Forum Topics

TfL still manipulating and lying

If TfL were a national government, it would be up there with Russia, China and many despot countries for their constant misleading and use of unsubstantiated propaganda.It may not be as nasty as those places but the methodology remains the same. It would no doubt be unrecognised by the UK and sanctions applied.Then again. our Government is not exactly squeaky clean when it comes to telling the truth or misleading the public.However, it takes constant Freedom of Information requests to glean anything from TfL and their duck and dive approach to responding usually means 2 or three attempts before the answers start to emerge.They know that journalists and those who take the trouble to investigate further have limited time or resources or both and this appeases them.The latest claims on this websites lead story are completely unsubstantiated and based on policy and politically funded research. In other words organisations that will produce a report that vindicates what their paymasters policy requires.To take one example : To date there are no clear and definitive causes of Dementia. Whilst Alzheimers is now the generic word, Dementia is a range of diseases of which Alzheimers is one.It is as common in rural areas as it is in dense urban areas - as is Asthma. I have family who suffer both and live in a very rural part of England and one in Eire. Fact is, after decades of research,fund raising the causes are still not understood. It is so random in so many cases.TfLs claims about Hospital admissions are also unfounded. it is modelled propaganda. They have omitted the sources again and again.  B*******t baffles Brains and it seems it works.Our politicians are too lazy or afraid to do the hard work of proper fact finding and force TfL to be open and honest rather than sly and deceptive.The huge waste of money on the ULEZ which with diminishing non compliant vehicles already way below the figure TfL based the justification on in the first place - again by not even being honest to themselves but keen to please their political masters, could have made safer road surfaces and better general improvements London wide for all road users and provide a fully funded mandatory training and proficiency scheme to be reinstated for Cyclists and other non car users.It was the LCC that set this up in the first place and it ended with the demise of the GLC.

Raymond Havelock ● 1719d124 Comments ● 1679d

Complaints procedure rewritten to protect the CEO.

Complaints procedure rewritten to protect the CEO.The complaints procedure used to have 3 stages.  It has been reduced to 2.  It will no longer have a stage-three input from the CEO.  Instead, it will go straight to the local Government Ombudsman.  Nice for the CEO.  If the LGO finds the Council guilty of maladministration, the CEO will no longer be implicated.The CEO should be held accountable for anything and everything those under him do.  He is paid enough to take responsibility for their behaviour.   The change was discussed at the cabinet meeting of 10.11.21.  The rationale for trimming away the third stage was that it was found that the stage-three review did not change the outcome for the complainant. The same might be said of stage two, because the officers who review the response of the stage-one respondent (their colleague) act not with the honesty and impartiality required of a public servant but as “counsel for the defence” for their colleague.   The usual trick, even at stage one, is to claim the matter has already been dealt with. At the cabinet meeting, there was no discussion of whether the CEO should not still play a part in the process by being the second-stage respondent. So, now the CEO has no responsibility to investigate the behaviour of the senior officers below him, which one would have thought was one of his functions. The author of the proposal put before the Cabinet for this change was Alison Reynolds,who has control of the complaints procedure.  This is the Alison Reynolds who when asked to investigate a complaint against a senior colleague wrote “I have concluded that all of the matters raised as part of this case have now been addressed”  - even though she was the first person to address them  - and handn’t addressed them and didn’t! The complaints procedure is corrupted by senior officers who protect their senior colleagues by this quick-fix comment (“already dealt with”).  It has become institutionalised by repetition.

Andrew Farmer ● 1690d1 Comments ● 1690d