Tuesday 27 October 2025 – You Have to Put Them Somewhere
When I did my Options at school when I was fourteen, when we chose what GCSE subjects we wanted to do, we could mostly choose whatever we wanted; there were no qualification criteria. We had to do the core subjects, that was not an option. They were English, maths and, being a Catholic school, Religious Education (RE). Otherwise we had to choose one science (I chose Physics), one humanities subject (Economics) and two other subjects of any combination of science or humanities (I chose Geography and Biology but, basically there wasn’t that much choice and it just meant I didn’t do Chemistry, History and Sociology). And we had to choose one art subject from a choice of three: Art, Pottery or Music. Music was the one exception in that it did have a qualification criterion: you had to be able to play an instrument. I chose music because I played the recorder which I learned in primary school. Some of the girls were taught guitar by one of the nuns in the first year but boys were excluded from this class.
Physical Education (PE) everyone continued to do but then it wasn’t a GCSE subject; just an excuse to give the children exercise and, for the boys at least, to kick lumps out of each other so that we didn’t do it in the classroom instead. Although the boys did a variety of sports including football, cross country, rugby, football, tennis, badminton, football, table tennis, gymnastics, basketball, football, javelin, discus and football, nothing was taught, for rugby, which no-one had ever encountered before, even the rules. This was just a big muddy, bloody melee for one rainy half-term when we turned the football pitch into an unusable bog.
Maths and English were split into streams of academic ability of high, intermediary and remedial. For all other subjects, we were all lumped together. And, given Art and Pottery might require using sharp objects, the pre-qualification of being able to play an instrument was relaxed for some of the more “remedial” and unpredictable pupils who might be at risk of harming themselves and others. This resulted in some people in music class with whom there was nothing much the teacher could do.
One such classmate was Giovanni, or Divvy Givvy as we called him. He had no hope. He never seemed to know what he was supposed to be doing or what was going on and wore a permanent wide grin. He was not marked for greatness by the teachers, in remedial classes for maths and English and, in 1980s comprehensive education, this meant no-one even tried to educate him.
In our first music class, the teacher gave us each a percussion instrument. Givvy, handed the block (a wooden block with a slit and a stick), was told to simply “give us a beat of four”. He didn’t know what he was being asked to do and just held it in his hands grinning. “Just hit out a regular beat: one, two, three, four”, the music teacher told him. He carried on grinning, not acknowledging he had anything in his hands. She took it from him to demonstrate: thonk, thonk, thonk, thonk; thonk, thonk, thonk, thonk, and handed it back. He regarded it and, with another word of encouragement from the teacher, started randomly whacking it to no particular rhythm. “No, hit it regularly to a beat of four and keep going like I did.” He looked at it again, hit it once and grinned back at the teacher, she took the block from him and told him to go and sit in the corner where he stayed (at least while in her class) for the next two years. I don’t know why he chose music. But I suppose he had to choose something.
38 years later, I am now in a community brass band, second horn in the Senior Band. Second baritone wasn’t doing well so, with the simple qualification that he bought a horn, he switched seats to second horn as well. Now sat next to me, I could hear what he was struggling with. He seemed to have four states of playing; from least distracting to most: 1. not playing at all because he is lost as to where we are in the score and thinks we are in rest bars despite being able to see me playing and knowing we are playing the same part, 2, playing in the rest bars, 3. playing so tentatively because he doesn’t know how to play what is in front of him combined with him not knowing where in the score we are but he thinks he should be playing something and he is not really making any kind of note at all, just a quiet, un-pitched parping noise to no particular rhythm, and 4. playing confidently because it is simple and he knows this bit and so plays the notes as quickly as he is able rather then to the tempo and volume of the conductor and the rest of the band. Like with Divvy Givvy with GCSE Music, I don’t know why he chose to join a band because I can’t see what he gets out of it. But, unlike Givvy, because it is a community group and because no-one is actually responsible for teaching him, he is allowed to join in nonetheless.
Why this generosity and patience extends to the people I work with, I don’t know. One would think that paid employees, professionals you might say, are assessed for their ability to do at least the basics of the job they are paid to do and are not complete divs, and there are various stages of this assessment such as CV application, job interview, probation periods, fortnightly one-to-one supervision meetings and bi-annual assessments, as well for some frontline service provider staff, performance targets. But the problem stems from that the people in charge of recruitment and staff management are just as divvy. And the divs have to be put somewhere and, because private companies usually won’t take them, that usually means in public service. Except that private companies will take them to be the liaison for council officers to see if they can out-div them.
At the end of Quarter 2, I asked each of the developers to submit their monitoring returns for S106 contributions towards Employment & Skills; their spreadsheet of job starts for the last quarter. Brent Cross Town is a special case. As I have talked about in these pages, it is a £6.8bn joint venture between the council and Related Argent (RA). With all the hundreds, and eventually even thousands of jobs, that will be created in the borough from this development, both during its construction, but also in all the new commercial buildings being built, RA created Brent Cross Recruit (BXR), a job brokerage service between the construction developers, new businesses and residents who councillors, and planning regulations, demand benefit from these new jobs and the training that goes with them.
BXR, part of RA, was eventually set up towards the end of last year. RA’s Head of Social Value and my boss interviewed candidates to be the BXR Manager. For now, it would just be one person in post but the team would grow and this person would eventually be in charge of the whole thing. The person they selected is the “gimp” I referred to in None is Good Enough. In post now for nearly a year, and after the end of his third full quarter, he has reported one job start. In nearly a year in the post, he has helped one local resident into a job! And that much seemed to be little of his doing.
The manager of the council’s care-leaving team for young people ageing out of statutory local government care into independent adulthood helps them find a job. She pushed for about a dozen of them to meet some of the contractors on Brent Cross Town (BXT) with the aim of them giving them work experience potentially leading to a job. Organised with the BXR Manager, the event went well but, ultimately, he was only able to broker two of the young people into work placements and then into a job. The Care-Leaver Manager continued to support the two young people after they started work and so found out that they were not given contracts of employment and didn’t seem to know what they were being paid or by whom. As a result, one of them left, the remaining young person the one and only job start the BXR Manager has claimed over nearly a year of operation. What went down in his job interview, and how bad the other candidates must have been, I can’t imagine.
As S106 Monitoring Officer, the Care-Leaver Manager asked me to help her with the problem of no employment contract and, since RA had now reduced themselves to illegality, I escalated this to my manager who, in turn, on 12 September, raised the query with the BXR Manager:
“Hi [BXR Manager],
“I hope you have had a good week. I was really delighted to hear about the recent successes with our care leavers and other vulnerable young people who gained work experience leading to jobs at BXT. However, I have been made aware that there are a couple of issues arising, that I hope you would be able to help to resolve?
“Firstly, 2 young people who completed work experience moved into jobs on completion, which was amazing. However, it is getting on for 6 months since they started paid employment and neither has yet been given a contract. I think [the Care-Leaver Manager] will have already raised this, but from my point of view this is not only very unfair to the young workers who do not know their conditions of employment, but also potentially opens us up to some very bad press if the wrong people get hold of it. I am sure it is just the company’s HR being behind on paperwork, but is there a chance you could give them a nudge?”
He replied a
week later:
“Hi [Head of Economy and Skills],
“Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, I was on leave. I agree that [the two care-leavers] should receive contracts. It’s been around 6 weeks since they began paid work at the end of July, which is long enough for a contract to be sorted. Although technically it is not illegal to start work without a contract, it’s not best practice. [The Care-Leaver Manager] has previously raised this with [the Social Value Lead for BAM, one of the contractors on site] and I’ve chased the outcome yesterday. Unfortunately, [she] at BAM is on leave, so I’ve messaged the email on her out of office in the hope we can resolve this swiftly.”
What? Yes, it is illegal! You can’t employ someone without telling them who has employed them, what they are paid and basically what their job
is! How did he get a job as a senior economic
development lead on a new major town in London if he doesn’t know this!? Outraged at how RA and their contractors are
now not only not helping our residents but going further to illegally abuse
them, I replied:
“Hi [BXR Manager],
“Please note that it is illegal to employ someone without a written contract of employment before or on the first day of employment; as a minimum a written agreement of the “particulars” of the job including pay, hours, job title and place of work. Further details in a full contract of employment can be provided at a later date but still within the first two months of employment.
“This is in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“Paul.”
He replied the following day (still in no rush)…
“Thanks Paul – we have checked in with HR and they agree that they should have a written statement before starting at the very least but can start without a full contract.”
…and no resolution. He followed up the following week:
“Good morning all,
“I’ve caught up with GK Construction [BAM’s sub-contractor who, it turns out, is the secret employer] just now and wanted to update you.
“D has left them but H is still working. I’ve asked if they have issued them a contract and they said they hadn’t yet but will do so. The HR person is going to set up a meeting with H and do this.”
And H is the
one and only successful (?) outcome BXR has had yet in the last year.
The
Guard (2011):
Sgt Boyle: You’ve been cautioned under the Bestiality Act.
Billy: Man, that was fuckin’ years ago. I thought that had been forgotten about.
Sgt Boyle: What was it, a sheep or something?
Billy: It was a llama. I didn’t know it was illegal to interfere with a llama. Did you?
Sgt Boyle: I would have assumed so, Billy.
The manager of Brent Cross Recruit is not alone in being a bit clueless about stuff relating to helping people into quality jobs. Ingeus are a Department of Work and Pensions contractor, awarded £575.3m of public money for the Functional Assessment Service in 2023, £313.7m for the Restart Scheme in Central and West London in 2021, £397.5m for the Work and Health Programme in 2018 and it was announced they had been awarded the Access to Work contract in 2024.
The Restart contract in West London means that they provide employment support to unemployed benefit claimants living in Barnet. They are based in the council’s civic offices in Colindale where they rent a floor with 40 Employment Advisers with caseloads of 90 job-seekers each. That’s 3,600 benefit claimants coming and going from our office at any one time. With the Council contracting construction employers to ring-fence jobs for them, you would expect we would see many of these 3,600, but their Employment Advisers have referred four of them to us, ever.
I think it is because, like almost all employers, our S106 Job Broker asks for them to submit a written application for a job in the first place, in this case a CV, and I don’t think Ingeus’s Employment Advisers have any more idea about how to write a CV than do the people they are being paid hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to help.
Their Local Integration Lead (Partnership Manager? Job Broker?) for Barnet and Brent sent one such CV to our Job Broker in application to a General Labourer vacancy, but she seemed tentative:
“Hi [Brokerage Lead]
“One of our Restart [participants], M, is interested to apply for the Site labourer role. Could you please kindly get in touch with him when most convenient? Below his CV details.
Many thanks,
[Local
Integration Lead]”
She has a peculiar intercontinental syntax to her speech and writing, English clearly not her first language, and she possibly learned American English from watching Friends, so it’s a bit like speaking to a Vodafone customer service representative and it’s hard to tell if she is being tentative, yet she is in charge of screening her 40 Employment Advisers’ CVs and speaking to employers and their job brokers on their behalf.
The CV £1.3bn-funded-Ingeus helped M write started with a “profile” and his key skills for the Site Labourer role:
“A well-mannered and conscientious individual with strong communication skills and the ability to work effectively with people from diverse backgrounds. Reliable, responsible, and adaptable, with experience in healthcare, building maintenance, and customer service. Skilled at working independently or as part of a team to deliver high standards of service. Currently seeking a new and challenging position that will utilise my skills and support career development. Strong organisational and time management skills. Committed and reliable with a positive attitude to work. Ability to work independently and under minimal supervision. Customer service and teamwork skills. Languages: Arabic and English. Computer literate – intermediate skills.”
Ok, that’s a lot for the employer to take in on the first reading. Some attributes have been repeated, perhaps to hammer home how much M has them; is it important to get across just how well he can work independently by saying it twice? The style of writing in general is interesting making it read like a mid-Twentieth Century telegram except telegrams had “stops” in them to make it easier to read and less like a big block of text just listing things. When Therese Coffey was appointed Health Secretary in 2022, she urged departmental staff to not use Oxford commas. This memo may not have made it to the DWP and on to their main contractors because the Employment Adviser has leant heavily into them here, although I would say that the EA and their Local Integration Lead don’t really know what any comma is for. For added colour, they also use hyphens and colons. And what perspective is this written in? It seems to start off in the third person and then reverts to a first-person perspective unless, that is, one refers to oneself in the first person as an “individual”.
Red
Dwarf
The Cat: Why don’t we drop the defensive shields?
Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One, we don’t have any defensive shields. And, two, we don’t have any defensive shields. Now, I realise that,technically speaking, that’s only one flaw, but I thought that it’s such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
So what attributes
might the employer be looking for beyond the asinine and unquantified? He needs someone with a Construction Skills
Certification Scheme (CSCS) card, a health & safety certificate that most
contractors require before they can let anyone on a construction site. Does M have this? It doesn’t say so in his CV. The Job Broker did say only send CVs once the
candidate has got their CSCS card, so she assumed so.
The employer also told her, preferably he was looking for someone with at least some construction or housing maintenance experience to demonstrate some aptitude for it. Has M got this? In the middle of the porridge of commas in the Profile, if you didn't miss it, is a reference to building maintenance. If you didn't miss it but didn't understand the context because, well why would you because it's just a list of random words in no particular order(?), if you scroll further down his CV, beyond the Profile and Key Skills, the Employment Adviser has listed an Employment History. M’s last job was on the Restart Scheme. Oh. He is:
“- Engaged in employability training and job search support to secure sustainable employment
“- Developed
skills in CV writing, job applications, and interview preparation”
That second point about CV writing skills is debateable but all the employer wants to know is does he have a CSCS card and any relevant experience. I’m not sure that advertising to potential employers he is being mandated to attend an employment programme run by an expensively-commissioned private company because Jobcentre Plus has deemed him beyond their ability to help him get a job is something that goes in a CV.
But if you scroll down further, his actual last job was as a Building Assistant for a housing maintenance company. By this stage the employer might have stopped reading, but £1.3bn doesn’t buy you the kind of skills, such as being able to write a compelling CV, like it used to do.
The Job Broker replied to Ingeus about the CV:
“Hi [Local Integration Lead],
“I spoke to M and unfortunately he doesn’t have a CSCS card so I won’t be able to put him forward for the position.
“Kind regards,
“[Brokerage
Lead]”
Oh. That seemed to me pretty conclusive and damning feedback but the Local Integration Lead replied the same day:
“Thanks for the feedback, we are willing to support the [participant] with his CSCS card, that shouldn’t be an issue, however, since we sent the application back on 14th of October, [he] has been in hospital, he was due to start his CSCS green card training, two weeks ago.”
Oh dear. She continued with requests with further demands on the council’s CV writing skills that M is so proud of that he now already has…
“Aside this, are you able to provide any feedback about the CV and how did he come across, most importantly, any feedback from the employer if he was proposed as a candidate with potential? We are currently supporting the candidate whilst he recovers.”
Yes: the employer said he needs a CSCS card. In desperation, the Job Broker emailed me asking for advice. If this is the level of support she needs to provide to all 40 Employment Advisers and their Local Integration Lead, then she’s going to struggle. Perhaps managing the quality of Ingeus’s work should be left to Liz Kendall? I replied,
“I don’t envy you your job sometimes. My feedback would be that the CV is eccentrically bad. But is it the Council’s job to be telling an organisation as big as Ingeus how to write a CV?
“…one would think [you giving feedback] would be limited to job-ready candidates submitted for your jobs, not general feedback on candidates not applying for a job yet because they’re in hospital and don’t have a CSCS card.”
“[…]”
She replied saying she is “struggling with what to reply to her”, so I thought, let’s take this opportunity to give the Local Integration Lead a one-time quick lesson in CV writing and what plain English looks like. I advised her to reply:
“The CV could say,
“’I am applying for an entry-level role in the construction sector and would be very interested in a site labourer role. I have my [colour] CSCS card and I have experience in building and maintenance working for [a housing maintenance company]. My goal is to work hard in my new role, gain experience and then apply for an apprenticeship to specialise in a trade. I am available for work immediately.’
“Please don’t include anything in the profile that is unquantified e.g. “well-mannered”, “conscientious”, “ability to work well with other people”, “reliable”, “responsible”, “adaptable”, “skilled at working independently or as part of a team”. The reason being is that the employer won’t know what to do with these assertions and, frankly, they’re a bit cliché and the employer will have stopped reading before he or she gets to M’s really good quantifiable experience and qualifications (when he gets his CSCS card) for the job.
“These are still very important attributes an employer looks for so if you can include them, instead, in achievements in each job relating to that job, then they are quantified and the employer can accept them/understand the context.
“Then can the next section be work experience, either starting with his most recent employment (whether paid or unpaid) or most relevant employment, both, in M’s case being [the housing maintenance job].
“This does not include his membership on Restart. I think having his last job up to May 2025 should be ok but can I ask why he left this job [after three months] (I may be asked)? If it was an organised placement, then this is fine. If the job was meant to be longer, then we might need to think of a good answer why he is likely to hold on to this job.
Applicants for the job should be applying for the job and that means being available immediately to go for an interview and start work. I will also be pre-screening for this so, if they’re not yet quite job-ready, I’m happy to consider for future jobs when they are and you submit their CV in application then.”
I fear that this will be new and useful information for the Ingeus lead. I don’t know how she ended up in this job leading 40 Employment Advisers and 3,600 job-seekers, the blind leading the blind. I suppose they had to put her somewhere.
On Friday, the
Paralegal from our Legal team emailed the agreed S106 contract for the Volvo
Car Showroom in The Hyde, Hendon to the Planner, copying in the Skills inbox. My manager, who monitors this inbox,
forwarded it to me yesterday. In the Skills,
Enterprise, Employment and Training schedule, she had forgotten to include one
of the heads of terms: to use local construction businesses in the supply chain
of the development.
How she forgot it I don’t know because they are written down for her by the Planner, agreed by Planning Committee and then sent to her to draft the S106 contract based on them. Also, it is a bog-standard head of terms and Legal uses a template S106 contract that has it in it. Yet, on completion, it isn’t. How did she even manage that?
Also, in the listed financial remedies, an apprenticeship has been valued at £7,500, less than for a simple job valued in the same contract at £7,731.51. In both the template and the planning policy, an apprenticeship’s justified value is £25,000. Where did she even get £7,500 from? Did she have to overwrite the correct value in the template contract with the one she made up?
Despite the process seemingly made foolproof for her, these may just be simple errors and why we check drafts of S106 agreements before they are signed and sealed. But this one has been sent, not to me, the S106 Officer, in draft form, but to the Skills Inbox completed.
Why the Skills inbox? Today I had my one-to-one with my manager and I asked him does Legal often use the Skills inbox and had they been sending drafts of this contract there which I hadn’t seen and, therefore, commented on? No, he replied, Legal had never used this inbox before, he checks it regularly and was surprised to see this in there. So, not only is it unclear how she could mess up the contract, we don’t know why she then unilaterally decided to agree it with the landowner and then randomly send it to the Skills inbox, or how she even found out about it in the first place when she had been previously sending other draft contracts directly to me.
So, as well as inadvertently defying the democratic decision of the Planning Committee, that’s potentially £157,500 income she has lost the council because she can’t copy and paste their written directions into an existing template and send it to the same colleague she has always used to check it for her. Why does the council keep her? How badly does someone have to do their job before they are sacked? If she was, though, where would this qualified and experienced legal practitioner go if her work is this calamitous? I suppose someone has to employ her.
Planning’s Building Control Team has given the go-ahead for commencement of construction on the new Waste Transfer Station next to the new Brent Cross West Thameslink Station, and the site was handed over to the construction contractor on 15 September.
The contractor is McLaughlin & Harvey and they were commissioned by the council to do the works after a competitive tender back in 2021. The Invitation To Tender (ITT) invited bidders to propose, from the council’s predefined and listed Social Value measures, our “TOMs”, what Social Value they would contribute as part of the works in addition to core contract KPIs, and how they would deliver them. But, because the Head of Procurement wrote the tender specification, and there is no reason to think she knows anything about either planning obligations or social value, or the difference between them, the next paragraph in the Social Value section of the ITT then asked them to propose how they would plan to deliver the S106 obligations in Related Argent’s (financer of the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration scheme) Employment & Skills Delivery Plan for that phase, written in 2018. So, the ITT invites them to propose Social Value measures from the council’s published list, and how. And, then, as a non sequitur, it goes on to say to draft a delivery plan explaining how they plan to deliver a delivery plan. Does any of that make any sense? Does anything the Head of Procurement say make any sense (see Corporate Directive 6.1)? Does anyone know how her brain is wired because no-one dares ask her anything because no-one understands her answers.
The Social Value proposal accounted for 20% of the total score, a very important part if they were to win what is a £33m contract, and so they covered both Social Value and S106. Except they only talked in vague platitudes about the benefits of “local employment”, “skills development”, “engaging a local supply chain”, “enriched communities”, “health & wellbeing” and “protecting and improving the environment”. There were no actual measurable measures proposed and, therefore, no delivery plans to deliver them. But, in their wisdom, despite Procurement officers not possibly being able to know about economic development, public health and environmental sustainability, all specialist departments within the council, scored it themselves and determined that this was the best bid.
So, now that Planning had allowed commencement of construction, my manager was called upon by the council’s Property team to reconvene to discuss a S106 Employment and Skills Delivery Plan. Why him and not me is because he was asked advice on this back in 2023 when they thought, then, commencement was imminent and so, naturally, they were none the wiser and had to meet again.
My manager couldn’t remember what he had said two years ago and hadn’t written anything down, at least that he could make sense of, so he asked me to read the ITT and bid for him and attend the meeting with him and the Property Management Team (although it wasn’t actually the Property Management Team because they don’t know how to manage the building of new properties, but commissioned consultants, Thornett PSL, who also didn’t understand the S106 and Social Value requirements, proposal or contract schedule) for my “expertise”.
We discovered in the meeting on 10 October that neither did McLaughlin & Harvey. However, they were sure that the minimum proxy financial value of the TOMs had to amount to at least 5% of the contract value (totalling at least £1,650,000) but that this could include Social Value measures towards the S106 contributions, that is, jobs, skills training and contract awards to local businesses. I mean, legally it can’t because Social Value has to be additional to the core works commissioned and planning obligations are a standard part of any build and so not additional, but that’s what Corporate Procurement’s ITT seemed to say and we are where we are and that’s never a good place to be. They had not selected the measures yet, so this still had to be done. And they had drafted an Employment and Skills Delivery Plan for S106 back in 2023 but my manager had fed back, then, that it was no good and so to start again, this time referring to the jobs, training and supply chain measures they had proposed in social value terms and were required in planning terms. But he had forgotten that feedback so I reminded him.
Fine, so this time around, my manager set an action that M&H should fill in the TOMs matrix so that the measures proposed could add up to at least 5% and write a delivery plan for each of the three themes: economic development/S106, health & wellbeing and environmental sustainability, send them back to him and then we meet again the following Friday to review and this time invite the council’s Social Value Officer (or, at least he said that after I wrote it down and sent it to him that that is what he should say).
In the meantime, I gave an update to the Social Value Officer and asked him to confirm to M&H that they’re commitment was 5%.
He didn’t. On the following Friday morning, just before the meeting and giving me little time to review the proposal and delivery plans, M&H sent an email. But it didn’t contain the TOMs matrix but just the same draft S106 Employment & Skills Delivery Plan that my manager had rejected back in 2023. They had done nothing.
Copying in the consultant and Social Value Officer, I advised my manager to postpone the meeting until our Social Value Officer had been in touch with M&H to confirm the value of their commitment and had explained to them how to make a Social Value proposal as he had already asked them to do. If they then didn’t, and we didn’t hold M&H to account for what they had put in their bid, then this opens up the council to a legal challenge from those bidders who lost out to M&H’s [rubbish] bid which accounted for a very meaningful 20% of the total score The consultant commissioned to manage this process concurred with my management of this process by confirming that, regardless of whether it was unclear in the ITT what they were supposed to propose, we had to hold M&H to account for the Social Value they had proposed.
The Social Value Officer, late to the game, disagreed. This all seemed a bit too didactic for him. Imposing rules wasn’t nice; social value is supposed to be a nice thing. I would have thought it’s supposed to be nice for society benefitting from it, not the contractors with millions of pounds of their money, now with the responsibility of delivering it. But he didn’t see it that way: share the love:
“Hi [Head of Economy of Skills],
“FYI – we won’t be asking them to offer 5% of contract value as that is too onerous, as they also have S106 targets. There will be no set minimum threshold, but we do expect them to provide a social value offer.”
Ahh, sweet. But does he though? This is the officer who has presided, since the council’s adoption of its Social Value Policy in 2021, over committing, co-ordinating and monitoring social value contributions from the council’s suppliers and, in his last two annual Social Value Impact Reports, reported zero social value ever (see Corporate Directive 6.1). Now I can see why. He wasn’t even aware of this major contract award until I told him about it. I know he has made the unilateral decision, in keeping with his practice of not asking suppliers for, and therefore not getting any, social value to also not ask M&H for any, and that is why he has achieved literally nothing in his four and half years employed by the council.
I’m not sure why we keep him but it may be the same reason as for Divvy Givvy, the baritone player, the BXR Manager, the Local Integration Lead, Fr Dougal and the Paralegal: you have to put them somewhere.
Comments
Post a Comment