Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Council's defence of PR
Given the topicality of the size of PR spend by UK councils (nearly half a billion), our own council has felt the need to mount a defence.
The full politburo press release:
MY friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the Borough. And today, that great Borough has purged itself of parasites.
We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been cast out. And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice!
For today we celebrate the first, glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive!
We have created, for the first time in Haringey, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths.
Our council's Unification of Thought publication is a more powerful weapon than any fleet [street] or army on Earth! We are one People magazine. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion! We shall prevail!
... with apologies to Apple's 1984 advert., whose 25th birthday is today.
The full politburo press release:
MY friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the Borough. And today, that great Borough has purged itself of parasites.
We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been cast out. And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice!
For today we celebrate the first, glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive!
We have created, for the first time in Haringey, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths.
Our council's Unification of Thought publication is a more powerful weapon than any fleet [street] or army on Earth! We are one People magazine. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion! We shall prevail!
... with apologies to Apple's 1984 advert., whose 25th birthday is today.
Tags for Forum Posts: PR, magazine, people, politburo, propaganda, public, publicity, relations, spin
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by phippsofacto on
-
Can you really blame them when people make it their life's work to vilify them ad nauseam?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
The road toll is indeed a terrible thing and personally I would support tougher legislation that might help bring this down. But that is another discussion. There are deaths of children all over the world on a daily basis but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to truly preventable deaths in our Borough.
I'm sure you're not trying to minimise the problems with Haringey's Child Protection Register: but what makes me angry (and the difference with the road toll) is that our council knew about Victoria Climbié, Baby P (& child C?) when they were still alive. Due to mistakes, mismanagement and bureaucratic bungling, they fell through the system. These vulnerable people could not rely on anyone except our council. Do you really want to look anywhere else except where this council is responsible?
With driver inattention causing death, we cannot hold our council responsible in the same way. I'm sorry you don't see arguing for better child protection as constructive; fortunately, the Government takes a different line. Improved Child Protection will cost more money and that has to come from somewhere. Haringey PR spending could and should, be cut drastically to help pay for this improvement.
As a member of the public, last night I attended the Children and Young Persons Strategic Partnership Board meeting at the Civic Centre. After about one hour of listening to bureaucratic waffle, I came away depressed for the future of Child Protection Services in Haringey. The Committee is too large. It seeks to incorporate too many agencies in the grandly titled Strategic Partnership Board. It seems unwieldy.
Rather than being part of the solution ("we must aim for exemplar status"), I fear it remains an important part of the problems identified in, to use their jargon, the "JAR" (i.e. the Joint Area Review or the Ofsted Report). There seems to be too many agencies involved without clear lines of authority and responsibility. All shuffling paper between themselves and waiting for others to comment – while evil is being done.
Lorna Reith is brave for taking on the Lead in this area and as she pointed out, she is more accountable than other Lead Members. But Child Protection is crying out for firm direction and there is little evidence of that so far. One bloke did say that they must "challenge" each other "vigorously" but that was the closest they came to self-criticism.
The committee seemed detached from recent events. The committee seemed focused on processes rather than results, or ultimate aims. Perhaps these are discussed in another place. One suspects more forthright language is used away from the public and press, but on the evidence of the jargon and verbiage from the participants last night, I have little confidence that the systemic failures will be corrected. One suspects all the same platitudes were mouthed after the death of Victoria Climbié.
I left the Strategic Partnership Board meeting and went to the Scrutiny Committee meeting in the council chamber. After a while, Lorna Reith came to answer questions about the budget for the Children's Service for next year. If you had been there, you would have heard that this service is short of funds. Today we heard an attempt from the council at justifying the spending of more than £3,000,000 on PR. This is not just.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
How can the council not be responsible at least in some part for children being killed on it's streets and yet they are responsible when they're killed in someone's private home. Ben has a very good point which I feel you have not responded to: your time would be better invested in campaigning for safer streets than more spied upon families.
-
-
John the council is responsible for the state of the roads in general and that can and has, led to at least one pedestrian fatality (a huge payout was made when the council did accept liability for potholes and poor maintainence causing death).
The council is not responsible for the actions of drivers behind the wheel (that's the driver's responsibility) but the council is responsible for its Child Protection Register (also known as the At Risk Register).
When you say "more spied upon families," do you feel that Baby P's family was spied upon?
-
-
Whereas I am free to pretty much get on with my family life I know there are some that are not. In Haringey I appreciate that this freedom means that some kids/babies will slip through the cracks, especially given our "demographic". Yes, I do feel that social workers are there to spy upon families and check that all is "OK" (among other things).
As for child road deaths, the only one I remember in Harringay was a toddler who wandered out in front of a big red bus on Green Lanes a few years ago. Just another one of those things eh?
Is our "at risk" register really proportionate to the resources available to help these children?
-
-
John you were right to raise the question of the council's responsibility for the streets. In recent years they've got to a bad state. Although potholes may have caused fatalities, I am in fact not aware of any; in the case I was thinking of, it wasn't a fatality but terrible injuries that happened to a pedestrian (a charity worker) and which led to a payout of £1m.
This was reported in October in the Haringey Independent. It's the kind of story that tends not to be covered in the council's "Haringey People" magazine and the kind of story that would have been missed by anyyone who relies solely on People for news.
Some of the council's publicity budget goes on telling us that it is mending the roads. Everyone has seen the advertising saying "You asked us to fix the roads ... etc". Call me old-fashioned, but the money devoted to this advertising would have been better spent on fixing another pothole or two!
I'm sorry but I don't really understand your last question. Are you arguing for more social worker "spies" or fewer "spies"?
For the avoidance of doubt, I am arguing for more and better social workers, properly funded and better led, amongst other things.
My earlier question was not about your belief "that social workers are there to spy upon families [in general]", it was whether you feel that the family of Baby P in particular, was spied on? Should I just deduce that is what you believe? Do you honestly think that society would be better off without any social workers?
-
-
I suspect that the "at-risk" register is too big given the number of social workers available OR that there are not enough social workers etc. Pragmatism must come into play at some point, as well as hiring more social workers you have to de-list some of the less urgent cases.
I also think that this old joke:
Somebody comes across a man in the middle of the night and he is grovelling around under a streetlight looking for something and the man says: What, have
you lost something, and the man says: I lost my car keys. Where are
they? And the man points way over in the darkness and he says: Why aren't
you looking there? The man says: The light's better here.
could have had something to do with it.
-
-
Should the case of Baby P have been "de-listed" as you put it, or should his family have been "spied" on, as you suggested social workers engage in? What is the purpose of an At Risk register? What is the purpose of the council, apart from providing and maintaining employment for its officers and employees?
As for the keys we've lost, they are the keys to better performance in important front-line serivices, such as child-care. The keys are easy to find. One of the keys is the money lost in bloated, extravagant spending on publicity and media manipulation.
(We know who was holding the keys to the monies lost and frozen in Iceland).
Every council needs to communicate with its residents, but HaringeyPravdaPeople magazine goes far beyond that. There is no need for every household in this vast Borough to be force-fed every four weeks, a 32-page, full colour-publication of self-congratulation. Council contact details and forthcoming events, that most people would regard as useful and helpful, constitute a small fraction of this.
I wonder how many people read the council puffery vs those who instinctively re-cycle it as a reflex action?
Most people might allow that, although the Jehovah's Witness' Watchtower magazine does contain contact details and the times, dates and places of the next sermons (and other factual matter), it is bascially a tendentious publication, seeking believers. It differs importantly from the council's People magazine in that it makes no pretence to be agnostic and it is funded privately. In it's present form, People is a misuse of public funds.
Recovering the lost and wasted monies is one of the keys to Borough recovery. The more light that a free press can shine on these things, the better off we all are.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe on
-
Another reference to the so-called Tax Payers Alliance. This is the latest in a series of references to press articles which repeats pronouncements of this self appointed group. The founding members of this group make interesting reading.
It is asked what the purpose of the council is apart from providing and maintaining employment. If I were one of the crew emptying bins on some residents' streets, I may think that there are some jolly ungrateful people who do not appreciate those who do one of the most unpleasant jobs around. Likewise the teachers who educate children to their best ability, those who sweep the streets, those who provide services for disabled and elderly residents, those who keep our parks, those who protect us from noise pollution, trading standards officers who maintain standards of service to consumers. I could go on.
I bet it's a long time since many people thanked the workers who do many of these menial jobs, yet would never get a pint without saying thanks to the bar staff, or thank someone who held a door open for them.
I also hold in admiration, those who put themselves up for election and spend the time and energy serving their communities and seeking the best for those who cannot always articulate their own needs and views. I haven't the balls to do it myself, so well done to those who do it. Sure, not all elected officials are perfect, neither are all contributors to online discussions. -
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, sometimes you ask reasonable questions and make some helpful points. But hasn't it occurred to you that when you make sweeping assertions - often without evidence or entirely at odds with easily checked facts - you undermine your own arguments? Or worse still, raise doubts about whether you are genuinely interested in dialogue.
To take just one of your statements. It is simply untrue that: `that Victoria Climbié and Baby P "... could not rely on anyone except our council". You know perfectly well that in both cases, as well as the key role played by Haringey there was close involvement by other agencies. This included hospitals, GPs, Health Visitors, the Police, and voluntary agencies. A major fact to emerge from the Laming Inquiry was the shocking failure of all agencies to communicate and work effectively together.
You may be right to be sceptical about the "Strategic Partnership Board". But a helpful response is to consider if and why such boards work well. Or if not, how they can be improved; or perhaps replaced by something which does work better.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
