... is the motto of the"Special Excellence Service", or SES as some would have it.
Down at the D&D we reckon that this is in fact a load of bollox, as WE were the ones who paid for it all, and we most definitely did not win!
Anyway, for anyone who wants to see what the legal system does when someone without representation goes up against someone with unrestricted access to our wallets ... click here.
(WARNING! Link should not be attempted by miners or people suffering from high blood pressure, or indeed anyone who would rather that their illusions remain intact. Ed.)
Showing posts with label slurry pit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slurry pit. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Thursday, 23 April 2009
GUTTED!
We have just come across this - Mr. Liddell Grainger's latest speech about Wonderland.
Everyone is agreed. This is NOT FUNNY.
Yet another serious sense of humour failure is blighting the Dog & Duck, thanks to Jonesy's shower.
Daffer is on the warpath with a filleting knife. Normally it's used for fish when he's at sea, but he would like to make it clear that if half of what ILG says is true, then it will work perfectly well "for that little squirt that I'm ashamed to share a name with ..."
Everyone is agreed. This is NOT FUNNY.
Yet another serious sense of humour failure is blighting the Dog & Duck, thanks to Jonesy's shower.
Daffer is on the warpath with a filleting knife. Normally it's used for fish when he's at sea, but he would like to make it clear that if half of what ILG says is true, then it will work perfectly well "for that little squirt that I'm ashamed to share a name with ..."
Thursday, 20 November 2008
National Anti-Bullying Week (day 4) - information
If you are unable to curb your Terrorist leanings, then you should at least ensure that you are well informed. We have a couple of Former Organisational Terrorists down at the Dog n’ Duck, who are prepared to offer advice free of charge.
It is like counselling – the FOTs ask you all sorts of questions and leave you to draw your own conclusions (yeah right, what kind of “advice” is that? … well, if you are a Potential Organisational Terrorist it’s the best you’re gonna get!).
Anyway, the questions go like this:
(1) Do you want all the rooms at County Hall to fall silent as soon as you walk in?
(2) Do you want half the HR department to suddenly be tasked with a detailed review of your performance?
(3) Do you want to be reported to the Standards Board?
(4) Do you want a Business Re-engineering Consultant to be paid £10,000 for an essay on why the Public Sector Transformation Agenda requires that your job should be given a new title and then given to someone else (who is not on the POT register)?
(5) Do you want your colleagues to be informed, in a solemn voice and with much pursing of lips, that you are being offered “extra training”?
(6) Do you want to put your family through a nightmare likely to result in insanity or poverty affecting current and future generations?
Obviously, for most people the answer to this sort of question is “no”.
That means that most POTs realise that the only sensible course of action is to sit down, shut up, and write out 100 times: “140+17=200, or 210, or 140,000, or whatever Jonesy says it is”.
Because, as a former (District) Councillor told us, “… County Councillors have to be very brave to stick their heads above the parapet in Taunton.”
UNISON sources confirm that the same applies to members of staff (universally referred to as “officers”, even the ones who would barely qualify as “other ranks”!)
But sadly, there will always be some who are too brave, or just too stupid to understand the consequences of failing to control their urges. There is even a charity that has been set up for these very people. It is called Public Concern at Work.
Dog n’ Duck veterans, however, would strongly advise you to have nothing whatsoever to do with this outfit! Experience has shown that they actively encourage you to Terrorise your Organisation, and seek to radicalise you with promises of support and assurances about legal protection. However, once you have actually committed an Outrage, they reckon that their work is done. Then they leave you well and truly in the slurry pit, because the reality is: no-one really gives a shit.
Apart from the cattle of course - otherwise there wouldn’t be a slurry pit.
It is like counselling – the FOTs ask you all sorts of questions and leave you to draw your own conclusions (yeah right, what kind of “advice” is that? … well, if you are a Potential Organisational Terrorist it’s the best you’re gonna get!).
Anyway, the questions go like this:
(1) Do you want all the rooms at County Hall to fall silent as soon as you walk in?
(2) Do you want half the HR department to suddenly be tasked with a detailed review of your performance?
(3) Do you want to be reported to the Standards Board?
(4) Do you want a Business Re-engineering Consultant to be paid £10,000 for an essay on why the Public Sector Transformation Agenda requires that your job should be given a new title and then given to someone else (who is not on the POT register)?
(5) Do you want your colleagues to be informed, in a solemn voice and with much pursing of lips, that you are being offered “extra training”?
(6) Do you want to put your family through a nightmare likely to result in insanity or poverty affecting current and future generations?
Obviously, for most people the answer to this sort of question is “no”.
That means that most POTs realise that the only sensible course of action is to sit down, shut up, and write out 100 times: “140+17=200, or 210, or 140,000, or whatever Jonesy says it is”.
Because, as a former (District) Councillor told us, “… County Councillors have to be very brave to stick their heads above the parapet in Taunton.”
UNISON sources confirm that the same applies to members of staff (universally referred to as “officers”, even the ones who would barely qualify as “other ranks”!)
But sadly, there will always be some who are too brave, or just too stupid to understand the consequences of failing to control their urges. There is even a charity that has been set up for these very people. It is called Public Concern at Work.
Dog n’ Duck veterans, however, would strongly advise you to have nothing whatsoever to do with this outfit! Experience has shown that they actively encourage you to Terrorise your Organisation, and seek to radicalise you with promises of support and assurances about legal protection. However, once you have actually committed an Outrage, they reckon that their work is done. Then they leave you well and truly in the slurry pit, because the reality is: no-one really gives a shit.
Apart from the cattle of course - otherwise there wouldn’t be a slurry pit.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Incompetence or Malice?
Another Somerset County Councillor has got into trouble, and there seems to be quite a lot of glee about it in the SomerBlogging community. It seems the chap in the slurry pit this time is one of Jonesy's mates.
But I, for one, am not interested. The thing I want to know is: how was the Buchanan issue concluded? You know, Cornwall's troublesome "question 3".
Most of us will recall how shifty Jones became when the subject of his relationship with the Standards Board came up on TV (West Eye View, 24/07/08). He was accused of using the Standards Board to get rid of Councillor Buchanan, and eventually put his hands up to it.
Somerset County Council continues to batten down the hatches on information, so as usual we will have to spell it out. Since they are obviously good at ticking boxes, perhaps these will help:
Have the complaints against Cllr Buchanan been upheld by the Standards Board?
Yes c
No c
If the answer is "yes" then we can make our sincerest apologies to Alan Jones for casting aspersions, and blame the Standards Board for not getting their fingers out. Their incompetence will have caused Jonesy a great deal of aggro.
On the other hand, if the tick goes in the "no" box ... (It is so simple isn't it? "Yes" or "No"), then the next question asks itself. Were the complaints the result of incompetence or malice?
Jonesy himself told us on TV how the complaints originated. In his own words, "evidence was gathered from people who supplied it willingly". He admitted that he himself then submitted that evidence to the Standards Board. In other words, he made the decision that the evidence gathered warranted investigation.
This decision was made by someone who costs us at least £160,000 per year (about £1 for every Council Tax payer), just to be in post. It was made by someone who also spends thousands of our pounds on legal advice every year, and who bought himself TWO new in-house lawyers this summer (a big one earning "up to £84,000" and a little one earning "up to £61,000").
So I say again: was this decision incompetent, or was it malicious?
Either way, there is a clear case for impeachment. No golden parachute. Not a penny more!
But I, for one, am not interested. The thing I want to know is: how was the Buchanan issue concluded? You know, Cornwall's troublesome "question 3".
Most of us will recall how shifty Jones became when the subject of his relationship with the Standards Board came up on TV (West Eye View, 24/07/08). He was accused of using the Standards Board to get rid of Councillor Buchanan, and eventually put his hands up to it.
Somerset County Council continues to batten down the hatches on information, so as usual we will have to spell it out. Since they are obviously good at ticking boxes, perhaps these will help:
Have the complaints against Cllr Buchanan been upheld by the Standards Board?
Yes c
No c
If the answer is "yes" then we can make our sincerest apologies to Alan Jones for casting aspersions, and blame the Standards Board for not getting their fingers out. Their incompetence will have caused Jonesy a great deal of aggro.
On the other hand, if the tick goes in the "no" box ... (It is so simple isn't it? "Yes" or "No"), then the next question asks itself. Were the complaints the result of incompetence or malice?
Jonesy himself told us on TV how the complaints originated. In his own words, "evidence was gathered from people who supplied it willingly". He admitted that he himself then submitted that evidence to the Standards Board. In other words, he made the decision that the evidence gathered warranted investigation.
This decision was made by someone who costs us at least £160,000 per year (about £1 for every Council Tax payer), just to be in post. It was made by someone who also spends thousands of our pounds on legal advice every year, and who bought himself TWO new in-house lawyers this summer (a big one earning "up to £84,000" and a little one earning "up to £61,000").
So I say again: was this decision incompetent, or was it malicious?
Either way, there is a clear case for impeachment. No golden parachute. Not a penny more!
Friday, 15 August 2008
The net closes in ...
Phew! Only yesterday I posted a link to a document on the internet, and today it has been shredded - allegedly at the request of the Standards Board ... see : http://www.scribd.com/word/removal/4074094
However according to the webstats over 400 people viewed the document before it was censored, including, you will all be glad to know, ME!
And in case you are worried about the fictional work in progress (http://joiningthedotz.blogspot.com/) this blogger, let me tell you, has a memory like a Supergrass. He can remember, with crystal clear photographic recall, documents that never existed at all. The dots are in good hands!
More to the point, during the months that this extraordinary 32-page document was up on the net, many of us had puzzled over a key question: was it genuine, or was it a fake?
You see, it certainly LOOKED genuine - layout, language, subject matter, etc. However when you read it closely (as I certainly did), the content was so extraordinary that I really did have doubts. Among other things, it showed Roger dropping Jonesy right in the slurry pit. Up to his neck in it he would have been (except that Roger pitched him in head first).
As time passed, I slowly came to the conclusion that it was, in fact, a hoax. The main evidence for this was that every time I drove past County Hall, the Plus Fours continued to flutter from the flag pole. If the document HAD been genuine, I had no doubt, the Plus Fours would have been promptly replaced with Roger's Noodly Appendage. Pour décourager les autres!
Anyway, of course, the fact that they have now gone to all the trouble (and our expense) of getting the thing removed does add considerably to the case for authenticity.
Which leads one to wonder - what actually has been done with Roger's ... wotsits?
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Fowl run-off
Some things, however, make the duck feel like he's been thrown into the slurry pit then hung out to dry in the middle of a six-week heat wave.
Based on their actual day-to-day experience, a lot of people think that Somerset County Council is OK, but a bit of a shambles at times. It would be unfair to give details that are specific, so better not to give any at all, but the local ducks have been known to grumble.
For the sins of grumbling, sighing, and doubting (or even worse, failing to notice!) the arrival of Excellence, this is what Jonesy said about us:
"In the light of this assessment, they now join the ranks of those who believe the earth is flat, that the Holocaust never happened, and those who dress as pirates to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendages."
I read the above in February on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7245071.stm.
I was most definitely not amused, in fact it quite ruined my Valentine's day.
This is just one example of the insults they expect us to swallow. Maybe we are slow, even a bit backward; but do they think we are really stupid or what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)