Forum Topic

JULIAN BELL HONESTY TEST UPDATE

Julian Bell Honesty Test.  Update. I asked Bell a simple question over a month ago.  It concerned the circumstances in which Mr Najsarek gained employment with Ealing Council?  It was: “Did you already know anything of what appeared in the press on June 30 2016 in respect of Mr Najsarek’s behaviour in Bolton when you appointed him?”  Bell must have known the answer.  All he needed to say was yes or no.   A dilemma.  If he said “yes”, he would reveal that he had been dishonest with the people of Ealing when he praised Najserak’s wonderful record of public service.  If you said “no”, he would confirm that Mr Najserak had successfully deceived his way into Ealing Council.A test of integrity for a public servant!   Not Bell.   He ignored the email.  He was guilty of a LIE BY OMISSION. As an avowed Christian, Bell, I am sure, would have been familiar with the Epistle of St James, the origin of this concept. It was his obligation as a public servant to make himself accountable.  He failed. It is was his obligation as a public servant to be honest.   It is my opinion and allegation (which I believe is supported by the simple evidence of this case) that he is a public liar and, as such, unfit for public office. I have told him to understand that every working day from now on I am asking the same question.  HOW OFTEN WILL JULIAN BELL LIE TO ANDREW FARMER?  FIVE DAYS SO FAR – AND COUNTING.

Andrew Farmer ● 425d105 Comments

Repetitive maybe but it is Bell and his appointments that make my skin crawl.  I finally meet Paul Najsarek at Ealing Green on Sunday and was not surprised he demonstrated the same short term memory he had as a Hammersmith Social worker.I told him as I posted on Facebook yesterday:- Last month Ealing Council admitted 11 old people’s care homes were infected. Julian Bell has been dumping infected people since April on the advice of Anna Bryden, Director of Public Health and in full compliance with his Socialist interpretation of the 2014 Care Act. Over 700 people have died in Ealing which has over 350,000 people, the 3rd largest borough by population in London. Anna Bryden lied repeated lied about the number of deaths claiming its only slightly higher than the average for North West London which is 62 per 100,000. In Ealing is actually 200 per 100,000. This of course gives Julian Bell soundbites for his weekly podcasts in addition to his attacks on Boris Johnson all paid for by the taxpayers.Anna Bryden claimed only 416 residents had died from Covid 19 which has allowed Labour MP for Central Ealing & Acton Rupa Huq to promote her Critical Theory of health and social care and attack the Conservative Government. In Ealing a strong learning ethos means everyone must learn to agree with Julian Bell lies that the Borough provides a very supportive environment. This includes Labour funded groups like Reclaim Social Care.Pre-Covid-19 Julian Bell was promoting the unrealistic change programme Future Ealing, he claimed put Health and Well-being at its heart to improve outcomes for local residents. Even then 2 people a week were committing suicide, many leaving notes about the failures of Ealing Social Services and even naming Adult Social Care director Kerry Stevens. Julian Bell’s plan was all about protecting incompetent staff and making money for himself and his friends. He refuses to change.Anna Bryden told Ealing council's Health and Adult Social Services Scrutiny Panel that 70% of cases nationally are followed up and in Ealing a similar percentage of people who test positive are receiving follow up calls as well as those people they have been in contact with. This is which is a blatant lie and no evidence have been forthcoming from Paul Najsarek.Proof of Labour failing in Ealing is their recruitment of a new Consultant in Public Health on £89,148 a year. He/she/it will lead on tackling Public Health challenges focusing upon Ealing’s COVID-19 Prevention and Outbreak Control Plan and COVID-19 response and recovery. The advert for the vacancy was withdrawn after 1 week because Julian Bell had previously decided who was getting this new taxpayer funded post. The ad let Labour gets any good ideas prospective applicants put to RecruitmentTeam@ealing.gov.uk so Julian Bell can pass them to his appointee as he has done since appointing Paul Najsarek. As soon as the ad was withdrawn Anna Bryden announced that despite the weekly infection rate in Ealing declining Julian Bell has awarded contracts for local contact tracing to pick up missed Covid-19 cases but was unable to provide details. She said: “What we are proposing is, if NHS test and trace hasn’t got in touch with somebody within 48 hours, we are then able to access the data system and we are able to have some local staff who are trained to carry on those efforts for another couple of days.” How much this training will cost or even how the trainers are to be recruited are left to the new Consultant in Public Health.According to Ealing’s public health tsar other London Boroughs have established local teams have done door-to-door visits but failed to provide 1 example. Anna Bryden claimed Ealing Council will train its staff to carry this out but gave no details. Instead she made spoke of rumours that people in Ealing with Covid-19 were being sent to Dundee, clearly confused about the illegal immigrants who land in Kent being bused to their all-inclusive holidays to Glasgow, an entirely different place.Ms Bryden said: “In terms of general testing, it’s very hard to say the problem has gone away completely because we don't get all that data, but anecdotally we are not hearing stories that we were about people being sent to Dundee anymore, and we’re getting really good use of the sites we recently opened.” Working from home she ignores all the NHS data published to chat on WhatsApp.Anna Bryden said there has been “an awful lot of capacity nationally” but demand for tests had risen. She claimed “There’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence nationally of young adults getting tested when they don’t have symptoms just so they can hold parties.” Again, she failed to provide any evidence. The only trace of these tales is on sites run by Momentum members and Tweets from her friends Ealing Labour Councillors Dan Crawford and Sarah Rooney.Anna Bryden also claims central government told NHS Services in Ealing to close testing sites. The actual problem was doctors and nurses found the equipment supplied by Ealing Labour Councillor Abdullah Gulaid through his company Labcare Diagnostics Ltd of Mumbai, India were faulty.Now 23 schools out of the 39 in Ealing are known to have Covid-19 cases but Ealing are ignoring Imperial College students in Park Royal. That is very bad but it is crucial to appreciate that an ‘Outbreak’ means 2 cases are found while a further 5 positive Covid-19 tests make a ‘Cluster’. Ealing’s Public Health tsar has no medical training but like all the other NHS and local government bureaucrats with irrelevant degrees she uses jargon to pretend to be helping stop the virus spreading as the previous generation did with AIDS.Najsarek does not answer complaints against his directors and I fully understand why Andrew is concerned.

Martin Cain ● 307d

Aren’t we lucky to have two distinguished clinical psychologists contributing to the Forum to declare Mr Farmer “unbalanced”.  Jones and Southwell.  I checked out Mr Jones some time ago.  His “fixation” is on Mr Farmer.  This thread was preceded by the open letter Mr Farmer sent to Bell, asking him about Najsarek’s appointment.  Jones engaged in a speculative defence of Najsarek and the Council.  Mr Farmer analysed one of his contributions rather too effectively for Jones’ liking. Jones then lapsed into making foolish comments. (“ I think it is pretty clear that Andrew Farmer is a complete and utter tupperware polisher.”)  I assume he was sore at being shown up. Both Mr Jones and Mr Southwell have engaged  – with no evidence to adduce – in speculation  about what occurred during the appointment process.  They assume it was conducted honestly.  They both put favourable interpretations on the behaviour of those involved.  They have NO IDEA what went on.  No one has, except those involved.  We are always assured that these senior appointments are made after thorough scrutiny of the candidates.  Mr Najsarek was appointed “following a rigorous interview process. Tony Clements was appointed “following a rigorous interview process”.  Vague reach-me-down reassuring words.  But we are unable to scrutinise the supposed scrupulosity of the scrutiny.  Questions need to be asked.  Mr Farmer has asked one. If Mr Jones does not think that a council leader lying is important, I do.  If he thinks there are more important things to hold Bell to account for, he should start threads of his own in respect of them and stop obsessing about Mr Farmer.  It adds nothing to the debate.  Mr Bell could answer Mr Farmer’s perfectly reasonable question NOW.  Why doesn't Mr Farmer ask Bell the question again?Vincent Wrigley

vincent paul wrigley ● 361d

Aren’t we lucky to have two distinguished clinical psychologists contributing to the Forum to declare Mr Farmer “unbalanced”.  Jones and Southwell.  I checked out Mr Jones some time ago.  His “fixation” is on Mr Farmer.  This thread was preceded by the open letter Mr Farmer sent to Bell, asking him about Najsarek’s appointment.  Jones engaged in a speculative defence of Najsarek and the Council.  Mr Farmer analysed one of his contributions rather too effectively for Jones’ liking. Jones then lapsed into making foolish comments. (“ I think it is pretty clear that Andrew Farmer is a complete and utter tupperware polisher.”)  I assume he was sore at being shown up. Both Mr Jones and Mr Southwell have engaged  – with no evidence to adduce – in speculation  about what occurred during the appointment process.  They assume it was conducted honestly.  They both put favourable interpretations on the behaviour of those involved.  They have NO IDEA what went on.  No one has, except those involved.  We are always assured that these senior appointments are made after thorough scrutiny of the candidates.  Mr Najsarek was appointed “following a rigorous interview process. Tony Clements was appointed “following a rigorous interview process”.  Vague reach-me-down reassuring words.  But we are unable to scrutinise the supposed scrupulosity of the scrutiny.  Questions need to be asked.  Mr Farmer has asked one. If Mr Jones does not think that a council leader lying is important, I do.  If he thinks there are more important things to hold Bell to account for, he should start threads of his own in respect of them and stop obsessing about Mr Farmer.  It adds nothing to the debate.  Mr Bell could answer Mr Farmer’s perfectly reasonable question NOW.  Why doesn't Mr Farmer ask Bell the question again?Vincent Wrigley

vincent paul wrigley ● 361d

Aren’t we lucky to have two distinguished clinical psychologists contributing to the Forum to declare Mr Farmer “unbalanced”.  Jones and Southwell.  I checked out Mr Jones some time ago.  His “fixation” is on Mr Farmer.  This thread was preceded by the open letter Mr Farmer sent to Bell, asking him about Najsarek’s appointment.  Jones engaged in a speculative defence of Najsarek and the Council.  Mr Farmer analysed one of his contributions rather too effectively for Jones’ liking. Jones then lapsed into making foolish comments. (“ I think it is pretty clear that Andrew Farmer is a complete and utter tupperware polisher.”)  I assume he was sore at being shown up. Both Mr Jones and Mr Southwell have engaged  – with no evidence to adduce – in speculation  about what occurred during the appointment process.  They assume it was conducted honestly.  They both put favourable interpretations on the behaviour of those involved.  They have NO IDEA what went on.  No one has, except those involved.  We are always assured that these senior appointments are made after thorough scrutiny of the candidates.  Mr Najsarek was appointed “following a rigorous interview process. Tony Clements was appointed “following a rigorous interview process”.  Vague reach-me-down reassuring words.  But we are unable to scrutinise the supposed scrupulosity of the scrutiny.  Questions need to be asked.  Mr Farmer has asked one. If Mr Jones does not think that a council leader lying is important, I do.  If he thinks there are more important things to hold Bell to account for, he should start threads of his own in respect of them and stop obsessing about Mr Farmer.  It adds nothing to the debate.  Mr Bell could answer Mr Farmer’s perfectly reasonable question NOW.  Why doesn't Mr Farmer ask Bell the question again?Vincent Wrigley

vincent paul wrigley ● 361d

Mr Southwell, Thank you for your contribution to my thread.  1. You write: “Of course he [Bell] would have known about the issues with Nasjarek as they would have been disclosed as a matter of course during the selection process.”  What evidence do you have that that happened?  Speculation is worthless if unsupported by evidence.  Your speculation assumes the appointment was made honestly.  The point of my question to Bell (and Sabiers) was to investigate whether it was. The evidence is that Najsarek had taken legal action to prevent his record at Bolton being made public and it was still in place at the time he was appointed and for several months after.  2. If you believe that Bell knew Najserak’s record when he was appointed and it had all unfolded “as a matter of course” and there was nothing to hide, are you not surprised that Bell did not simply answer “yes” to my question? 3. You say that Bell was being evasive “because the questioner has the appearance of being a bit unbalanced”.  This would only make sense if that is what Bell thought AT THE TIME.  How do you know what Mr Bell thought when he received my email two months ago?  (In fact, privately far longer than that.) You don’t.  And it doesn’t make sense. This is something YOU are saying now, a foolish insult picked up from Andy Jones.  You have lowered yourself to his level.4. It would only be fair to let you explain yourself.  You have the email that I sent to Bell. Please analyse it and demonstrate why anyone would think the person who wrote it was unbalanced? 5. You say the question was not “tricky”.  The point of it was to pin Bell down.  If he said “Yes. I knew all about Mr Najserak’s record at Bolton”, he would reveal that he had grossly misled the people of Ealing when he sang his praises as a public servant.  If he said “No”, he would reveal that Najserak had successfully practised deceit to gain his job.  Thank you again for your contribution.  I hope you will take this piece of advice:  study the facts of the matter you are discussing and examine what you have written before you publish it.

Andrew Farmer ● 362d

Mr Havelock, you are quite right.  There are possibilities beyond the Council.  Unfortunately, they are no better.    The last time I dealt with the LGO, I put a number of unresolved complaints to them.  They ignored the most serious ones.  The LGO does not have to accept complaints.  If it ignores them, however, it has to explain why.  It failed to do that in this case and so failed in its legal obligation. I made a freedom of information request and it yielded a “diary” of the way the affair had been handled.  One of the officers of the LGO itself had made the same criticism of the way the matter was being handled as I had. When it was dealt with higher up, this was supressed and the LGO found the LGO blameless.  As the Council had not dealt with the complaints in the first place, I took the complaints back to the Council.  This had a benefit:  Helen Harris, the senior legal officer, inadvertently gave away that she had colluded with Alison Reynolds, who has charge of the complaints procedure, and allowed Reynolds to supress a complaint against herself!  As Reynolds and Harris have control of the complaints procedure, who is going to investigate complaints against them?  I asked the Deputy Councillor Leader, Yvonne Johnson.  She has been completely unhelpful.The Council and the LGO are organisations of the kind excoriated in Parliament in a speech by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 21.1.18, organisations whose staff collude in cover-up to protect one another and betray the public interest in favour of their own.No surprise with Bell as Council Leader and Najserak as CEO.

Andrew Farmer ● 413d