The unflattering media coverage of Britain’s Muslims

Posted on by

Tabloid image of 2 million Muslims?: Pic: Courtesy Daily Mail

Far from me to add to journalists’  woes in the middle of the Hackgate scandal but a pretty damning book recently out gives an unflattering  picture of the media’s coverage of the Muslim community.

Pointing the Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media  edited by Julian Petley and Robin Richardson, chair of the Campaign for Press  and Broadcasting Freedom and ex director of the Runnymede Trust respectively (http://bit.ly/qh4TCv ) , does not make comforting reading. I discussed it  this week on Epilogue an English language arts programme put out by the Iranian state TV, Press TV(see    http://www.presstv.ir/Program/189749.html )                             ).

Much of the analysis – with one glaring exception I  am in agreement. The  book, has a wide range of contributors including my old colleague, Hugh Muir, now the Guardian’s witty diary editor. It provides a forensic analysis  showing  much  of   the media coverage of the country’s two million Muslims equates them with terrorism or extremism  or portrays Islam as a dangerous or irrational religion.

Equally damaging is a forensic examination of tabloid scare stories (both Daily Express) showing that Lambeth Council had abolished  the term Christmas lights  or a museum in the Cheddar Gorge had banned Before Christ to appease Muslims were fabrications. Worse than that, when the authorities tried to correct such ludicrous stories, they were ignored. The broadsheets were not exempt – a story claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury was backing the introduction of Sharia law for everyone -was totally misrepresented by The Times. ( he wasn’t he had raised the issue in a theological discussion distorted by that paper)

Where I part company with  the authors is their attack on John Ware who produced a controversial programme on hidden Muslim extremism in Britain for BBC’s Panorama. His main point was that leading Muslims working with the UK government on a moderate agenda were using Arabic websites to support extremism including suicide bombers. This coincides with a similar warnings from both ex Observer journalist Martin Bright and Nick Cohen, the Observer columnist.

The book gives a lame excuse for this behaviour. If the same people give different versions of their views to meet the needs of different audiences – in this case Palestine and the British domestic public – that’s all right because all politicians do it. But I am afraid it isn’t -either leading figures should tell the Palestinians they sympathise with their cause but don’t support the bombers- or tell the Brits, they do support suicide bombers in the fight against Israel. They can have their cake and eat it. And Ware was obviously right to pursue them over this.

 That aside this book is important -including fascinating interviews with Muslims who are journalists and how they were treated by their news desks -some being  “used” to infiltrate extremist groups. As one put it: “I am a professional journalist not a professional Paki”.

Given the present climate of mistrust and the concerns about society being distorted through the prism of the media, there are valuable lessons to be learned. We need more responsible  and diverse coverage or this will be another reason why the press is dying and becoming increasingly irrelevant to more and more people.

What it does not discuss is the increasingly vitriolic and unbalanced stuff in the blogosphere – from all sides. But if the media doesn’t do its job properly and spends much of its time attacking  or fabricating stories about Muslims or indeed, any other minority,  it  is playing with fire  by creating the climate for even more vicious blogs and racial tensions.

Update: AssetCo stay of execution until July 25

Posted on by

Update : AssetCo hearing  time and place fixed on court schedule

COURT 62
Before MR JUSTICE SALES
Monday, 25 July 2011
At half past 10

APPLICATIONS
Omniway Properties Ltd v Fairlamb
Bowman v Mellor
Monty Farms SA v Agrexco Agricultural Export Company Ltd
Monty Farms SA v Agrexco Agricultural Export Company Ltd
Dr Oetker (UK) Ltd v Kenshawnapier Ltd
Rowan & Dartington & Co Ltd v Davis

COMPANIES COURT
Medipharm Ltd
In the matter of Assetco PLC
Medpharma Ltd & Nafisa ATI
Medicentres (UK) Limited

Assetco, the near bankrupt company in charge of London and Lincolnshire’s fire engines, was given until July 25 to try to stitch up a take over deal or go bust.

Mr Justice Peter Smith  at a hearing in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London rejected moves to wind it up owing £140m  to creditors or going into administration.

The company is thought to be negotiating a deal with a Bahrain bank, Arcapita, owned by Saudis, but there is only a slim chance of the deal succeeding.

Arcapita are said to be offering just 2p a share – valuing the company at £5.77m – but already the shares had dropped to 1p at the close of trading, though after hours sales boosted it to 1.30p. Both are all time lows for the company and a statement from the firm warned ” there can be no certainty of an offer for the Company being made. ”

The company is worth just £3.6m – virtually a pittance because of its huge debts.

A take over by Arcapita Bank will not be good news. Watch this space for new revelations about this firm and some disturbing stuff about AssetCo which has been sent to me by email.

Too expensive to investigate Barnet Council- the auditor’s excuse

Posted on by

Barnet Council " too expensive to investigate"

Paul Hughes, the auditor who refused a public interest inquiry into the appalling £1.3 m MetPro security staff scandal exposed by my fellow bloggers has rejected a further appeal for an inquiry into Barnet Council’s extraordinary inability to monitor  its own contracts properly.

Only last week his inaction was singled out by Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, in a speech to the annual conference of the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) – the big wigs of the accountancy profession – for  missing the scandal altogether when his firm Grant Thornton audited Barnet Council for a £373,000 fee. Instead Pickles praised Barnet bloggers, Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard among many others, for finding out  what Mr Hughes missed. ( see my old colleague Patrick Butler in Society Guardian).http://bit.ly/pujHys Now he says he can’t really investigate because it will be too expensive for the taxpayer.

In a letter to Andrew Dismore, the  former MP for Hendon and Labour candidate challenging Brian Coleman for the London Assembly next year, he says:

“In considering whether to undertake work in connection with a public interest report we are required to balance the additional cost top the taxpayer with the nature and scale of the issue. The relevant Audit Commission rates for the level of staff  that would be required for this are up to £380 an hour (engagement lead) and £210 per hour ( manager) and there is some risk that at a cost to the taxpayer we can only repeat what is already in, or will be in, the public domain.”

” Our view remains that the most appropriate response for the taxpayers of Barnet is to allow the council to complete its own review before committing to any detailed investigation work on our part.”

He does promise that he will not hesitate to use these powers ” in the public interest” when the oucnil reports back in September if the soon to be privatised management are not ” robust” on their response.

Not surprisingly Mr Dismore is not satisfied. He writes back that  he finds his reply   “very disappointing, as I know will many other Barnet residents. Can you please set out  in detail what steps you will be taking to “monitor the situation and assess the management and internal audit review work”.

So there is no change here. The bloggers who got MetPro need to keep Mr Hughes on his expensive toes. A reminder: his e-mail is paul.hughes@uk.gt.com.

Exclusive:London’s fire brigade owners to go bust owing £140m on Monday unless a take over succeeds

Posted on by

AssetCo: In a even deeper hole Pic courtesy TheScottishSun

AssetCo, the owners of London and Lincolnshire’s fire engines will go under on Monday, owing a staggering £140m to creditors unless a take over deal is agreed in the next 48 hours, a registrar’s hearing was told on Thursday evening.

In an extraordinary move in advance of Monday’s Companies Court hearing to examine thecompany being liquidated or going into administration, directors of AssetCo , lawyers, and  investment bankers sought to grab £86,000 in fees before the company went bust.

 Matthew Parfitt, lawyer acting for AssetCo, revealed that lawyers and investment bankers working on potential take over bid said they would ” down tools” or ” down pens” on saving the company unless the Registrar, Mr Briggs, validated fee payments immediately.

He  said  two directors, Tudor Davies and Tim Barrett, threatened to quit the company today (Fri) unless the court authorised payments of £25,000 for a week’s work and up to £1000 for expenses for hotel bills and meals. It was revealed Mr Davies is charging AssetCo £3000 a day for his work and Mr Barrett £2000 a day.

Mr Adam Goodison, acting for creditors Northern Bank, owed over £1.3m, revealed the figures, when he opposed any move to pay out the cash. He speculated whether there was ” panic among the professionals working for the company ” that had made them seek this order. Other creditors were sitting in the Room 412 at the High Court to observe what was happening to their money.

Mr Briggs described Assetco’s submission as ” extremely unattractive” and agreed with Mr Goodison that the company was putting ” a gun to the head of the court” by threatening to ” down tools”unless they received ” a substantial amount of cash.”

He refused to authorise the payments saying ” he hoped the gun will now not go off.” Instead he adjourned any decision to Monday’s hearing which stopped directors getting preferential treatment.

The scale of AssetCo’s woes were revealed in a submission from Mr Parfitt. They show that on Monday it could  go down owing between £117m and £140m and that money was disappearing on a daily basis.

Among the  major new creditors are state owned Halifax Bank of Scotland which is owed £12m and energy company, EDF, which suggests AssetCo may not have paid fuel bills for premises they run in London. Others include FD Direct, the Inland Revenue.

 He tried to talk up the one unnamed bidder still  said to be  in advanced talks saying the deal would mean all creditors would be paid in full ,all bank loans restructured and the company recapitalised. But his statement to the court means that four out of five potential bidders have now walked out.

Mr Briggs queried why in these circumstances the company had not give in confidence details of the bid to the court – which happens in similar cases- so the court could decide itself.

 Mr Goodison went further: ” If this deal is so wonderful why is there any need for this order and it would be unnecessary if it goes ahead.”

Then he detailed the demands for payment. They included a £25,000 flat weekly fee from a foreign investment bank which will get hundreds of thousands of pounds from a success fee if  it goes ahead and £36,000 to a firm of solicitors that has drawn up  the plan for administration.

The only people who came out well were Mr Parfitt and Mr Goodison who declined to take costs for the 90 minute hearing.

Matt Wrack, FBU General secretary said: “The demands the directors and advisors made to the court beggar belief.
“The London and Lincolnshire fire brigades do not own their fire engines and kit and are in crisis because they privatized all of their operational assets. Both brigades, the Mayor of London and Government have shown extraordinary complacency.
“The entire operational assets of both brigades could be seized by creditors and sold off in full or in part. Neither brigade appears to have any fallback plan of any credibility.
“The foolish decision to privatize all fire engines and kit leaves them sitting on the sidelines with no power over what happens to their critical operational assets.
“What was put before the court is a public scandal and makes clear in whose interest private companies work. Yet the only people making an issue out of it are the firefighters on the ground who do care about what happens and the impact it could have on public safety.
“There must be an end to privatization in any critical emergency service.”

 My comment on this is simple. Apart from this being another example of City directors blatantly trying to fill up their boots with oodles of cash at the expense of other people , questions must be asked about all the people who agreed that this company should be given multi million pound contracts. In London I am afraid this includes Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone and Val Shawcross ( he declined to give a quote to me for a Tribune article this week), Boris Johnson  and Brian Coleman, chair of the fire authority, who extended AssetCo’s role. In Lincolnshire I am told senior officials were involved with the firm and then there are all the former fire chiefs who taken jobs with them.

AssetCo shares dropped nearly 13 per cent today to an all time low of 2.22p making it  worth just £5.77m. If  on Monday AssetCo goes down, there must be  an official inquiry.

Exclusive :The district auditor’s disgraceful response to the Barnet MetPro scandal

Posted on by

Andrew Dismore: Right to complain Pic courtesy: thejc.com

The scandal over  the employment of security guards by MetPro Rapid Response is one of the worst examples of a council failing to monitor outsourcing of a service – the only one I know where an authority never even signed a proper contract. See my earlier blog at http://bit.ly/ktHKbs

 So it is  outrageous that  Paul Hughes, the  district auditor,has refused a request from Andrew Dismore, the former MP for Hendon and now Labour’s challenger to Tory Brian Coleman, for a full scale public interest inquiry into the affair.

Andrew rightly decided to report the council to the district auditor and call for a public interest report into the scandal. In his letter to Mr Hughes he pointed out:” Having been at the Council meeting when the Robocop style of security used by MetPro at the request of the Council first came under criticism, the consequent investigations have revealed a catalogue of catastrophic failures by Barnet Council and its leadership.

” This poor contracting and lack of financial control  is not a one off, as the Iceland investment fiasco and cost overruns of the Aerodrome Rd bridge confirm.

“What is especially worrying, is that the internal audit found there were inadequate systems to ensure the same thing did not happen again. The “One Council” initiative will create dozens of opportunities for more to go wrong too, with consequent mammoth losses to Barnet’s long suffering tax payers, if immediate corrective action is not taken.”

Mr Hughes reply is equally instructive:

“Where the body is already taking action to remedy deficiencies the auditor may conclude that a Public Interest Report at that point would only have limited impact and may in fact have the effect of unnecessarily undermining public confidence in a public body” (my italics).

“Therefore,whilst we consider that the matters raised in the internal audit report do represent serious internal control issues, our view is that a public interest report is not required at this time.”

He goes on to say the reasons he has refused a further inquiry is because Barnet has promised to investigate further and reform its procedure and because ” the matter is already in the public domain”.

He leaves a faint hope of reconsidering his decision if the council responds by significantly delaying reforms or the failure is found to be systemic (by the council investigating itself).

Barnet has responded. It is cutting  nine more jobs in the department supervising contracts – presumably to increase the scope for more mistakes.

 As  the leader of Barnet Labour Group, Alison Moore  says:” How will cutting posts help deliver an “effective and responsive” procurement service when the council are about to embark on complex privatisations?  I suspect this decision has more to do with saving money than sorting out the service. This is a barmy proposal.”

Andrew Dismore has challenged this pathetic decision of  the auditor whose company Grant Thornton managed to miss the MetPro scandal for three years and pass Barnet’s accounts without any question.

His letter warns: “Nothing could further undermine public confidence in Barnet’s administration, which is now at rock bottom as any objective resident would confirm and as evidenced by the Council’s own satisfaction surveying.”

 “My request for the public interest inquiry was not just in the context of Metpro, but more generally into Barnet’s contract letting and monitoring processes and checks. Only this week, the Hendon Times has carried on its front page yet another example, this time in the contracting (or lack of it) for care services, where failings at the social care centre with whom the Council failed to follow proper procedures and checks and to agree a formal contract actually led to the death of a resident with learning difficulties. Barnet are serial offenders presiding over a catalogue of procurement disasters. ”

…” there appear to be more deep seated problems with procurement and contracts that throw real doubt about the council’s capacity to take on the highly risky “easyCouncil” service outsourcing.  In the circumstances, I would invite you to reconsider your decision. ”

Mr Hughes will know that a public interest report by him could have wider implications for other councils. Given Barnet boasts it is a Tory flagship council that is blazing the privatisation trail – that is even more reason to check its public probity in this area.

Of course  there might be other reasons. I am sure Mr Hughes is a man of such probity that he  couldn’t have reached his decision in the knowledge that Grant Thornton, under new audit reforms following the abolition of the Audit Commission,, would need to persuade Barnet to continue its lucrative auditing contract. I mean he wouldn’t decide the commercial profits of Grant Thornton are more important than public probity. Or that given under the present rules Barnet will have to pay for the public interest report, that he could save the council money and avoid annoying Brian Coleman by refusing to investigate.

But you don’t have to sit back. If you, and say, all the bloggers in Barnet think Mr Hughes is wrong you can demand he reconsider. I suggest you do this to back up Andrew Dismore. You can email the auditor at paul.hughes@uk.gt.com .

A judge is likely to look sympathetically at large numbers of residents demanding the district auditor investigate  the £1.3m non contract with MetPro and Mr Hughes’ decision is subject to judicial review. I hope it won’t have to come to this.

BBC bosses: Squandering £160m of our licence fee

Posted on by

Broadcasting House: Part of the BBC's wasted £160m Pic Courtesy:vam.ac.uk

Update: Since this blog was written Chris Patten, chair of the BBC Trust, has decided to curb the very high levels of executive pay at the BBC – a first step to deal with the problem. But he will need to tackle how the managers control non journalist spending – such as IT contracts and property moves which cost licencepayers £160m.

Don’t get this blog wrong, this is not  an attack  on the BBC for wasting licence payers money on programmes. It is an attack on how the BBC has wasted  tens of millions of pounds by not controlling the money it spends on the boring bits – the money spent on property, studios and digital equipment that go to make those programmes possible.

Two recent reports from the National Audit Office – the body that on our behalf examines whether our taxes are spent wisely –  make very disturbing reading. They are into the BBC’s handling of some £2 billion of cash that is being spent on moves from  London  to Salford and Glasgow  and back to Broadcasting House in London and into cutting edge digitisation of  TV. I have written about this at length in The Journalist – the National Union of Journalists magazine  see http://bit.ly/mCekbZ .

In a nutshell they show that up to £160m was wasted on these plans because of delays, a botched private tender and exposed a  bad management attitude at the top.

As the auditors, not known for colourful phrases, said on people handling the  studio move to Pacific Quay, Glasgow :“It was sometimes difficult to engage senior staff in decision-making about their area as some seemed to either not fully understand their responsibilities or take them seriously enough.”

To put in context the money lost was enough  to run both BBC News Channel and BBC4 – or in radio terms the entire cost of running Radio Three and Four – for a year. That bad.

The reason why it matters is that the BBC is now having to make cuts to meet the government’s spending targets. Journalists are going to be sacked, programmes and parts of the BBC World Service , radio  and TV channels closed down. It can ill afford to make mistakes in its boring  bits.

I don’t mind paying a licence fee to hear Jim Naughtie and John Humphrys confronting a less than straight politician on the Today programme or  see  Ian Hislop and Paul Merton take the piss out of  Boris Johnson on Have I got News for You? I certainly am keen on Panorama exposing scandals in private care homes. I like to be entertained by comedians like David Mitchell or the lewder Russell Howard on Live at the Apollo or dramas like Case Histories, Waking the Dead etc.

I do mind paying a licence fee for some useless manager to spend millions giving IT contractor  Siemens a monopoly tender  to digitalise TV which then falls apart. Or giving some  property company £46m extra cash because  BBC managers can’t get their act together to move back to Broadcasting House in time and have to extend their leases at Bush House.

So I think it is time the corporation got a grip on this. And what are they and Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, doing. Trying to bind the hands of the very body exposing this waste from doing its job properly.

Over a  year in government nothing has been done. The head of the National Audit Office who has the wonderful name of Amyas Morse wrote to Mr Hunt last September trying to get three basic things done on behalf of viewers and listeners.  He wanted  unfettered access to information to the BBC, the right to decide what he wanted to investigate and the right to publish his findings when he and not the BBC wanted.  Hardly revolutionary stuff.

Not granted yet. So how about some interactive reaction. If you think the man from the audit office should get  his access on our behalf –  send him an email at  enquiries@nao.gsi.gov.uk  marked Amyas Morse ( as it says on their website). You think  the BBC Trust is blocking this email trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk or contact its chairman Lord Patten at pattenc@parliament.uk .

Finally you could remind Jeremy Hunt that he is supposed to have sorted this. Try jeremy.hunt@culture.gsi.gov.uk .  It is time the BBC had a metaphorical bomb put under it so it  gets its act together and doesn’t waste another £160m.

Predators stalk the corpse of London’s failing private fire firm

Posted on by

Not their vehicle but the symbolic state of AssetCo. Pic courtesy: TheScottishSun

Like encircling vultures, bidders across the globe are now looking  at the dying corpse of AssetCo, the floundering private fire company, for a cheap buy  as it shares hover around-3-5p mark.

Virtually all the bidders are potential asset strippers looking to buy cheap and then re-sell the company for a potential fast buck. Here is the full list, as far as I can glean. They have some interesting baggage as well.

Still with a bid on the table – but nowhere near the earlier offer of 14-21p a share- is Arcapita Bank  a Bahrain based company run by a wealthy Saudi.

The bank has run up big losses because of the credit crisis and lack of easy credit from financial institutions for private equity speculations. Its latest accounts (2010) post losses of $559 million. It is currently refinancing a $ 1.1 loan by raising cash from shareholders.

It makes its money in US, UK, Singapore and Far East and the Gulf by investing in firms for about seven yrs, restructuring them, and reselling them at a profit. (can be anything from clothing, aircraft manufacturers, retirement homes, dentistry and electricity).

Its most controversial investment is in Cypress Communications, a US high tech company, providing firewalls for US companies. Its bid became embroiled in a row when Arcapita’s chairman, Mohammed Abdukaziz Al Jomaih (27th wealthiest  person in Arab rich list) was accused of secretly financing Osama Bin Laden. His name is on seized list obtained in an anti-terror raid in Bosnia. He claims that he is not the person on the named list but that it is someone with the same name who is conveniently now dead.

Despite this Arcapita found itself forced to sign a National Security Agreement banning all but US nationals holding top posts in its acquired company and only US citizens able to handle sensitive network and security info. Don’t believe me. Read it at  http://bit.ly/j0z0gO .

Abdulaziz Hamad Al Joiah is vice chairman. Another Saudi Arabian. MD of Aljomaih Holding Co and director of Bank Al Bilad, Riyadh. He is chairman of Principle Insurance Holding – a Muslim car insurance company targeting 2 million Muslim drivers in UK –run on Takaful principles – a sort of Muslim mutual co-operative.

Another bidder tipped by Bloomberg is Florida based Seacor Holdings. The Fort Lauderdale company with international interests in supplying  the offshore oil industry  suffered a bad knock  in the wake of Obama’s ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil disaster. It is trading at a loss and has had to warn shareholders of potential future losses. Not a good bet.

According to City AM there are two other interested parties. Investindustrial, an Italian based company, that invests in a wide range of companies ( from chemical companies to Ducati motor bikes) from Italy, China, Thailand and USA  and again is interested in making short-term gains.

The only British firm is Consilia Partners from  Manchester. It describes itself as a turn around company  and AssetCo would join an Ipswich catering equipment distributor and an Egyptian marble company in Cairo as its other investments, according to the Manchester Evening News.

 None of this seems to me to bode well- particularly as AssetCo is facing a new creditor, the Northern Bank, with a demand for £1.3m. What seems more likely is  a serious tip-off from City Hall – that the London Fire authority may prefer AssetCo to go bust, go into the hands of an administrator, and be picked up by Capita or Serco , both mega British companies that target public services ripe for privatisation.

Otherwise the idea that the London fire brigade’s extensive fleet of engines will fall into the hands of an Arab company whose boss was once suspected of funding al-Qaeda; an US company in trouble over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill; an Italian firm with a reputation for quick fix investments or a Manchester ” turn around” firm is hardly the best news for Londoners.

Website hits top 50,000

Posted on by

Since its launch some 18 months ago I have been pleasantly surprised at the growing number of hits on this website.

 Originally intended to co-ordinate all my stories across different publications after I left the Guardian, the site has taken on a life all of its own-particularly since the beginning of this year.

My thanks to all those who have come to read the blogs and also those in search of some of the pictures used to illustrate the site. By far the biggest interest has been in a joint of roast beef – used to illustrate traditional Tory right-wing values. This alone attracted 20,000 hits.

The coverage of London Fire Brigade and the impending collapse of the private company, AssetCo attracted some 5,000 hits – with a big following among trade unionists at the Fire Brigades Union and a lot of interest from private share buying sites, as they saw their investment collapse.

Similarly coverage of Barnet Council and the scandal surrounding its bust private security company has been attracting anything from 300 to over 1,000 hits.

The launch of Armchair Audit – a blog that audits the people making the cuts – led to surge of intrerest in Brian Coleman, the Barnet councillor and chair of the London fire brigade – he has attracted over 2600 hits. And  the government’s  double standards on green issues -attracted over 900.

 Labour’s failure to tackle the interest payments on the huge loans left by Tony Blair’s donors – attracted the largest number of blog hits – now over 4000 – it helped it got links from Guido Fawkes, Conservative Home, Political Betting and Nick Robinson’s blog on the BBC. So many thanks to everyone and keep on coming.

MetPro: A damning indictment of a flagship Tory council

Posted on by

One of three names for MetPro security company

Barnet Council: A damning report Pic: courtesy Barnet Council

The official audit report on  MetPro out this week – the bust security company employed by Barnet Council caught out secretly filming bloggers- is one of the most damning indictments of council incompetence I have ever seen.

The council’s own internal auditors have admitted that it had no business  spending £1.3m on  the security firm – under various titles and guises-  without carrying out basic checks or opening up the tender to competition.

 Frankly some of the findings are so damning as it to be almost unbelievable. Not only were basic checks never undertaken but officials even paid out cash without noticing it was going into an unauthorised bank account from those specified in the contracts and with the wrong VAT number on them. The council is even in danger of being prosecuted by Revenue and Customs for overpayments of VAT as a result. In other cases, there is NO  record of payments made to the company at all.  Any small business caught doing this would find the heavy hand of  the revenue turning them over.

This scandalous state of affairs would never have come to light without the combined work of Barnet’s bloggers – with particular reference to Mrs Angry’s  heroic and diligent work on the Broken Barnet website. See  here for her full report.( http://bitly.com/i13ngn )

As she points out the auditors’ finding are appalling: “No procurement exercise had been undertaken to appoint MetPro, in accordance with the Council’s CPR.
No written contract between the Council and MetPro could be found.
There is no record of an approval and authorisation for the use of MetPro for providing security
services.
In the absence of a formal procurement exercise, we could not locate the following
documents/confirmation for MetPro, which the CPR require:
 Financial viability of the company
 Equal Opportunities Assessment
 Criminal Records Bureau checks
 Confirmation of company’s Public Liability Insurance arrangements
 Confirmation of the company’s Health and Safety registration
 Confirmation on the SIA licence status of the Company Officers
 An agreed specification which outlined the service to be provided
 An agreed schedule of rates for payment of invoices
 A process for monitoring performance of service delivery to establish if the Council was
receiving value for money ”

 It goes on: “Our sample testing of invoices highlighted there had been payments of invoices in the names of MetPro Group and MetPro Emergency Response Ltd where a valid VAT number had not been quoted. However a full review of all payments of invoices should be completed to identify all instances where a valid VAT number had not been quoted and the implications discussed with HMRC. There were inappropriate changes to bank account details on SAP Financial System resulting in payments to an unauthorised vendor – MetPro Emergency Response.”

Download  the full report at http://bit.ly/kqWmR0 .

There are much wider implications from this damning indictment of this flagship Easycare council.

With the government pushing councils to contract out – there must be proper supervision or literally millions of pounds could go astray. And there need to be questions asked of  Barnet’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, who consistently give such an incompetent shower of officials a clean bill of health. The firm can’t be value for money if it misses such a  big black hole.

Sadly the signs are in the name of  localism this could proliferate. Current plans for audit reform by Grant Shapps, the local government minister, intend to encourage a light touch.  This will be good news for incompetents and crooks across the nation but very bad news for council taxpayers everywhere.

Rough Justice : When pro bono is not pro bono

Posted on by

Rough Justice for Tony Hunt

UPDATE: Today (Tuesday) Mr Justice MacDuff intervened in the case to halt the costs hearing against Mr Hunt  this week to allow a full appeal by  his lawyers into whether he should be liable for the £500,000 bill from Hogan Lovells.

 

This week in a cramped room in Clifford’s Inn a 69 year old former magistrate will in all likelihood be made bankrupt by the legal system. The tragic story of Tony Hunt- a man wrongly convicted then cleared of a rape charge that was not brought by his accuser, AB, until seven years after the event is written up by me in the Sunday Telegraph  this week  – see –  http://bit.ly/kJH3W1 .

The “mistake” Mr Hunt made was to seek to clear his name after spending two horrific years in the sex offenders wing of Winchester gaol by seeking damages in the civil court from the woman, egged on by her woman friend and Hampshire Police, who accused him of rape.

The case at the time became a cause celebre because it was seen by women as a ground breaking ruling to prevent men acquitted of rape pursuing their ” victim” in the courts. When he lost there was general jubilation for fear that if he had won it would put off women from bringing cases against rapists.

 But now another side has emerged that is as deeply disturbing. Tony Hunt applied for compensation as you might if you have been wrongly imprisoned – but was turned by the Home Office. Evidently you need incontrovertible proof of innocence, notoriously difficult to prove in rape cases which are rarely witnessed, to get any money.

 So he reluctantly turned to the civil courts where he was advised-despite the later judgement – that he had to sue his accuser and not the police or the Crown Prosecution Service – to get any money.

But the real shock was to come after he failed. The woman who had accused him was desperate for cash to defend herself. She had gone to her MP, Julian Lewis, who, impressed by her plight contacted the solicitor general, Vera Baird, who, in turn, rang Hogan Lovells, a very expensive  firm of international City lawyers, who decided to take her case.

 They decided to act for her free of charge or  pro bono.  But just a few weeks into the case they suddenly changed their position to acting for her under a conditional fee arrangement. This made no difference to her, but it meant that if Mr Hunt lost, he would face huge bills.

This is precisely what has happened. A year after the case they are demanding £500,000  from him – knowing that he has no funds. The fees would have been nothing like this if a Winchester lawyer had taken the case anyway, but the multi-million pound company charge a lot for solicitors and engage expensive barristers. Now they have pursued him to a costs hearing – it has taken several days so far- while at the same time winning prizes and public acclaim for pro bono work, including runner-up at the prestigious Wig and Pen awards, for this case.  Hunt’s lawyers have failed to convince the judge to take account of this curious dual approach.

These are some of Hogan Lovell’s on the record explanations for this behaviour “Any money recovered from Mr Hunt will, in the first instance, be given to AB to balance the costs she incurred with her original firm of solicitors.  Any money that might be due to us would be donated to charity.  We do not profit in any way.”
 
“It is for the Costs Court to determine what are fair and reasonable expenses for Mr Hunt to pay for the defence of AB against his legal action.  Mr Hunt can appeal the ruling of the Costs Court.”
 
“The Courts have made these cost orders against Mr Hunt because he has lost at every stage. AB has done nothing but defend herself from his claims.”
 
“At any time Mr Hunt could have stopped his litigation against AB.  The choice has always been his.”
 
“The door to negotiation has always been and remains open.” 
 
“The use of a conditional fee arrangement created a level playing field for AB to defend herself against Mr Hunt.   Each is exposed to the potential of having to pay their opponent’s costs if they lose.”
  I am no lawyer but it seems to me Hogan Lovells have tried to have their cake and eat it. They have received public plaudits for their pro bono work but are now going to bankrupt the guy under  an arrangement they haven’t actually highlighted during the Wig and Pen awards ceremony.They admit they don’t need the money, even AB , I am told, is not bankrupt. And if we follow their argument, Mr Hunt, had no right to defend himself once he realised that he was up against expensive solicitors, if he couldn’t afford the bills. Rough justice indeed.