called Squire Patton Boggs I thought it was a joke. It turns out to be a global law firm, not a purveyor of outdoor conveniences to the gentry.
The alleged ‘King of the North’, ‘Prince Over the Manchester Ship Canal’ and ‘Old Pretender’ racked up a £12,765 bill with Prestige Chauffeurs Ltd between April and June this year.
In the first quarter of this year, he spent £9,315 on Prestige cars (the fleet includes Volvo V90 Estates and E Class Mercedes). In the last quarter of 2024, the bill was £12,416.
Oddly, the Mayor’s ‘transparency reports’ for June to September have been ‘cleansed’ to reveal only £333,000 of ‘legal liabilities’ out of an apparent total spend of £205 million.
Still, between April and June last year, the Mayor spent £11,940 on Prestige Chauffeurs bringing the total for four (non-consecutive) quarters to £44,711.
In the most recent quarter, this spending is mostly listed as being incurred by the Mayor’s Office. In earlier spreadsheets it’s listed as ‘Officers Travel & Subsistence’ so it’s possible the cars are being used by the Head of Paperclips or some other important functionary.
Otherwise, the Manchester Mayor’s spending is on a depressing par with his counterpart in the West Midlands with tens, or hundreds of thousands, doled out to organisations which seem to have been set up with the sole aim of providing a safe space for taxpayers’ money to be thrown in the vague hope that some of their pious promises may actually amount to something.
For instance, Greater Manchester Combined Authority paid £392,000 to Change Grow Live, a health and social care charity which turned over £307 million in 2023-4 and has £43 million in the bank. It coughed up £148,000 to We Are With You, a drug, alcohol and mental health charity who boast their social media content was viewed more than a million times. And another £195,000 went to Turning Point, who provide ‘free and non-judgmental support’.
Mind you, when I saw they’d paid £46,000 to a company called Squire Patton Boggs I thought it was a joke. It turns out to be a global law firm, not a purveyor of outdoor conveniences to the gentry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)