Forum Topic

Firstly - I think all people expect our council to act prudently with their money - there is a big difference between a highly paid council finance manager with access to many advisors/agencies and advisories, who is responsible for millions of public money, to a mum who is looking at the best buy tables for where to place there life savings for best return. Or at least I would hope so. I believe the phrase "If it looks to good to be true, it probably is" would be an appropriate review of the Icelandic banking. There were reports/advisories out many months before the Icelandic bank crisis came to a head and that is what I would have expected to be enough to dissuade the council from investing in these.The facts are that the council initially didn't appear to know its exposure and subsequently have issued a statement is written in such a manner to divert peoples attention towards the other failed Icelandic banks and lack of Ealing money in these before admitting the £2M investment in Glitnir.I agree that those most responsible for this mess should at least hold their hands up to this debacle, fix it and/or move over to less responsible roles. The FSA, Gordon Brown, Heads of Banks etc... But - I disagree that people in the Town Halls are devoid of all responsibility. If people accept/take the responsibility, either as a councillor voted in to power or as a paid professional finance director/Chief Exec, then there is a need for these people to explain why they chose to keep investing our money in a high interest icelandic bank as opposed to others who did move their money out of Iceland specifically because of the risk.The earlier comments about having some perspective seem to be saying "It could have been a lot worse so lets just move on to more pressing issues". I disagree with this - we need to see that this will not happen in the future. If it means we only invest in Low risk investments and not get as much interest - lets have a statement saying so. It is not a party political matter except when we are going to be asked to decide who to vote for in future elections and I would like those in power to acknowledge there were faults made and how they are going to be fixed. Additionally I would expect those in opposition to also address how they might propose we fix this if they were in charge. This applies equally to national or local issues where, in the case of Ealing, the roles are reversed.

Niall Connolly ● 6554d

Barbara,You were the one who linked mums to best buys tables by reference to the times article - however I guess the steroetypical response of yours "must be sexist" is also not unexpected from a politician to divert attention from the real issue. If you read my response to your initial statement you will find nothing more sexist in this than what your post initially implied. However, as an aside to this discussion and based on years of working in the City, reality does show that the majority of idiots in financial institutions who got us into this mess are male and perhaps this is also a factor in how it happened. Perhaps men should all be barred from now on from positions of financial responsibility - not too bad an idea really as it goes.Back on the topic of how well Ealing council manages our funds - I would hope that we have top advisors/finance directors who do not just rely on the way of the crowd.If financial choices purely are down to best possible return on investment (aka Icelandic banks) than a short trip to the bookies might equally ensue...Should I look for the cabinet member for Finance buying lottery tickets or in Ladbrokes ? No - I am sure not.  But for many people, including me, this is how well our money appears to have been looked after by those city traders and investors...What I expect is that the council should review its risk management practices and procedures and if these are not robust or have been ignored - appropriate action taken.Is there such an investigation taking place ? If the finances are being debated tonight then I am sure you will report on this....I am interested and may attend, work dependant (whilst some still have a job!)N.

Niall Connolly ● 6553d

Barbara,Thanks for the feedback on the meeting - unfortunately by the time I left work I guessed any meeting would be over otherwise I would have sought to introduce myself in person. Maybe at the next Forum get together ! I hope a lot of the councils advisors are mums or dads - maybe they have a better idea on safe investments than singles (but I stress I have nothing against single people either! ;-) )I guess the deposits in Glitnir were in fixed-term deposits so "tied in" with loss of interest if removed prior to the contract end.Although 3-4% interest is low in comparison to earlier ROI  the council does need to keep our money safe and whilst using the rating agencies for initial investment guidance  also use some other form of investment review to assure that where the money is placed is both reputable and as risk free as possible. Additionally - the council does need to review how the press releases and announcements regarding this came to be as poor as they are. If the council had been more upfront about this potential loss and made a clear statement, rather than the one they initially denying a problem and then latterly which seemed to focus on where we didn't have money, then we wouldn't think the council were trying to avoid admitting the loss or that our £2M could be lost. Mistakes happen - its how we react to these and how we avoid them in the future that is telling. Perhaps a public statement from the council explaining how/when the money was invested and the current changes in investment would go a long way to fixing peoples confidence that our moeny was well managed. Something for the next edition of Ealing Gazette ?

Niall Connolly ● 6550d

Cllr Yerolemou, frankly I would expect better behaviour from an elected representative than a resort to making preposterous remarks about me in relation to your parents or the Gulag. I never heard anything so ridiculous. Facts rather than absurd assumptions are always much more reliable. Seems to me like you are trying to distance your family from Katsouris’s scandalous safety record when you say your husband sold the business 7 years ago, but as I understand it, your family firm was subsumed into the larger Icelandic Bakkavor Group in 2002, and according to that company’s website, your husband, Antonios P Yerolemou and relative, Panikos J Katsouris became significant shareholders as well as non-exec directors. Your husband also appears to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors in Bakkavor Group so, presumably you continue to benefit from the profits Katsouris make at the alleged expense of the immigrant workforce they employ. I share your hope that ‘the Icelandic ownership doesn't go bust and leave 1,500 people unemployed in Park Royal’ and I suppose that would be a financial disaster for you personally, which I have no wish to see. However, as for your remarks about your background and labour camps, well I don’t see how they are in any way relevant here.  What IS relevent is that workers in Katsouris have been denied basic rights to work in safe conditions and maimed for life as a result while those that reap the profits lead the good life seemingly at their expense and I would question the moral compass of anyone who thought that ethical.

Hannah Wells ● 6544d

Hannah, talk about spin!  For curiosity I looked at the website you provided earlier and found you had selectively quoted!  That website clearly states:"Katsouris was a family-run business until it was acquired by Bakkavör in 2001. The company became part of the Geest group following Bakkavör's acquisition of Geest in May 2005.  Katsouris has three manufacturing plants in north west London. "This was take from the main article which begins as follows:"Union disputes draw unwanted public attention to workplaceBy Ahmed ElAmin, 22-Sep-2006Two union actions -- one involving worker safety, the other a pay dispute -- highlight the unwanted public such conflicts can draw to UK food processers. The cases emphasize the need for companies to ensure they maintain good relations with their workers. One case involves Katsouris Fresh Foods, which the GMB union publicly targeted earlier this month for allegedly having what it said was the "worst" safety record in the industry. The union is currently trying to organise the 2,500 employees at Katsouris' three Park Royal factories.  FoodProductionDaily.com contacted Katsouris for comment about the allegations. However a spokesperson was unavailable at the time and did not return the call. Katsouris was a family-run business until it was acquired by Bakkavör in 2001. The company became part of the Geest group following Bakkavör's acquisition of Geest in May 2005.Katsouris has three manufacturing plants in north west London............."So the actions you are referring too were four years after my husband's family sold the business and in turn the business has been subsumed into Geest. Since the sale my husband had no involvement in the running of the business.  That presumably is Geest's management now.Hannah, I think you have spurred me on to write the book of the company's history when any member of staff could walk into the Chairman's office, my husband, if they wanted to talk.  Many did and although the GMB targeted Katsouris frequently, the staff refused to sign up.  It was only years after the company was sold that the staff signed up to a union.What I am proud of is that back in the 1980s Katsouris working with all the major multiples: M&S, Sainsbury, Waitrose, Tesco, Safeway (remember them), Asda, Morrisons, etc. introduced greek dips into the supermarkets.  All taramasalata, houmous, tzitziki was made by us.  We started moussaka with Waitrose and samozas with Sainsbury. Ironically when Geest felt it could not make foods for Tesco under their "finest" range, Katsouris took that on and branched out from ethnic lines to mash, potato wedges, chicken nuggets etc.  Yes Hannah, I shall write the book and put the record straight!

Barbara Yerolemou ● 6542d