Remember these invoices I was sent by Tower Hamlets council under the Freedom of Information Act?
They were submitted by Champollion, the PR specialists hired by the council’s £100,000 a year head of communications, Takki Sulaiman. They were brought in because he and colleagues felt they were incapable of producing a media strategy to deal with the Panorama programme in March. They needed help.
The invoice totals were redacted because the council felt it had to protect its own and Champollion’s commercial interests.
Well, thanks to the wonderful Audit Commission Act, which allows people to investigate how their taxes are spent, I’ve been able to obtain the non-redacted copies.
Here:
So £26,970 + £14,174 = £41,144.
Actually, there was a third invoice from Champollion but because that was submitted after the financial year end on April 30, it falls outside the scope of the Audit Commission Act. We’ll have to wait until next year for that.
Still, not bad for a few weeks’ work. I’ve also obtained the contract between Champollion and the council. The contract commenced on February 14 and was signed by Kim Catcheside, a Champollion director and formerly the well-known BBC education and social affairs correspondent.
The brief sent out in January by the council to PR companies intending to bid for this goldmine stated:
A documentary is being made about Tower Hamlets and the Mayoral system by an investigative team commissioned by the BBC. The programme has been in development since at least June/July 2013 but we first became aware of the project in October.
It has proved hard to engage with them and the council is keen to ensure accuracy and balance in the final product. It appears the team want to make their documentary and add on an interview with the Mayor at the end. The precise focus of the documentary is being gleaned from other organisations rather than the documentary team. An interview is likely in mid to late February and a tour has been offered and accepted.
At the back of the contract is a schedule of Champollion’s proposed fees.
Here:
Kim Catcheside was the director assigned to the project. The proposal was that she would be charged to the taxpayer at an hourly rate of £250, or £1,750 for an eight-hour day. That’s about £455,000 for a 270-working day year. (That’s not Kim’s salary, of course.)
My new documents show that part of Kim’s £250-an-hour work was to spend some time coaching and preparing Mayor Lutfur Rahman for his interview with Panorama’s John Ware.
Here:
And how very kind of them, you’ll notice, to offer a “Champollion graduate” to the Tower Hamlets press office…at the rate of £500 a day. £500 a day equates to a fee of £135,000 a year. They must have some pretty talented graduates on their books. Maybe Takki should sign up for a job there, if he has a degree.
You’ll also see that part of Champollion’s brief was to attend meetings with the council’s legal team.
Well, that team, headed by Meic Sullivan-Gould, had also decided it didn’t have the expertise to handle Panorama and ensure what the BBC is required to do anyway, ie adhere to its own charter.
So Meic commissioned City lawyers Taylor Wessing. Their brief also included handling the so-called Panorama “whistleblower”, who is now under criminal investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office. They also spent many hours examining the dossier she “obtained” from Panorama and which she passed to the mayor’s office in (probably) late January.
Thanks to the Audit Commission Act, I’ve also obtained the invoices from Taylor Wessing, its contract with LBTH and various other incredibly interesting back-up details.
Here are the invoices:
So that’s £36,922.72 + £40,170.74 + £3,179.72 + £1,651.52 = £81,924.70.
Here’s part of the brief Meic supplied to bidders in January (after they’d been handed the leaked dossier, of course):
But Taylor Wessing were ever so kind when it came to costs.
Here’s a section from a letter sent by their Trademarks, Copyright and Media Partner, Niri Shanmuganathan, to Meic.
So the partner charged £408.76 an hour; Tim Pinto, the “trademarks copyright and media senior counsel” charged £330 per hour; and the trainee was charged at a mere £156 per hour. All plus VAT.
They even charged LBTH for reading my blog! Which is free. At least someone’s making money from it.
I write all this, and there’s more to come, because any Tower Hamlets elector has the right to object to the council’s accounts. You have the right to dispute these invoices if you feel they are not valid or properly commissioned in some way.
In summary, the council paid at least £123,068 to Champollion and Taylor Wessing to try and stop/limit the damage from a half-hour Panorama documentary.
The council’s Audit Committee meets on September 16 when the external auditors will meet officers and councillors to discuss the draft accounts. Any objection should be raised then. I’ll dig out the email and post it here tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the wait for the PwC report into LBTH continues (at a cost of £1million…).
It’s time Lutfur gave up and flew the White Flag from the Town Hall.
If we put in a FOI request to find out how much the council spends on redacting invoices do you think they would redact the answer?
The stench of raw sewage is overwhelming.
How can any ‘normal’ person adequately comprehend the enormous abuses of power by faceless unelected bosses at the disgusting London Borough of Tower Hamlets ?
Those powers are legally delegated from the elected councillors/mayor to unelected nincompoops posing as responsible council officials.
The unsuspecting public of Tower Hamlets are being deprived of THEIR council money – which should be spend on making the lives of the residents better.
Instead of PUBLIC money helping the PUBLIC of Tower Hamlets, PUBLIC money has been high-jacked, in secret by unelected and unaccountable to the public
, in the same manner as one regularly finds in corrupt countries all around the world.The sheer overload of abuses by Tower Hamlets overpaid public parasites, just to conceal the questionable behaviour of His Worship, Son of Labour, is so shocking that Eric Pickles must end his frequent slumbers and take decisive action in law to PROTECT the PUBLIC’s interest.
I would sack all the pigs for gross misconduct and not pay any of them a penny.
Tower Hamlets = A Never Ending Story of Corruption, Misery and Abuse – all done in the name of the residents of Tower Hamlets using the Residents’ own money. Surely these latest discoveries are sufficient to unite the entire community against the council’s overpaid public parasites ?
To do nothing means YOU want more of these abuses.
Curious Cat.
So basically, we have two highly paid officers neither of whom appear to understand the law relating to the disclosure of invoices for services rendered to the Council.
Do you think we might also be paying them rather too much if they need this much help from third parties?
Questions should be asked………
Questions on their own are insufficient.
DECISIVE ACTION is needed to permanently end these shocking abuses.
Curious Cat.
LOL! Your idea of DECISIVE ACTION is to post lots and lots of long-winded comments on Jeory.
You are indeed very decisive in your action.
Great work.
Some of those fees are astonishingly high e.g. a PR Executive (which is what that level – a new graduate – is called) might be on £100 per day, which then gets multiplied so that the client may be charged maybe double that. But £500?
I’d love to see an analysis of what LBTH think that £41K (+ 3rd invoice) did to make them look better as opposed to, say, doing nothing beyond their comms.business as usual – cost £0.
The main benefit that I can see of Champollion (beyond that which any council comms. team do) of is the interview preparation. Much of the stuff like ‘prepare FAQs’ is standard stuff. It may well be that they did the other stuff e.g. approaches to the BBC, but I think, poor as the programme was, this would have been known to be fruitless at the outset.
There’s a wider point as well, isn’t there? They were terrified by Panorama. Why?
Or maybe after they were given the ‘leaked’ dossier they just felt completely out if their depth.
Their next head of comms should have their salary slashed.
There is no wider point Ted. Council’s existing resources were not good enough to deal with the BBC so they paid for external services. Simples.
Tell me why exactly the council pays £100k a year for a head of comms who doesn’t know how to deal with a documentary.
Did they hire anyone for the 2010 Dispatches?
Ted, I have no idea if they hired anyone for the 2010 Dispatches. I thought you of all people would know about that.
100k head of Comms does not necessarily have all the media expertise in the world. Sometimes, specialist advice is required from external sources who can add real value. This is exactly what happened here. Pls get over it.
And stop being so personal about Takki Sulaiman’s pay packet just because he threw you out of the council chamber. Takki is worth every penny otherwise he would not be in the job.
Tell me, you seem to have blind loyalty. In the interests if transparency, do you or have ever worked for Lutfur or the council?
They didn’t hire anyone for Dispatches, yet Lutfurites claimed that programme helped them to victory.
And precisely because I work in meeja, I know it’s absolutely bollocks to hire meeja consultants on something like this. They panicked. And they did what council officers are too wont to do in such situations: hire consultants at our expense.
Champollion must have wet themselves as they drew up their bills for writing that Q&A, or ringing a couple of hacks from the Indy and Guardian to meet the ‘whistleblower’.
I think Man on the Clapham Omnibus has just outed himself.
Strikes me there’s a very good chance he’s part of Takki’s Team taking “remedial action” with respect to all the nasty things people have to say about Takki and his level of competence. That would make a lot of sense of past comments too…….
There’s another point Ted. While it might seem reasonable to invite somebody to provide a senior figure with a spot of media training for being interviewed on TV, it would be very unusual for any Council to have to employ a firm to the extent of the work identified in the scope.
Which means:
* either the spec was over egged – because the communications team didn’t have a clue what to do – suggesting the Head of Communications salary needs an imminent review – by the new CEPO
* or a professional firm wouldn’t touch the job without hedging it round with a lot of additional work to ensure they were not wrong-footed and their professional reputation tarnished.
Those organisations with media problems may be in much need of help – but their tacky reputations(!) mean that help does not come cheap!
“I write all this, and there’s more to come, because any Tower Hamlets elector has the right to object to the council’s accounts. You have the right to dispute these invoices if you feel they are not valid or properly commissioned in some way.”
Can someone please explain more specifically what can be done and, more importantly, can someone launch a coordinated effort about this so that people can join?
As Marco said, how can residents object to the accounts? (I don’t for a moment think that the objection would be in any way effective, but am keen to make my voice heard as loudly as possible.)
The fee rates are not excessive for a half-decent consultancy or legal practice and I’m sure the work done was professional in the extreme. We can’t quibble the size of the invoice given the services purchased. The question is why was the work necessary? Why did the council feel the need to buy in so much PR spin? They clearly see that their actions and decisions have been poor and need to try and show otherwise. The fact that they then dip into the coffers of the (abused) residents to try and spin things to their advantage is the shameful bit.
When is The Despicable Rahman genuinely going to be called to account?
Tim.
Details of how to object are in the original advert here https://trialbyjeory.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/inspection-advert-2013-14.jpg
You can object to the need for commissioning of services: were proper processes followed, for example?
How odd that LBTH recruit a PR/Media team and employ 19 lawyers that they then effectively sub-contract their jobs to a third-party. Lutfur and his crew consistently claim they have ‘nothing to hide’ and it’s all lies, if that was true there would be no need to spend our money on this sort of waste.
PR team and the legal team handle day to day stuff. When there is a one-off, extraordinary event such as BBC’s Panorama investigation, specialist advice is required from those who are very best in their industry to take on the mighty BBC. Council’s in-house media and legal teams are not equipped to deal with the BBC.
Methinks you’re a little blind to the reality. Panorama is required by bbc charter to be balanced etc. The programme would have featured all Lutfur’s arguments regardless of £123k. And Champollion know that.
MoCO – If true, this would be damning: “Council’s in-house media and legal teams are not equipped to deal with the BBC”.
Any council comms section for a London borough should be able to do that – many regularly do this e.g. Westminster, Southwark – and handle it themselves.
Also your point below is odd: “Their brief was to ensure balance in Panorama’s coverage. They did that really well. They also managed to ensure that Panorama would highlight Lutfur’s major achievements as mayor.”
I thought we agreed at time programme was unfair! And no comms section or PR agency gets to have a programme highlight something – it’s up to you to make your points and do your own highlighting
———–
I thought Panorama was very poor but there is nothing the PR agency said it could do that was unique (tough interview experience might be one but not that hard to practice) and little that seems to be have been effective.
I thought Lutfur acquitted himself well in the interview – but the ‘advice’ for thiis and which would have been e.g. ‘do it in the midst of one of our good and worthy services (in an infant school? perfect!) or ‘don’t get into a slanging match – engage benignly with the interviewer and ensure that the following two points are made whatever’ can be drawn up by a £35K a year comms. manager, not for £mega.
I will think Panorama might be balanced when there is a companion programme about the Grand Duke of Newham – Robin Wales. How much have they lent West Ham and why did they would be a good place to start.
Irrespective of the BBC Charter, the 123k spent on PR agency and lawyers is money well spent. Ted, as you are in the media industry, you’ll know full well the benefits of bringing on board proper expertise to handle a mighty media powerhouae such as the BBC.
MOCA – you really have got to stop spouting the word according to Takki.
The fact of the matter is any media team in any leading London Borough MUST know how to deal with a difficult issue which blows up in the face of the Council and which must be dealt with via national media including television. Matters such as riots and child deaths and horror stories res practices in certain schools might not be day to day but they certainly form part of the normal range of events that a media team would anticipate that they may have to deal and hence need to have a team who know what to do.
IF the Council employed a middle ranking officer to head up a team and do day to day stuff only, then there might be a case for bringing in a third party for specialist advice.
However when you pay two officers very hefty salaries to head up their respective teams then you expect them to know what to do when the matter is simple and straightforward. Have grants been paid in accordance with all the rules and regulations governing council business? It’s a simple question requiring some simple and explicit answers rather than spin!
To bring in external experts at these sort of costs clearly implies one of two things (or both):
1) the two officers in question are incompetent and/or overpaid
2) there’s a lot more going on in relation to the matter under the spotlight and there’s some considerable scope for awkward questions to be asked -about matters which might well be “ultra vires”
However that would mean that the tax payers in this borough are paying people to be incompetent and/or to hide the truth from those investigating what’s been going on.
May be that’s why PWC is taking so long to report?
Is there any new of when the audit commissioned by Pickles is going to be complete?
Worrying that the Audit Commissoin is to be closed down! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/audit-commission-abolition-on-course-to-save-taxpayers-over-1-billion
Margaret Hodge has been very vocal about the lack of scrutiny of local authorities. The work of the AC is being moved to the NAO that was never set up for this purpose and will be the only organisation responsible and accountable for following the taxpayer pound in every organisation that spends it.
A team from the AC is moving to the NAO so they will have the same experience as they have now (although I think it is a fairly small team)
[…] excellent example of this is a news story by Ted Jeory regarding the £123,000 charged by lawyers and PR gurus to Takki Sulaiman for trying to stop the broadcast of the BBC Panorama documentary about Mayor Lutfur. (Tower Hamlets […]
This is money very well spent. The PR Company and Taylor Wessing did not charge that much at all. They were pretty good value. Their brief was to ensure balance in Panorama’s coverage. They did that really well. They also managed to ensure that Panorama would highlight Lutfur’s major achievements as mayor. So, they did more than what they were asked to do. As a taxpayer, I would have absolutely no objection if Lutfur were to engage them again for a different project.
Well done to Ted for uncovering the costs. Otherwise, I would have had no idea how good they were in terms of value for money.
I’m starting to think you can’t read. Panaorama had to be balanced. It’s in the BBC charter. It would never make it through the editorial process at the BBC if it wasn’t. The outside companies weren’t ensuring it was balanced, they were telling the officers and the mayor what to say. And the fact they didn’t or couldn’t just tell the truth without some lawyers and PR people telling them what the ‘truth’ was is damming in the extreme
MoTCO – look out your window this morning. Tell me what do you see? I see drizzle and rain clouds. Do you see beautiful rays of sunshine falling from the heavens onto the beautiful, merry folk of One Tower Hamlets?
John Jee, I can see some pigs flying. Can you?
What an idiotic comment. Perhaps you could reimburse me then please, ‘Man on the Clapham Omnibus’, because I definitely do not want my hard earned taxes squandered in this way, thanks very much. And I reckon most other TH residents feel the same…
Excellent reporting, Ted!
No, most other residents do not feel the same. Only recently most residents voted Lutfur for another four years. They like what Lutfur is doing. And I agree with them.
By what possible measure do you arrive at that conclusion or do you enjoy making yourself look stupid here?
Most RESIDENTS did not vote for Lutfur. That’s just plain simple arithmetic – and your statement is incorrect.
You could not make it up – most residents did vote for Lutfur. That is a fact. We live in a democracy and that is how we elect our representatives. If you are referring to residents who did not come out to vote at all, their views are simply reflected through those who came out to vote. It’s like when you do an opinion poll, you ask, say 1000 people and that sample represents a wider mass of population. In any event, our democratic system in the UK does not coerce everyone to vote and there is no mechanism for taking the views of those who did not turn to vote. We must simply go with those who turned out and cast their vote.
Residents of Tower Hamlets in 2011 = 254,100
Residents who voted for Lutfur in 2014 = 37,395
Approximately 14% of residents voted for Lutfur Rahman
Thank you Maurice – I was just going to look up the numbers but you got there first. However you got one figure wrong. When I said Residents I of course meant all those residents entitled to vote. The population of electors numbers 181,871 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Hamlets_Council_election,_2014
MOCA appears to be incapable of understanding plain English i.e. the majority of RESIDENTS of Tower Hamlets did NOT vote for Lutfur.
That would be the 144,476 voters who did NOT record a vote for Lutfur.
The election is also a POLL and NOT a sample as MOCA would like to try and persuade us.
One of the well known reasons that people stay at home and do not vote is they find ALL the options unappetising. You cannot possibly extrapolate from the votes recorded and say this is what the percentage voting for Lutfur would have been if everybody had a vote! That notion is a complete joke.
If everybody was required to vote and there was an option called “none of the above” guess who would have won the election!
It’s in these sort of circumstances that central government can take control of a Council in order to get it back on track.
Well done TJ.
You must have very effective water wings and snorkel to carry you so accurately through the murky waters. Watch out for the sharks.
It has always been fun living in TH just guessing who’s on the skullduggery gravy train. Now you’re giving us details and names and understanding of how and why these things are as they appear to be…the fun is turning to fury.
We down here at the Mudchute applaud your efforts and look forward to hearing more…Thanks
Thank you Tim. I applaud your efforts keeping snouts in the trough at Mudchute too..
Man on the Clapham Omnibus – Your comments are becoming increasingly ludicrous, you wouldn’t accept the truth if it hit you in the face. You fail to understand that those honest TH residents who are not Lutfur’s supporters are horrified at this waste of OUR money. I’m sure we can all think of many ways that this money could have been spent, obviously Lutfur does not think of residents, he thinks purely of himself. He still hasn’t the got guts to answer questions at council because apparently his human rights would be affected, so what about our human rights that are broken because he chooses to spend OUR money on protecting himself rather than protecting the welfare of the residents of TH. Or do you think that non-Lutfur supporters have no right to live in TH, or to disagree?
One of the interesting questions is going to be whether the money spent was in the interest of the Council or the interests of the politicians.
Political expenditure is strictly outlawed.
I’m not hugely impressed by the council’s legal and communications teams – but to be fair to them, they do have a more difficult job than those of any other council.
I think whenever you have an investigative documentary specifically focussing on one organisation, loudly promising scandal, it is natural that they would hire in legal and PR pros from outside. You’d see that in other councils, or in government departments, or NHS trusts, or big companies more commonly – all of whom also have in-house Comms and legal teams. They have the reputation of the organisation to protect.
People making the thick argument along the lines of ‘all they were paid to do was ensure that the BBC complied with the BBC Charter which the BBC ensures it does anyway’ are either ignorant or dishonest: on numerous occasions have BBC programmes been found to breach the BBC Charter.
But when it’s a public sector org it’s always a bitter pill to swallow. I certainly wouldn’t call it money well spent. Seeing these corporate fat cats making a killing off ratepayers thoroughly depresses me. I just genuinely don’t expect that legal and Comms chiefs at any other public authority faced with the same would have acted differently.
The argument that;s been made dozens of times that because someone else does it or would have done it, is nonsense and no justification. This isn’t about what any other public authority did or might have done. It is also nonsense to say that the BBC has breached it’s charter so it’s ok for LBTH to be profligate with residents’ money. Channel S violated OFCOM rules several times in its coverage of Lutfur. Perhaps residents should get a refund of their council tax in return.
Bringing in a coach specifically to practice for an interview is one thing – the scope and range of the services which were procured is quite another.
I doubt very much whether any other Council would have the nerve to incur anything like the costs incurred on this matter – and I’ve worked in other Councils and know full well at what point people get very twitchy about billing from third parties
But hey – Ted’s a journalist and he could ring round and find out whether any other Council has incurred this sort of money in costs in similar circumstances. That would be interesting wouldn’t it? (Of course, we’d first have to find a Council accused of a similar malpractice!)
Personally I can’t wait to read the PWC report.
Wasting residents’ money on PR Consultants and Lawyers achieved nothing and failed to change the programme or have it cancelled. As a Solicitor, Lutfur will be well practised in interview techniques.
[…] more on this story please do visit Trial by Jeory, lots more detail […]
I wonder if Man on the Clapham Omnibus might just have some connection with the council, rather than being a “concerned resident”. I wonder.
Personally I leave my name on all my comments, although I understand that people in politically sensitive positions may not want to. Is that it?
I wonder if the ‘Man’ is a woman…..
Rob, your comments are not more credible than someone else who prefers to remain anonymous simply because you put your name on all your comments. Then again, that is mostly what you do anyway. You are a Labour party commentator of some sort. I do not know if you do anything else.
I’ve said time and time again that I am not a councillor and I am not connected to the council in any shape or form. Despite this, people on this forum are adament that I must either be a Lutfurite councillor or be in the pay of Lutfur. Perhaps most bizarrely, it was even suggested that I must be ‘white’ English just pretending to be a Bangladeshi.
I am involved with one of the main political parties which is why I must remain anonymous. I like Lutfur and I must defend him against all the unfair criticisms that he continuously faces. The trial of Lutfur has been unjust. I am fighting for justice here and that is part of ideology.
=> Clapham Trollybus
Your knowledge of local government procedures is abnormal for any ordinary member of the public. I suggest to you, there is a connection even an indirect connection.
With respect to you, I remember with absolute clarity another person who used to post on another forum always in support of that area’s local authority. Every occasion people questioned the honesty and integrity of that person whilst alleging she must be a council person, the person vigorously and repeatedly denied any council connection.
It transpired she was lying. She was the council’s chief press officer and the de facto head of the local authoprity’ propaganda efforts.
Do you deny you possess a “good” knowledge of local government practise ?
Curious Cat
Curious Cat, I deny that I possess a good knowledge of local government practice beyond what one cannot learn from the internet. Which particular knowledge of mine was abnormal? Pls give some examples so I could understand better.
You have alleged in the past that I was the son of son of Labour. That would make Labour my grandfather. Each person’s allegation about my identification is more extreme than the next with absolutely no similarity between any of them.
The belief that Lutfur cannot surely have a supporter who is not either a councillor or connected to the council is a symptom of the sheer arrogance within the anti Lutfur brigade. Well, the truth is Lutfur has more supporters than any other politician in the borough. Are they all councillors or connected to the council? NO!
The suggestion that I must be white anglo-saxon is a minority held view among the racist elements within the anti Lutfur camp who think that a Bangladeshi cannot string two sentences together.
The idea that I could be a woman is rather fanciful. This is where we get into cloud cuckoo land territory, a permanent abode for a large number of people who post comments here. They are permanently deluded living under a cloud of misperception of reality.
How utterly tedious
More total rubbish from MotCO. Do you not think residents are entitled to know whether your Master was properly elected or not? Why are you so against the idea?
Man on the Clapham Omnibus – I don’t care if you are male/female, councillor, Mayor or even the Queen or perhaps a Dalek? Do you truly believe that one person with huge powers should be allowed to carry on spending OUR money unchecked? There have been numerous TV programs damning TH, yet TH carried on in a “couldn’t care less” attitude, well now TH “may” have been caught out. Whether the outstanding legal/government proceedings are proven or not, I sincerely hope those involved will finally realise that there are a lot more concerned people than before watching VERY VERY carefully!
John Wright, you are a classic example of those under a severe misperception of reality. Let me break down just one such misperception from your post.
1. Your misperception – there have been numerous TV programmes damning TH.
Reality – there were just two high profile programmes: Dispatches in 2010 and Panorama in 2014. I can’t remember what Dispatches said. Can you? Panorama highlighted couple of malpractices but also highlighted some of Lutfur’s major achievements. It was not particularly damning.
Funnily, Lutfur won his first mayoral election after Dispatches 2010 and his second election after Panorama 2014. I am looking forward to see what film they make in 2018! Maybe, it’ll be ITV’s turn – the only terrestrial TV channel that has not produced a film on Lutfur (BBC and Channel 4 already done their bit).
John, something for you think about – why is it that after such “damning” TV programmes, Lutfur actually goes onto win an election?
Just heard, PWC have packed up and left. Is the long awaited report imminent then? Or will there be lots of legal wrangling before it can be published? Is Lutfur likely to be marched out of the Town Hall in handcuffs? Will PWC find anything we didn’t already know? Will Pickles regret sending in the inspectors? Will TH try to recover the cost of the inspections?
One thing for sure, the hype and drama with which the auditors came has certainly faded away. They apparently left quietly, I would imagine being politely escorted out of the building.
Hope the report is reminiscent of their entry and not their exit.
It wasn’t the auditors who created the ‘hype and drama.’
Apparently all the THF councillors and Lutfur have just walked out of the full council meeting after Peter Golds raised the issue of the grotesque waste of public money as detailed on this blog…
Touched a nerve?
Surely that’s playing into Pickle’s hands? A Mayor and his political party that doesn’t want to be questioned on the valid and/or good use of public money?
I can imagine how that is playing out in Parliament and Marsham Street!
Have they just provided a neat final tweak for the PWC report?