Monday, February 22, 2010

Bullying Update: Tories are Prats; and Pratts are Tories

Further to the last post about Rawnsley and the National sic Bullying sic Helpline sic HERE we're going to post part B again separately. Rawnsley has ceased to be the story. So has Gordon Brown. The story now is surely the poorly run, poorly governed, conflicted of interest, dodgy registered charity and its poorly run, poorly governed, registered sister company.

These organisations are in fact linked in to the Tories of Wiltshire, and Boris' London mob, to Ann Widdecombe, to Dave Cameron himself, and to CCHQ. Were they hooked up with ITN and so on by the Tories? Despite the brand they are NOT the go to organisation for these things. They are slight and ropey by the look of things.

Are the Pratts themselves active Tories? Is there now going to be a pattern of dodgy Tories and dodgy Companies, insolvencies and conflicts of interest this election period? We've had some of these runnings in Bristol East. And I can reveal without fear of contradiction that Nadine Dorries will be bothering the scorers herself before very long. Perhaps this very morning.

  • UPDATE: Adam Bienkov's Tory Troll has more including these problems. Incidentally the Tory Pratts started their own short-lived blog at about the same time. Managed two posts.

    The National Bullying Helpline (NBH) deserve a good kicking, a good metaphorical kicking, for their truly horrendous fails in professional standards. Betraying the confidences of callers, albeit in general terms, and telling ITN of "several" staff making calls over the past "few years". Relaying unchecked reports of personnel issues - loosely labeled bullying, but perhaps no more nor less than a deserved roasting, or some big feet trampling on some long toes (a great Dutch idiom) - to millions of viewers.

    Number 10 say that no case was ever referred back to them, that they were never contacted at all by NBH, and express surprise that this organisation should comment.

    Did NBH even check the identity of any callers locating themselves in Number 10? The National Bullying Helpline are in effect bullying Gordon Brown by feeding a carried away media narrative, stoked by The Observer on re-launch Sunday and as a book publisher, and by the smug author himself.

    Things don't get any better when there's even the lightest of delvings into NBH and its relatives. Their website declares their charitable not-for-profit status, and a connection with a for-profit company HR & Diversity Management Limited, based at the very same address and with the very same key personnel.

    ITN quoted Christine Pratt as the CEO of the Charity. She is also the Principal with her husband David Arthur Pratt of their consultancy. This lovely pair pictured above. It looks from preliminary searches that the latter might be the only Trustee of the charity, hardly best practice, though hardly a rarity in the world of small and medium charities.

    This one is a bit different though through its close links with a private company that is not its own trading arm.

    What else is there? Here's what I wrote pre-delving at Liberal Burblings whose post HERE seems a bit previous and naive to say the least:

    I agree with this (the post). Basically. However it is worth noting a few salient facts:

  • 1. Staff members getting in touch doesn’t give any indication of the nature of their complaint or enquiry;
  • 2. Certainly not whether this or these was/is well-founded etc;
  • 3. Or even whether identities and any complaints were fact-checked or referred anywhere for action;
  • 4. Mrs Pratt, as well as being CEO of the National Bullying Helpline (a Charity and CLG), is the main Practitioner in the mom and pop consultancy HR Diversity Management Limited (a private for profit Company) based I think at the same address and linked. and I’m not suggesting any wrong doing in recording this fact;
  • 5. She has also been the Chair of an anti-bullying working party (PDF download) for the Conservative Swindon Council. No idea whether this is voluntary or involves a fee or honorarium;
  • 6. As well as the NBH having a web endorsement from David Cameron and Anne Widdecombe the latter is a Patron, as is a local Tory councillor;
  • 7. Not checked yet who are the Trustees, can’t see them listed on the charity website;

  • 8. David Cameron publicly and rather grandly endorsed the organisation about six months ago. (above, a local Tory website reporting this)

  • There is a huge spectrum of general nowtiness and staff relations issues. Let’s not assume the worst. I think Rawnsley is a bit of a rat myself. And this is certainly not his best work when it comes to fact-checking and responsible sourcing.

    As far as I can see at the moment anyway. Brown is essentially a good man, whether you like his politics or those of his party or not. And he has a bit of a temper. He is driven to get things right for the working people he wishes to help.

    The hyperlinks have been added and weren't in my comment when it first went up. Have now had a chance to check the Directors/Trustees of the Charity in a preliminary search. It's remarkable. The arithmetic is troublesome. Two Directors and a Secretary resigned and two new Directors and a Secretary were appointed on 24 January 2007. The Secretary may have also been a Director. So far so OK.

    This is pretty standard. The company formation people making an exit. Another Director was added three months later. Nine months later in the span of one week FOUR Directors resigned. At which point they would apparently have ZERO Directors. David Arthur Pratt himself corrected this SEVEN MONTHS later by going on the board.

    And finally, just before Christmas a further Director - Susan Field - which the arithmetic didn't reveal had her appointment terminated. It may be that Companies House and/or the Charity Commission forced one of 'em to stay on to keep things legal. Here's the basic search:

    On the face of things this charity - with a CEO gracing ITN studios this very day - has a chequered history governance wise, and her husband and partner in their private consultancy company is steering the charity all by himself. Which is not a good situation.

    The Private Company has had some comings and goings too but the arithmetic is less clear from my searches to date.

    Are the Pratt's active Conservative members? I don't know. If you do please let me know. Meanwhilst there's this intriguing lead:

    FOOTNOTE: This site - the Andrea Adams Trust aka Ban Bullying at Work (same site) an ostensibly similar organisation carries the following:

    Disclaimer Notice: The Andrea Adams Trust National Workplace Bullying Helpline has no affiliation with, nor recommends the 'National Bullying Helpline Charity' or its affiliated sister service, The HR & Diversity Management Limited Company, run by Christine Pratt


    Jimmy said...

    The blog is devastating. If it's true the scam appears to be that victims call the helpline and ask for help. The Pratts suggest mediation. They then call the employer offering the services of their company to talk the victim out of going to a tribunal. Very very nasty indeed.

    benchilltory said...

    You are to be congratulated by the speed in which you have been able to gather information on this charity.Indeed many Labour people have been equally quick in their research and all come up with identical info.( all forgetting to include the name of the Labour Mp who helped set this charity up in the list of facts)
    I originally thought this was a non story concerning a Labour journalist making a few bucks out of a story as we approach the fag end of this governments tenure.However, when the Nu labour unleash the dogs of war to such an extent and do the typical thing of denying allegations that have not been made and then rather than go after Rawnsley, who is well able to defend himself from attack, the attack dogs are set on a charity . then to top it off this whole escapade becomes something the Tories have set up, it sets you thinking
    All this muddying the waters must be to cover up something unwholesome.
    If Mandelson had been kept away from the tv studios then this story would have died a death, but everytime Mandelson appears on Tv he fans the flames and keeps the story in the headlines.Presumably he feels the longer the story runs the more likely there is to be increased support for Brown,and that this is not the ultimate revenge for the Brownites leaking stories about his dodgy mortgage dealings although i do believe that they say revenge is a dish best served cold
    Still it would take a different turn if one of these victims of the alleged bullying was to have their story splashed over the news papers. As for Rawnsley, the bullying story would appear to be the starter rather than the main course, must remember to buy my observer this coming Sunday

    rwendland said...

    Chris, I wonder if anyone has noticed that the charity's Data Protection Act registration has Purpose 5 as "The sale, hire or exchange of personal information." Seems a bit odd for a charity, but maybe there is a good reason.

    To see the entry enter Registration Number: Z1295207 at:

    Anonymous said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    Chris Paul said...

    Sorry Anonymous 21:38 I can't have you hiding your identity and uttering potential actionable libels left, right and centre. You seem to have been drinking as well, which isn't a good idea when you are in essence an eejit.

    Para 1. Mrs Pratt has recanted entirely on her made up twaddle about complaints re GB. She now says there were none whatsoever about GB, that there have been no complaints at all related to Number 10 and similar since 2007, and it is also pretty clear that she and her chums investigated and checked not a word. She's a chump.

    Para 2. It is obnoxious for you to use my blog comments for innuendo and accusation about a matter that would obviously be for the police and the courts if there were anything to go at.

    Para 3. I am a mere blogger, not elected, not an officer, not a player, but if you wish to smear me then please fact check and avoid ridiculous implications and for heavens' sake give us your name and address for service.

    I am currently the Director of three CLGs two of which are charities. I am expecting to come off one of those boards soon. I was a foundation director for another CLG quite recently. Not a charity. All of which are very much in the public good, are certainly not driving business to any for profit company.

    The particular CLG/Charity to which you refer isn't trading and hasn't been for oh, about four-five years. Of which the CC are aware. It has never been a fundraising charity appealing to the public for money. It's arts-education-regeneration. And very worthy. Say: Quite a service to society ethic you've got there Mr Paul. Don't Say: Libel Libel Libel.

    The disastrous NBH Limited is another story.

    Google Cache said...

    Presumably Google will have cached that libely comment?

    Chris Paul said...

    Benchill Tory: I think you are implying we Labour blogers were all ready and waiting for the Pratt Fall. Not a bit of it. It took hours for me to comment at Liberal Burblings and say my own and Tory Troll's findings - published at 10:40 pm and 11:28 respectively were quite different.

    There is loads more there. Shame is that Mrs Pratt is not a PPC.

    Chris Paul said...

    The real surprise is that the basic search tools of say credituk (free for much) and Companies House (£1 per document) and Land Registry (£4 per title) and even basic Google are unknown to ITN, C4, BBC, Sky, CCHQ and the majority of the MSM but that mere bloggers are au fait.

    Jimmy said...

    La Pratt's not finished yet. She appears to be claiming to have received complaints within the last month not only from No. 10 put also (spookily) from the DPM's office.

    She's quite special really.

    Chris Paul said...

    She is quite special. See for herself being caught out after being gently let go after outrageous upward bullying activity. They bent over backwards to save her but she kept on marauding. Between the incidents and the judgment she set up her charity and her marketing helpline, although that was not incorporated or registered for 3.5 years.

    Anonymous said...

    Chris Paul said...

    Yes, anonymous. Well done. Please do reveal yourself or at least spell out your actual point. The way you behave is unbelievably cowardly and oft times malicious too. Do grow up.

    A charity that is not trading hasn't filed anything and has not been de-registered by Charity Commission. What can be going on?

    Please explain your theory to us all. Or otherwise stop this nonsense and deal with some real stories about people that are players, electeds, officers, newsworthy rather than humble blogger civilians.

    As you stated in your horrid nasty libel earlier I don't work for this charity/CLG any longer. And as I explained it is not trading. And the Charity Commission are aware of the background.

    Anonymous said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    Chris Paul said...

    Look anonymous. I've told you before. Anonymous libeling of third parties is not acceptable. I have no idea on these quotes you've raked up. But this looks like libel to me. I cannot allow it. Bants yes, libel no.

    On the former employer. Yes it did receive public money to perform specific training contracts which were performed. Arts and regeneration charities are a bit different to fundraising charities is all I said.

    Like schools and Universities and so on. Get public money, deliver training/learning. But unlike schools and Unis in this case no public appeals.

    If you have some specific suggestions or questions to put to me or the Trustees past and present then email them to me. If you are just smearing wildly then please do cut it out.

    It's not big and it's not clever.

    There is absolutely no comparison with the ridiculous NBH and the obvious conflict of interest of its co-founder and sole Trustee and Director David Arthur Pratt and the other co-founder Christine Pratt.

    I think you are completely aware of that fact. But you are a bit of a tool with agendas.

    Anonymous said...

    Those quotes are in the public domain and from named individuals, including the wife of a current Labour MP and from an eminent journalist in her own right.

    So if they r libellous then I'm not all that worried as I'll be at the end of a long line of people and publications to be sued.

    Here's an agenda for u. U carry on with ur defence of bullies and abusers and I'll carry on with exposing them. Sounds like a deal to me.

    Chris Paul said...

    This being so anonymous - why are you posting anonymously? Where is your own blog on which these exposes of your are properly credited to yourself? I'll be happy to give this a prominent link and the occasional feature post if it's worthy.

    It's just a hunch I have but is it possible that there are comments from other parties and so on, where these quotes are published?

    I certainly do not defend bullies and abusers but you don't seem to be exposing them.

    Anonymous said...

    If and when u ever demand that everybody that 'contributes' to ur site does it by name then I'll be happy to oblige.

    They are not comments from other parties - 1 was from the wife of a current Labour MP and 1 from a Labour employee. Look them up and c how freely available they r.

    I c that the email u give as a contact on the Charity Commission website is the same 1 that u use here. For the organisation that apparently no longer exists!!!!!

    I also find that it is the same 1 that has given for the contact for yet another bile-fuelled website that is mostly contributed to anonymously. Same old same old.

    Chris Paul said...

    You say:

    If and when u ever demand that everybody that 'contributes' to ur site does it by name then I'll be happy to oblige.

    It is the ones offering stone libel and potentially actionable material that I ask for iD or delete. With some risk assessment around the banter end of things. Your accusations are not banter. You should put your name to them, make them more balanced i.e. link to sources or quote the obverse. Please. I put my name to what I say. Which is particularly important when it is edgy I feel.

    They are not comments from other parties - 1 was from the wife of a current Labour MP and 1 from a Labour employee. Look them up and c how freely available they r.

    Did I ever say they were from other parties? What's your point?

    I c that the email u give as a contact on the Charity Commission website is the same 1 that u use here. For the organisation that apparently no longer exists!!!!!

    That was my main email address before the foundation of the charity and it still is. I did not say that the organisation doesn't exist. It has no activity. It is idle. As I said the CC are aware of the background and this is why it is not de-registered.

    I also find that it is the same 1 that has given for the contact for yet another bile-fuelled website that is mostly contributed to anonymously. Same old same old.

    Really? Can you provide me with a link for any "bile-fuelled" website that uses my email address?

    Chris Paul said...

    Righto Anonymous, I've checked.

    The first quote referred to something that allegedly occurred in 1978 and about which no fuss was made at the time. The person reporting it more recently suggests things were different 32 years ago. Which is clearly true. JP tried it on as men did then and some probably do to this day.

    A certain kind of men she suggested. She rebuffed him. No more was said of the matter. Until more was said of the matter by her only AFAIK. From her POV = End of.

    I cannot find any comment from JP. This sexual pass was of course rehearsed around 2006 as context for the Tracey Temple affair.

    The second quote is indeed from that well known TT affair. And was a bought in description of consensual activity.

    Pauline has forgiven him for that mallarkey. And it's surely now their private business.

    I have no trouble with the reflex punch for the egg man. Some bruiser attacking a 62-year-old guy. I think he has a right to defend himself and in that split second he had no idea it was an egging.

    Your anonymous comment was I think extremely disingenuous. And for the record there are men across the benches who are still dirty old predatory scrotes, possibly some predatory woman also.

    Sir Nick Winterton, whose wandering hand I have shaken, before it was outed I hasten to add, is of course a man for whom slap and goose is such a quotidian activity that while he could remember what he'd had for lunch he could not remember whose asses he'd manhandled, not even in the hours immediately after he did so. No eye contact? Random? Lucky dip?

    The biggest outrage there was from poor Nadine Dorries Mum-P who did not realise that Sir Nick goosed non-Tories. And denied it ever happened on the basis of tribe. Brilliant.

    Chris Paul said...

    On the other matter anonymous .. *is not* the contact email for the site you mentioned cryptically.

    The comment under a post saying it is - which googles up HERE was put up by someone impersonating RochdaleRAW not RochdaleRAW themselves - which is clear from the link if you know Blogger.

    Are you the one that put that impersonation up? You're not .. Hennigan are you? For goodness sake. And there's me ignoring Rochdale for so long too. Thanks anyway for letting me know. I'll ask them to spike it. But they're naughty and they might not.

    I have nothing whatsoever to do with that site apart from the odd comment and link .. oh and they nick my pics and muller them into tiny versions with borders.

    Anonymous said...

    Exactly who at the bile-fuelled website that u managed 2 identify so quickly will u b getting in touch with to spike the alleged impersonation.

    Chris Paul said...

    OMG Anonymous, what are you like.

    1. To find the bile-fuelled website you libelled/smeared me as the supposed contact for I simply googled the email address in question plus the words blog and website. It was one of the first hits. Try it yourself.

    [aside]I am constantly amazed by the lack of basic research skills projected by the bile-fuelled commenters at my blog. Google is pretty good you know.

    The same goes for the BBC, ITN, C4 etc who allowed Mrs Pratt to appear without checking for the fact that she had no proper Trustees, was under fire for serial alleged malpractices, was in the next unit to the local Tories, had been endorsed by Cameron himself, had Widdy among her patrons, worked for the Tory council and so on.[/aside]

    2. To contact the owners of the site I posted a comment under the same post asking for the impersonation to be removed henceforth. As far as I know there is no other way to contact the perpetrators of this site though they are clearly in Rochdale and clearly related in spirit at least to Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP). Perhaps the sons and daughters of the editors of that?

    Chris Paul said...

    In fact Anonymous that site is still the first hit this morning - try it HERE. Does anyone have an alternative way of contacting them?

    I have also asked whoever they are for IP details of the comment poster which they may still have.

    Anonymous said...

    Nice try, Paul. Your request to have the have your address removed has itself been removed. Or was it never sent in the first place. Maybe it won't let you send messages to yourself.

    I used the good offices of Mr Google to see if you had said anything about the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lo and behold you have.

    You said that Darling had not said that Britian was in its worst predicament for 60 yaers and that he would have been wrong if he had done so.

    Now it turns out that he did say it. He says that he said it and he says he was right to say it.

    Plus he was trashed and bullied for saying it and by his own side. Though obviously Brown knew nothing about it and totally disapproves.

    As for Prescott. It might have been 30 yaers ago but a sexual predator is now and was then. hardly the "daft antics" that you describe.