Tag: gabriel webber

You might think I’ve plumbed the very depths of Channukah-based humour but we’ll see. If you want to be updated when I’m next back, put your email address into the box on the right.
.

It’s that time of year again; let there be light, oil, latkes and presents. And if you’re having trouble finding decent, why not browse this year’s hot-off-the-press-edition catalogue from GABRIEL FESTIVE INNOVATIONS!

Other Channukoid news

And on which point…

Parliamentary news

Portsmouth MP Penny Mourdaunt had a bet on to try and slip the word ‘cock’ as many times as possible into a speech to the House of Commons, while David Cameron had a similar bet on to try and slip as many stupid policies into a five-year term as Prime Minister.

Gosh, how childish.

But she’s not the only one: Nigel Mills MP (Amber Valley, Con.) was filmed playing ‘Candy Crush’ on his iPad for two and a half hours while he was at a meeting of the Work & Pensions Select Committee. Mills admitted that he “shouldn’t do it […] I shall try not to do it in future.”

He’ll try not to sit in a meeting, get out his iPad, switch it on, select ‘Candy Crush’ and sit playing it for extended periods of time. He’ll make an effort not to do that.

I think it’s heartwarming how committed Nigel Mills is to conquering his demons.

The Sussex trade

The case of University of Sussex v Information Commissioner and Webber (EA/2014/0148) continues apace. Last week Sussex student newspaper The dear old Badger turned me into an infographic [left]; and yesterday they published an article about my Guardian Runner-up Student Reporter of the Year award for uncovering Lapelgate. (Slightly sad to be so old that I get invited to share my war stories with a young cub reporter.)

Interestingly Sussex University itself hasn’t yet found time to report that one of their alumni won a prestigious journalism award like they did when someone won last year. They managed to report someone else winning one though so I guess it must just be an oversight.

Anyway, reading through the legal bundles with which they’ve filled my front room, one gets a pretty rosy picture of how lovely they are. They began every one of their letters over the legal case with the sentence:

The University would again stress its ongoing commitment to the Freedom of Information regime and the openness and transparency that it promotes.

Well, that seems jolly good of them! They sounded almost hurt that I’d made a formal FOI request rather than simply asking them for the information I wanted man-to-man.

However, this “ongoing commitment” to FOI apparently developed fairly recently (or is just completely contrived; I guess that’s a theoretical possiblity) because in 2012 the University of Sussex made the following submission to a Parliamentary select committee:

On the whole it [the Freedom of Information Act] is not used for the purposes of encouraging transparency […] It can be deliberately used for time-wasting or mischievous questions […] We suggest that the FOIA enquirer should be required to present a specific public-interest rationale for each request, which the receiving body should be able to challenge.

It’s lovely when public authorities are so committed to transparency that they want to retaint for themselves the power to decide whether or not a request for information is worthwhile. “You want to know about our Board’s three-month fully-funded trip to Tahiti? No, I don’t think you need bother your pretty little head with that.”

Lusm transparency.

And a happy new year

Gabrielquotes Plc. wishes all of its readers a joyful winter season, Limmud, new year etc., and we’ll be back presently with more tempting tidbits.

See ya then!

Slave-drivers part of religious cult

An investigation by The Guardian has revealed that those responsible for keeping the Israelites slaves in Egypt may have been part of a religious cult. “We have seen evidence that the slave-drivers worshipped an array of part-animal part-human deities who always stand side-on.”

Other Pesach news this year:

Follow the money

Readers may remember from last month that Sussex University recently noticed that it had accidentally paid one of its staff an extra £75,000. I speculated at the time that their reasons for asking for a repayment over several years – rather than dismissing the individual concerned and taking legal action – was about saving themselves embarassment.

Well, how wrong can you be. Because shortly after The Argus published a story about the incident, the Audit Committee paper which was my source mysteriously disappeared from the database on which I found it. Look: the series of papers runs from 1 to 10, but strangely, number 8 is missing:

How odd. I daresay it’s just a mistake, because Director of Finance Allan Spencer described the episode as an “irregularity” rather than incompetence or fraud. Since he clearly has nothing to hide and the removal of paper A/79/8 must have been an oversight, I am providing a copy here.

Other Sussex transparency news

Readers may remember the recent refusal of Director of Student Services Claire Powrie (pictured) to respond to freedom of information requests on ridiculous non-grounds (“The University is not obliged to take into account the views of the relevant individuals [when making decisions about the handling of their personal data]”). Her reasoning was, it turns out, based on substantial legal advice.

I asked how much this advice cost. The answer: “The University is withholding this information […] The University’s legal advisers agreed its costs with the University on the understanding that this information would be kept confidential.” Now this is interesting. It’s a reasonable argument on the surface, yet it has never been the case before. The University has always published its legal expenditure on request.

What can have changed? Could it possibly be the fact that Sussex’s excessive legal expenditure has repeatedly been the subject of embarrassing media coverage? (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E.) I think so. The cunning devils have actually gone to the effort of entering into artificial but legally-binding confidentiality contracts to avoid having to release this information any more.

If any more proof is needed, I also asked from whom the legal advice was sought. The response: “The University is withholding this information […] If the University were to release the name of its legal advisers […] it would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.” Just think about that. An actionable breach of confidence. It is being suggested that if Sussex names its lawyers, they could sue the University. Not say, “Thank you for the free publicity and for the business we’ll now get from other large scummy universities.” Sue.

That seems just a little too convenient and implausible. So their deep commitment to transparency now involves them going to extraordinary efforts to circumvent legislation aimed at openness.

Meanwhile back at the farm, Sussex’s insistence that over 100 pages of their contract with catering nightmare Compass (a company blacklisted by the United Nations for corruption) should be withheld from publication was challenged, and the Information Commissioner found that most of the redacted information should have been released. He ordered them to publish a proper copy with only minor redactions. I’ve also managed to browbeat them into releasing their contract with facilities/ accommodation/ porter/ printing/ security provider Interserve.

Sussex tried to suppress over 100 pages. Following the challenge, the Information Commissioner ruled that they were only legally entitled to suppress eight. So they weren’t trying it on at all then

These contracts were drawn up by the University’s very expensive lawyers Pinsent Masons, who are identified by name and logo on the front page of each document. Strange that there was no breach of confidence involved in that…

The juicy bit

I am now releasing these documents in full, exclusively on Gabrielquotes: the University of Sussex’s outsourcing contracts with caterers Chartwells, and facilities managers Interserve part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4. This newly-released material, especially the Interserve documents, frankly contains some dynamite revelations including:

• “Patrolling Security Staff will […] carry a continuously-recording video camera on their lapel […] Lapel cameras [will] record continuously while the Security Staff [are] on patrol” – so we’re all under constant hitherto secret surveillance of dubious legality.
  p155 of Part 3
• “The Service Provider will take all reasonable steps to prevent any protests and demonstrations taking place on the Premises [the campus including buildings and grounds].” Now contrast this previously secret clause with the Brighton County Court witness statement made under oath by Head of Security Roger Morgan, which said that students have ample opportunities to express dissent on campus. Morgan specifically said (and I quote) that we have “the opportunity to hold peaceful demosntrations and marches around the campus  […including] in Library Square”.
  I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions about this apparent contradiction.
  p162 of Part 3
• Interservants has the job of monitoring the “intruder alarm for Vice-Chancellor’s suite”. Could Michael Farthing be living in fear of unwelcome visitors?
  p146 of Part 3
• “The Service Provider shall adopt a set of values which reflects the values of the University and [their own] (and in the event of any conflict then the value of the University shall take precedence). The Service Provider shall ensure that its staff […] live the relevant values.” Erm… #vomit. Also, I take no comfort in John Duffy’s values ‘taking precedence’ over a corrupt profiteering company, because frankly that makes little difference.
  p428 of Part 4
• “Windows will be cleaned with a cloth […] and the residue removed using a squeegee […] All areas are left clean and dry.” Surely the world’s only professional facilities management company which is incapable of cleaning a window without detailed instructions drawn up by a firm of solicitors.
  p67 of Part 2

As you will see if you download these documents, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages and I’ve only had time to look through a couple of them. Anyone who wishes to help wade through the material and find the interesting/scandalous bits should definitely get in touch!

I’m going to be well proud to be a Sussex alumnus.

Maria Miller’s second pyramid

The late Maria Miller gave MPs a heartfelt apology for overclaiming expenses and obstructing Parliamentary authorities’ investigation. Her apology lasted a good 30 seconds, so that’s alright then. Or not, because the leader of the Labour Party called for and eventually got her resignation. (My greatest achievement. -Ed) (That’s funny. -Ed.)

However, what hadn’t come out at the time was the protection racket being run by Miller’s special advisor Joanna Hindley. When a Telegraph journalist contacted Hindley to ask about the £5,800 discrepancy (Irregularity. -Allan.) in the MP’s expenses, they were told:

“Maria is obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around [press regulation post-]Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to flag up that connection for you to think about.”

Or in other words:

.

Her role has now been split: the Culture and ‘Equalities’ (why is that now a plural?) portfolios have gone to Sajid Javid, while the new Minister for Women will be Nicky Morgan – who, in her role as a representative for empowered British women, will be answerable to Sajid Javid, a Man. She’ll have to ask his permission before making press statements, releasing policy papers, going out to dinner on a work night etc.

Good old enlightened David Cameron! Still, we can’t say that his party is entirely institutionally sexist, so let’s pass over to…

Yeah. Let’s panic.

Bank holiday TV guide

I’m sure the fifth question on everybody’s mind is: what am we going to do on that long, endless, boring Pesach bank holiday weekend? Well, with the best TV and radio listings around, Gabrielquotes can present the Pesach Radio Times.

• Of Lice and Men
• Harry Potter and the Four Goblets of Fire
• Slaving Private Ryan
• One Passover the Cuckoo’s Nest
• Doctor Who 2005 finale: The Parting of the Waves
• Call the Midwife a Traitor
• Radio 4’s Afternoon Plague
• Just a Ribbit
• Seders of the Lost Ark
• The Jews Quiz (You’ve done this one. -Ed.)

Nirtzah

Our blog post is now completed: we have read the text, satirised Police & Crime Commissioners and antagonised Michael Farthing. Let us be thankful that we have done so in freedom and safety, and let us pray for the Internet of the future, when all humanity will share information and ideas in harmony and peace.

Next year in Falmer! Next year for a campus redeemed!

Gabrielquotes would like to wish all readers a joyful Pesach, the very best of luck with dissertations/revision/job-seeking and a wonderful year to come.