Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog March 2012

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018

31 March (Part 1) - Tuckley dissected

Will TuckleyIt doesn’t matter how much Bexley council is criticised, there is nearly always someone who thinks things could have been taken further. Will Tuckley’s Guardian article is such a case. I try to limit my time on Bonkers to a couple of hours around dawn and no more than another hour or so in the early afternoon and an unplanned extra such as the third entry of 29 March is likely to be written in a hurry. Out of the blue a reader provided this more extensive critique of Tuckley’s flight of fancy which I pass on for all to see…

(Tuckley’s comments in oblique text.)


• I was unprepared for the rigid and unhelpful methodology applied [by the Probation Service Inspectors].
You can be absolutely certain of this if they questioned aspects of Bexley council’s strategy and policies! Criticism is never appreciated by Bexley. You [Bonkers] can testify personally to that!

• Proposals being developed by the National Fraud Authority, which will require us to publish an annual report on significant frauds we have discovered. Combating fraud is an essential part of what we do; we regularly prosecute and are proactive in publicising this action as a deterrent.

So long as it does not involve any staff at the Council, eh? Regularly? What is that based on? Where is all of this publication then? Good luck trying to find that on the council’s website!

• Surely if we are the right body to lead the renaissance of public health – and our unique democratic accountability is part of the argument for this – we can be trusted to get on with the job?
Yeah, right. They would never sweep anything under the carpet, or just plain make it up would they? Unique democratic accountability! Tell that to the 2,219 residents who signed the petition questioning the council’s policy around Will’s own salary. Can anybody forget that that was deemed somehow misleading and inappropriate - without a shred of evidence to substantiate the claims! Oh I trust them all right; to just make it up as they go along and expect residents to deferentially accept whatever nonsense is flavour of the month!

• But the future must lie in limiting inspection to the small number of things that really matter to central government, asking teams to focus on results rather than the process.
Don’t you just love his ends justify the means argument. Always popular amongst despots and all those with their own narrow agenda.

• Demonstrating that we can dissect our own services and be more objective than a regulator is a principal plank in the argument. Both of the peer teams that visited Bexley in the past year, looking at services for children and older people, have added considerable value – partly because they have been suitably, sometimes uncomfortably, challenging.
Funny how it was the regulator – or peer teams - being uncomfortably challenging that had the effect on Bexley. So a light touch regulation cannot work, by his own admission, and he knows it!

• In Bexley we developed our own local performance arrangements.
And what a surprise all that they tell anybody is how wonderful the Council is!!

• We have abandoned redundant strategies and reduced the number of partnership bodies.
Seems a funny way to embrace the unique democratic accountability indicated earlier but then this is Bexley council we are talking about and any old tripe will do for Will and his cronies!!!

You just could not make up this sort of rubbish!!! The man is a total nit-wit. Still what can you expect for a mere £200K or so? Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Or am I getting confused here? Bexley residents pay through the nose and still get a monkey.


Thanks for that; it’s nice to see readers paying attention to what goes on in the dictatorship that is Bexley and can recognise hypocrisy and hog-wash when they see it.

 

Return to the top of this page