Ex-Swindon Council leader is slammed for town Wi-Fi flop

Swindon Advertiser: Rikki Hunt and Rod Bluh at the launch of the project Rikki Hunt and Rod Bluh at the launch of the project

A REPORT has heavily criticised former Council Leader Rod Bluh (Con, Old Town) over decisions resulting in the town’s failed Wi-Fi project.

A task group was set up to examine why £400,000 of public money was loaned to Wi-Fi firm Digital City which has not yet been paid back, and has presented its findings.

It highlights a whole host of problems with the process, from the lack of information given to councillors through to basic errors in rolling out the scheme.

However, Coun Bluh has defended himself saying that while he accepts the report he stands by the decisions made at the time using the information available.

The report says that while the process was legal, too much information was kept out of the public eye leading to an unclear process.

It said: “A decision-making process was used which was lawful but which prevented the regular checks and balances of the council from taking place.

“This led to a decision being taken that the Task Group believes was not in the best interest of the council.”

It goes on to say: “The then Leader of the Council selected the decision-making route on the grounds of commercial confidentiality and, at the time, prevented a wider critical appraisal of the project taking place.”

In 2010 the council looked to make Swindon the first town in the UK to have full Wi-Fi coverage and loaned the money to a company, Digital City UK, which was headed by Rikki Hunt.

Digital City was set up to provide coverage for Swindon and Highworth.

But only Highworth was covered, a decision also slammed in the report as there were not enough businesses in the village to make it profitable.

Coun Bluh said: “I accept the report but I will make the same point I did to the Task Group and that is I took advice at the time.

“I spoke with our legal adviser and had concerns about confidentiality so went down the route we did.

“It is easy in hindsight but at the time these decisions were made with the information available before the project got off the ground. If it was an error of judgement then I accept that.”

Further criticism was aimed at the amount of trust which was placed in Rikki Hunt, who lacked the technical expertise needed, and that not enough evidence was sought about potential investors in the scheme before £250,000 of the amount was given.

This money was due to grow the business but was instead used to pay off existing debts.

“When you are in partnership with someone then you need to trust them,” said Coun Bluh.

“Rikki was a partner of the council at the time so we trusted his judgement.”

The report is being seen by long-term critics of the scheme as justification for what they have always said was a flawed scheme.

Businessman Des Morgan said: “This report vindicates the criticism of the project by members of the public.

“It demonstrates how it was ill conceived from the start and very badly put into practice.”

Rikki Hunt was unavailable to comment yesterday.

The report is due to be put before the council’s scrutiny committee next Wednesday at a public meeting.

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:05am Fri 17 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Political cow dung
Political cow dung Empty Car Park

7:27am Fri 17 Jan 14

Localboy86 says...

Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were
Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were Localboy86

8:28am Fri 17 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

I am sure it will not be a problem for re-election
I am sure it will not be a problem for re-election A.Baron-Cohen

8:49am Fri 17 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I am sure it will not be a problem for re-election
That is because Blur has already said he won't stand at the next election for his seat.

He's too busy making money from councils as a consultant (at least that is what he was reported to be going on to do; consultant to the public sector).

Remind me, how many of his "new" school designs have been sold; the ones that were going to revolutionise school building across the country. Is that design even being considered for the school at Tadpole Farm?

Misconduct in public office should be properly investigated against Blur.

Down vote away certain "Tories can do no wrong" readers!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I am sure it will not be a problem for re-election[/p][/quote]That is because Blur has already said he won't stand at the next election for his seat. He's too busy making money from councils as a consultant (at least that is what he was reported to be going on to do; consultant to the public sector). Remind me, how many of his "new" school designs have been sold; the ones that were going to revolutionise school building across the country. Is that design even being considered for the school at Tadpole Farm? Misconduct in public office should be properly investigated against Blur. Down vote away certain "Tories can do no wrong" readers! LordAshOfTheBrake

9:30am Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves. ChannelX

9:36am Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Anyone with even a modicum of IT knowledge and skill would have been able to tell Mr. Bluh that the project would never get off the ground. It might have stood a better chance had the WiFi been started in central Swindon rather than Highworth, but I very much doubt it.
Anyone with even a modicum of IT knowledge and skill would have been able to tell Mr. Bluh that the project would never get off the ground. It might have stood a better chance had the WiFi been started in central Swindon rather than Highworth, but I very much doubt it. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

9:42am Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

9:47am Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was. ChannelX

9:54am Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

10:31am Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it. ChannelX

10:34am Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:01am Fri 17 Jan 14

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
Coun Bluh has defended himself saying . . . he stands by the decisions made at the time using the information available.
UNQUOTE

Then he is an idiot.

There was never going to be any requirement for this scheme.
The Mobile Networks provide fast, reliable mobile broadband for a very small fee.
Home broadband routers provide fast, reliable home WiFi for a very small fee.

The council's free system would inevitably be slow and unreliable. No-one would use it or want it.

Predictable fail. Rod should pay the money back himself if it can't be found elsewhere.
QUOTE Coun Bluh has defended himself saying . . . he stands by the decisions made at the time using the information available. UNQUOTE Then he is an idiot. There was never going to be any requirement for this scheme. The Mobile Networks provide fast, reliable mobile broadband for a very small fee. Home broadband routers provide fast, reliable home WiFi for a very small fee. The council's free system would inevitably be slow and unreliable. No-one would use it or want it. Predictable fail. Rod should pay the money back himself if it can't be found elsewhere. The Real Librarian

11:26am Fri 17 Jan 14

swindondad says...

Just one question about the article;-

Who wrote / commissioned this report?
Just one question about the article;- Who wrote / commissioned this report? swindondad

11:33am Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day? ChannelX

11:40am Fri 17 Jan 14

Grimwald says...

Either Rod bluh is a very bad accountant or he is criminally negligent, which is it?
Either Rod bluh is a very bad accountant or he is criminally negligent, which is it? Grimwald

11:43am Fri 17 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Jobs for the boys.
After the mess Hunt made of STFC he shouldn't have had a penny to use let alone £400,000.
They should be paying it back!
Jobs for the boys. After the mess Hunt made of STFC he shouldn't have had a penny to use let alone £400,000. They should be paying it back! Davey Gravey

12:24pm Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Grimwald wrote:
Either Rod bluh is a very bad accountant or he is criminally negligent, which is it?
One thing is for sure is that he knows nothing about technology.
[quote][p][bold]Grimwald[/bold] wrote: Either Rod bluh is a very bad accountant or he is criminally negligent, which is it?[/p][/quote]One thing is for sure is that he knows nothing about technology. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

12:38pm Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

12:48pm Fri 17 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Localboy86 wrote:
Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were
I couldn't agree more, but sadly nothing will change as it will just be different set of idiots running the council in future. Councillors don't have to have any ability, knowledge or experience to do the job and it shows and council officers are so out of date with their working practices their policies and procedures are still in Latin!!!
They should all be personally accountable for their decisions and council officers should be on performance related pay to ensure we get what we pay for. Of course that will never happen as the ones making the decision would have the most to lose! As you say, old news that everyone else but those involved could see from the outset.
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more, but sadly nothing will change as it will just be different set of idiots running the council in future. Councillors don't have to have any ability, knowledge or experience to do the job and it shows and council officers are so out of date with their working practices their policies and procedures are still in Latin!!! They should all be personally accountable for their decisions and council officers should be on performance related pay to ensure we get what we pay for. Of course that will never happen as the ones making the decision would have the most to lose! As you say, old news that everyone else but those involved could see from the outset. house on the hill

12:50pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
That's it.
Anyone who points out how ridiculous this ego fueled stupid waste of taxpayers money was, has to be trying to gain vites for Labour.

Couldn't be that they're annoyed by the rank stupidity of the venture.

Does it make a loud pop noise when you pull your head from your posterior?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]That's it. Anyone who points out how ridiculous this ego fueled stupid waste of taxpayers money was, has to be trying to gain vites for Labour. Couldn't be that they're annoyed by the rank stupidity of the venture. Does it make a loud pop noise when you pull your head from your posterior? Empty Car Park

1:21pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
That's it.
Anyone who points out how ridiculous this ego fueled stupid waste of taxpayers money was, has to be trying to gain vites for Labour.

Couldn't be that they're annoyed by the rank stupidity of the venture.

Does it make a loud pop noise when you pull your head from your posterior?
Stop ruining threads.

Nobody is interested in your bizarre person vendettas.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]That's it. Anyone who points out how ridiculous this ego fueled stupid waste of taxpayers money was, has to be trying to gain vites for Labour. Couldn't be that they're annoyed by the rank stupidity of the venture. Does it make a loud pop noise when you pull your head from your posterior?[/p][/quote]Stop ruining threads. Nobody is interested in your bizarre person vendettas. ChannelX

1:29pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist. ChannelX

1:48pm Fri 17 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

In fairness to Rod Bluh and Rikki Hunt there were other people involved.

What about the council officer who did not know he was a Director or the senior councillor who has been a member of the board of the company for some time.

It is easy to put it all onto two people but others were very involved but would not give out any information.

How many times were we told that a third party was interested but nothing could be said for a couple of weeks?

And finally what was the role of the director of finance in all this, surely he had to sanction the payments?
In fairness to Rod Bluh and Rikki Hunt there were other people involved. What about the council officer who did not know he was a Director or the senior councillor who has been a member of the board of the company for some time. It is easy to put it all onto two people but others were very involved but would not give out any information. How many times were we told that a third party was interested but nothing could be said for a couple of weeks? And finally what was the role of the director of finance in all this, surely he had to sanction the payments? trolley dolley

1:51pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Ph1lxx says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
So Rod Bluh stands by the decisions he made!
Rod is a Charyered Accountant - if he made decisions with the lack of care in his practice he would be removed from the register.

In this case £400k of public money was p****d up the wall without Rod doing even the basic homework and worse still IN SECRET. Rod then proceeded to rubbish anyone who dared to question the viability of the project.

The only person who gained out of this whole sorry fiasco is the bankrupt clown pictured with Rod - he was drawing £12,500 a month, and he did sod all for it.

This isn't political Channel X it's personal - Rod is still a Councillor, too damned thick skinned to do the decent thing and resign now.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist.[/p][/quote]So Rod Bluh stands by the decisions he made! Rod is a Charyered Accountant - if he made decisions with the lack of care in his practice he would be removed from the register. In this case £400k of public money was p****d up the wall without Rod doing even the basic homework and worse still IN SECRET. Rod then proceeded to rubbish anyone who dared to question the viability of the project. The only person who gained out of this whole sorry fiasco is the bankrupt clown pictured with Rod - he was drawing £12,500 a month, and he did sod all for it. This isn't political Channel X it's personal - Rod is still a Councillor, too damned thick skinned to do the decent thing and resign now. Ph1lxx

2:09pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Every time Rod Bluh is mentioned I cannot help but think about that god awful Christmas tree on the magic roundabout he championed?
One of the most embarrassing and stupid things i've ever seen in the town
Every time Rod Bluh is mentioned I cannot help but think about that god awful Christmas tree on the magic roundabout he championed? One of the most embarrassing and stupid things i've ever seen in the town Davey Gravey

2:14pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Ph1lxx wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
So Rod Bluh stands by the decisions he made!
Rod is a Charyered Accountant - if he made decisions with the lack of care in his practice he would be removed from the register.

In this case £400k of public money was p****d up the wall without Rod doing even the basic homework and worse still IN SECRET. Rod then proceeded to rubbish anyone who dared to question the viability of the project.

The only person who gained out of this whole sorry fiasco is the bankrupt clown pictured with Rod - he was drawing £12,500 a month, and he did sod all for it.

This isn't political Channel X it's personal - Rod is still a Councillor, too damned thick skinned to do the decent thing and resign now.
Surely it's up to the electorate to democratically decide whether or not they want Bluh, or a different candidate, to represent them?

Not overly sure how being an accountant might mean he should know about public wi-fi projects, but it seems obvious that he was very much taken in by the person he'd appointed to oversee and 'deliver' the project.

Very poor judgement indeed.
[quote][p][bold]Ph1lxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist.[/p][/quote]So Rod Bluh stands by the decisions he made! Rod is a Charyered Accountant - if he made decisions with the lack of care in his practice he would be removed from the register. In this case £400k of public money was p****d up the wall without Rod doing even the basic homework and worse still IN SECRET. Rod then proceeded to rubbish anyone who dared to question the viability of the project. The only person who gained out of this whole sorry fiasco is the bankrupt clown pictured with Rod - he was drawing £12,500 a month, and he did sod all for it. This isn't political Channel X it's personal - Rod is still a Councillor, too damned thick skinned to do the decent thing and resign now.[/p][/quote]Surely it's up to the electorate to democratically decide whether or not they want Bluh, or a different candidate, to represent them? Not overly sure how being an accountant might mean he should know about public wi-fi projects, but it seems obvious that he was very much taken in by the person he'd appointed to oversee and 'deliver' the project. Very poor judgement indeed. ChannelX

2:32pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Ph1lxx says...

As a half decent accountant, you are trained to read, understand and pull apart a business plan. In this case a first year accountancy student would have rubbished the plan.
The second phase of the loan to Digital City was very poorly risk assessed, any half decent accountant would have asked the pretinant questions.

I'm sure that come election time Rod will be given the boot, BUT if the man had any sense of honour and decency after the total balls uo he would feel bound to resign immediately.
As a half decent accountant, you are trained to read, understand and pull apart a business plan. In this case a first year accountancy student would have rubbished the plan. The second phase of the loan to Digital City was very poorly risk assessed, any half decent accountant would have asked the pretinant questions. I'm sure that come election time Rod will be given the boot, BUT if the man had any sense of honour and decency after the total balls uo he would feel bound to resign immediately. Ph1lxx

3:10pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Al Smith says...

In Swindon we have not only two colleges that teach computing, the Technology Strategy Board, the Research Councils but also electronics and telecommunication firms!

These organisations would all have experts that I'm sure the leader of the council could talk to personally and get some advice, something along the lines of "Hello Mr Electronics/Computin
g expert, I'm Rod, leader of Swindon Council, do you think you could implement Swindon wide WiFi for £400,000? Hello? Is that you laughing? Hello?".
In Swindon we have not only two colleges that teach computing, the Technology Strategy Board, the Research Councils but also electronics and telecommunication firms! These organisations would all have experts that I'm sure the leader of the council could talk to personally and get some advice, something along the lines of "Hello Mr Electronics/Computin g expert, I'm Rod, leader of Swindon Council, do you think you could implement Swindon wide WiFi for £400,000? Hello? Is that you laughing? Hello?". Al Smith

3:10pm Fri 17 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
I know what 400k does and doesn't buy. Stating that it's "only £2 for every resident in the borough. Interesting, suggests you're happy for every man, woman and child (including babies) to have to pay for this vanity project because it's only a small amount of money per head.

Interestingly, if that equivalence is true and you look at it that way, it's roughly equivalent to just over 0.5 percent of council tax for an average family of 4 in a band D properly (£1369 per year, 8 pound cost for the family). To cover that cost without cutting the cost of some other service would require an equivalent increase in council tax - and that's assuming that every household pays council tax. They don't, which makes the cost per head of actual council tax payers higher.

Many people are complaining about council tax increasing by 1-2%. Half of 1% could have been avoided entirely with a simple bit of due diligence on this project.

Sack the useless CE too and you could save the equivalent of almost 1% of the average council tax.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist.[/p][/quote]I know what 400k does and doesn't buy. Stating that it's "only £2 for every resident in the borough. Interesting, suggests you're happy for every man, woman and child (including babies) to have to pay for this vanity project because it's only a small amount of money per head. Interestingly, if that equivalence is true and you look at it that way, it's roughly equivalent to just over 0.5 percent of council tax for an average family of 4 in a band D properly (£1369 per year, 8 pound cost for the family). To cover that cost without cutting the cost of some other service would require an equivalent increase in council tax - and that's assuming that every household pays council tax. They don't, which makes the cost per head of actual council tax payers higher. Many people are complaining about council tax increasing by 1-2%. Half of 1% could have been avoided entirely with a simple bit of due diligence on this project. Sack the useless CE too and you could save the equivalent of almost 1% of the average council tax. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

3:18pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ManWithCar says...

What is staggering to me (as a few other posters have already pointed out) is that the whole concept got as far as it did, without any question as to the validity of what was being proposed! A widescale wifi deployment could only really work in an area without existing wireless infrastructure or capability - both 802.11b/g/n and 3G. How on earth would you support a whole town trying to connect to a single network, downloading content, streaming content etc when you have thousands of conflicting sources from routers and phones? Not to mention the thousands of contracts people are tied into with Virgin, BT, TalkTalk, PlusNet etc? Why would anyone pay for this? Did no one really turn round to Rod Bluh and say "Whisky Tango Foxtrot?" (or similar)

I fail to see how a supposedly carefully-audited entity such as a Borough Council can contemplate such an idiotic proposal, let alone spend money on developing it.
What is staggering to me (as a few other posters have already pointed out) is that the whole concept got as far as it did, without any question as to the validity of what was being proposed! A widescale wifi deployment could only really work in an area without existing wireless infrastructure or capability - both 802.11b/g/n and 3G. How on earth would you support a whole town trying to connect to a single network, downloading content, streaming content etc when you have thousands of conflicting sources from routers and phones? Not to mention the thousands of contracts people are tied into with Virgin, BT, TalkTalk, PlusNet etc? Why would anyone pay for this? Did no one really turn round to Rod Bluh and say "Whisky Tango Foxtrot?" (or similar) I fail to see how a supposedly carefully-audited entity such as a Borough Council can contemplate such an idiotic proposal, let alone spend money on developing it. ManWithCar

3:40pm Fri 17 Jan 14

FLOGGITLAD says...

the only good thing to come out of this, is that if ever the council hire this plonker for financial reasons, then the public should be able to say go away and quote this fiasco as reason...
the only good thing to come out of this, is that if ever the council hire this plonker for financial reasons, then the public should be able to say go away and quote this fiasco as reason... FLOGGITLAD

4:34pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
I know what 400k does and doesn't buy. Stating that it's "only £2 for every resident in the borough. Interesting, suggests you're happy for every man, woman and child (including babies) to have to pay for this vanity project because it's only a small amount of money per head.

Interestingly, if that equivalence is true and you look at it that way, it's roughly equivalent to just over 0.5 percent of council tax for an average family of 4 in a band D properly (£1369 per year, 8 pound cost for the family). To cover that cost without cutting the cost of some other service would require an equivalent increase in council tax - and that's assuming that every household pays council tax. They don't, which makes the cost per head of actual council tax payers higher.

Many people are complaining about council tax increasing by 1-2%. Half of 1% could have been avoided entirely with a simple bit of due diligence on this project.

Sack the useless CE too and you could save the equivalent of almost 1% of the average council tax.
I'm all for cutting public sector jobs and spending, so I agree with you.

But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist.[/p][/quote]I know what 400k does and doesn't buy. Stating that it's "only £2 for every resident in the borough. Interesting, suggests you're happy for every man, woman and child (including babies) to have to pay for this vanity project because it's only a small amount of money per head. Interestingly, if that equivalence is true and you look at it that way, it's roughly equivalent to just over 0.5 percent of council tax for an average family of 4 in a band D properly (£1369 per year, 8 pound cost for the family). To cover that cost without cutting the cost of some other service would require an equivalent increase in council tax - and that's assuming that every household pays council tax. They don't, which makes the cost per head of actual council tax payers higher. Many people are complaining about council tax increasing by 1-2%. Half of 1% could have been avoided entirely with a simple bit of due diligence on this project. Sack the useless CE too and you could save the equivalent of almost 1% of the average council tax.[/p][/quote]I'm all for cutting public sector jobs and spending, so I agree with you. But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't. ChannelX

5:52pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Jeremy Hilary Boob says...

Note to the Adver:

Your editor's comment today is shameful. For a newspaper which "stands up for Swindon" you have ducked and dodged this issue for years, presumably because it goes against your backing of the local Tories and/or your childish belief (now adopted by the council and the MPs) that anything criticising Swindon - however justified - is "talking the town down".

When this scheme was first announced you were bigging it up massively. It was almost a throwback to a decade or so ago when anything mediocre happening in the town was "another boost for city status." And look where that ended up.

You should have been questioning this much earlier. Rikki Hunt is someone with a far from stellar track record, and there were basic mistakes made all the way along. And that's before we get to asking whether it's actually the council's job to provide wi-fi, Garry "I didn't know I was a director, honestly" Perkins' role, the complete flop this has been or the council's continued insistence of muddying the waters with its new scheme which has absolutely nothing to do with the Digital City one. Your continued allowance of the likes of Bluh and Perkins to somehow link the two clearly shows where your loyalties lie.

Criticising this scheme was never "talking the town down". Nor was it a purely a political matter which you seem to believe - loads of people voting Tory thought it was a waste of money as well.

And neither was it confusing:

SBC had £400k. It invested it in a company run by Rikki Hunt and that investment was supposedly overseen by Garry Perkins.

Now SBC has £0k. Therefore it wasted £400k on a scheme that didn't work, wasn't necessary (not least because Swindon is highly cabled and the BT exchanges are far from being the worst in the country) and was a shambles from start to finish.

Instead of repeatedly parroting PR guff from Bluh, Perkins and Hunt you should have been standing up for the people of Swindon when it was apparent this was going of the rails.

I'm not "embarrassed" that SBC's wifi scheme was a fiasco. The town's enough of a joke already and it's just another example of SBC getting ludicrous ideas and its leaders arrogantly dismissing criticism.

What annoys me is that £400k of our money was chucked away and the local newspaper stood by and said virtually nothing about it until it was far too late.
Note to the Adver: Your editor's comment today is shameful. For a newspaper which "stands up for Swindon" you have ducked and dodged this issue for years, presumably because it goes against your backing of the local Tories and/or your childish belief (now adopted by the council and the MPs) that anything criticising Swindon - however justified - is "talking the town down". When this scheme was first announced you were bigging it up massively. It was almost a throwback to a decade or so ago when anything mediocre happening in the town was "another boost for city status." And look where that ended up. You should have been questioning this much earlier. Rikki Hunt is someone with a far from stellar track record, and there were basic mistakes made all the way along. And that's before we get to asking whether it's actually the council's job to provide wi-fi, Garry "I didn't know I was a director, honestly" Perkins' role, the complete flop this has been or the council's continued insistence of muddying the waters with its new scheme which has absolutely nothing to do with the Digital City one. Your continued allowance of the likes of Bluh and Perkins to somehow link the two clearly shows where your loyalties lie. Criticising this scheme was never "talking the town down". Nor was it a purely a political matter which you seem to believe - loads of people voting Tory thought it was a waste of money as well. And neither was it confusing: SBC had £400k. It invested it in a company run by Rikki Hunt and that investment was supposedly overseen by Garry Perkins. Now SBC has £0k. Therefore it wasted £400k on a scheme that didn't work, wasn't necessary (not least because Swindon is highly cabled and the BT exchanges are far from being the worst in the country) and was a shambles from start to finish. Instead of repeatedly parroting PR guff from Bluh, Perkins and Hunt you should have been standing up for the people of Swindon when it was apparent this was going of the rails. I'm not "embarrassed" that SBC's wifi scheme was a fiasco. The town's enough of a joke already and it's just another example of SBC getting ludicrous ideas and its leaders arrogantly dismissing criticism. What annoys me is that £400k of our money was chucked away and the local newspaper stood by and said virtually nothing about it until it was far too late. Jeremy Hilary Boob

6:03pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer says
But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't.


Maybe you should go round giving everyone their £2 back then.

Why are you swamping the threads with quotes on quotes when you are perfectly capable of selecting the individual sentence as I have done here?

It's because you want to create a smoke screen and deter people from making deserved remarks about your colleague in the council
Ringer says [quote]But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't.[/quote] Maybe you should go round giving everyone their £2 back then. Why are you swamping the threads with quotes on quotes when you are perfectly capable of selecting the individual sentence as I have done here? It's because you want to create a smoke screen and deter people from making deserved remarks about your colleague in the council Empty Car Park

6:44pm Fri 17 Jan 14

AdderB says...

I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project.

Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune.

The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.
I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project. Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune. The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle. AdderB

8:22pm Fri 17 Jan 14

John Smith II says...

Coun. Bluh is highly unlikely to go down in history as one of the greatest leaders Swindon ever had...

Assuming that this scheme had come fully to fruition, exactly what benefit would it have delivered to Swindon? Was it necessary over and above the hard-wired Broadband and mobile 3G systems available at the time of the decision, would it have delivered anything over and above forthcoming 4G mobile coverage? Or was it a vanity project from an organisation that should have spent the time and resources that were directed at it on more basic, but important tasks such as clearing blocked drains, collecting refuse and recycling and caring for the vulnerable in society?

Coun. Bluh I believe that you will go down as one of Swindon's embarrassments, not as a great upstanding leader of the town.
Coun. Bluh is highly unlikely to go down in history as one of the greatest leaders Swindon ever had... Assuming that this scheme had come fully to fruition, exactly what benefit would it have delivered to Swindon? Was it necessary over and above the hard-wired Broadband and mobile 3G systems available at the time of the decision, would it have delivered anything over and above forthcoming 4G mobile coverage? Or was it a vanity project from an organisation that should have spent the time and resources that were directed at it on more basic, but important tasks such as clearing blocked drains, collecting refuse and recycling and caring for the vulnerable in society? Coun. Bluh I believe that you will go down as one of Swindon's embarrassments, not as a great upstanding leader of the town. John Smith II

8:23pm Fri 17 Jan 14

somwal25 says...

Rod Bluh should now be investigated by the councils standards committee on the grounds of misconduct by misleading both the public and full council.If proven then he should resign along with his colleague the mayor but this wont happen as this would mean the tories lose control of the council.
Rod Bluh should now be investigated by the councils standards committee on the grounds of misconduct by misleading both the public and full council.If proven then he should resign along with his colleague the mayor but this wont happen as this would mean the tories lose control of the council. somwal25

8:29pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Jeremy Hilary Boob says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution.

Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders.

It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.
Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me!
It's around £2 for every resident in the borough.

Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I didn't suggest they did.

I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective.

Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted.

In fact, several people on here actively support it.
My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Is this 'spot the cliche' day?
No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted.

400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas?

As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service.

It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.
£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon.

As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful.

£400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us.

But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing.

Never trust a socialist.
Hmmm....let's see the options:

1. £400k in ours pockets
2. £400k put to good use for the people of Swindon
3. £400k wasted away by Bluh, Perkins and Rikki Hunt

1 is fine.
2 is even better
3 is a sad indictment of the people running SBC, and it beggars belief that people are trying to make this out to be a party political issue. It's an issue about trust and competence in the people running the council.

Bluh and Perkins were councillors who wasted £400k of OUR money on a scheme that was pointless in the first place and turned out to be a shambles.

Both should have had the common decency to resign, yet with the Adver standing by and saying nothing, they have brazened it out for years.

That's one of the most embarrassing things about the whole episode - unless you consider getting onto Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs page some sort of achievement.

Anyone who wasted £400k of their employer's money in this way would have been sacked or at the very least expected to resign.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The whole thing was doomed from concept to (botched) execution. Just about the only upside is that £400k, while it sounds a lot, isn't actually very much in terms of how much of our money the council squanders. It's sad that some desperate people are now pinning their hopes on Labour gaining political advantage and votes from this, though. Just shows how little they have to offer themselves.[/p][/quote]Assuming it has really only cost 400k (didn't they also get to use council resources for free?), that's around 0.3% of total council tax collection revenues. Sounds like quite a lot to be throwing away on something that was doomed from the start to me![/p][/quote]It's around £2 for every resident in the borough. Yes, £400k is a lot of money, but not when you consider how much of our money the council steal from us and then squander on things that are more doomed to failure than even wi-fi was.[/p][/quote]Two wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]And I didn't suggest they did. I'm just saying that people should keep a sense of perspective. Obviously the entire wi-fi project was a joke from start to finish, I don't think anyone other than the council are denying that, but the point is that councils, and central government, waste billions of our money on an annual basis. To get SO hung up on one waste of £400k seems a bit strange when people blithely ignore the rest of their money being stolen from them to be wasted. In fact, several people on here actively support it.[/p][/quote]My Grandma always used to tell me a saying - look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.[/p][/quote]Is this 'spot the cliche' day?[/p][/quote]No, I just can't believe that you think 400k isn't a lot of money - it's irrelevant to this story how much other money is also being wasted. 400k could buy you an awful lot of stuff. How much are they saving by crippling our refuse collections for instance? How much are they actually saving by not cutting grass in public areas? As a tax payer it seems to me that both council and government should be looking at all expenditure from the bigger projects down to how much is being spent on biscuits. An example is Islington Council who were recently found to have been spending over £40,000 a year on tea bags and biscuits. Why are we paying for that? - it's not an essential service. It certainly shouldn't be paying for frivolous vanity projects doomed to failure before they're even conceived.[/p][/quote]£400k is a lot of money to most individuals, but it's not a great deal of money to a town council of the size of Swindon. As I said earlier, it equates to about £2 for every resident of the borough. Would you be quite so outraged if you dropped £2 down a drain? Doubtful. £400k pays the total cost of employing Swindon Council's Chief Executive for just under two years. That's all it buys us. But in terms of your wider point about the tax that's stolen off of us being largely wasted on things we don't agree with - sure, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Before that **** Empty Car Park chimes in with some more inane nonsense, I'd just like to repeat what I've said all along: the entire project was a doomed disaster from start to finish. Pretty much everyone agrees. However, what I do find rather pathetic is his mate's thinking that their mates will win control of the council because of it. In fact, I get the distinct impression that some Labour types, such as Empty Car Park, are actually quite glad the £400k's gone down the pan if it means they get some votes off the back of it. THAT'S what I find most distasteful about their posturing. Never trust a socialist.[/p][/quote]Hmmm....let's see the options: 1. £400k in ours pockets 2. £400k put to good use for the people of Swindon 3. £400k wasted away by Bluh, Perkins and Rikki Hunt 1 is fine. 2 is even better 3 is a sad indictment of the people running SBC, and it beggars belief that people are trying to make this out to be a party political issue. It's an issue about trust and competence in the people running the council. Bluh and Perkins were councillors who wasted £400k of OUR money on a scheme that was pointless in the first place and turned out to be a shambles. Both should have had the common decency to resign, yet with the Adver standing by and saying nothing, they have brazened it out for years. That's one of the most embarrassing things about the whole episode - unless you consider getting onto Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs page some sort of achievement. Anyone who wasted £400k of their employer's money in this way would have been sacked or at the very least expected to resign. Jeremy Hilary Boob

9:40pm Fri 17 Jan 14

John~R says...

Don't we council tax payers also pay for a load of SBC executives and managers who are employed to advise the councillors? Does the report demonstrate that they were ignored?
Don't we council tax payers also pay for a load of SBC executives and managers who are employed to advise the councillors? Does the report demonstrate that they were ignored? John~R

6:36am Sat 18 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringer says
But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't.


Maybe you should go round giving everyone their £2 back then.

Why are you swamping the threads with quotes on quotes when you are perfectly capable of selecting the individual sentence as I have done here?

It's because you want to create a smoke screen and deter people from making deserved remarks about your colleague in the council
Why are you attempting to ruin threads again?

What a bizarrely paranoid and weirdly 'imaginative' little mind you have.

Get some help in 2014.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Ringer says [quote]But I still do not believe that a one-off £2 per person is an huge amount of money. Mainly because it just isn't.[/quote] Maybe you should go round giving everyone their £2 back then. Why are you swamping the threads with quotes on quotes when you are perfectly capable of selecting the individual sentence as I have done here? It's because you want to create a smoke screen and deter people from making deserved remarks about your colleague in the council[/p][/quote]Why are you attempting to ruin threads again? What a bizarrely paranoid and weirdly 'imaginative' little mind you have. Get some help in 2014. ChannelX

11:52am Sat 18 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

AdderB wrote:
I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project.

Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune.

The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.
His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him.
[quote][p][bold]AdderB[/bold] wrote: I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project. Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune. The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.[/p][/quote]His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him. Empty Car Park

3:27pm Sat 18 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

Localboy86 wrote:
Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were
Oh you cinical person. Fancy thing that ruddy and his cohorts would rip us all off

When you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business.

Doesn't matter if you've got any sense or business acumen. Swindon council welcomes all denominations, race, color or creed and intelligence levels.

Bit like the police or the houses of parliament or the tw%tas ruining the hospital.
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: Why did we need to wait for this report, I could have told you the whole deal stank from the moment it was announced on this rag. The report doesn't go far enough, I'm sure the council was criminally negligent rather than being just plain stupid but this is what happens when you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. The only saving grace is that this story will remain on the internet for years to come to remind people how stupid the people involved really were[/p][/quote]Oh you cinical person. Fancy thing that ruddy and his cohorts would rip us all off When you have people with absolutely no business sense running a council which is in effect a multi million pound turn over business. Doesn't matter if you've got any sense or business acumen. Swindon council welcomes all denominations, race, color or creed and intelligence levels. Bit like the police or the houses of parliament or the tw%tas ruining the hospital. anotherimigrant

3:31pm Sat 18 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
AdderB wrote:
I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project.

Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune.

The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.
His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him.
Don't think I would buy a second had car from either of the smarmy looking gits. Rippy hunt and Ruddy blur. decent people, LOL don't, I nearly wet myself larffin.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AdderB[/bold] wrote: I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project. Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune. The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.[/p][/quote]His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him.[/p][/quote]Don't think I would buy a second had car from either of the smarmy looking gits. Rippy hunt and Ruddy blur. decent people, LOL don't, I nearly wet myself larffin. anotherimigrant

9:44pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

anotherimigrant wrote:
Empty Car Park wrote:
AdderB wrote:
I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project.

Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune.

The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.
His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him.
Don't think I would buy a second had car from either of the smarmy looking gits. Rippy hunt and Ruddy blur. decent people, LOL don't, I nearly wet myself larffin.
Also laughing.
I didn't write the comment giving Rikki Hunt a good reference.

That's the site councillor up to stupid tricks.

As an elected representative an IT data company director, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful.

I am pleased that he's seen me as some sort of threat to the extent that he's decided to impersonate my account login.
Particularly after his previous threats of "robust treatment"
[quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AdderB[/bold] wrote: I believe that Ricki Hunt and Rod Bluh were criminally negligent in wasting £400 K on the doomed Wifi Project. Its taken ages for this report which I expect , in itself cost a small fortune. The people involved with the Wifi project should be either taken to court or forced to repay the money wasted. Mind you , Ricki is bankrupt so may struggle.[/p][/quote]His name is spelled 'Rikki' and he's quite a decent bloke once you get to know him.[/p][/quote]Don't think I would buy a second had car from either of the smarmy looking gits. Rippy hunt and Ruddy blur. decent people, LOL don't, I nearly wet myself larffin.[/p][/quote]Also laughing. I didn't write the comment giving Rikki Hunt a good reference. That's the site councillor up to stupid tricks. As an elected representative an IT data company director, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful. I am pleased that he's seen me as some sort of threat to the extent that he's decided to impersonate my account login. Particularly after his previous threats of "robust treatment" Empty Car Park

11:44am Sun 19 Jan 14

candid friend says...

So after all the denials we have some facts.
Are those responsible, including Rikki Hunt, going to pay back the ratepayers funds?
I suspect that there has been some collusion with favoured businessmen, and there is the smell of corruption.
The Tories should be kicked out.
Problem is the previous Labour regime was as bad, with honest officers being forced out, and councillors trying to make a job for themselves.
We really need an honest elected Mayor in Swindon. The existing councillors are hopeless.
They got so desperate as they didn't know what to do that they paid well over the odds for a C.E.,
He is receiving much the same salary as a Top Civil Servant in Whitehall with national responsibilities.
So after all the denials we have some facts. Are those responsible, including Rikki Hunt, going to pay back the ratepayers funds? I suspect that there has been some collusion with favoured businessmen, and there is the smell of corruption. The Tories should be kicked out. Problem is the previous Labour regime was as bad, with honest officers being forced out, and councillors trying to make a job for themselves. We really need an honest elected Mayor in Swindon. The existing councillors are hopeless. They got so desperate as they didn't know what to do that they paid well over the odds for a C.E., He is receiving much the same salary as a Top Civil Servant in Whitehall with national responsibilities. candid friend

2:53pm Sun 19 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

@candid friend: believe it or not, Swindon Borough Council's Chief Executive's salary is around 15% MORE than David Cameron's salary.

Utterly ridiculous.
@candid friend: believe it or not, Swindon Borough Council's Chief Executive's salary is around 15% MORE than David Cameron's salary. Utterly ridiculous. ChannelX

10:16am Mon 20 Jan 14

candid friend says...

The C.E. of the NHS in England has awesome responsibilities.
He gets much the same salary as the Swindon C.E. is paid for managing a medium sized town in a rural county.

The Tories panicked when they got a series of adverse auditors reports and imported an ex County C.E.As they didn't know what to do, he sorted things out, and moved on. To be followed by a succession of short term appointees.
The salary was pushed up and up and the current C.E.-who had been working for the Council for some time, was promoted into what was an excessive salary.
Despite this the actions of the councillors on WI-Fi and other matters were not challenged.
Are the Council going to go to Court to reclaim the 400K from Hunt, The former Leader, and anyone else who was complicit to this sordid affair?
We will wait and see!
The C.E. of the NHS in England has awesome responsibilities. He gets much the same salary as the Swindon C.E. is paid for managing a medium sized town in a rural county. The Tories panicked when they got a series of adverse auditors reports and imported an ex County C.E.As they didn't know what to do, he sorted things out, and moved on. To be followed by a succession of short term appointees. The salary was pushed up and up and the current C.E.-who had been working for the Council for some time, was promoted into what was an excessive salary. Despite this the actions of the councillors on WI-Fi and other matters were not challenged. Are the Council going to go to Court to reclaim the 400K from Hunt, The former Leader, and anyone else who was complicit to this sordid affair? We will wait and see! candid friend

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree