<<Back to most read

Comment | Read Comments (25)

The errors in the Dr Fosters report were most certainly not just typographical ones, they are more serious and fundamental than that. This is looking like a whitewash done to protect the unelected and unaccountable LSP's poor handling of the entire NRF/BNI programme and is a disgrace.

yes white was for sure very bad thing

Cllr Loakes has got to be either one of the most intellectually dishonest or one of the stupidest people ever to hold elected office in this borough. Just put us all out of our misery please and resign Mr Loakes. You are not up to the job. There's nothing wrong with admitting it. No-one will think the worse of you is you face up to it now. Staying on, so clearly out of your depth, getting progressively mired in scandal and becoming more and more unpoular by the day, you are facing a lifetime of public contempt and ridicule in this borough. For your own sake, when in a hole, stop digging. You are still young enough to start a new career elsewhere where no-one has ever heard of you.

How come I can comment in this, or one about Cohen but cannot comment on Lib Dem Cllr beating his wife up, well here goes he should just resign.

I agree. Censorship is alive and well at the guardian. I have never heard anything as disgraceful as a wife beating councillor being able to keep his seat because it doesn't breach the "code of conduct". Disgusting.

The opinions about the Doctor Foster Intelligence (DFI) report that the [italic]Guardian[/italic] attributes to Councillor Loakes and the PCT’s Pui-Ling Li and Sally Gorham are very surprising. When I first looked at the DFI report in early 2007, I was astonished by its flawed nature. Amongst other things, I discovered that • the analysis of disease that was offered ran counter in several key cases to previous expert opinion, including that of the PCT; • the terminology used was sometimes misleading; • the methodology used was vague and unexplained; • the proposed solutions to local health problems were for the most part wholly unoriginal; and • the postcode analysis included many examples of postcodes that were void. None of this was academic. For example, in the body of the report, DFI rightly concluded that the deprived wards had high rates of cervical cancer, yet in the postcode analysis, cervical cancer was not even mentioned! Thus, healthcare professionals who picked up the report, and turned to the postcode analysis when planning their interventions would have completely overlooked a major local killer. Subsequently, I put all of this into an eleven page complaint to the Dr Foster Intelligence Ethics Committee, and in a judgement of 6 December 2007, it ruled in my favour, and, amongst other things, instructed DFI to amend the report and re-circulate it. Thus, any suggestion that the flaws in the DFI report were minor, or that the Ethics Committee believed them to be so, are well wide of the mark. Finally, quite why Councillor Loakes and his colleagues are pontificating about this now is also very puzzling. I first informed the Council of the DFI report’s flaws in March 2007. It did not even raise my criticisms with DFI until August 2007. As recently as 5 February 2008, the Council told me under the Freedom of Information Act that it was ‘unable to locate any correspondence that related to the evaluation of the DFI report’. Given that the Council first received the DFI report as long ago as October 2006, the current assurances ring rather hollow, and are surely an ill-advised attempt to close the stable door long, long, after the horse has bolted. That the report has never been used ‘to fashion or operationalise interventions’ - the very reasons why it was commissioned in the first place - makes the whole situation even more lamentable.

[quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake

[quote][bold]Mr Khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake[/quote] Whitewash I means

[quote][bold]mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr Khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake[/quote] Whitewash I means[/quote] Loake puling sheep over our eye

[quote][bold]Mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr Khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake[/quote] Whitewash I means[/quote] Loake puling sheep over our eye[/quote] The extent of your intellect and ability suggests you would be ideally suited to be his successor.

Why is there so much surprise about this matter? It just proves what I have been saying for some time. This Borough is under the maladminstration of 'Loakes and his Jokes'!!

[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr Khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake[/quote] Whitewash I means[/quote] Loake puling sheep over our eye[/quote] The extent of your intellect and ability suggests you would be ideally suited to be his successor.[/quote] GOD HELP US

[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mr khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mr Khalid[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Me khalid[/bold] wrote: yes white was for sure very bad thing[/quote] I mean to say whitewas a very bad thing to blind the peolp who read this report Loake[/quote] Whitewash I means[/quote] Loake puling sheep over our eye[/quote] The extent of your intellect and ability suggests you would be ideally suited to be his successor.[/quote] GOD HELP US

Enough! When is someone going to report this? I've had enough of reading about this issue and the disrespectful answers or no answers from Clyde Loakes about a very serious matter. He's totally taking the Michael and we're all just sitting here allowing him to. To NT, may I suggest you report your concerns to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible. Our borough is a laughing stock.

The Loakes issue here is a deeper issue that one will instantly grasp and for the average voter will not instantly mean much to them. There are sinister undertones here

Sinister issues need to be reported and dealt with!!!!!!!!

Ray Ling (the Chinese Fence) may also be implicated in mishandling of this

The internal audit and fraud report into the LBWF-DFI contract is finished, but not yet publicly available. According to a paper by the chief executive which was presented to the LSP earlier this year (but - guess what? -not placed on the LBWF website), no fraud was found, but, on the other hand, the Chief executive has admiiteed elswhere that" The procurement of the DFI report did not fully follow the Council’s Contract Procurement Rules. The appropriate processes to seek authorization and record decisions were not followed...This is bad practice and we have taken steps to ensure that all staff are fully aware of the need to follow procedure and the consequences of failing to do so". Three other investigations into the BNI are currently running. I have certainly reported all these (and other) matters to the appropriate authorities, and there will certainly be developments in the near future. Nevertheless, I still wonder why so few councillors have involved themselves in these issues. I have kept them all fully informed. Where this is all going to end up is so obvious that one might expect them to be getting edgy. But perhaps they are?

The contempt Loakes and his crew show for the electorate is truly mind-boggling. How can the report be valid when 80 out of 200 postcodes supposedly surveyed were nonexistent? It's a work of fiction! And paid for at great expense by all of us. Clyde Loakes can not, now, be considered capable of running a council. What is the next step?

So was 40% of the whole report mistyped, or just the postcodes? Mr Loakes needs to be cautious before approving a report which may yet be the subject of police action. How many Councillors can we have passing through the criminal courts before someone calls a halt to the whole sorry game? Does Mr Rayner also welcome the report? If so will he defend it in court, because that's where things seem to be headed.

"How many Councillors can we have passing through the criminal courts before someone calls a halt to the whole sorry game?" A lot is the answer, if the noises I'm hearing about all of this stuff is true.

The postcodes issue needs clarification. The DFI report consists of two parts, a discussion and a statistical annex. The latter lists all the postcodes in the deprived wards, and, for each, provides some socio-economic data, and a series of index numbers, which allegedly demonstrate how likely the people living in that postcode are to suffer from a range of serious diseases. Unfortunately, when the 207 postcodes that DFI lists for the Cann Hall and Cathall were checked against the Post Office’s own data base, no less than 80 came up as void, while another two were outside the area. When I challenged DFI about this, one of its employees replied: ‘The postcodes we used were provided by the PCT, I believe after consultation with the local authority. We accepted these in good faith as accurate and supplied them to Experian who undertook this aspect of the analysis for us. There was no indication from either the client or Experian at the time, or subsequently that there were such inconsistencies’. One issue here is how the void postcodes entered into the analysis in the first place. The DFI employee, as has been seen, appears to blame the PCT. For its part, the London Borough of Waltham Forest has commented: ‘The PCT were [sic] aware that some postcodes were incorrect at the outset and these were pointed out to Dr Fosters [sic], with the understanding that they had been removed [sic]’. But leaving this issue aside, if the DFI employee’s statement is taken at face value, it still raises a major difficulty. According to the data base, the postcode E114PQ – to take one example – does not exist. Yet in the annexe, DFI confidently claims, apparently on the basis of the Experian data, that it is in Cathall; that it is predominantly composed of families on benefits; and that these people have a range of stated risks of various illnesses. Quite clearly, something, somewhere, in the postcode analysis has gone drastically wrong; and that an error of such magnitude could have occurred inevitably casts a long shadow over the rest of the data in the annex. One final point. I first told the Council about the postcodes issue on 14 March 2007. This was the first it knew of any such problems, but later the same week, it confirmed that what I said was correct. However, the Council did not then write to DFI seeking clarification until 14 August 2007. This hardly speaks of urgency. Why weren’t Councillor Loakes and the PCT’s Pui-Ling Li and Sally Gorham on the case then?

NT, you ask why Councillor Loakes and the PCT’s Pui-Ling Li and Sally Gorham on the case then. Its pretty obvious, isn't it? They are colluding to cover something up. As they say in America: follow the money.

[quote][bold]Walthamster[/bold] wrote: The contempt Loakes and his crew show for the electorate is truly mind-boggling. How can the report be valid when 80 out of 200 postcodes supposedly surveyed were nonexistent? It's a work of fiction! And paid for at great expense by all of us. Clyde Loakes can not, now, be considered capable of running a council. What is the next step?[/quote] I'd say the next step is to make early plans to vote [bold]Conservatives[/bold] in favour for Clyde Loakes' and his fellow [bold]Labour[/bold] councillors at the next local election. In other words, it's about time [bold]Matt Davis[/bold] and his [bold]Conservative[/bold] crew are gifted the opportunity to run Waltham Forest because man does this borough NEED it! That is my suggestion for the next step. Peace.

Uzor, We surely need a change, but the catch is that many of the awful, mean things this Council has done are things that we'd have expected Conservatives to have done back in the days when they were riding high.At present, the Tories can sit back and let someone else take the blame for cuts, &c that we used to call Thatcherite. And did the Tories refuse to take the Councillors' pay increases? The lack of real choice is deeply worrying: this is what breeds extremism, and the faster our society changes the more fragile it becomes.

Share this: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | Facebook | Yahoo! | What's this?

What are these links for?

If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.

At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.

Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.

More on Digg

More on del.icio.us

More on Furl

More on reddit

More on NowPublic/

More on Yahoo!

Archive