Music, football, Dyslexia, Cancer and all things London Borough of Barnet. Please note we have a two comments per person per blog rule.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Barneteye TV : Metpro 2 :The Angry Brigade storm the Barnet Council Metpro Inquiry
Well, not quite. This is a video of redoubtable (according to Brian Coleman, this term is an insult) Barnet Blogger Mrs Angry, getting the answers to her questions at the Metpro inquiry - Enjoy
OMG: from behind & wearing specs I like even more like my Irish granny. Should have gone to the hairdressers too. Oh yeah: MetPro - watch the amusing body language of those around the table. the auditors drinking lots of water, and hiding their faces, and the Director of Corporate Gov biting his nails, watching the clock and waiting for his chance to shut the safeguarding questions off ...
yes, Mickey, sadly: Barnet council's argument is because no child or vulnerable person has complained, there is no need for any further inquiry into the prolonged period of contact - over five years - they had with non CRB checked, unlicensed and possibly unsupervised, untrained male security employees.
You might think that Barnet's dutyof care to children at risk and vulernable adults would recognise that by the very nature of their needs, they are harldy in a position to report any inappropriate behaviour - or worse. When I mentioned this, just after the end of the clip, the Dir of Corp Gov intervened to say question time was over.
Yet every time Barnet Council was challenged about the cuts, they trotted out the same old, "...but we have allocated an extra £2m on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults..."
Is it Barnet's tactic to collapse the perceived risk to the vulnerable retrospectively to render any compliant about their child protection procedures pointless?
6 comments:
OMG: from behind & wearing specs I like even more like my Irish granny. Should have gone to the hairdressers too. Oh yeah: MetPro - watch the amusing body language of those around the table. the auditors drinking lots of water, and hiding their faces, and the Director of Corporate Gov biting his nails, watching the clock and waiting for his chance to shut the safeguarding questions off ...
Did he really say, "....I don't think we need to look at how the vulnerable people were or were not looked after" ???
yes, Mickey, sadly: Barnet council's argument is because no child or vulnerable person has complained, there is no need for any further inquiry into the prolonged period of contact - over five years - they had with non CRB checked, unlicensed and possibly unsupervised, untrained male security employees.
You might think that Barnet's dutyof care to children at risk and vulernable adults would recognise that by the very nature of their needs, they are harldy in a position to report any inappropriate behaviour - or worse. When I mentioned this, just after the end of the clip, the Dir of Corp Gov intervened to say question time was over.
Yet every time Barnet Council was challenged about the cuts, they trotted out the same old, "...but we have allocated an extra £2m on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults..."
Is it Barnet's tactic to collapse the perceived risk to the vulnerable retrospectively to render any compliant about their child protection procedures pointless?
Post a Comment