Don’t forget, this blog came into being to expose organisational ABUSE

Abuse of potential and actual service users and abuse of its own processes, that’s why the ‘charity’ BPNW became, and continues to be, the focus of this blog in 2006. Abuse persists to this day.

That other unfortunate attributes and occurrences of maladministration and worse have been uncovered on the way merely prove that the environment is ripe in which abusive behaviours can persist and even perhaps prosper. It is frightening that external parties, including the Charity Commission, appear unable or unwilling to take action.

Much has been made of targeting key personalities of the ‘charity’. Any, particularly small, organisation is a function of the character of those in its key roles: what would Enron have been without Kenneth Lay; the USSR without Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Josef Stalin); or, a single-GP practice in Hyde without Dr Harold Shipman?

The point is that those responsible for the charity’s actions require to be brought to account, we have never published their personal details (home address, health status, bank accounts etc etc) and would not do so if such information were to hand. Those in power at the charity may puff and snort about the existence of this blog, they are or should be well aware that it is a mirror that merely reflects the charity’s treatment of some of those it purports to represent and serve. If they feel postings have been abusive, we apologise, but they should remember that it is their organisation that has abused the rights of those deemed vulnerable by wider society.

On a side note, public funders might have cause for concern. Aside from the issue whether the charity might be deemed a ‘public authority’ under the Human Rights Act 1998, it could prove expensive for any funders that are construed as a delegating public authority (see paragraph 78 at www.parliament.uk) as they could be liable for any HRA transgressions committed by this charity.

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
Addison Whithecomb

£386,305 lost in year to 31/03/2009!! – no surprise, but disgraceful nonetheless

As forecast, the haemorrhaging of funds continues apace with a further £386k whistling out the door for the year to 31/03/2009.

Net assets, after the sale of Lawrence House was included, in the accounts to 31/03/2006 stood at £2,083,563. That figure has plummeted down to £902,190 at 31/03/2009 – more than half the value of this ‘charity’ has been chucked down the toilet in three years: at this rate the organisation will be no more in 2011. No wonder it’s grovelling for funding on its website. Beware of giving while this shower remains in control; more bad news is yet to be unveiled.

Bank & deposits stood at £359,362 in these latest accounts – that’s less than one year’s worth of cash. Better watch out Royal Bank of Scotland – the charity’ll likely be securing its property (again) for an overdraft soon. As we’re heading for World AIDS day, when the nauseating BPNW will be attempting to justify its existence, the bank balance may well then be about £190,000 based on the current rate of spending.

Post-Lawrence House sale empire building saw 21 employees in the accounts to 31/03/2007, though this quickly fell to 12 over the past two years’ published accounts. And at least one of those is a relative of the delightful Chief Executive, ie more than 16% of employees are from one family (and a damn sight more of the payroll if you allow for the CEO’s salary)!

We feel neither happiness at this appalling transformation and attrition of our charity nor contentment in knowing that our direst forecasts have proven accurate: we are frankly disgusted with those in charge and those who have allowed them to persist.

Maladministration? Missing funds? Reclaimed funding from MAC AIDS Fund? Losses at tribunals? Cronyism? Bullying? Mourning the resignation of a racist trustee? Infringement of Human Rights? Acting against natural justice? No wonder it’s all going tits up. Hang your heads in shame outside agencies and patrons – our charity’s facing much-forecast ruin.

Shame on you too senior management & trustees of this dreadful organisation: stop the gravy train for certain individuals who have ruined our once-loved charity.

Apologise to those you have wronged BPNW and return power back to capable individuals who will hold management to account. Though it’s probably too late now anyway.

Does HIV mean certain death?

So asks an article in this week’s Spectator reviewing the award-winning film House of Numbers, directed by Brent Leung. Its answer, which is neither straightforward nor without controversy, is ‘probably not’, and challenges those entrenched members of the ‘HIV/AIDS industry’: even Professor Luc Montagnier, a winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for co-discovering what would become known as HIV, is quoted in both the review and the film. For a snippet click on the above YouTube extract.

Maybe it’s time we looked behind the avalanche of statistics used to embed vested interests (including a perpetuation of the view held, amongst others by some ‘charities’ with apparently imperious Chief Executives, that those living with HIV are ‘victims’ to be pitied) and consider, for example:
‘When it comes to [HIV/]Aids, people also think in terms of statistics. The film takes its title from James Chin, from head of the World Health Organisation’s global HIV statistical unit, who has been arguing for years that the United Nations figures have been inflated. Two years ago the UN quietly admitted that this was indeed the case: [HIV/]Aids infections had peaked globally in 1998 and deaths peaked in 2005. At the time, Chin’s verdict was that “It’s getting closer to what it ought to be, but it’s still high. It seemed to me that this high rise house of numbers had to crumble.” He estimates the total number of [HIV/]Aids cases is between 20 and 30 million – while the advocacy agency UNAIDS has claimed 42 million.’

Interesting and challenging – go see the film if you can, never take the status quo as a fait accompli. PlusMan doesn't buy the film’s argument hook, line and sinker - but it certainly offers an interesting polemic to the ‘HIV Establishment’ view.

Maybe a 1994 television programme helps explain matters...

...who knows?

A programme broadcast by ITV on 20 January 1994 at 19h30, “The BIG STORY: The ‘VICTIMS’ STRIKE BACK”, is summarised as follows (emphasis added):
“[The programme] Questions whether a history of abuse gives victims a right to strike back and injure and sometimes murder their abusers. In the US Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband’s penis after he had raped her following a long period of brutal treatment. Her husband was prosecuted for marital attack but acquitted; his wife awaits trial. Lyle and Eric Menendes are now facing trial after confessing to the murder of their parents, alleging a lifetime of sexual abuse. The cases of Felicity Greenham, Michael Smith and Karen Tyler are also reported. It is feared that lenient sentences could set a pattern for the abused to commit crimes against their abusers in the knowledge that they will receive lenient sentences.”

Interesting timing that the above programme was transmitted one day after The Independent article, discussed elsewhere in this blog descibed a Liverpool Crown Court case regarding a “low attack” by Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham on her estranged husband. Critically the above synopsis is concerned that “It is feared that lenient sentences could set a pattern for the abused to commit crimes against their abusers in the knowledge that they will receive lenient sentences”: indeed the jury in Felicity’s trial cleared her.

The above concern might explain the possibility of someone who perceived herself as the victim of abuse becoming apparently abusive – don’t forget, among other issues:

1. At a relatively recent employment tribunal: “The [winning] claimant alleges that Ms Greenham grabbed her mobile phone, ordered her to collect her bag and then blocked her path by holding her arms out. On the following day, 20 September 2007, the claimant maintains that Ms Greenham “physically manhandled” her.”
2. It is even more alarming that there are a number of HIV+ people (actual and potential service-users) who have been, and are being, abused by the charity of which Ms Greenham is, perhaps frighteningly, the CEO.

For the characteristics of different types of a bully - click here - a long page but worth reading. As for a summary of the characteristics of a bully here goes - whether Ms Greenham is a bully and if any of these fit her is for you to judge:

1. Jekyll & Hyde nature - vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target sees both sides
2. is a convincing, compulsive liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
3. uses lots of charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present; the motive of the charm is deception and its purpose is to compensate for lack of empathy
4. relies on mimicry to convince others that they are a "normal" human being but their words, writing and deeds are hollow, superficial and glib
5. displays a great deal of certitude and self-assuredness to mask their insecurity
6. excels at deception
7. exhibits unusual inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters or sexual behaviour; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or intimations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination or sexual abuse (sometimes racial prejudice as well)
8. exhibits much controlling behaviour and is a control freak
9. displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to acknowledge, value and praise others
10. when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
11. often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully is oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen (and believe they are seen), and how they are actually seen
12. has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, trust and integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, distrust and deceitfulness)
13. when called to account, immediately and aggressively denies everything, then counter-attacks with distorted or fabricated criticisms and allegations; if this is insufficient, quickly feigns victimhood, often by bursting into tears (the purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus evade accountability by manipulating others through the use of guilt)
14. is also ... aggressive, devious, manipulative, spiteful, vengeful, doesn't listen, can't sustain mature adult conversation, lacks a conscience, shows no remorse, is drawn to power, emotionally cold and flat, humourless, joyless, ungrateful, dysfunctional, disruptive, divisive, rigid and inflexible, selfish, insincere, insecure, immature and deeply inadequate, especially in interpersonal skills

If you have been or are the subject of bullying at or by BPNW, the most disturbing observation for the immunocompromised on the page from which the list above is taken states: “stress plays havoc with your immune system”.

Careful - you could be a guinea pig providing (meaningless?) data

Not that anything is being suggested as improper of course, but some might consider the appearance of a Felicity Greenham at a University of Bradford conference taking place in two days’ time, ‘Graduate Conference on Social Sciences and Management’, rather worrying:
“Felicity Greenham (University of Bradford) Hepatitis C infection in HIV+ gay men – Beyond Statistics”

Wordy diarrhoea summarises:
“The key objective was to describe the experience of six gay men living with HIV who may also be diagnosed with HCV. Another research objective was to capture the stories of the journey from diagnosis, through treatment and finally self understanding, following an awareness of the increase in prevalence of co-infected gay men and the lack of qualitative data exploring the psycho- social needs of the cohort. Methodologies. Using small scale, in-depth narrative inquiry, rich narrative stories of lived experience of co-infection with HCV and HIV was collected– going beyond the statistics. Following a semi structured interview schedule, then working with whatever qualitative narrative material emerged for the participants. Results. The results included: awareness of hepatitis C; sexual behaviour; drug use; hepatitis diagnosis; treatment offer and treatment uptake; treatment experience; responses from health care professionals and other gay men; self-perception; isolation and finally the experience of living with an additional chronic condition. Some support existing understanding of co infection, but the stories and narratives described by the participants also raise issues about the levels of support that can be given to gay men. Importantly, participation in the research meant that the men were both valued and heard. Conclusion The research suggests the importance of a well being approach to health. In particular, a number of significant points are raised for service providers particularly in the field of relational, emotional, mental and spiritual support. The presentation style of the research was also important. Using a performative* social science research style to both enhance and disseminate research findings, the presentation delivering the findings brought to life the voices of the respondents. The PowerPoint deliberately had speech bubbles indicating when the voices of the men were to be heard. The audience were then drawn into hearing those voices.”

One hopes that it isn’t our dear Felicity “Phil” Greenham, though it’s certainly verbose enough**... ...otherwise unfortunate, though naturally entirely misplaced, relatively recent historical parallels might be drawn with other ‘intellectuals’ and their use of iffy medical case studies & dubious data to promote their own self-advancement.

* - those suitably fascinated & desperate for an introduction to performatives vs constantives, click here

** - it is recalled that our lovely, sharing, caring & inclusive Felicity wasn't that hot at statistics, so this might be a wordy way round any such required rigour. There again, based on a sample size of 6, extrapolation of the results would likely be a bag of fucking shite.

Does BPNW even serve those in Manchester fairly?

It seems not. In a poorly worded e-mail reply (dated 16/09/09) to a request to appear on a community radio programme at North Manchester FM, Sam de Croy (Development & Well Being Manager, whatever that means) writes on behalf of BPNW:

Caryl kindly passed your email to me regarding your radio programme.
We are unable to take part – service delivery requires that we utilise our resources, both
human and fiscal, to those areas best able to benefit BPNW’s service users.
It is unlikely that we will be in a position to offer our assistance with this matter for the
foreseeable future.
Yours,
Sam de Croy

Shame, such a programme would have allowed the ‘charity’ to:

• Make a wider public aware of its services; and,
• Challenge its critics and their allegations (and experience) of rampant mismanagement and worse.

That North Manchester contains one of the largest HIV+ populations in the Greater Manchester area and it has the leading regional HIV centre of excellence at North Manchester General Hospital must be known to BPNW. It appears that the ‘charity’ now contents itself with serving a small coterie of regular users who can make it to poorly accessible leafy suburbia on Russell Road in Whalley Range on the South-side of Manchester. So much for serving ‘all those living with or affected by HIV’ in the NW of England, or even Greater Manchester for that matter.

Aside from poor grammar, the use of the word ‘fiscal’, rather than ‘economic’ or ‘monetary’, demonstrates that the e-mail author doesn’t appreciate fiscal as an adjective to mean “Pertaining to the public treasury or revenue.”. More importantly, Sam’s reply merely denies those in North Manchester the chance to learn more about this organisation’s services.

Perhaps BPNW should be rebranded to BPRR (Body Positive Russell Road). Maybe the indefensible is simply... ...indefensible.

It’s the funding season..

..hopefully unsuccessfully for BPNW whilst matters persist.

With the few crumbs of potential funding left after all has been paid for following Manchester Pride, the likes of Children in Need coming up later in the year, and Comic Relief hitting the news recently with Gordon Ramsay’s range of sauces – doubtless keyboards will have been a-tapping at BPNW in the scramble for funds to sustain this ‘charity’.

Any organisation misguidedly considering funding BPNW need look no further than its unfortunate history partially covered in this blog, for example: a racist trustee, now ‘resigned’ from office; a maladministered MAC Cosmetics’ AIDS Fund grant exposed in a former employee’s successful employment tribunal; the disgraceful article published by the, ahem, ‘Development & Well Being Manager’ suggesting that those who have raised issues and concerns might, to put it tactfully, go forth and multiply; allegations of bullying; a seemingly ‘missing’ £12,830 from the accounts; an ‘interesting’ Chief Executive who operated her own poorly supervised ‘discretionary spending limit’; and, madcap, segregationalist, over-zealous political correctness.

Sadly matters are not confined to history, with mismanagement continuing – more of that later.

The fact is, funding should cease until major root-and-branch reform is effected. Senior management and those (ie at Board level) who have allowed matters to persist require removal – only then can fairness and equality replace cronyism and nepotism.

Charity trustees beware

Time for some polite words of warning to trustees of charities (particularly where mismanagement and maladministration are public knowledge): if they have breached their duty to administer the trusts for beneficiaries of the charity, personal liability may result –
“When trustees commit a breach of trust which results in some financial loss to the charity, they become liable to make good that loss.”

Bad news too even if trustees think they are covered by indemnity insurance as it must include a clause such as:
“The Insurers shall not be liable for loss arising from any act or omission which the trustee knew to be a breach of trust or breach of duty or which was committed by the trustee in reckless disregard or whether it was a breach of trust or breach of duty or not.”

And further bad news – where trustees fail to control employees, they can be held responsible for:
“conduct which though neither authorised nor ratified takes place in the course of a business which they conduct and where there is a close connection between the conduct and what the wrongdoer was employed to do (...vicarious liability).

Vicarious liability arises where the wrongful action or omission is not primarily attributable to the charity or its trustees themselves personally but the law nevertheless holds them liable for the misconduct of those whom they control.”

Ooo er, one hopes that no employees, particularly in senior positions, have committed actions that could be construed as misconduct.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Martin Luther King, Jr (b 15/01/1929 – d 04/04/1968)

US clergyman & civil rights activist

Static demonstrations & assemblies

Thanks for enquiries by those considering demonstrating against BPNW.

Anyone contemplating demonstrating outside Russell House should beware - those in power at the mismanaged charity may be tempted to fabricate charges of harassment and such like. Desperation can produce disingenuous behaviours. Perhaps sites remote from Russell Road would avoid any such temptations.

A useful guide to static demonstrations & assemblies can be found at Liberty’s Guide to Human Rights:

“Unlike public processions, there is normally no requirement to give prior notice of an assembly but, under the Public Order Act, the police do have specific powers to control assemblies. Two persons can constitute an ‘assembly’. A public place is any highway (including the pavement) and any other place to which the public or a section of the public can have access.

The senior police officer at the scene has the power to impose conditions but only if he or she reasonably believes that:

• The conditions are necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
• The purpose of the person organising the assembly it is to intimidate others.
  

The only conditions may be imposed on a public assembly under POA [Public Order Act 1986] are on:

• Location of the assembly,
• Maximum number of people participating in the assembly,
• Maximum duration of the assembly
  

Note also that although the police have power to impose conditions, there is no power to ban a public assembly altogether, therefore if the conditions are so strict that they in effect prohibit the assembly from taking effect in any meaningful way (such as if the conditions restrict the protest to 5 people, in a side street away from the public and for a maximum of 5 minutes), it may be that they amount to a ban and are unlawful. An attempt by the police to impose excessively strict conditions may also be a breach of the protesters rights to assembly under Article 11 of the Convention [ie The European Convention on Human Rights].”

Any attempt by the charity to disingenuously paint respectful, peaceable and legitimate demonstrations as anything other than reasonable would be deceitful: the only people who have been harassed, intimidated, lied to and deceived are those disempowered and stigmatised by it.

Yet another trustee appointed - rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Most likely.

Welcome aboard to yet another trustee – Mr David Allen. Let’s hope he brings some rigour and challenges the endemic mismanagement at our favourite charity.

Those hoping for changes for the better had best not hold their breath (much as BPNW might wish them too) – the track record of recent recruits sadly doesn’t seem to have improved matters.

David might like to remind the ever-efficient Company Secretary, Caryl Clavering, that the legal charge on the charity’s previous mortgage against Lawrence House (disposed of three years ago), held by RBS is still showing as ‘outstanding’ at Companies House. This was pointed out on 22 June 2007 - and still it has not been updated. Mind you, BPNW is neither quick nor responsive regarding its obligations.

Don’t forget, amongst other things a Company Secretary should maintain a “Register of mortgages and charges”.

A small failure, but symptomatic of far greater ills... ...more of which over the next few weeks and months.

The public and service-users are concerned

Thanks to concerned individuals who have been in touch. The question asked is, how can we assist in the improvement of matters at BPNW? One way would be to write to your constituency MP or local councillors. Simply:

1. Click here, then enter your full postcode, then click on ‘Go’;
2. Click either ‘Your MP’ under ‘Your Member of Parliament’ or ‘Write to all your Councillors’ under ‘Your Councillors’; then,
3. Complete your details, paste the following red text into the large white text field (overwriting the ‘Yours sincerely’ text), then add your name after the ‘Yours sincerely’ at the end:

I write to express my deep concerns regarding a charity, Body Positive North West Ltd, which claims to offer services to (all) people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS in the North West of England. This organisation is based in the Manchester Central parliamentary constituency, its MP, Mr Tony Lloyd, is also a patron of this charity.

I am appalled to read of, amongst other matters, issues regarding maladministration, mismanagement, bullying, greed and discriminatory practice. Also of concern is the extent to which the charity’s funds are used to pay the ‘Chief Executive’, Ms Felicity Greenham, members of her family and her acquaintances. You are probably aware of a blog at http://bodypositivenw.blogspot.com/ that has for three years exposed malpractice and worse at this organisation.

It is furthermore highly concerning that parties that fund this ‘charity’, together with agencies (such as the Charity Commission) appear obsessive regarding the requirements for ‘correct’ processes being in place whilst ignoring the bigger picture – ie the direction in which the charity has been taken together with its maladministration, mismanagement and possibly worse.

I respectfully urge that, using your good offices, you initiate an urgent audit and review of practices at this charity such that effective change might be actioned and those responsible for bad practice are removed from office.

Yours sincerely

Risks to local residents?

One hopes not.

If one lived near to our favourite charity, one would have to ask: Were local residents informed and consulted adequately regarding the potential risks of having BPNW sited in their midst?

Given its administrative competence, the ever-efficient charity doubtless ticked all the right boxes regarding planning consent (July 2006 ref 079373/FU/2006/S1) that it required for the change of use and development of Russell House when it acquired these premises at number 39 on the tranquil and verdant Russell Road in Whalley Range, Manchester.

Being broadminded and non-bigoted, the local residents probably warmly embraced the siting of a caring and well-run HIV charity in their neighbourhood (what a pity it turned out to be Body Positive North West).

Whilst all can be at risk from contracting HIV, one of the groups that suffers a disproportionate infection rate is the non-prescription recreational/addictive drug-abusing ‘community’. As society seems these days to be obsessive about health & safety, the local residents should therefore have been made aware of a couple of issues that might result from such a group using a charity located in their locale:

1. Most people, whatever ‘community’ they come from, are respectful and considerate, however should any discarded needles or other dubious items be found Manchester City Council advises concerned citizens to contact it regarding safe removal of offending items; also, and maybe more significantly,


2. There appears to be a significant link between recreational/addictive drug (ab)use and criminality. We do hope that break-ins and the like haven’t increased since BPNW set up shop in leafy suburbia as according to various sources, these drug abusers seem more likely to commit crime to feed their habits:
   • “The average heroin addict, meanwhile, steals around £50,000 of property each year to feed their habit.”
   • “A 1998 survey of those arrested in five areas of the UK found: 61% had taken at least one illegal drug; 46% were tested positive for cannabis; 18% for opiates/heroin and 10% for cocaine/crack; nearly half of those arrested across all areas said their drug use was connected with their offending; 32% of the total illegal income of all these arrestees was spent on drugs”.

As it has procedures and protocols for simply everything, one can rest assured that BPNW will affirm a (meaningless?) ‘zero tolerance’ drug abuse policy on its premises...

…better check your locks and burglar alarms all you good local residents just in case.

Do patrons have a duty of care to a charity's beneficiaries?

No: but you’d think they perhaps ought to have - given that they might be used to promote a mismanaged charity. Where patrons are allowing their good names to be associated with such an organisation and those patrons are, or should reasonably be, aware of goings-on - maybe they ought to resign their patronage or actively seek to resolve the mismanagement.

It was once thought that a BPNW patron, Tony Lloyd MP, might assist, amongst other issues, in investigating “discretionary spending limits” operated by the CEO and an unexplained discrepancy of £12,830 in the charity’s accounts. However, when it was recently learnt that the MP concerned made (entirely legitimate and unreceipted) claims for “food” in 2007/08 for £3,680, it was concluded perhaps that he mightn’t be the best guy to go to for help after all. His troughing expense approaches the average household (not individual) expenditure on food in 2007 for the highest ten percent of earners of £73.10/week** (approximately £3,800 per annum). Doubtless in claiming for a Samsung S1030 digital camera it’s never been used for personal photographs: after all MPs’ expenses should be incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.
** - from Family Spending: A report on the 2007 Expenditure and Food Survey

As for another patron, approaches have resulted in absolutely no response whatsoever from the busy luvvie-poppet. Others have described him as “the most overrated man in Britain”, whilst he has described himself thus: “I always heard voices in my head saying what a useless bastard I am, but the voice is my own... ...It is my own voice, telling me what a worthless lump of shit I am.” “Everything that happens is because you are a cunt. That’s because I’m a complete wanker, that’s because I’m an arsehole, yes.” Hardly the grandiloquent Stephen Fry that some know and love; but not much to disagree with here.

Seriously patrons – it’s great that ‘celebs’, the great and the good involve themselves to promote charitable causes. Except of course where a charity is mismanaged and/or worse.

Clearly patrons have no legal responsibility for the management of the charities to which they lend support: it should however be apparent that they ought to have a clear moral duty to satisfy themselves that the organisations concerned are well run. In the case of BPNW they can hardly be unaware of major issues of concern.

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

John Stuart Mill (b 20/05/1806 – d 08/05/1873)

English Philosopher

Titter ye not

Yes, “Felicity Greenham” and the word “democratic” can appear in close proximity!

Visit page 48 of “Peace & Conflict Research at Bradford - Annual Report 2006” - “Felicity Greenham (British) Effect and impact on democratic society of the current government’s participatory legislation”; a bit wordy, but one would expect nothing less.

As for ‘Peace’ and ‘Conflict Research’ – heavens to Betsy.

Non-confidential ‘Instant HIV Testing’ - this afternoon at Russell House!

There you have it! On the one hand BPNW states that it is closed on Sundays but, as it’s the first Sunday in the month today, it’s opening for confidential HIV testing!

So any visitors this afternoon are going for an HIV test – erm, what’s confidential about that? As for the reliability of the tests, we and others have discussed that before. Naturally the information on BPNW's website could be wrong of course.

Still, at least the awful charity’ll probably get a few £s from whoever’s funding this nonsense – got to keep the CEO and cronies afloat at any cost, haven’t we?

As for being able to rapidly confirm an initial diagnosis - how many (particularly NHS GUM) clinics are open on a Sunday to establish the veracity of BPNW's test result? Looks like most individuals will have to sleep on any result before accessing a proper clinically-based service... ...maybe you should go there in the first place.

“I am redoubling my efforts to speak up for the people of Salford”

...so says the Rt Hon Hazel Blears following her resignation today as Communities Secretary. Good, maybe she can avoid further prevarication and expose mismanagement and dreadful treatment of members of the public by Body Positive North West.

Following her well publicised handing back of some £13,000 in the recent MPs’ expenses debacle, not that she had done anything wrong of course (despite Prime Minister Brown’s assertion that she had shown “totally unacceptable behaviour”), perhaps she’ll also help investigate the ‘discretionary spending limit’ as operated by the lovely and caring CEO at BPNW...

“My politics has always been rooted in the belief that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things, given the right support and encouragement” – we look forward to Hazel proving she can provide invaluable assistance to us ‘ordinary people’ (clearly no hint of a patronising view of we members of the public!).

There again, being seemingly easily able to write a cheque for some £13,000, Hazel might consider the dodgy £12,830 that was unexplained in the charity’s accounts as small beer.

Pity those who suffer at ill-run charities

Readers will be aware of this blog’s persistent exposure of mismanagement and, some might argue, worse at the ‘charity’ Body Positive North West Ltd.

As we approach fever pitch for the annual Red Nose Day fundraising extravaganza (13/03/2009), it is worth remembering that in any crowd of people most will be of good character (unless it's a Nazi torchlight procession or some other such gathering!) but a few will have malevolent intent or worse.

So it is with charities themselves. Only a relative few, fortunately, suffer mismanagement or worse. The danger is their victims are forgotten or ignored.

Why not take the time to follow us on Twitter; or, in the right hand column of this page sign up to have new posts sent to you on Feedblitz? That way you'll be amongst the first to read of any new revelations regarding BPNW and those who control it. Watch this space!

This blog is about fairness, equality and the accountability of those in power – it could be you maltreated next!


“In [National Socialist] Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t communist.
Then they came first for the socialists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

Martin Niemöller
Lutheran pastor and theologian
b 14/01/1892 d 06/03/1984

The seven charitable sins - a guide for ethical standards

As BPNW seems increasingly boxed in, with low income, top heavy senior salary costs and wronged service users now in their frustration at its mismanagement peaceably giving a public voice to their maltreatment, it is probably time to take stock. It’s a new month after all, and Spring is in the air.

Rather like cornered animals it is a concern that those in control and responsible for BPNW’s failings may choose to lash out - perhaps attempting to, for example, deflect responsibility or redirect guilt (thereby compromising confidentialities that the charity supposedly champions).

This blog too has, in frustration at inaction by those responsible and those in outside bodies, become more (arguably overly) strident – its use of language has at times been ‘colourful’ – and apologies are offered to any readers so offended. In standing up to abuse and mismanagement and/or maladministration, irritation can occasionally drive argument.

In the header to this blog Oscar Wilde states, “Charity creates a multitude of sins”. So here is a listing of ‘the seven charitable sins’ each explained in hopefully temperate language. They apply as a yardstick for the corporate governance and the ethical health of any charity:

1) CONCEALED ABUSE
Where a charity provides for those who are victims of prejudice and discrimination there is a clear and omnipresent danger that abuse can occur within that organisation. This is particularly easy to envision where one or more individuals in positions of power act individually or collude to commit abuses.

Such is the anxiety on the part of most ‘abusees’ that, because of their fear of stigma and discrimination in the wider world, they will either never come forward or at least wait until a long time has passed such that authorities are less predisposed to believe any incident(s) of abuse that occurred.

In such an organisation, where malevolence or misanthropy is present, the atmosphere is ripe for abuse.

2) INAPPROPRIATE CONTROLS
There seems to be an unfortunate universal belief that as charity is ‘a good thing’ then, “All charities are good”. This dangerous principle gives rise to the evolution of control measures and inspection criteria that are inappropriate for those charities that are mismanaged and/or commit abuses. It isn’t that the Charity Commission is a poor regulator per se: it does seem to be a good regulator for ‘good charities’, ie the majority, but a poor regulator for ‘bad charities’, ie the minority.

The result of this appears to be that a ‘bad charity’ is allowed to persist in its ‘badness’ far longer than if control mechanisms and remedies were in place to effectively deal with its transgressions.

3) MISDIRECTED STRATEGY
An unfortunate and often inevitable result of some charities’ ’representing’ the stigmatised whom they allegedly champion is that any strategy may be misdirected or absent altogether.

It is a concern that such organisations often treat those they represent as ‘victims’ and then patronisingly attempt to ‘empower’ them. This is particularly a risk where ‘victims’ have a condition such as HIV and are denied a voice through the paternalism (or ‘maternalism’ for any overtly pc-readers) of those who have been chosen, often undemocratically, to represent them – frequently not being HIV+ themselves these individuals can only sympathise at best: they cannot empathise.

4) LIBERAL FASCISM
In an excellent book, reviewed in this week’s The Spectator (issue 28/02/09 at p 18), Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg it is argued that “they’re [the liberal fascists] always so convinced of their moral self-righteousness that they never feel the need to analyse their position too deeply.”

And that’s the crux of our problem. Alluding the behaviour of BPNW’s CEO to that of a dictator is precisely that - an allusion. It appears alarmingly to be the case that its Chief Executive is so utterly convinced of her moral self-righteousness and direction that anyone could be trampled on in the rush forward to attain her goals. Underneath a brusque exterior there may well be a genuine caring individual wishing to do good but it is worrying that this seems subverted by other issues and personality traits.

It is also patronising (matronising?) in the extreme to assume that groups of ‘clients’, that an organisation has hived off into separate ‘communities’, are incapable of, or at least discouraged from, freely mixing. Such segregation has more in common with fascist ideology than the instigators of it would wish to admit. This may worryingly be a function of a broader politically-correct nanny state – its attitude to those who eat burgers and smoke is uncomfortably close to the Hitler Youth manual stating, “Food is not a private matter!” “You have a duty to be healthy.” In other words – “There, there, we know best.”

A further consequence is the entrapment of patrons. Celebrities and others often wish to associate with good causes and they are to be admired for doing so. Unfortunately, where a charity is badly run their association with it becomes inexorably tainted. The likes of Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain visited Nazi Germany seeking to do good in the 1930s: history has not judged them kindly for these ‘honourable mistakes’.

5) SELF AGGRANDISEMENT
There appears little or no need for the grandiose and well- (even over-) paid position of Chief Executive Officer in a small charity. This is excellently argued in a pre-Christmas article in The Times by Libby Purves that "Charities must get back to doing good works".

A good Centre Manager or General Manager is required rather than an inflated position occupied by one with possibly an even more inflated ego. Much work assumed by a ‘Chief Executive’ should be delegated to capable volunteers or other less costly and more committed individuals. With regard to our charity - believe it or not there are many bright and capable souls living with HIV.

There is also an associated heavy financial cost to bear with having pompous and unnecessary trappings imported from the private sector.

6) GREED
Such a CEO position not only overly centralises authority in one person but it is extremely effective at bleeding the organisation of its funds.

Besides the risk of overpaying for an inappropriately centralising and dominating post, there is also the danger of associated and expected trappings such as ‘discretionary spending limits’, ‘expense accounts’ etc. These place an unnecessary burden on a possibly struggling charitable organisation and thereby deflect funds from needy uses.

7) FAVOURITISM
Along with the danger and expense of unnecessary centralisation of power within an organisation dedicated to alleviating the plight of the disadvantaged come the inherent risks of nepotism and cronyism.

The risks of employing relatives, friends or acquaintances or using their services on a paid (or even unpaid) basis subverts fairness and openness.

For our charity, that a mother is Chief Executive and her daughter is in the, now remunerated, position of Volunteer Co-ordinator is likely more than coincidental: that an ‘outside consultant’, who amongst other matters co-wrote part of a book with the Chief Executive, is used by the Board should sound alarm bells.

Positions at any charity should be open to all on a fair and equal basis. If any bias is legally and ethically permissible it should be towards those whom the charity champions.

The purpose of this blog

Readers should be aware that this blog “is dedicated to re-establishing the Manchester-based HIV charity, Body Positive North West Ltd, to its once pre-eminent position helping those in the NW of England.” Pure & simple.

This blog evolved from the charity’s mistreatment of some actual & would-be service users. From then, progressively more evidence has come to light of mismanagement and worse - with certain individuals occupying key positions that this blog considers/considered unsuitable for their roles.

NEVER would this blog post the HIV+ status of any individual unless it was freely placed in the public domain with the consent of the party concerned. That those who are thought to be associated with this site have suffered as a result is unconscionable – critics may say that an undue focus has been placed on individuals or ‘personalities’: key personnel at the charity are, by virtue of their positions or personalities, responsible for inappropriate goings-on.

At no time have we sought to post information other than that which is felt to be in the public interest. It should be a concern to many that mismanagement has been apparent and obvious for a long time, eg: Dr Wassim Malas, an abusive medical doctor, was appointed a trustee on 25 October 2004 after his abuses were public knowledge in 2001: Dr Malas left in 2005. That he apparently held responsibility for sexual health matters with vulnerable individuals reliant on him makes this doubly worse.

Management has seemingly failed to improve since. Frankly, if BPNW would address the issues that have given rise to this blog everyone would be so much the happier and this site could cease updating.

That BPNW has never sought to provide a statement/defence of its position/refuting of matters reported here, either in confidence or for public dissemination, via this blog is telling: this blog has never barred comment or posting through it for BPNW to state a counter-argument (or even apologise) for its mismanagement. This blog considers that this is telling in the extreme. All BPNW has to do is use the e-mail link and send information from a ....@bpnw.org.uk address.

Abused service-user is still waiting...

...having been barred on a spurious pretext in mid-2006 ‘for three months’, a discriminated-against service user actually managed to gain access to Russell House on 2 February 2009 to request not only a long overdue Hearing but some form of apology for the charity’s manifestly deliberate mistreatment of him. Numerous tactics have been disingenuously used by BPNW, including: manipulation of the Hearing process; treating other demonstrably inappropriately behaved service-users/volunteers far more favourably; ignoring correspondence (including that from legal representatives); and, obfuscating at every conceivable opportunity.

The service user, having gained access, met with Sam de Croy in the dining room at Russell House (with Emma the receptionist in attendance). Aside from an unsurprising total unwillingness to contemplate any criticism of the Chief Executive, Sam assured the service user that he would shortly hear from Trustee Mark King.

Well Sam & Mark, the service user you seem to despise is still waiting. His MP is also awaiting a response to her letter to BPNW of 3 February 2009. It’s only taken 33 months so far – disgusting isn’t? Not that Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham has had anything to do with this abuse of process of course.

It appears clear that the charity deliberately drags its heels in the hope that complainants and those it has treated abominably will simply go away. No such luck for BPNW here it seems.

Why you should NOT have a dodgy “instant HIV test” at the awful BPNW…

…from Doctors Today:

“so-called "instant" HIV testing by the INSTI or other point of care method will not be offered at this time to our patients for the following reasons:

1. In areas of low HIV prevalence such as [the] UK, 6 out of every 7 positive instant tests are in fact likely to turn out to be negative, so patients may be given unnecessary anxiety for no good reason.
2. There is also a small but appreciable false negative rate with instant tests (i.e. test shows negative but in fact the patient is positive), which could be disastrous for the patient and their partners if the instant test is relied upon.
3. An instant test is not a lot cheaper (at our clinic) than the HIV-DUO test. Any positive test would have to be followed up with by confirmatory testing which is more sensitive, so the cost of this would have to be extra. In our clinic the confirmatory testing after a positive HIV-DUO test is done free of charge to the patient. This can be very expensive if it is done separately and is something you need to take into account when choosing where to have your test done.
4. The instant test turns positive some time after the HIV-DUO test is positive (i.e. there is a longer "window period").
5. There is no p24 antigen testing with the instant tests which is a big advantage of the HIV-DUO test, the results for which are usually back within one working day.”
   

As has been said previously, BPNW’s testing programme is NOT CONFIDENTIAL and is merely a pretext to obtain funding either from the organisation with which it has a contract to supply this ‘service’ or from other funding bodies once you have been captured, in a vulnerable state, as a ‘service user’. If you do go, at least you’ll help to indirectly fund the greedy bully of a Chief Executive & her hangers-on.

Rather than have dodgy “instant testing” in a non-confidential environment (for both you being tested and those who are service users at Russell House) go to a proper NHS genito-urinary medicine clinic. Alternatively, if you are able to afford it, a number of private clinics offer a full testing service.

CEO's cesspit of nepotism & cronyism

Readers will be aware of the grotesque & greedy Chief Executive’s unfortunate traits, but just to keep everyone updated, here goes.

Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham’s political and academic interests in the plight of refugees are well known, indeed were it not for her unfortunate personality such a ‘concern’ could be much-admired. However here are a few of her crony set, most of whom she eventually falls out with (given ‘Phil’’s regrettable character):

Cronyism

• Rhetta Moran is a, to be politically correct, ‘matron’ of RAPAR with whom ‘Phil’ co-wrote a chapter in a book (edited by Rhetta) ‘Doing research with refugees’. Readers will recall that Rhetta conducted an enquiry for BPNW after the resignation of the lovely racist ex-trustee Martin Dean. At Sylvia Lawal’s Employment Tribunal – readers may remember that it was stated “Certain recommendations were made by an outside consultant, Dr Rhetta Moran which were accepted by the Board in March 2007.” How much did ‘Phil’’s crony get as a consultancy fee one might ask? [UPDATE - could her ‘crony fee’ be included in £16,227 of consultancy expenses in the accounts to 31/03/07?]
  
• Jethro Nyanjowa is a trustee of BPNW and also Vice Chair of RAPAR’s Leadership Group/Management Committee for 2008-2009. Clearly he has an association with outside consultant Dr Rhetta Moran (one hopes her ‘recommendations’ weren’t affected by her acquaintances with greedy ‘Phil’, Sylvia Lawal and Jethro - they don’t look very independent do they?). Worryingly this suggests Jethro is one of greedy ‘Phil’’s cronies too!
• Sylvia Lawal’s fall out with BPNW in general, and greedy ‘Phil’ in particular, is well known. But, would you believe it, Sylvia appears as a member guess where? Yep, RAPAR once more. Prior to the terrible fall out, looks like Sylvia could have been in the cronies’ club too...
• One hopes that ‘Community Care Worker’ Marvin Lawal who occasionally featured at BPNW merely shares a surname and is in no way related to Sylvia Lawal above. Otherwise cynics might think nepotism was at work...
  

..and then there’s real and noxious nepotism too:

Nepotism
Things get worse though – Kathryn ‘Kate’ Brown who is described as a ‘member of staff’ in the sensitive position of BPNW’s part-time ‘Volunteer Co-ordinator’ is, shock horror, greedy ‘Phil’’s daughter. WHY IS THIS PREVIOUSLY UNPAID VOLUNTEER POSITION NOW OCCUPIED BY THE CEO'S DAUGHTER IN A PART-TIME PAID POSITION?

Naturally, the entirely fair and balanced recruitment process just so happens to have selected greedy Greenham’s daughter as the best candidate for this position! So mother and daughter surely must account for more than half this charity’s income! Imagine, not that she would of course, if ‘Phil’ was to treat her daughter favourably and discriminate against other employees.

No chance of undue influence by ‘Phil’ in the volunteers’ roles then!!

There Greedy ‘Phil’ comfortably still sits, perched at the summit of her pyramid of power from where she tries to control her network of cronies, family members and others - but maybe not for much longer. The bullying and lies surely must stop soon.

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, but define yourself.”
Harvey S Firestone (American industrialist)
b 1868 - d 1938

Funders beware XII – Salford City Council increases funding by more than 260%!

The good people & businesses of Salford are funding this dreadful charity to the tune of £18,450/year from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011!

Previous to 1 April 2008, funding over the prior few years was:
2004/05 £5,500
2005/06 £6,850
2006/07 £6,850

This increased figure is based on there being 140 of the charity’s service users living in Salford’s catchment area. How does the council verify this? Remember, the charity has apparently previously submitted false claims for inflated numbers of service users. Don’t let the charity hide behind anonymity and confidentiality undertakings with service users being ‘coded’ (how many are dead? no longer use the appalling organisation? or are just plain fabricated?) - otherwise its probably taking the Council and the rest of us for a ride as usual!

So funding from last year has increased by 269%. As for the Council’s letter listing activities for this grotesque ‘charity’ such as to “ensure the services are accessible and non-judgmental [what a larf]” and the “maintenance of [titter ye not] appropriate records” , don’t these bureaucrats read anything? Or are they blinded by PC-speak and verbosity from Phil et al? The Council must be aware of the charity’s appalling history of mismanagement under the stewardship of the gifted CEO.

Probably the money’ll be swallowed in fripperies and legal costs as usual... ...anyway £18,450 covers less than 30% of the costs of ‘running’ the greedy, avaricious, vile CEO. So Salford’s council-tax payers are coughing up for little more than her income tax, national insurance and expenses.

Please perform an immediate audit all you funders, Phil & co may consider you a group of well-meaning mugs. Remember - BPNW just doesn’t ‘do’ integrity.

Charity Commission and other bodies..

..take a lesson from a recent interview with Lord Turner, recently appointed Chair of the Financial Services Authority. In this he admits that “The FSA at that time [when the banks were taking excessive risks] was more focused on the processes, the structures, the reporting lines, rather than simply saying ‘when I look at this whole business model... it’s all too risky’.”

In other words, the FSA as a regulatory body failed to appreciate the big picture, being unfortunately preoccupied with ensuring that processes were complied with, ‘proper’ structures were in place and reporting lines were codified and acceptable... ...then the banks went tits up.

Exactly the same criticism of the lacklustre Charity Commission can be made. Attention has repeatedly been brought to the Commission of appalling goings on at BPNW: what happens? It pisses about making sure that: formal policies and processes exist for this and that; there is a Board (of whatever calibre); a manager is responsible for the set-up (the grotesque “CEO” in the case of BPNW); and, reports and other documentation are filed on time with the Commission.

The same’s true of complaints made to funders and others. Obsessed with minutiæ and ‘box ticking’ to satisfy themselves that the charity is run according to the rules, they completely fail to notice what the fuck the charity’s doing.

A little like making sure the Titanic’s running smoothly and failing to see a massive iceberg towards which it is steaming.

Charity Commission, funders and patrons – you are all culpable. YOU KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON, whether that’s lying, deceit, maladministration, mismanagement, bullying, mad political correctness or worse.

GREED - Does the awful CEO cost 50% of the charity’s income?

Whilst Reports & Accounts often disguise more than they reveal, readers will be aware that this awful charity has haemorrhaged funds over recent years, relying on the money from the sale of Lawrence House to fund bonkers spending of approximately £½m per year since it moved into Russell House.

Income for the charity, according to the Charity Commission has been:

2003/04 £301,197
2004/05 £288,271
2005/06 £115,056
2006/07 £170,293
2007/08 £135,991

The Report & Accounts for 31 March 2007 state “no employee received remuneration of more than £60,000”. So one can reasonably assume that the highest paid employee, the ever-caring and inclusive CEO, will earn near this figure. Let’s make a reasonable assessment of the annual cost of employing Felicity:

• Salary = £50,000
• Employer’s national insurance = £5,500
• Expenses = £10,000
  

That gives an estimate of £65,500/year for the blessèd one. Bearing in mind that income for the year concerned was £170,293, then it seems more than one third (38%) of the charity’s income is wasted on the cost of having “Phil” onboard. And, boy, do we mean “cost”, as defined:

“Loss of any kind; detriment; pain; suffering”

It’s even worse for the most recent year, to 31 March 2008, with income of £135,991, and no significant reduction in the charity’s mad expenses, the grotesque cost of Felicity might amount to nearly one half (48%) of income and that’s before any pay rise she may undeservedly have had! Add in a few select paid cronies and the avaricious bastards will have swallowed the entire income of the organisation!

Even currently much-criticised bank bosses don’t, and didn’t, consume such a proportion of their organisations’ incomes as Philikins does! And to think, this charity’s funders and patrons are under the impression that she cares.

It seems that more than 10% of BPNW’s total spending over recent years has been to pay for “Phil” - in percentage terms, relative to their clubs’ costs, that’s more than overpaid prima donna premier league footballers get!

One word sums this up:

OBSCENE

“When money comes into play then that’s all it’s about: wanting money - who’s making the most, who can get the most, me, me me... and in the end it screws up the person...”
Alexis Argüello (b 19/04/1952)
Nicaraguan politician & former boxer

A message to patrons of BPNW

First of all, thank you for your concern in being willing to be associated with, lending your names and giving your time and support to those living with or affected by HIV.

However, will you please use your positions to see through the PC-smoke screens thrown up by BPNW and try your best to, if necessary, effect change at this disgracefully run charity? That it continues to bully, lie and mismanage is self-evident.

As a patron also of Terence Higgins Trust, Stephen Fry might be providing a useful conduit for discussions should THT wish to take over the ailing and badly run BPNW. He might be providing much needed help for the mismanaged charity to address the question: How to get out of the mess we have created?

“Confidential testing” by BPNW? – nonsense for those tested and the charity’s users too

The charity makes much of a so-called ‘BPNW clinic’ that it operates at Russell House. Aside from this being a likely cynical means of obtaining funding for this desperate ‘charity’ ie a way of capturing newly diagnosed vulnerable HIV+ individuals, there’s nothing confidential about this service whatsoever.

For the sake of a possible bit of funding under the pretext of caring, this awful charity is exposing those visiting for testing and any service users present to easy breaches of their confidentiality.

We have raised these concerns before, when will someone or some organisation do something?

Also if anyone wants testing confidentially don’t go to the clearly advertised HIV TESTING CLINIC operated by a dodgy HIV CHARITY. For goodness sake, BPNW abandons all pretence of confidentiality as it clearly states on its website that the operating hours for the ‘clinic’ are:

BPNW Clinics

Body Positive North West Clinic

39 Russell Road
Whalley Range
Manchester
M16 8DH

Wednesdays 3-8pm – Open to Anyone

First Sunday monthly 1.00pm-4.00pm – Anyone.
Couples are welcome.

Anyone watching inside or outside the premises during these hours with malicious intent could out people as going to an HIV organisation during testing hours (particularly on the first Sunday of the month as the charity is officially closed then).

Two points:

1. Much better to go to a GUM clinic or your GP, at least you can discuss your status (or concern about it) in front of a professional – you can even visit these non-HIV focussed premises on the pretext of another matter to mask the reason for your visit and protect your confidentiality up to the point of testing.
2. What the hell is BPNW allowing HIV-negative people (which a proper test will eventually confirm) on its premises who will come into contact with service users, or ‘clients’ as the charity insists on calling them? So much for service user confidentiality!
   

Our concerns apply equally to any of BPNW’s offsite testing activities as well.... ...you’re miles better using a proper NHS facility, if HIV+ you’ll probably end up at one anyway.

Bullied? Deceived? You are not alone!

Double click on image to enlarge

Two recent demonstrations outside the dreadful BPNW’s Russell House are seeking to draw attention to the charity’s bullying, lies/deceit, maladministration and worse. Above is a pastiche of photographs of the hardy souls as they tried to keep warm on these chilly Winter days! Doubtless things’ll hot up when the warmer weather eventually arrives.

It goes without saying that the individuals will be bad-mouthed by the ‘charity’ (so much for the charity's confidentiality mantra, that it often tries to hide behind), but they, along with many they’re fighting for, have had enough. Glad to hear that the boys in blue advised that they were conducting themselves properly

C’mon Phil – let’s have that adult conversation shall we, preferably with independent arbitrators? It’s time the greedy and domineering were brought to account. What d’ya say?

Oh yes Phil, you might like to remind the more vociferous and out-of-control of your innermost Gestapo brigade that they ought to stop breaking confidentiality undertakings: after all two could play at that game!

Phew! No contracts between Manchester NHS and BPNW

Last month it was enquired of Manchester PCT whether it had any contracts with Body Positive North West Ltd. A reply has been received stating:
“I can confirm that NHS Manchester has no contracts with Body Positive North West (BPNW). Thus any services provided by BPNW are not subject to any scrutiny or control by NHS Manchester.”

Clearly sanity prevails at this NHS body: it wisely deciding not to fund the gruesome leadership in control at our favourite charity. No need for the Manchester PCT to “hang its head in shame”, as we suggested it might if funding BPNW, rather it and Deborah Goodman (who had the misfortune to attend at least one meeting with the odious Felicity “Phil” Greenham in January 2008) may walk tall** and proudly.

Worrying though that this PCT therefore has no obligation towards the “scrutiny or control” of BPNW - maybe that's a relief to those in power at the charity.

Better keep digging for well-meaning but misguided funders...

FOOTNOTE
** - Apologies to Phil and her coterie for the use of the non-PC adverb “tall”, we naturally mean “in a vertically amplified manner”

Did MAC request repayment of £30k?

We are concerned that rumours abound re MAC Cosmetics AIDS Fund having requested the repayment of £30k, the mismanagement of which transpired during the infamous recent Employment Tribunal.

So, MAC has been e-mailed to ask whether:

1. This is true; and, if so,
2. Have funds been paid back?

We sent the enquiry e-mail at 22h03 on 3 February 2009... ...given the complete lack of a response, until we hear to the contrary, we'll assume the answers to the above are:

1. "Yes"; and,
2. "Maybe".
   

How to get out of the mess we have created?

Doubtless the more sensible boneheads (apologies for the oxymoron) in charge at BPNW have long been asking themselves the above question. Rather than apologise for all the shenanigans and abuse, which is clearly beyond the capacity of the inflated, arrogant Board and CEO, they will doubtless appreciate suggestions at the European Association for Planned Giving that provide a number of ways of merging a failed charity into another (presumably non-failing charity). Here are some examples:
“a) Charity A dissolves and passes its assets to charity B.
b) Charity A and charity B dissolve and pass their assets to a new charity C. Charity C has a joint trusteeship made up of charity A and charity B trustees and, where relevant, a joint charity A and charity B membership.
c) Charity A is appointed as the sole trustee of charity B which then becomes a subsidiary charity of charity A.
d) Charity A has a representation on charity B’s board of Trustees and vice versa. Charity A has powers of appointment and removal of charity B’s trustees. Until those powers are exercised charity B is managed by charity B but there are funding and resource sharing arrangements.”

It is suggested that option b) be avoided – the awful fuckers at BPNW would be allowed to resurrect themselves in this case! Whilst option d) would also likely be iffy in the extreme.

As for a forced merger under the instruction of the piss-poor Charity Commission, we’d better forget that as a non-starter. Although apparently the Commission “has been known to use its protective powers to appoint additional trustees, an interim manager or to make schemes which lead to the dissolution of the charity and its assets being transferred to another charity or charities”.

Naturally, we’re just here to help. As they clearly won’t apologise and make amends, Boardmembers & the CEO might take some advice from Gore Vidal, “Write something, even if it’s just a suicide note.”

“People can be surprisingly forgiving if they get a quick apology and things are put right”

In an article over two and a half years ago on the BBC’s website, The National Consumer Council’s Chief Executive states, “The best of the charity pack have woken up to the fact that people can be surprisingly forgiving if they get a quick apology and things are put right”. If only the grotesque BPNW had read & done this.

What a pity that the vile Felicity (Phil) Greenham, her acolytes and glove puppets (particularly the propagandist Sam “Slimeball” de Croy) are incapable of accepting criticism, constructive or otherwise, let alone apologising to those that they, and the organisation as a whole, has taken an almighty shit on.** As for putting things right, it appears Phil is incapable of being wrong: well, according to herself at least.

Not that they have cared to date of course. HIV, being subject to stigma and discrimination in a large part of wider society, can be used by ill-meaning, bullying, manipulative individuals to further their own ends rather than champion those they pretend to serve.

For your information Phil, Sam et al, an adult conversation requires that you behave like, erm, adults rather than oversized, pseudo-intellectual playground bullies who taunt, tease or just plain ignore those who are victims of stigma and hate. So stop hushing up misdemeanours of those you can control (eg a volunteer stripteasing in front of a vulnerable service user, or, apparently, a male service user offensively ‘touching up’, with sexual intent, other female service users against their will – justification being that such ‘behaviours’ are culturally acceptable to the randy individual concerned) whilst using invented or trumped up charges against those who dare to point out clear flaws in this dreadful organisation.

It looks like it’s got to the point where an apology, without significant sanctions against those responsible at BPNW, will be wholly insufficient. Ho hum.

“Obstacles cannot crush me. Every obstacle yields to stern resolve...”
Leonardo da Vinci (b 1452 – d 1519)

** - a footnote for Trustee, Mark King: to shit on = to vilify

To concerned current and ex- employees/volunteers at BPNW

PlusMan has regularly been approached by those who are or have been employed by the appalling BPNW. As ever, he is always here and happy to help those abused or uncomfortable with an unfortunately close association with that delightful organisation’s powers-that-be.

The, to put it politely, somewhat weak Charity Commission provides a useful outline of information on whistleblowing at its website.

In summary, an employee (but sadly not a volunteer**) who, in the public interest, reports wrongdoing by her/his employer is protected from detrimental treatment or victimisation by that employer. The employee can do this under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA): a process also known as ‘whistleblowing’.

So there you have it, you can contribute to the ending of bullying and victimisation that many of you have silently, and usually uncomfortably, witnessed! As in all these matters it is always sensible to obtain legal advice and use a legal professional, a useful initial point of contact might be The University of Manchester’s School of Law Legal Advice Centre. Remember, many others have succeeded against the ‘awful brigade’ in charge!

** unless of course, as previously discussed here, you are a volunteer who is effectively an employee.

Demonstration at BPNW again

Despite the chilly weather, a couple of bullied, lied to and discriminated against (ex?) service-users are demonstrating outside BPNW right now.

Warms the cockles of your heart doesn’t it? No surprise that there appear to be more staff in than service users.

Apparently Felicity (Phil) Greenham has had all relevant service users contacted today to cancel clients’ appointments, though the boys in blue whom she, or some other arsehole, vindictively called have advised that nothing wrong has been done. Looks like a ruse on her part to manufacture untrue claims of harassment one fears.

The only wrongs are BPNW's mismanagement, bullying, lying and deceit...

...at least Phil’s daughter and grandchild who’ve popped in can stay for a longer chat.

Phil, you (probably) maliciously miss the point, the demonstration is entirely peaceful and 'clients' are not at risk either with respect to their confidentiality or persons. It's your and your cronies’ actions that might lead to the ultimate closure of this once much-admired institution.

All we ever wanted Phil was an adult conversation - shame that through your bullying hubris of the last 31 months you've fucked that up to!

Funders beware XI – watch out there you corporate givers!

In its latest publications, one can’t help but notice that BPNW trumpets the involvement of some pharmaceutical companies in the funding of this grotesque charity.

What serious auditing have these companies performed? Very little one fears – let’s not forget that prior to its demise Enron appeared well run to all concerned, apart from to one or two whistleblowers who were ridiculed and vilified at the time. Those involved in that corporate disgrace did their utmost to deny complicity and, in some cases, knowledge of goings-on. Frightening similarity, though much smaller scale, at BPNW it seems.

Are the likes of Abbott Laboratories Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Gilead Sciences Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Merck Services UK Ltd, Pfizer Holdings Europe, Roche Products Ltd & Tibotec Pharmaceuticals aware of the disgraceful goings on at BPNW? If they have funded and continue to fund this appalling shower, then they are misguided in the extreme: the need to ‘put back something into the community’ will have overridden any measures of good governance in independently and rigorously auditing this obscene organisation.

So enquiries have gone out to the following directors of the above companies, they are, respectively: Thomas Freyman, Uwe Weiler, Frederic Duschesne, Andrew Whitaker, Andrew Witty, Peter Gross, Scott Hunter, Jan van den Boer & Bryan Mohally. Needless to say, no responses as yet from these busy people (all the more so in these recessionary times) - maybe they could spare a moment to consider where some of their organisations’ ‘charitable’ giving may be unfortunately going.

Don’t forget lads, some of us who have been abused and discriminated against swallow your products, thereby boosting your turnover.

Any responses, subject to confidentiality etc will be published… …in the meantime presumably BPNW will attempt to bad mouth all of us who have been lied to or suffered bullying and discrimination at its hands.

What is Navajo? (BPNW awarded C.U.N.T.S. certification as well)

Navajo might well ask at its website.

Having awarded an official sounding but seemingly meaningless ‘charter mark’ to the dreadful BPNW, we learn that Navajo is another ‘sound good’, ‘do-good’ initiative churned out by a well-meaning public body, in this case NHS Central Lancashire’s Public Health Department. Aside from BPNW not meeting the criterion of being “in Lancashire”, though it may have a few service-users living there, the notion that -
“Tackling oppression, stigma, prejudice and addressing social well-being and acceptance in society of LGB people has a direct positive impact on their health.”
- is doubtless true but at which our favourite charity fails miserably.

Question is, what is the grotesque bunch at BPNW doing proudly displaying this iffy ‘charter mark’ on its website? Sadly it seems another case of PC box ticking bullshit by a bunch of hoodwinked, well-meaning folk resulting in the award of a meaningless certification to Felicity & co. We’ve got to hand it to you Felicity, you certainly can talk the talk, coming from an NHS background as you do, shame you have “a history of aggressive, manipulative behaviour”.

There again, our new kitemark “Charity Unfit for NHS Treatments or Services”, to be awarded to an unsuitable charity actually or attempting to complement treatments or services that should be provided by the NHS, is much more appropriate. Such a C.U.N.T.S. certification is certainly richly deserved for those in power at BPNW: well done!

My God! The truth is uncovered...

Anagrams can be so revealing and a bit of light relief too. Coloured expressions are rearrangements of the lovely name, Felicity Greenham:
Felicity Greenham if merely cheating could have been forgiven, unfortunately though she appears clearly to be a chiefly meaner git. So let’s end her hefty malice reign and attempts at disingenuously reteaching my life and others’ to third parties that don’t know us as a series of untruths and misrepresentations. Please Phil: stop being a grimy feline cheat, stop your control-freakery and end this icy nightmare - flee our charity now Ms Greenham, even if it’s probably too late.

An anagram of Body Positive North West? Well, as for it and the glorious Phil - both destroy viewpoints (or at least try to) of anyone who dares to question their juggernaut-like progress towards ultimate failure.

Don’t do it Elton!

…not until there’s some fundamental change at this once much-loved organisation. Rumours are rife that, in its desperate scrabbling for funding further afield, BPNW is casting its net wider to include, we hear, a possible application to the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

A few suggested Elton John songs for our favourite charity:

The Bitch is Back (1974) – sadly the Great One hasn’t left for the first time yet!
It Ain’t Gonna Be Easy (1978) – not while the Great One, her cronies and puppets are in power!
Madness (1978) – aptly describes the politically-correct lunacy that prevails under those currently in power
Sacrifice (1989) – lots of us have been forced to make these because of the lovely Phil-ikins & cronies
Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word (1976) – certainly for those in power to say for all the bullying, abuse, and financial & management misdemeanours

…that’s enough songs for now.

BUT SERIOUSLY funders - beware the MAC AIDS fund experience!

BPNW - a fabulous environment for a control-freak

BPNW must be a great place to run if the following, for example, could be said about you as the Chief Executive (Felicity Jane Greenham aka 'Phil'):
- “She had a history of aggressive, manipulative behaviour, before moving to Manchester and it seems she is getting worse! I hope that she falls under the weight of her ballooning ego soon so that any more injustice and suffering can be avoided.”
- “I worked with Phil...I am not shocked at your blog for some reason although she wasn’t as bad as this when I knew her but you describe her to a T in one of your articles.”
- Is responsible for a cumulative loss of £1m since her unfortunate association with BPNW started.
- She “physically manhandled” a female employee.
- She “grabbed and twisted her husband’s testicles”.
- Regularly represents the charity at tribunals, where it invariably loses, the latest being in the sum of £11,188.
- Presides over mismanagement of funds donated by the likes of MAC AIDS Fund – the above tribunal being mostly the result of BPNW’s maladministration of £30,000 from MAC, to say nothing of breach of contract for the unfortunate employee concerned. To say nothing of actions 4 – 5 years ago that apparently resulted in the withdrawal of funding from PCTs.
- Attempts to interfere with the running of the organisation to its detriment.

The experience must verge on the perpetually orgasmic for anyone seemingly so power-crazed, self-aggrandising and dominating (sounds better than bullying doesn’t it?) to operate, under a veil of politically-correct madness, in an organisation where in wider society service-users suffer discrimination, stigma and worse. This gives virtually free rein to her to grossly inflate her already bloated opinion of herself, the likes of the Board just go along with it too, knowing that virtually all whom they are supposed to serve are (generally sadly correctly) too afraid of a public outing of their status...

...but not all. Some of the worms are turning – that’s how we, the disenfranchised, are seen by the Great One and her cronies. It may come as a surprise to them, along with offensive puppets like Sam de Croy, that we will not be crushed under the jack-boot of her vanity.

Hubris is usually followed by nemesis Felicity m’dear.

The ostrich defence – bullying through ignorance

“Lying is done with words and also with silence.”
Adrienne Rich (b 16/05/1929)
American poet, essayist and feminist

When BPNW has wronged people it appears to choose to stick its head in the sand and hope the problems that it has caused will go away. Usually this cynical strategy works, as BPNW knows that HIV is subject to social exclusion and stigma, with service users that have been wronged choosing to do nothing for fear of outing their status and suffering discrimination.

When it is forced to respond, those in power, for example:
• choose to use others to do their dirty work for them. Readers will remember the disgraceful article by slimeball Sam in a recent edition of the charity’s propaganda rag Positive Living.
• ignore requests by wronged individuals or their representatives. Remember the judge stating “The Tribunal also finds it astonishing that the respondent [BPNW] did not reply in detail to the claimant’s Solicitor’s letter” or the arrogance masquerading as incompetence in dealing with a bullied service user?

As for ‘patrons’ of this dreadful organisation, they appear blinded by politically-correct procedures and processes that actually injure many of those they are supposedly designed to protect. Even the patrons don’t seem to take the slightest interest in challenging the charity in order to make it a better organisation – rather they seem smugly to wear their association with this appalling organisation as a ‘do-good badge of honour’. In at least one case a patron is virtually unreachable choosing to have all his correspondence routed via an agent.

For patrons and funders it seems best to jump on the HIV bandwagon with this dreadful brigade and ask no questions, then it looks like you give a shit.

Arrogant bullies at BPNW continue to discriminate again!

Double click on any of the above to enlarge.

Whatever next? A service user who raised funds for the charity and was a member of its campaign team when it looked like closure was threatened, has been discriminated against for more than 30 months!!

PlusMan knows that this service user who was originally (and spuriously) barred ‘for 3 months’ in June 2006 is still being denied services. Despite numerous letters, legal advice and so forth, the service-user has been unable to have even a hearing regarding readmission to the ‘charity’. The latest stage in this farcical nonsense can be seen in the letters above:

1. The service user has a solicitor write to the charity – no reply from the ignorant and arrogant f***ers.
2. The solicitor sends a letter to the service user (first letter above), advising him that a reminder has been sent to BPNW.
3. The tossers at BPNW attempt, eventually, a reply. This never reaches the solicitor concerned as the e-mail address is incorrectly spelt – solicitors reading as solocitors within the “To:” field. Oh yeah - and the shits never contact the solicitor in week beginning 05/01/09 as stated in the e-mail.
4. Finally, somewhat incompetently, Trustee Mark King proffers a verbose apology (on the day of the supposed hearing, about which the service user and his solicitor knew nothing!) as per the final letter above.
   

With regard to point 3 above – this is inexcusable as, presumably, the incorrectly addressed e-mail would have bounced back, but, one suspects, BPNW deliberately chose not to correct this.

A previous attempt at a Hearing in 2007 failed as BPNW could, or more likely would, not accommodate the service user’s suggested dates and times. Also, and even more disgustingly, the ‘charity’ attempted to influence who the said service user could and could not have as a witness to the Hearing!!

Mendacious bastards. Another case of bullying and discrimination where this shower under the leadership of the vile Felicity 'Phil' Greenham has attempted to mask the true nature of the grotesque ‘charity’ with apparent deliberate ineptitude.

Shock horror - protest outside BPNW

Given that those in power at BPNW seem to rely on the fact that individual service users (current or former) will not complain publicly - as there is so much stigma & discrimination against those living with or affected by HIV - PlusMan is pleased to hear of a protest currently going on outside BPNW's Russell House right now (13h26)!

Apparently the police were called, presumably by some s**t in charge at the 'charity', but the boys in blue advised that everything was in order.

Whilst spouting the need to end discrimination and stigma, we all know that BPNW (as currently controlled) covertly couldn't do without these unfortunate vices inflicted on those living with and affected by HIV. After all, if more people would come forward, BPNW's current leadership wouldn't last five minutes.

There again, that's 5 minutes longer than it deserves.

We don't need pity, just equality and fairness. The only thing we're intolerant of is intolerance.

Manipulative behaviour? Our Phil-ikins? Surely not

A reader kindly sent an e-mail re the vile Felicity 'Phil' Greenham, of which the following is part:

"Have read your blog with interest...

...She had a history of aggressive, manipulative behaviour, before moving to Manchester and it seems she is getting worse!

I hope that she falls under the weight of her ballooning ego soon so that any more injustice and suffering can be avoided."

We can add nothing more. Thanks for your e-mail.

Need help navigating about this blog?

What shenanigans will be exposed in the coming months? Given the continuing arrogance, bullying, ignorance, lying, divisiveness and general dodginess, who knows? Combine these ‘qualities’ with an appalling Chief Executive, a supplicant Board and grotesque madness dressed up as political-correctness and you have the charity BPNW...

Just a quick summary to a good few enquiries: quite a few postings have several searchable tags, but here’s a quick list for you to click on –

abuse of position
abusiveness
appalling finances
attack on testicles
bigotry
bullying
Charity Commission
Chief Executive
Commissioning and Development Manager
confidentiality
cronyism
Crown Court appearance
discrimination
disingenuous
employment tribunal
funders
funders beware
funding organisations
Greenham
inaccuracy
inappropriate behaviour
intolerance
Leon Cavendish
lies/deceit
MAC Aids Fund
Manchester City Council
Martin Dean
misuse of funds
Newsletter
Nicola Smith
patrons
political correctness
Report and Accounts
resignation
Sam de Croy
segregation
Stephen Fry
Suresh Vaghela
Tony Lloyd MP
trip to South Africa
volunteering
Wassim Malas
withdrawal of funding

An enquiry to Manchester PCT...

...just over one year ago, according to minutes of the Primary Care Services Focus Group on 2nd January 2008 held at Mauldeth House, at which the ever-caring and all-inclusive Felicity Greenham was an attendee:

“STI/HIV business case
Felicity presented a business case template to the group outlining 3 options, these were discussed in detail. It was recognised that the initial point of care testing proposal was incorporated within this overall umbrella business case produced by the Sexual Health Forum.
The group discussed:-
+ Testing for STIs and HIV at the same time outside of hospital
+ Working more closely with other organisations.
+ Involving general practice in Chlamydia screening and the possibility of a pilot project.

Action: Sexual Health Forum asked to develop the proposal further.”

One hopes this wasn’t the springboard from which this dreadful charity launched its “confidential” Instant HIV Testing. If so, the (then North, according to the minutes' letterhead) Manchester PCT ought to hang its head in shame, particularly Deborah Goodman, Co-Director of Corporate Affairs, who attended the meeting.

UPDATE - no funding (confirmed 10 February 2009), thank you for prompt response from the PCT forwarded to us.

Confidentiality and this blog

Thanks to everyone who has contacted this blog - unlike legitimate fears over BPNW, rest assured that all persons will remain anonymous unless they specifically state that they are happy to disclose their identity.

Thanks for an e-mail received, which in part states:
"I worked with Phil...I am not shocked at your blog for some reason although she wasn't as bad as this when I knew her but you describe her to a T in one of your articles."

It would seem that power has made an unfortunate individual all the more grotesque! Please send any information (use Contact PlusMan at top right under 'Links') that you have regarding Felicity Greenham's time working in Knowsley (possibly then known as Felicity Bain, Felicity Baine, Phil Bain or Phil Baine) and subsequently her period of work and, apparently dodgy, departure from Salford (Primary Care Trust/New Deal for Communities?) in or around 2004.

UPDATE - full married name was Felicity Jane Bain, now and née Felicity Jane Greenham

BPNW and confidentiality

Firstly, let it be stated that by far the great majority of volunteers at BPNW and elsewhere are persons of genuine and honest conviction who give of their time for the greater good.

PlusMan has however received a massive level of interest re confidentiality and BPNW. There are a number of potential concerns, the following points are raised (with the caveat that PlusMan has a keen amateur interest in the law – if you need professional advice, then seek it from a suitably qualified individual/organisation):
• The Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”), which enshrines such rights as that to a private life etc is ONLY applicable to public bodies. BPNW is not a public body (but is a badly run charity) – as such the HRA does not apply to it. It would make an interesting test case to establish whether charities that provide a service that should or would otherwise be provided by a public body ought to fall under the HRA. PlusMan is actively raising funds and pursuing pro bono advice from lawyers and counsel in order that this might once and for all be established.
• Common Law – here matters appear different. If BPNW states that, for example, HIV tests and an individual’s status are confidential then a “duty of confidentiality” is owed to the individual concerned. A summary at the Economic and Social Data Service states –
“A duty of confidentiality can also arise without an explicit statement of this kind. This applies to information which is not in the public domain. It may be established in situations where confidential information is passed, in confidence, to the confidant (the receiver of the information); where the information is sensitive, for example medical details; and when it has been supplied in circumstances in which the confidant might reasonably suppose it to be confidential.”
• So it looks like you could take legal action against BPNW and/or a volunteer should your reasonable expectation of a duty of confidentiality be breached.

It remains a major source of worry that an organisation such as BPNW is not covered by the Human Rights Act 1998 – particularly as it is the custodian of highly sensitive information and it engages in medical (HIV) testing along with counselling. It is a concern that such vulnerable individuals can be ‘captured’ at the point test results are conveyed, thereby bolstering funding with another ‘service-user’ claimed.

Beware! Think twice before having an HIV test at the appalling Body Positive North West.

Given BPNW’s awful track record, shouldn’t you be worried that the ‘charity’ is using volunteers for some of its most sensitive positions? – eg (from its website at Volunteer Vacancies → Point Of Care Testing):

Point Of Care Test Counsellor
Body Positive North West offers confidential [how can it be confidential if volunteers are used in key positions? - see this posting below] pre and post test counselling to people undertaking the Instant Test for HIV. The test may only take a minute, but it could be the longest minute in someone’s life.
Are you a B.A.C.P qualified counsellor and interested in helping people make informed choices on whether to test or not. Then if they do test, support the person with the result.

Point Of Care Test Administrator
To administer the Instant Test for HIV the volunteer, under clinical governance, has to have a Medical, Nursing, Phlebotomy or Venipuncture qualification.
The test may be a minute, but to the person being tested it will seem like a life time and you will be supported by the POCT Counsellor. Confidential Instant Testing at our centre is by appointment and there maybe some outreach, by agreement.

Crikey, that’s a bit worrying isn’t it, what happens if the ‘volunteer’ breaches your confidentiality? Do you have legal rights against BPNW? Or will it seek to state that the volunteer concerned is not an employee and BPNW has no contractual relationship with him/her? After all, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations states in a note to organisations that:
“Remember you cannot ‘require’ anything of your volunteers. They cannot be bound by contractual obligations without being considered employees by employment tribunals. For example, if you think it would be best that volunteers remain with you for a certain period of time, you should phrase it such that it is not a demand, but only a hope 'that the volunteer have a long, pleasant stay' with your organisation. Such statements should be reflected in your working practice. Flexibility should be shown toward volunteers who fail to fulfil their expectations. [does this mean that BPNW should be 'flexible' toward any such volunteer who f***s up your confidentiality?]”

So by placing volunteers in the most sensitive position imaginable, BPNW has no, and cannot have, a contractual relationship with them (EVEN A MEANINGFUL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT!!). Such key personnel should be employees Felicity – as Chief Executive on God knows what salary per year even a megalomaniac ought to know this. There again, she's probably designing more mad politically-correct processes and procedures instead of caring about actual and future service users.

Obviously an Employment Tribunal could determine that BPNW’s key volunteers are in fact employees – scope for more costs if it went to judgment one fears! The charity’s track record, as in other areas, is a shambles in this regard.

Naturally we can think of a number of employees, ‘Phil’ included, without whom BPNW would be infinitely better off...

...along with the Trustees - fancy allowing this potentially worrying situation to arise!

Have you been, or are you, a volunteer and badly treated by the arses at BPNW?

There are probably many of you out there. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations , volunteers:
“cannot be bound by contractual obligations without being considered employees by employment tribunals.”

So if, for example, you were obliged to sign a meaningful (ie one with teeth) Confidentiality Agreement, an Employment Tribunal would likely determine that you were an employee and have an employee’s rights. Obviously, if a 'Confidentiality Agreement' just stated that you would cease to be a volunteer having compromised confidentiality then that would be toothless and meaningless - BPNW wouldn't do that when dealing with highly sensitive information relating to individuals' HIV status, would it??

If appropriate, better get your claims organised folks, doubtless with less conveyancing activity on their books in these Credit Crunch times, there’ll be a lot of solicitors out there willing to work on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. The money’s better in your pockets. Just be warned that you have three months from leaving to make a potential claim.

Also, if I were still daft enough to be funding this shower, I’d be worried about potential liabilities from any actions that might be taken from volunteers or service users who have had their confidentiality breached. Who knows what else there is to be discovered? Still, you’ve all been told ad nauseum.

“Charities must get back to doing good works...

...Corrupted by government, over-politicised and over professionalised, the voluntary sector needs to rethink its role.”

So writes Libby Purves in an excellent article at page 21 of today’s Times. She goes on:
“...you might meet their smartly dressed, crisp-mannered chief executives – once known as mere directors, but now feeling a need to blow up their titles to mimic industry and banking.”

“However once you start “professionalising” and deliberately mirroring the commercial world, you create a whole cadre of employees whose expectations and behaviours rapidly become expensive, potentially wasteful and at times merely self-aggrandising.”

’nuff said.

Merry Christmas & best wishes to all for 2009

What a year it's been!

Despite BPNW's continued mismanagement combined with bullying & discriminatory policies, we have continued to expose the obscene charity for what it is. Racism, bullying and divisiveness have been confirmed with funds continuing to be pissed away on mad PC-rationalised schemes.

All those patrons and funders that have been approached and continue to sanctimoniously seek to 'do good' by being seen to lend support to the demonstrably grotesque BPNW are indirectly responsible for propping up this dreadful shambles.

Regardless, we still wish you all the best for the New Year, - yes all! - some of these dear folk include:

• Tony Lloyd MP;
• Stephen Fry;
• those at Manchester City Council & other Greater Manchester funding bodies;
• Andrew Whitaker, John Milligan, Paul Carter together with fellow Board members and any other senior executives at Gilead Sciences Ltd - the company seems rashly to fund this vile charity (and to think, some of us who are victimised by BPNW swallow its drugs and thereby boost its profits!);
  
• even the Great One, the Board and Sam de Croy at BPNW itself - just because you patently shouldn't hold positions or be present at the charity doesn't mean we don't care; and,
  
• let's not forget the useless fuckwits in their overpaid do-nothing positions from Dame Suzi downwards at the Charity Commission.

We just hope that you all take a long good look at what you have helped create and/or support - horrifying isn't it?

Are you one of many treated badly by BPNW?..

...well fuck off elsewhere then.

That’s the message in BPNW’s latest glossy propaganda-infused newssheet, Positive Living! Using a stool pigeon service-user and Greenham acolyte, a Mr Sam de Croy, to do the dirty work for this odious ‘charity’, an article suggests that if you don’t like the charity, you should go elsewhere.

The Nazis used some of those they oppressed to do their dirty work for them in the death camps. Sonderkommando units of people, drawn from those whom the fascists oppressed, would clean the dead bodies, faeces and vomit out of the gas chambers, subsequently throwing corpses into the crematorium ovens having ripped any gold fillings out beforehand... Ultimately members of the Sonderkommando met the same fate as those they helped abuse – at least they usually did this to prolong their miserable existence or misguidedly to help others.

So it is with slimeball Sam, apparently having been diagnosed HIV+ some three years ago, his article has been published, presumably with BPNW’s approval – how very dare you, you piece of shit. One wonders what inducements may have been offered to the scumbag.

For Mr de Croy’s information, those of us, and there are many, who object to the way BPNW is run are not concerned about trivia such as the state of interior decoration but with grave issues including, but by no means restricted to:
• Bullying;
• Lying;
• Disingenuousness;
• Racism;
• Segregation dressed up as absurd political correctness;
• Bad management;
• Cronyism; and,
• Abuse of power.

One hopes patrons such as Mr Tony Lloyd MP & Stephen Fry are shamed by their association with this appalling organisation. Stop shielding yourselves from real people and make the effort to listen to them – how long will you hear only the one-sided deceitful nonsense pumped out in crap such as the glossy Positive Living (remember how BPNW dealt with the departure of racist Martin Dean, dressing it up as the loss of a vital trustee)?

No – senior management and Board, you leave! Why the hell should those of us who have been disenfranchised meekly go elsewhere? ...and Sam, respectfully, maybe you should fuck off too.

Surprised at the power-hungry being drawn to caring professions?...

...not us sadly.

Much surprise is voiced in the media at the moment following the conviction of the terrorist and former NHS doctor Bilal Abdullah. Whilst most are drawn to the ‘caring professions’ for the right reasons, a minority enjoy their abuse of a position of power, often revelling in control freakery and the ability to fundamentally and adversely affect the lives of people.

A long roll call in relatively recent history might include the warped medics Dr Josef Mengele and, closer to home, Dr Harold Shipman.

Let’s hope all those tales of grabbing testicles, physically manhandling individuals and general bullying are without foundation, otherwise one might be forced to conclude that the gorgeous and caring Ms Felicity Greenham could be a member of the ‘ogre in caring professions club’ too.

Thank heavens caring do-good ‘patrons’ like Mr Tony Lloyd MP and the polymath Stephen Fry are there to defend our interests. Unless like 1930s appeasers they intellectualise, believe the propaganda and turn a blind eye to suffering – more simply of course, they might not give a shit.

Tossers.

Funders beware X – accounts to 31/03/2008 show funds continue to haemorrhage from BPNW as £0.4m more goes down the toilet

A further £400,164 has whistled out the door – as have many service users. This sum is the extent to which expenditure exceeded income for the year ending 31/03/2008.

How much longer will it take for those in power within BPNW (yes directors, that’s you - stop cowering like spineless morons in front of the Great One) and, even more appropriately, in external agencies to DO SOMETHING about this shambles?

Since gaining an initial position of authority at BPNW in 2003 (initially as a Director/Trustee from 1 April 2003, April Fools’ Day, to 20 September 2004, then as Company Secretary and, sadly still, power-crazed Chief Executive), the bollock-mangling Felicity Greenham has, in one way or another, presided over the politically-correct annihilation of the charity and, as Charity Commission & Companies House data shows:

A LOSS TO DATE OF £992,387 !!

Stop funding divisive empire building & politically-correct madness immediately and sweep away all those in positions of power at this manifestly obscene organisation. ‘Unfit for purpose’ weakly describes the grotesque way in which this charity has been corrupted to suit a certain warped view of its aims and objectives.

Alternatively, just shut it down now and fully investigate the tossers. The Chief Executive, piss-poor Chair and other pliant Boardmembers should be answerable and, ideally, made liable for their actions.

Hang your heads in shame Charity Commission, funders, local and national politicos and ‘patrons’ (celebrities or otherwise). You've sat on your arses and knowingly let this madness perpetuate itself - you are all culpable.

It’s Führer day again

Well, Führerin actually. Holed up in her basement bunker at Russell House, planning victory when defeat is all around her, may we distract the Great One from her megalomaniacal scheming and, as “Phil” would say, sincerely wish her:

Happy Birthday

At 56 the power-mad - oops, sorry, we mean gentle, inclusive and caring - Chief Executive must be holding on determinedly and grimly for retirement: let’s hope that when she belatedly is despatched from office it won’t be dressed up as creeping off to enjoy a well-deserved pension. Doubtless the uncovering of truths regarding the horror of her reign at BPNW will continue to develop apace. Sieg Heil!

A definition for Mr Mark King

Re the letter sent by the wordsmith and Trustee, Mr Mark King, a definition:

Vilify v. 1450 [late L. vilificare (Jerome), f. L. vilis; see Vile, -fy] 1. trans. To lower or lessen in worth or value; to reduce to a lower standing or value. Also refl. Now rare or Obs. **

Typical - the Orwellian reversal of a definition by the glorious leadership at BPNW.

Our aim is to increase or appreciate the charity’s worth or value through demonstrating the incompetence, arrogance, absurd political-correctness and/or abusiveness of those in positions of power. Furthermore, we doubt whether any individuals targeted at BPNW can be vilified – since in virtually all instances relevant personnel already have minimal worth or value to the organisation.

We’ll leave it to you, Mr King, and your cronies “to reduce [BPNW] to a lower standing or value” – you’re all doing a great job in this regard.

** from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on historical principles, 3rd Ed, Editor CT Onions, Clarendon Press, Oxford

A trustee (disgracefully) writes...

...in response to a request for reinstatement from a service-user following his barring for, including other issues, ‘manufactured reasons’ (eg the causing of “criminal damage” which the said service user did not commit), new(ish) trustee and lackey of the awful brigade in charge, Mark King, writes the following:

Dear...

Regarding: Reviewing client status

I apologise for the delay in addressing your request for reinstatement of client status at BPNW, the scheduled Board meeting in June 2008 was cancelled.

After careful consideration of your request, and in line with BPNW’s Complaints Procedure last updated January 2007 a meeting was held on 27 May 2008. Following the panel considering all previous evidence and action taken, we are writing to inform you of our decision not to reinstate your client status.

This decision has been taken for the following reasons:
1. We are not convinced that your antagonistic attitude towards people within BPNW has changed.
2. Your involvement in, and association with, a blog which sought to vilify BPNW as an organisation and individuals within BPNW.
3. Your disrespect towards the procedures of BPNW in seeking to circumvent this review process by writing to a patron of the organisation before it had been completed.

The Board of BPNW has a clear duty to create a safe space for all vulnerable adults and young people that use BPNW. This is also stated in our Policies on the Protection of Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults (Jan 2006), our Codes of Behavior [sic] and Conduct Guidelines (Jan 2006) and BPNW’s Confidentiality Policy (Feb 2006).

These Policies and procedures have been established to promote and protect this duty of care. We are not satisfied that you are prepared to abide be these policies and procedures. This decision is final and you have no right of appeal.

Yours Sincerely

Mark King
Trustee

Issues in response include:

• Why does BPNW take so long to process matters? Maybe it hopes that individuals may die before a conclusion is reached.
• Any ‘antagonism’ on behalf of the individual concerned is directed to those in power at this shambolic ‘charity’.
• We are pleased that this blog is having an effect, but please BPNW, don’t seek to bully people you perceive as contributing to exposing your inadequacies. This blog has not and does not seek to ‘vilify’ BPNW as an organisation or individuals. As the mission statement of the blog says – “This blog is dedicated to re-establishing the Manchester-based HIV charity, Body Positive North West Ltd, to its once pre-eminent position helping those in the NW of England. If you have information to contribute please comment - particularly on wrong doing by the CEO and senior officers.” This it will continue to do. If anyone has evidence regarding this dreadful charity, please bring it forward - whilst respecting the health status of any individuals concerned naturally.
• Point 3 of Mark King’s expected and puerile response is disgusting. The said patron IS IN FACT the MP of the individual to whom this letter is addressed. Maybe Mr Tony Lloyd MP would like to decide whether he can continue to patronise such a deplorable organisation that seeks to interfere in the relationship between a constituent and his elected parliamentary representative.
  

Shame on all in power at BPNW and those who associate with them.

Abusive? Ms Greenham? – surely not

With a carefully worded section in the recent Tribunal Judgment reading as:

“The claimant [Sylvia Lawal] alleges that Ms Greenham grabbed her mobile phone, ordered her to collect her bag and then blocked her path by holding her arms out. On the following day, 20 September 2007, the claimant maintains that Ms Greenham “physically manhandled” her. Ms Greenham acknowledges that there was physical contact between them but, and the evidence [presumably no witnesses were there or willing to come forward to help Ms Lawal] presented seems to support this, she was simply guiding her in the direction she wanted to go.”

Bearing in mind numerous tales of the Great One’s inappropriate, intimidatory and often downright bullying behaviour, let’s not forget that when she was, of all things, a Stress Co-ordinator (whatever that means):

“Felicity Greenham, 41, a stress co-ordinator, grabbed and twisted her husband’s testicles when he tried to stop her entering the family home”

The verb ‘to grab’ seems to repeatedly crop up in Ms Greenham’s unfortunate exploits.

Felicity seemed to slip up in the above ‘Scrotum Case’, but she does usually seem cunning enough to conduct her antics in the absence of third party & neutral witnesses – why the hell does the fair Felicity need to be “guiding her [Ms Lawal] in the direction she wanted to go”? One could hazard a reasonable guess that this might more truthfully read “propelling Ms Lawal, possibly against her will, towards the exit”. After all, it ought to be clear that Ms Lawal:

1. Knew perfectly “where she wanted to go”; and,
2. Would certainly not have wanted the caring and lovely Felicity “manhandling” her.

Anyone dealing with this oppressive shower (in particular Ms Greenham and her odious sidekicks) should:

1. Always have an independent witness present; and,
2. Be aware of the legal concepts of:
a. The tort of battery; and,
b. The tort of assault.

You too could well be owed damages as was Ms Lawal. Good on you Sylvia! - At least Ms Greenham appears, as in all things, to maintain a PC-approach to her unfortunate behavioural tendencies, she seems to be unpleasant to people regardless of ethnicity unlike racist ex-Trustee Martin Dean

£11,188 awarded against BPNW in employment tribunal

Re the earlier posting about an employment tribunal relating to the grotesque charity’s screwed up management of a MAC Aids Fund funded position, £11,188 has been awarded to the former employee – payment required by 16 December 2008 or interest will start to be payable too.

For the record, judgment on remedy is as follows in case no 2402015/08:

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: Miss Sylvia Lawal
Respondent: Body Positive North West Limited

HELD AT: Manchester ON: 17 October 2008

REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr M Broomhead, Diversity Officer
Respondent: Mr M Ramsbottom, Employment Consultant

JUDGMENT ON REMEDY

The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that:-

1. Compensation for unfair dismissal is assessed as follows:-

Basic Award

By reason of Section 120(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant is entitled to a minimum of 4 week’s wages. Her gross weekly income exceeded the statutory minimum. Therefore basic award – 4 x £310 - £1,240.

Compensatory Award

a. Loss of earnings from 19 December 2007 to 15 May 2008 – 21 weeks @ £380 per week - £7,980.
b. Loss of statutory industrial rights - £310.
c. Uplift after Section 31 of the Employment Act 2002 – 20% x £8,290 - £1,658.
Therefore the total compensatory award is £9,948.

2. No award is made in respect of the breach of contract finding as the losses are included in the compensatory award.

3. Therefore the total award is £11,188.

4. The Recoupment Regulations apply to this award as explained in the Annex [not reproduced here]. The prescribed period is from 19 December 2007 to 15 May 2008. The monetary award is £11,188. The prescribed element is £7,980. The excess of the monetary award over the prescribed element is £3,208.

Employment Judge Coles
4 November 2008

Goodness gracious, that’s about 1/3rd of MAC’s reputed funding of £30k!

Funders beware IX - MAC Aids Fund funded BPNW...

...somewhat misguidedly it seems.

Despite attempting to alert the MAC Aids Fund of the perils of funding this dreadful charity, and regardless of an assurance in April 2007 that funds had not (then) recently been provided, what happens?

We post in July 2007 that MAC has, after all, gone ahead with funding.

The result, only one year’s funding then no more plus the disaster of continued BPNW mismanagement exposed in an employment tribunal. It appears from the tribunal judgment that BPNW had hoped for funding for more than one year from the good folk at MAC Aids Fund.

Maybe other funders, actual or would-be, ought to contact MAC Aids Fund and get the full picture. That organisation can also be reached via its London office:

MAC AIDS Fund
75 Grosvenor Street
London
W1K 3BQ

tel: 0870 034 6895

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

So the real truth about Martin Dean's 'resignation' emerges

In a posting in June 2007 we stated:

“Doubtless the real truth about Martin’s departure (or ‘resignation’ on 31/05/2007) will come to light in the not-too-distant future.”

This was posted in response to a load of garbage published in BPNW’s June 2007 newsletter that stated, following the (wipes crocodile tear from eye) departure of the vile Martin Dean from the Board:

“Martin has been on the board of trustees for several years”, [well just over two actually], whilst contributing a “huge amount of time and effort to the direction of Body Positive”.

Well just one or two facts:
1. According to a recent Employment Tribunal, the ever-caring and inclusive poppet actually resigned in December 2006 – though his ‘resignation’ wasn’t notified to Companies House until May 2007; and,
2. As we have stated all along, the bastard was a racist. The same Employment Tribunal states, “In October 2006, the claimant (Ms Sylvia Lawal) made a complaint to Ms Greenham, the Chief Executive Officer, to whom she reported, about alleged racist remarks and behaviour towards her by a Mr Martin Dean who, although not an employee of the respondent, was a Board Member as well as being a service user. An investigation into the claimant’s allegation upheld her complaint and Mr Dean resigned in December 2006.”

And to think that this shower of scum at BPNW has sought to imply that this blog’s a tissue of lies - apparently including the denial of Mr Dean’s racist tendencies... ...and being ‘economical with the truth’ regarding dear Martin’s departure.

Ho hum – better start trying to justify yourselves, all you patrons and funders!! You can’t say you’ve not been informed: you’ve just chosen to ignore the facts it seems.

Employment tribunal finds against BPNW

As mentioned in a recent posting (at point no 5), we had been made aware of an employment tribunal finding against our favourite charity.

To say that BPNW has, once again, behaved inappropriately and descended to its usual depths (bullying, intimidation etc) is unsurprising. The only remarkable fact is the continued funding of this shower of bastards. Also, if they still have the audacity to associate themselves with this appalling organisation maybe patrons, such as Tony Lloyd MP & Stephen Fry, might reconsider their association.

All the usual tossers are involved and/or implicated - eg Felicity "Phil" Greenham, Nicola Smith, ex-crony Rhetta Moran, Ed McConniffe, the Chair - Suresh Vaghela, Caryl Clavering... ...need we go on?

Key findings & facts include:

1. “it is clear that throughout the whole process the respondent [BPNW] and its management had access to advice from Peninsula Business Services”. One hopes that Peninsula will be footing the settlement amount unless, of course, BPNW have screwed things up so much that the charity will be liable.
2. “the dismissal of the claimant (ie Sylvia Lawal) on 12 December 2007 was automatically unfair”
3. “by reason of the fundamentally flawed approach to the claimant’s situation... ...her dismissal was also substantively unfair.”
4. “The respondent was therefore in breach of contract.”
5. “The Tribunal also finds it astonishing that the respondent did not reply in detail to the claimant’s Solicitor’s letter.”
6. “An investigation into the claimant’s allegation [of racist remarks and behaviour towards her by gorgeous caring ex-trustee Martin Dean] upheld her complaint and Mr Dean resigned in December 2006.”

Anyway, here’s the judgment in case no 2402015/08 – Sylvia Lawal v Body Positive North West Ltd:

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: Miss S Lawal

Respondents: 1) Body Positive North West Ltd 2) Felicity Greenham

HELD AT: Manchester ON: 1, 2, 3 September 2008

BEFORE: Employment Judge Coles, Mr M Murray, Mr A Nicholls

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant: Mr M Broomhead, Diversity Officer
Defendant: Mr M Ramsbottom, Employment Consultant

RESERVED JUDGMENT

The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1) The claimant was unfairly dismissed.
2) The claimant’s complaint of breach of contract is upheld.
3) The claimant’s claim of race discrimination by way of victimisation is dismissed as against both respondents.
4) The question of remedy in respect of the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims is listed for Friday 17 October 2008 with a time estimate of one day.

REASONS

1) This matter came before the Tribunal on 1 September 2008 and the evidence and submissions concluded at 1:00pm on 3 September 2008. The Tribunal reserved its judgment to Chambers and was able to reach a unanimous decision later that day.

2) The claimant was represented by Mr M Broomhead, Diversity Officer, and gave evidence. The respondent was represented by Mr M Ramsbottom, Employment Consultant, and evidence was given on its behalf by Ms F J Greenham, Chief Executive Officer and Ms N Smith, Trustee.

3) The Tribunal also had regard to a number of documents presented during the course of the hearing. It also carefully considered the submissions made and authorities referred to by the parties’ representatives.

Issues

4) The claimant was on 12 December 2007 dismissed with one week’s notice, purportedly on the grounds of redundancy following the expiry in June 2007 of what the respondent maintains was a one year fixed-term contract which commenced on 7 June 2006.

5) The claimant maintains that there was no redundancy situation so far as her position was concerned but that, if there was, she was unfairly selected.

6) The claimant also maintains that she was entitled to one month’s notice of termination of employment in any event and that the respondent was in breach of contract by only giving her one week’s notice.

7) The claimant also brings a race discrimination charge claim based on victimisation by the second respondent Felicity Greenham, in respect of which the first respondent is also vicariously liable.

8) Whatever the grounds may have been for the claimant’s dismissal, she maintains that she was unfairly dismissed, which the respondent disputes.

Facts

9) The respondent is a registered charity which deals with service provision for the community in the support and prevention of HIV/AIDS. The claimant commenced her employment with the respondent on 4 January 2006, initially as an Advice and Advocacy Worker earning £20,250 per annum, although she soon progressed to the position of Health and Social Work Manager, on a salary of £22,000 per annum.

10) In May 2006, the respondent advertised for the position of Health and Social Care Service Manager on a salary of £25,000. The advertisement included the following words:-
“Hours: full time position, 12-month contract, renewing after this period.”

11) The respondent relies on external funding for its operations and this particular post was to be funded externally by a donation from MAC, the international cosmetics organisation.

12) The claimant successfully applied for this position and the first paragraph of her appointment letter dated 7 June 2006 reads as follows:-
“We are happy to let you know that you have been successful at interview and offer you the post of Service Manager with BPNW. In the first incidence [sic] this post is funded for one year, renewable, if successful in fulfilling the criteria of the MAC Aids funding bid.”

13) Attached to that letter was a Job Description setting out the main duties and responsibilities involved, although nowhere in that document is reference made to a “fixed-term contract”.

14) The claimant is of the view that she did not receive the letter dated 7 June 2006, although the Tribunal is satisfied that it was sent to her at that time and it may be that the claimant has forgotten having received it.

15) In October 2006, the claimant made a complaint to Ms Greenham, the Chief Executive Officer, to whom she reported, about alleged racist remarks and behaviour towards her by a Mr Martin Dean who, although not an employee of the respondent, was a Board Member as well as being a service user. An investigation into the claimant’s allegation upheld her complaint and Mr Dean resigned in December 2006. Certain recommendations were made by an outside consultant, Dr Rhetta Moran which were accepted by the Board in March 2007. It is suggested on behalf of the claimant that the contents of Dr Moran’s report included implied criticism of Ms Greenham as Chief Executive Officer.

16) It is the claimant’s contention that the compliant about Mr Dean’s discriminatory behaviour amounted to a “protected act” for the purposes of a complaint of victimisation under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is further the claimant’s contention that, by reason of the fact that the claimant had done this protected act, there was thereafter, on a continuing basis, a course of conduct amounting to less favourable treatment of her by Ms Greenham culminating in her involvement in the claimant’s dismissal on 12 December 2007.

17) In addition to her actual dismissal, the claimant relies in particular on four incidents which occurred after the protected act.

18) In early 2007, the claimant raised with Ms Greenham her concern over the fact that Counsellors employed by the respondent were earning considerably more than she was, even though they were technically junior to her as their Service Manager. The claimant alleges that, following investigation and with the approval of the Chairman of the Board, she was promised by Ms Greenham a “huge” wage increase, although in fact she was finally awarded only £1,000 in April 2007.

19) The second complaint relates to the employment of Rob, who was the boyfriend of the respondent’s receptionist. The claimant maintains that Rob was appointed without consultation with her and against her wishes. Ms Greenham however told the Tribunal that Rob was appointed purely to cover the absences of personnel, including the claimant, on holiday, on a temporary basis only, and that the claimant was perfectly content with this arrangement.

20) Thirdly, in June 2007, the complaint maintains that she was “singled out” for supervision by Ms Greenham in the company of Ms N Smith, the respondent’s HR Director and a Trustee. The supervision meeting took place on 3 July 2007. Ms Smith denies that she was present at the meeting and the Minutes of such do not identify her as being there. It should be emphasised that the claimant explained that she was not objecting to a “supervision meeting” as such – there was no suggestion that this was in any way connected with performance issues, but was a regular occurrence simply to deal with outstanding issues. However, the claimant maintains that the presence of Ms Smith rendered the situation oppressive. She also complains that, although this was stated to be a normal supervision meeting beforehand, once it commenced it was immediately converted into a discussion about the fact that the MAT [sic – this should read MAC] funding had come to an end and that she, along with the Project Worker, were “at risk” of redundancy.

21) The meeting was followed by a letter dated 4 July 2007 from Ms Greenham to the claimant. It is significant that, in his closing submissions, Mr Ramsbottom on behalf of the respondent contends that this letter amounts to a Step 1 letter for the purposes of compliance with the dismissal and disciplinary procedures as set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Chapter (1), of the Employment Act 2002. It is therefore felt important to set out the contents of that letter in full:-
“Dear Ms Lawal
I refer to our supervision meeting held yesterday 3.7.07 where I informed you that the Charity anticipates having to make redundancies in the near future. I am regretfully writing to confirm that it is likely that your position is at risk and you should regard this letter as warning notice of that potential redundancy.
Over the next month I will meet and formally consult with you on a regular basis to discuss alternatives whereby your employment could be protected. I would also ask you to personally consider and put forward alternative proposals and suggestions at our consultation meetings which you feel are relevant with the aim of avoiding redundancy.
On a personal note, may I say how sorry I am that this situation has come about, and I wish to assure you that this is no reflection upon your ability or commitment to the charity. It merely reflects the difficult trading circumstances in which the charity is operating.
As we discussed yesterday a further consultation needs to be organised with you. I hope that 2pm 19.7.07 at Russell Rd., to review the situation is convenient. You may if you wish, be accompanied by either a fellow colleague or Trade Union official at this meeting. If you wish to exercise this right to be accompanied at our meetings I would point out that it is your responsibility to make the necessary arrangements.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely

Ms Phil Greenham”

22) Following receipt of that letter, the claimant lodged a formal grievance letter dated 15 July 2007. Although the letter complains of other things, for the purposes of this claim the relevant part reads as follows:-
“Re – unfair selection for redundancy.
I would like to raise an official grievance initially on the above decision, made by Ms P Greenham, to terminate my contract of employment.”

23) That grievance was dealt with by Ms N Smith at a meeting held on 16 August 2007. It is said by the claimant that the written result of her grievance hearing was not sent to her until October 2007 and the document in the bundle is not dated. So far as the claimant’s complaint of unfair selection for redundancy was concerned, Ms Smith concluded as follows:-
“This process is currently an ‘at risk’ situation and it is not deemed as prejudicial or that you have been unfairly selected as a consultation process is currently taking place and no final decision has yet been made in respect of a redundancy situation. You applied and were interviewed for a 12 month contracted position as Service Manager. In the interview it was clearly mentioned the role was for 12 months and would be dependant on achieving funding from the MAC Aids Foundation after this period for the role to continue this was also clearly stated in the offer of employment letter for that role. We have full records of the interview procedure. The funding revenue for this position has now ceased.”

24) The claimant appealed against the findings relating to her grievance and that appeal was heard by Mr E McConiffe [sic] on 13 November 2007. By letter dated 6 December 2007, Mr McConiffe [sic] rejected the claimant’s appeal.

25) The fourth matter upon which the claimant relies in support of her complaint of victimisation against her by Ms Greenham occurred on 19 and 20 September 2007. By then, as the Tribunal finds, the relationship between the claimant and Ms Greenham was becoming strained, each of them, of course, maintaining that the other was responsible for bringing this about. The claimant had been off work from 24 July 2007 with stress. A phased return to work had been implemented from 16 August 2007. Ms Greenham alleges that the claimant had failed to sign in for work and that her behaviour had become “erratic and volatile”, she shouting inappropriately at other members of staff. The claimant alleges that Ms Greenham grabbed her mobile phone, ordered her to collect her bag and then blocked her path by holding her arms out. On the following day, 20 September 2007, the claimant maintains that Ms Greenham “physically manhandled” her. Ms Greenham acknowledges that there was physical contact between them but, and the evidence presented seems to support this, she was simply guiding her in the direction she wanted to go.

26) Ms Greenham wrote a letter to the claimant dated 24 September 2007 expressing her concern at the claimant’s conduct. Included in that letter is the following paragraph:-
“Although I sympathise with the unfortunate situation you are in and I realise how stressful it must be for you, your recent behaviour is extremely inappropriate.”

27) Ms Greenham confirmed that the letter was not intended to be a formal warning but that, if there was any repetition of such conduct, the claimant could be subject to formal disciplinary action.

28) By letter dated 7 October 2007, the claimant raised a formal grievance against Ms Greenham, alleging “continual discrimination” and referring to the incidents on 19 and 20 September. This grievance was heard by Ms Smith on 7 December 2007 and was adjourned pending further enquiries by Ms Smith. Those enquiries were not concluded by the time the claimant was dismissed and effectively the grievance was never properly determined, although Ms Smith maintains that the claimant’s grievance was formally rejected in a letter dated 7 February 2008.

29) Following Ms Greenham’s letter of 4 July 2007, consultation meetings took place on 19 July 2007 and 15 November 2007. Although the Tribunal has read the Minutes of these consultation meetings, it has to be said that it found the discussions recorded extremely difficult to follow. Essentially, discussions were taking placed about the possibility of alternative positions being found for the claimant whereas the claimant was simply expressing confusion about the fact that she had “four” different contracts and simply wanted to remain working as she was. It would appear that the only positions that were being offered to the claimant were part-time, which she did not want. The real problem, however, in the Tribunal’s judgment, was that Ms Greenham was approaching the whole process on the premise that the claimant had been employed on a fixed-term contract which had expired in June 2007 following the withdrawal of MAT [sic – this should read MAC] funding and therefore it was just a question of seeing what jobs may be available for the claimant, whereas the claimant’s approach was that she was continuing her role and, if she was going to have to be transferred into a different job, it was for the respondent to identify a suitable position.

30) What is clear, however, is that at no stage did the respondent write to the claimant offering a particular position as suitable alternative employment so as to avoid compulsory redundancy.

31) These reasons now move on to the events of 12 December 2007, which the Tribunal finds were somewhat bizarre. The claimant was not given any written notification of the meeting which was held on the morning of 12 December 2007 with Ms Smith. Within the bundle at page 174 is a document which purports to record the events that occurred on that day. A meeting with Ms Smith and the claimant together with Ms Clavering (described as a note taker) and Mr R Nicholson (also described as a note taker) commenced at 11:35 am – it also being noted that the claimant tape-recorded the meeting. The next sentence reads as follows:-
“NS explaining the rationale for this meeting giving details of previous consultations with dates”.

32) It would appear to the Tribunal, therefore, that this meeting was intended to be for the purposes of further consultation. It is of significance that the respondent had by that stage received a four-page letter from Messrs Thomas Mansfield Solicitors, dated 5 December 2007 written on behalf of the claimant setting out in some detail their concerns about events that had occurred, alleging bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation and asking for a speedy resolution of all matters. Ms Smith was asking questions of the claimant and the claimant was asking questions of Ms Smith, including relating to her solicitor’s letter. The note records that the meeting was adjourned to “seek clarification on these points”. The Solicitors’ letter was never replied to.

33) It is clear on the evidence that Ms Smith had discussions with Ms Greenham following the adjournment. The claimant told the Tribunal that a very important work matter arose involving child protection issues which necessitated her leaving the building. She told the Tribunal that she was not aware that she was expected to attend a reconvened meeting with Ms Smith later that day, although Ms Smith says that the claimant was in fact told that was the case. In any event, the claimant returned late afternoon, by which time Ms Greenham had advised Ms Smith that the matter should be resolved that day and a letter had been typed up, this being at page 175 in the bundle and dated 12 December 2007 from Ms Smith to the claimant. Ms Smith told the Tribunal that she approached the claimant and said that she wished to speak to her again but that the claimant refused to talk to her and became aggressive in her tone of voice and behaviour. Following a further discussion with Ms Greenham she told the claimant that she had decided to make her redundant and handed her the letter, also telling her that she was very sorry that matters had ended this way. The claimant cannot recall being handed the letter although she accepts that one was sent to her in the post. The letter reads as follows:-
“Dear Sylvia
As you know the meetings on 3rd July 2007, 19th July 2007, 15th November 2007, 28th November 2007 and a letter of 4th July 2007 which was sent to you at the beginning of the period of consultation that the company was reviewing the situation related to the role of Service Manager due to the post being at risk. The situation being as the funding had ceased for this time limited post and as a consequence a redundancy situation would follow.
In that letter BPNW has been clear that you would be consulted during the period of time whilst opportunities were looked into and matters considered.
Unfortunately, it has not proved possible to find any solution to the problem other than to make compulsory redundancies.
As a result therefore, you will become redundant and this letter is to be treated as formal notice of dismissal due to redundancy.
Your length of service entitles you to one week’s notice which will commence on 12th December 2007, you are not required to work your notice and your last day of employment with the Company will be 12th December 2007.
A payment will be made to you in compensation for notice not being given in accordance with the terms of your contract.
Because your continuous service with the company is less than the requisite two years necessary to attract a Statutory Redundancy Payment, you will not be entitled to any redundancy payment on termination of your employment with this company.
We would like to remind you that on your last day of work you must return all sets of keys. You should also return all company property in your possession, including mobile telephones, company badges, equipment, documents, papers and correspondence.
You have the right to appeal against the decision and should you wish to do so you should write to me, Ms Smith within seven days stating your grounds for appeal against your redundancy dismissal.
Between now and your termination date, we will continue in our efforts to locate suitable alternative employment for you within the company.
If you require a reference for any future potential employer, we will provide a full recommendation and written reference for you. In order to facilitate this, your name and address will be kept on file at BPNW for the time being.
All potential future employers should be encouraged to write to that address in order that a reference may be provided for you.
On a personal note, we would like to say we are sorry that your employment with the Company has ended, may we take this opportunity of thanking you for your contribution and service with the company.
Yours sincerely

Ms N Smith
BPNW HR Director”

34) The claimant appealed against her dismissal by letter dated 18 December 2007. No appeal hearing took place. The response to the claimant was a letter from Ms Smith dated 7 February 2008 which reads as follows:-
“Dear Ms Lawal
Re: Reference Redundancy Appeal
I apologise for the delay in response to your letter of appeal dated 18/12/2007, due to my absence from Body Positive North West for personal reasons I have not been able to progress with this matter.
I have now considered your points of appeal and deem to think that most of the contents do actually relate to issues which were dealt with in your upheld (sic) grievances prior to your redundancy.
On this basis I do not feel that we can proceed therefore your appeal/grievances are not upheld.
Wishing you all the best for the future if I can be of any further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
N Smith
HR Director for and on behalf
Of Body Positive North West”

The Law

35) Section 98(1)of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that it is for the employer to show the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for an employee’s dismissal and that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind so as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

36) Once the respondent has satisfied that obligation, it is for the Tribunal, under the provisions of Section 98(4) to determine whether the dismissal was fair or unfair and that depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee and that falls to be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

37) Section 98A provides that a dismissal will be automatically unfair of the employer fails to comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures.

38) So far as the question of redundancy is concerned, the relevant part of Section 139(1) of the Act provides as follows:-
“For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to –
b. The fact that the requirements of that business –
i) For employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or
ii) For employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish”

39) The provisions relating to race discrimination by way of victimisation appear in Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It should be noted that the “reverse burden of proof” provisions contained in Section 54A of the Act do not apply to claims of victimisation – see Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] IRLR 653.

Conclusions

40) In his concluding submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Ramsbottom on behalf of the respondent pointed to the fact that it is a charitable organisation with limited resources, with many of the personnel involved in decision-making processes being volunteers, including in this particular case Ms Smith. He asked the Tribunal to take this into account when considering the respondent’s attitude to the legal position regarding the claimant and whether procedurally matters could have been better conducted. Having said that, it is clear that throughout the whole process the respondent and its management had access to advice from Peninsula Business Services, including, the Tribunal was told, advice in relation to the events on 12 December 2007.

41) The Tribunal accepts that in many charitable organisations which are dependent on external funding, particular posts can be created which are dependent upon funding and can properly be entered into as fixed-term contracts which, if the funding ceases, can result in the fixed-term contract not being renewed and that a fair dismissal can thereby occur, which would be by way of redundancy.

42) However, in this case, the claimant had been employed from 4 January 2006 under a “normal” contract of employment and for this to be converted in June 2006 to a one year fixed-term contract would, in the Tribunal’s judgment, have to involve very clear documentation that this was occurring and it would be essential to make it plain to the claimant that, in accepting that particular position, she was effectively giving up her rights under a normal contract of employment and instead accepting the risk that, following the expiry of a one year fixed-term contract, she could, if the particular funding in question “dried up”, lose her employment with the respondent. The Tribunal is unanimously satisfied that, when the claimant accepted the position in June 2006, she simply regarded it as a continuation of the work she was doing but with the role being funded by MAC for a minimum period of one year. In no way, in the Tribunal’s view, could it be regarded as a matter of law that the claimant and the respondent in June 2006 entered into a fixed-term contract for one year.

43) In any event, if, contrary to the Tribunal’s finding, this was a fixed-term contract for one year, it clearly expired on 6 June 2007 without the respondent terminating the claimant’s employment. She continued to work for the respondent until her dismissal on 12 December 2007 and accordingly, even if there had been a fixed-term contract, as it was not terminated on expiry nor was a replacement contract brought into effect in its place, the claimant’s employment reverted back to “normal” contract of employment.

44) Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the MAC funding for that year had come to an end, the claimant carried on doing the same work that she had been performing which was therefore, after June 2007, being funded out of the general resources of the respondent. If, therefore, there was a need to reduce the number of employees working for it, the respondent should have addressed the situation by exploring avenues of cost saving, including possible redundancies of employees other than the claimant. At no time did the respondent address the question of whether the “pool” of potential redundancies should be extended beyond the positions of the claimant and the Project Worker funded by MAC for that year, although it must be remembered that the Project Worker had actually been set on when the MAC funding became available, whereas the claimant had of course been employed by the respondent prior to that.

45) The Tribunal is of the unanimous view, therefore, that the approach by the respondent to the claimant’s situation following June 2007 was fundamentally flawed in that it approached the situation on the incorrect assumption that the claimant had been employed under a fixed-term contract and that therefore they were entitled to terminate her employment and their only obligation was to make enquiries to see whether there was some other position that might be available and suitable for her. As indicated above, at no time did the respondent write to the claimant setting out details of suitable alternative employment.

46) Mr Broomhead on behalf of the claimant argued that this was not a redundancy situation as the respondent still required an employee or employees to carry out the work which the claimant had been performing. Having said that, there was a suggestion that the workload of the respondent [sic – this should be claimant] could have been assumed at least in part of Ms Greenham herself. However, this was never properly identified as the reason for the claimant’s dismissal and the Tribunal was overall far from satisfied with the evidence given on behalf of the respondent as to the thought processes which were being implemented.

47) In the Tribunal’s judgment, furthermore, it does not really matter in this case whether the dismissal of the claimant was on the grounds of redundancy or, as it could perhaps equally be described, for some other substantial reason such as to justify dismissal. The fact of the matter is that the respondent approached the claimant’s position on an entirely incorrect basis, i.e. that she was being dismissed following the expiry of a fixed-term contract, and therefore the respondent has not been able to satisfy the Tribunal that it acted fairly in all the circumstances. The Tribunal also finds it astonishing that the respondent did not reply in detail to the claimant’s Solicitor’s letter.

48) Dealing with the question of whether the dismissal of the claimant was automatically unfair under the provisions of Section 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by reason of the failure to comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures, the Tribunal has carefully considered Mr Ramsbottom’s somewhat unusual submission that the letter from Ms Greenham dated 4 July 2007 can be regarded as a Step 1 letter in relation to the dismissal that took place on 12 December 2007.

49) From a purposive perspective, the object of the Step 1 letter must, in the Tribunal’s judgment, be to give to an employee advance notice of a meeting, normally within a relatively short period of time, at which consideration will be given to that employee’s dismissal and that dismissal could take place at that meeting. In the Tribunal’s judgment, the letter dated 4 July 2007, even though it indicated that the respondent was contemplating the claimant’s dismissal, was simply giving her advance notice of a consultation meeting and could not, in the Tribunal’s judgment, amount to a Step 1 letter in relation to a dismissal which occurred on 12 December 2007.

50) In those circumstances, by reason of the absence of a Step 1 letter, the dismissal of the claimant on 12 December 2007 was automatically unfair by reason of the provisions of Section 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

51) In addition, by reason of the fundamentally flawed approach to the claimant’s situation and the misguided view that she had been employed under a fixed-term contract, the respondent’s approach to the possibility of continued employment of the claimant with the respondent was not addressed in a correct manner and therefore her dismissal was also substantively unfair.

52) The Tribunal then went on to consider, having regard to the principles set out in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1987] IRLR 503 whether, had the respondent in fact adopted a correct procedure, the claimant would nevertheless have still been dismissed and such dismissal would have been within the band of reasonable responses from a reasonable employer. In that connection, the Tribunal unanimously agreed that the evidence presented by and on behalf of the respondent was such that it would be impossible to make such determination. Whilst a Tribunal is entitled to indulge in speculation, there has to be some evidence upon which it can do so and in this case the evidence was simply not there. Accordingly the Tribunal is unanimously satisfied that there should be no reduction of any compensatory award for unfair dismissal under the Polkey principle.

53) So far as the claimant’s claim of victimisation is concerned, the facts upon which the claimant relies have been rehearsed earlier in these reasons. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the claimant has established that she has been treated less favourably by Ms Greenham in relation to the incidents upon which she relies, including the dismissal itself. In the Tribunal’s judgment, Ms Greenham dealt with the claimant in relation to all of the matters raised by her in exactly the same way as she would have dealt with any other employee in the same circumstances as the claimant. There is no evidence whatsoever upon which the Tribunal, properly directing itself, could conclude that Ms Greenham’s actions were in any way related to the protected act relied upon, namely the complaint of discrimination against her by Mr Martin Dean in October 2006.

54) Accordingly, the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaint of race discrimination by way of victimisation is dismissed.

55) So far as the claim of breach of contract is concerned, the claimant was clearly contractually entitled to one month’s notice of termination of employment whereas she was only given one week. The respondent was therefore in breach of contract.

56) There will have to be a remedy hearing in relation to the finding by the Tribunal that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent was in breach of contract. It is convenient to members of the Tribunal that this take place on Friday 17 October 2008 at 10:00 am with a time estimate of one day. It is appreciated that this date has not been agreed with the parties’ representatives and it is accepted, therefore, that it may not be convenient to either or both of the parties. They are requested, therefore, to advise the Tribunal within 14 days of the date when this judgment is sent to the parties whether that date is inconvenient, although they are reminded that it is a difficult administrative exercise to change that date and hopefully it can remain as listed.

Employment Judge Coles
RESERVED JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
23 September 2008

Congratulations to (yet another) new Company Secretary

Felicitations (or should that by Felicity-Greenham-ations?) Caryl Clavering.

Welcome to the role of Company Secretary Caryl – you’ve taken over from a couple of previous duffers (Ed & Nicola) who still grace the Board with their toadying presences.

One hopes that you bear no relation to that arsehole Caryl that sucks up to the Great One whilst doing her bidding and appears just so “PC” whilst shitting on service-users.

Heavens to Betsy

Sorry for the absence of recent postings. We have been letting BPNW get on with its appalling doings and gathering further evidence – not that anyone in power gives a fuck you understand, but they can’t say they haven’t been told!

Can this be the BPNW that we all know and love? Sadly and unsurprisingly yes...

1. A spuriously banned service user apparently visits Russell House this week and manages to enter the hallowed portals of the fuck-wit controlled ‘centre of excellence’. Aside from the ‘charity’ excluding the said service-user for three months for a trumped-up and, more importantly, wrong accusation of “damage” in June 2006 – the service-user has now been denied access to BPNW for some 28 months. Good to know that BPNW has now made a ‘promise to write’, probably telling him to continue to fuck off elsewhere in suitably politically correct language.
2. Apparently the service-user above learnt that the gorgeous and ever-caring Phil Greenham was off the premises (though a staff member subsequently advised that she was indeed on-site) and the efficient Mark King had failed to reply to recorded delivery correspondence as he was similarly not present. The latter, a trustee, is in South Africa so one hears, presumably treading in the Great One’s steps – would anyone be surprised if his trip was funded in whole or in part by BPNW or a generous (and ignorant) funding organisation?
3. As the credit crunch bites and the ‘charity’ continues to piss its funds away, we hear that meal costs are to increase for service users. Bless, still as long as the great and the good in charge have their noses in the trough, who gives a fuck about the people the organisation is supposed to serve?
4. Following the closure of the kitchens for a ‘deep clean’ might we suggest that this has not gone far enough. A deep clean-out of the Board and senior management has long been needed.
5. The end of September 2008 saw another judgment issued at an Employment Tribunal, wouldn’t it be awful if, once again, the arrogant Ms Greenham has failed to defend the charity’s interests. We shall have to find out more... ...watch this space.
6. One or two long serving staff members are apparently leaving the ‘charity’. We trust the Great One is sending out her CV to prospective employers daft enough to give her the time of day. It seems that BPNW was only ever run as a means for Felicity’s self-aggrandisement, most capable managers would have left long before their (litany of) failures caught up with them: but seemingly not if one is a power-crazed control freak. Nepotism and cronyism have been the accepted order for years.
7. Isn’t it about time that sycophantic ‘patrons’ stood up and were counted? Rather than associating themselves with a charity that patently is unfit for purpose, they should take a rather keener interest in goings-on at this dreadful organisation. Can it be that another excluded service-user who raised matters with his MP (apparently a patron) about BPNW has been ‘advised’ not to speak with the patron concerned? One hopes not and that the ‘charity’ isn’t trying to interfere with the relationship between a citizen and his (somewhat misguided) parliamentary representative.
   

Keep digging everyone – the brown stuff will soon hit the rotating device!

Yes, it's that time of year again...

...when the tossers at BPNW fail to get the Annual Return to Companies House again. Yep - submission of documents to that glorified taxpayer-funded filing cabinet is, as usual, overdue. Apparently persistent late filing is an offence - shame that, as with all that goes on at BPNW, the powers that be will doubtless do fuck all about it.

Inefficiency probably comes with having a micro-managing control-freak in charge of a weak & supplicant Board. One would almost suspect that the Chief Executive had others by the balls, unless some have been sufficiently far-sighted and had their testicles removed to pre-empt any such bullying action that might be considered.

It's usually the responsibility of the Company Secretary to ensure relevant documentation is delivered in a timely fashion. Having a less than useful individual in that role would appear to be a requirement at our favourite charity. Sorry if it appears that we're being divisive - our comments on inability and lack of relevant competences apply, seemingly, to all those in senior positions. We'd hate to be "un-PC" now wouldn't we?

Bitch wins at LGBT dog show

What a fun day out at Sackville Park recently, surely Douglas's owner couldn't be the Felicity "Phil" Greenham we all know and love? There again it could well be if she can come out with tripe like:

"It has been a fantastic event which has given dog owners the chance to meet and enjoy themselves. And I also believe that it is a great idea for members of the gay and lesbian community to forge a link with the dogs home in this way. My sincere hope is that this will now become an annual part of the Manchester Pride celebrations."

Then perhaps not - our Felicity doesn't do "sincere".

Apologies - the winning canine was apparently male, hence title should read "Dog wins at LGBT dog show".

Spiritual director passes away

Following the sad bereavement of Liam Armour a short time ago – one hopes that the awful “Paster” [sic] Pete doesn’t view this as an opportunity, as a (somewhat grotesque) man of God, to fill the now vacant ‘spiritual’ Board position.

A blog reader writes...

“Glad the people who control some of the organisations in Manchester are beginning to be held to account. They have had a free ride for the last 15 years, due to politicians and press who are too scared in case they appear gay-unfriendly (not to mention corrupt themselves in some cases). Our enemies really are within these days.”

Couldn’t agree more good visitor. As has been said elsewhere when the brown stuff finally hits the rotating device it’ll be a re-run of the collaborators after the demise of the Nazis – “I was only obeying orders”, “If only I’d have known”, and “If only someone had told me” will be the pathetic excuses. In relation to the last two: you all have been aware through this blog for nearly two years to say nothing of the much more valiant attempts of many brave individuals…

…keep pushing, the doors are starting to swing open.

A new director joins the fray…

…welcome aboard the Board Mark James King (as of 11 February 2008) – hope the journey over from Leeds isn’t too much effort to help oversee the Great Leader (unless, of course, you’re one of her ‘appointees’).

The Gossip-Mill that is Manchester’s Gay Ghetto, erm Village, also suggests that the lovely Nicola (“Ralph”) Smith may not be long on the Board – or are those dreadful rumours regarding complaints against her mere scurrilous comment?

Cheeky ex-trustee

Much as constructed images of the blessèd Phil might convey a view of her true persona, we have to say thanks to Curious for the recent comment at “Don’t Do As I Do” with a link to a delightful image of Martin Bormann, erm sorry, Dean. The gentle and inclusive former ‘Trustee with Responsibility for Service Users’ appears to be showing his cheeky side….

Funders beware VIII: Accounts to 31/03/2007 show a loss of £395,000!!

Well, I always said that they’d fritter money away following the sale of the much-loved Lawrence House and relocation to the public inconvenience situated on Russell Road, Hulme. To go from making a ‘profit’ of £28k in the year to 31 March 2002 to a seemingly dreadful ‘loss’ of £81.8k in the year to 31 March 2005 seemed bad enough. But no, they’re just pissing it all away with a loss of £394,904 in the year to 31 March 2007. This is an absolute disgrace.**

Clearly, as has previously been suggested ad nauseum, even though divisive practices have seemingly resulted in a reduction in the numbers of gay service-users going (the biggest “community” that the PC-brigade identify) to be replaced, at least in part, by her apparent favourites, it seems that the gorgeous and ever-caring Ms Greenham has been empire building with a vengeance. No surprise there then:
1. that administration expenses zoom up from £329,512 to £563,403;
2. the above presumably includes wages & salaries, up from £145,751 to £243,780;
3. that employees are up from 12 to 21;
4. that bank & deposits contain £1,106,844 – not much at the current rate of attrition, about three years it would seem before it’s all gone; and,
5. that total assets are down from £2,270,234 to £1,738,994.

Interesting how the average remuneration per employee has actually fallen from the previous year (from £12,146 to £11,609), though one can’t imagine the lovely Phil taking a cut!

A cynic would observe that Ms Greenham’s empire-building was a prelude to sexing up her CV before ‘moving on’ to more lucrative employment (might I suggest that perhaps slaughtering partially-stunned lesser beings in an abattoir could suit her more, or is she doing that already?). Still, I seem to recall some time ago the piss-weak Chair’s view that a merger with another agency was inevitable (hopefully, but unlikely, the Terence Higgins Trust rather than George House Trust): it is to be hoped that negotiations might be well underway, otherwise it will prove increasingly difficult to dress up a takeover of this bunch of fuckwits as a ‘merger’.

Anyway, what a good thing that the Chief Executive (or maybe former Chief Executive?) isn’t a bollock-mangling, micro-managing, self-aggrandising, obsessive, politically-correct, thought-controlling grotesque piece of over-promoted excrement.

** The ‘profit’ of £1.689m for year ending 31/03/2006 is entirely distorted by the disposal of the much-loved Lawrence House. If one adjusts for this extraordinary item, a loss is apparent for that year also.

Too many Chief Executives…

…screw things up.

Click or double click on image below to enlarge.

Mmmm, probably an error and hopes of the demise of Felicity are premature, but it’s just been noticed on a company database that Rodney Hill is described as a director and ‘Chief Executive’ at Body Positive North West Ltd. Does the lovely, caring Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham know this?

Sadly the description of Chief Executive probably relates to Mr Hill's role with respect to his directorship at Wigan Leisure & Cultural Enterprises Ltd.

If unlikely congratulations are due, then felicitations to Mr Hill on taking over Phil Greenham’s position/title. You can only do better – though it seems that Mr Hill was also a director, until his resignation on 29 March 2006, of Positive Futures Ltd, which is ‘in liquidation’ having apparently ceased trading on 1 April 2006.

It is be hoped that Mr Hill, as a former director of The Green Room Ltd, isn’t using his contacts from there (including Manchester City Council and members of the theatrical/artistic community) to have people and organisations become associated with BPNW when they may be entirely unaware of the charity’s appalling recent history.

Alternatively maybe Mr Hill would like to contact us to provide reassurance that change is genuinely being effected.

Roles vs personalities

There seems to be criticism, albeit from a small minority, that this blog unduly ‘attacks’ personalities at BPNW whereas it should concentrate on attacking roles.

Such a view is considered incorrect. Whilst it is agreed that roles (ie job descriptions or functions) within the charity are, in general, unsuitable for an inclusive, non-discriminatory organisation, it is the personalities of those in positions of power that have dictated the structure and therefore defined roles for themselves and others.

The structure of BPNW (ie the hierarchy of roles within it) is determined by the decidedly unfortunate personality of the Chief Executive. This is exacerbated by the personalities of weak and/or ineffective trustees who have, effectively, allowed the virtually complete centralisation of power in Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham.

Until the ‘personality’ of Ms Greenham no longer graces the position of power it unjustifiably occupies, the inappropriate roles that she has defined within the organisation will remain.

Aim #1 therefore must be the removal of Ms Greenham and those who have allowed her to remain at the helm.

League tables: an informal guide to apartheid in the HIV ‘industry’

Given the segregationalist approach adopted by the ‘Great and the Good’ (a group in which BPNW seems to place itself) towards those “living with and affected by HIV”, might we suggest that the following league table could reflect the real views of those in charge regarding HIV+ adults:

Maybe if you look hard enough, you can spot the Great Leader and cronies in the audience above.

Possible HIV league table for the Great & The Good

Ranking	Group	Suggested real opinion/comment (by the ‘Great and the Good’)
1	Those who became HIV+ through “third party infection”, eg haemophiliacs	Group should be sanctified, pitied and treated as a class of its own. Should be in independent ‘Premier League’. A ‘victim’ mentality is clearly encouraged.
=2	Ethnic/cultural groups (who, in general, are portrayed as despising group 6 below)	The treatment of these groups is borderline racist. A ‘there, there’ paternalistic and patronising approach is often adopted with a white imperialist “they don’t know any better you know” attitude. A patronising ‘victim’ mentality is encouraged with such individuals being treated like a new puppy.
=2	Women	All are victims of male dominance and rape you know! The fact that one or two may actually enjoy (unsafe) sex (with multiple partners) is conveniently bypassed.
4	Men (other than in group 6)	Keep those blood engorged purple-headed custard pumps in your trousers lads. After the despised Group 6, it’s mostly your fault you know… Bisexual men can consider themselves in this group, after all lads we can all turn a blind eye to a bit of cock-sucking and bum-fun on the way home to wifey and the kids can’t we (“Sorry darling, late meeting at the office again!” etc etc)?
5	Intravenous recreational drug-dependents	At least you lot are probably off your heads when you become riddled. So it’s not really your fault, is it poppets?
6	Faggots	Arse-fucking queers (with or without a condom). And to think we bigots thought AIDS was God’s way of getting rid of you filth – shame it affects groups 1-5 though (as for kids, well The Almighty seems to have screwed up there). The only good thing about this bunch is we (the charities) can pretend to give a toss and claim funding from public bodies and others.

If you’ve read this far then apologies if some of the language is ‘blunt’. Our view is the complete opposite of the above, ie there is neither ‘Good HIV’ nor ‘Bad HIV’ – there should be no segregation of positive groups, all should be treated equally and with respect. It might come as a surprise to those in charge at relevant ‘charities’ that some people might ‘fit’ into more than one of the above groups. And for goodness sake, stop treating us like victims.

Segregation is, presumably, a function of a mad politically-correct ‘multiculturalist’ approach where we all have to be labelled, pigeon-holed and have our patronisingly-identified ‘group needs’ catered for. What rubbish – least of all for any haemophiliac, HIV+, Afro-Caribbean gay men (heavens! which of the above groups would one put such a ‘victim’ in?) there may be relying on the likes of BPNW to give a shit. The likes of the Great Leader might have to decide, before labelling him, if such an individual were: more haemophiliac; more black; or, more queer [queerer?].

An inclusive and temperate New Year’s address from the Great Leader

(Click or double click on image to enlarge)

If the above photograph were genuine, it might have been taken as the Great Leader and cronies wended their way to The Bigot’s Nest (shouldn’t that be The Eagle’s Nest or Kehlsteinhaus?) for New Year celebrations. If so, baying crowds of do-gooders, blind to BPNW’s atrocities, would repeatedly scream „Heil Frau Shitler”, „Schließen die Schwulen aus!”**, though secretly knowing that in the near future they will deny all knowledge and doubtless weakly offer, “I knew nothing, I was only obeying orders” as a defence.

** Schließen die Schwulen aus! = Exclude the faggots!

A spooky coincidence is noted
Adolf Hitler, the Austrian wannabe world leader, was 56 years old when he decided to commit suicide and, having ruined everything for them, leave the German people to fend for themselves. Not that we wish Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham, wannabe tsar(ina) for HIV services in Greater Manchester, ill or worse (we just wish she’d fuck off), but she also turns 56 years old this coming November. Why not beat fellow control-freak Adolf to it and ‘retire’ early ‘Phil’? – we can then rebuild something far better than you could ever imagine (trouble is, it requires you and your cronies to be permanently excluded….).
Mmmm - Adolf thought, right until the end when he crunched on a cyanide capsule and fired a bullet into his head, that: he was infallible; his destiny was preordained; his subjects were undeserving of him and had failed him; ruin was better than resignation; and, it was right to systematically get rid of all those individuals and groups that either opposed him or he hated.
Frightening don’t you think Phil-ikins? Still, as far as we can establish, there are no recorded incidents of Adolf personally attempting to rip the bollocks off anyone.

Happy New Year

In wishing all blog visitors a Happy, Prosperous and, above all, Healthy, 2008 we include those whom we have lambasted, and will continue to target until their departures, in our postings.

Our sole aim remains the continuing exposure of: inappropriate behaviour; cronyism and unsuitable appointments; untruthfulness; bullying; mad political-correctness; financial irregularities; control freakery; segregation; weak trusteeship; and, whatever else comes to light.

That BPNW’s ‘Chief Executive’ and weak Board are wholly unsuited to their roles is self-evident.

Our (New Year’s) resolution remains that BPNW should regain a position of pre-eminence as an inclusive and accountable organisation for all those living with HIV in Greater Manchester and the broader NW of England. Clearly this requires the departure of Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham, who is unsuited to hold any managerial office, together with all members of the Board who have allowed her carte blanche to operate improperly. Furthermore the organisation’s constitution needs a fundamental reappraisal such that BPNW is democratised for the benefit of its stakeholders and reflects the needs and wants of all affected by HIV rather than the Chief Executive’s small coterie of favourites.

HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone

Joyous Yuletide Greetings from Santa

“There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”
from A Christmas Carol (subtitled, the Spirit of the Service-Users speaks to Phil Greenham, the Trustees who support her and all who keep her in power)
Charles Dickens (1812 – 1870)

May we offend the politically-correct ghouls at BPNW and sincerely wish all a:

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Should your festive decorations need sprucing up, then we hope that the Great Leader might pop round to rearrange your Christmas balls as a goodwill gesture.

We refer Ms Phil Greenham et al to last year’s Festive/Non-Festive Greeting .

Any readers traumatised by our mono-faith greeting should perhaps consult “Paster Pete”, who may supply alternative faith/non-faith interpretations and counselling as appropriate. Culturally-sensitive public stonings etc can doubtless be arranged given a suitable notice period.

May Phil’s cup brim over with festive joy and we hope any ‘discretionary spending limit’ is still available to be heartily enjoyed.

Naming and shaming?

Not us, that would be just too politically correct wouldn’t it?

Still, a by no means exhaustive list of some of the many people that have been contacted:

All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS - N Gerrard MP (Chair)
BPNW - Kevin Leyland (ex-trustee, apparently with written apology from the Great Leader)
BPNW - patron Stephen Fry
Charity Commission - Alan Williams (Senior Manager, Compliance & Support)
Charity Commission - Dame Suzi Leather DBE (Chair)
Charity Commission - Dave Wiggins
Charity Commission - Geraldine Peacock CBE (former Chair)
Charity Commission - Jim Hickey
Charity Commission - Kelvin Troake
Charity Commission - Ms A Reading
Charity Commission - Simon Carney (Head of Governance)
Crusaid - Robin Brady
MAC Aids Fund - Barbara Clocanas
Manchester City Council - Mike Petrou
Manchester City Council - Mike Worsley
Manchester City Council - Terry Ward

“Could do better” is the collective end-of-year report – particularly the auto-eroticists at the Charity Commission, what do this crowd at the Commission do other than operate an ineffective quango at vast expense?

Let’s hope they might do something more substantive about the dreadful Body Positive North West in 2008…

A psychoanalyst speculates…

Good mornink, meine Name ist Prof Dr Josef Rugmunscher. Some of ze nice people zat have been barred vith out ze reezon from BPNW haff arsked me to speculate on ze mindset of ze Chief Executive.

I am given ze understandink zat, in ze past Ms Felicity Bollockstrangler might have zum Beispiel, sorry, for ze example:
1. Given ze reason for enterink into ze “HIV-industrie”, az she had ze friend zat became HIV+ und zat friend has past avay many years ago. If zis is true und ze friend voz female, zis might explain vhy zer are so many allegationz of ze bigotry against ze men und ze positive (gay) men in particular.
2. Attacked ze genitalz of ze estranged husband. Trying to rip ze bollockz off might also be ze symptom of ze bigotry of der Führer, sorry die Führerin, und ze hatred of ze men in general.
3. Patronisingly sought to do ze good mit groupz that she identifies as veak. Ze asylum-seekers und refugees are ze obvious groupz, as zay vil be sankful to ze odious monster und die Führerin can be patronising, domineering und impose ze control-freak tendencies on ze veak. She might even have sought to impose such individuals on ze Board as ze Trustees (Jethro und Adela?), she can zen control everysink via ze back passage [don’t you mean “back door” Professor?].
4. Stated in ze past, before becoming ze Chief Executive, vith respect to her duties at ze charity “I am clearing tables and caring for the dying” illustrates ze grotesque contempt zat she has for ze users of ze services und her own self-importance.
5. As ze Chief Executive tried, und vith many succeeded, to control ze Board und use her netvork of spies to gather ze information to control. Apparently acting as ze gatekeeper to ze piss-veak Chair is also symptomatic of ze megolomaniac.
6. Employed ze cronies in positions of ze power. Usually she manages to fall out vith ze cronies und arranged for zem to be booted out ze door.

So, I summarise: if any or all of ze above examples are true she may vell have ze Histrionic Personality Disorder. Or for ze non-expert reader – she seems a vile, out-of-control, power-crazed bigot. Get ze fucking bonkers nutter out ze door now.

Danke schön – can I have my fee of €150,000 now pleeze? Charge it to ze ‘discretionary spending limit’ if you vish.

Suggested protective gear for gentlemen negotiating with Ms Felicity Greenham

Given her reputation, might we humbly suggest that all menfolk who find themselves opposite Ms Greenham click here to obtain an item of protective gear prior to entering into face-to-face negotiation with the Great Leader?

Unless, of course, you might be a M2F preoperative transsexual, in which case Ms Greenham should be able to assist your transition in a somewhat eye-watering way.

Sense of outrage

There appears to be a growing sense of outrage regarding BPNW’s treatment of its service user base, ex-volunteers, ex-employees, ex-trustees etc etc.

Aside from the Bitch Bollockstrangler (aka Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham) pulling the strings at the charity (who else would ‘pp’ the piss-weak Chair’s correspondence? or to whom else would the brain dead HR-Trustee Ms Nicola Smith go scurrying off to before unreasonably permanently barring an ex-trustee?) and destroying its ethos, we had the incredible spectacle of the said piss-weak Chair, Suresh Vaghela droning on about ‘leadership’ on World AIDS Day this year. Suresh seems to ‘lead’ the charity whilst cowering behind the Bitch Bollockstrangler’s trousers – we cannot confirm rumours that he timidly ’phones her from home to ask if he’s allowed to go for a shit. He couldn’t lead us out of a fucking paper bag.

It seems that only the Bitch Bollockstrangler herself is allowed the privilege of a fair hearing, the rest of us just have to obey her decisions as if they were the word of God (and why not? she seems to think she has a brain the size of a small galaxy) or go and hang.

Will someone with an ounce of credibility organise meetings etc so that we, the dispossessed, might have a voice and regain our charity from those who are either too weak or ‘know best’?

What a shame we’re not dying off as quickly as we used to – the Bitch Bollockstrangler might not then have quite so many enemies that loathe her for such good reason.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Franklin D Roosevelt (b 30/01/1882 d 12/04/1945)
US President 1933-1945

Felicity “Ballcrusher” Greenham’s appearance at Crown Court

Having always thought the Great Leader to be psychologically unsuited to her position, Plusman notices from page 8 of ‘The Independent’ dated 19 January 1994 that a jury at Liverpool Crown Court found Felicity Greenham not guilty of a charge of wounding. Don’t forget good readers that this means they couldn’t find ‘Phil’ guilty on the high threshold of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – they didn’t find her innocent ‘on the balance of probabilities’ either.

Anyway enough of the waffle, here’s that article in full:

Wife cleared of low attack
A woman who grabbed her estranged husband by the testicles was yesterday cleared of wounding.
At Liverpool Crown Court a jury of six men and six women gave a unanimous verdict on Felicity Greenham, Aids strategy and policy co-ordinator for Liverpool Health Authority.
During the three-day trial the court heard how Ms Greenham, 41, bit David Bain, 44, on the shoulder and grabbed his testicles during a scuffle when she went to their house in Rufford, Lancashire, to collect clothes.
Her husband, a primary school teacher, needed seven stitches inserted in his torn scrotum.

Pity she’s firmly squeezing our charity’s bollocks! And to think she’s had people thrown out and ‘barred for life’ groundlessly (sometimes using sidekick Trustee ‘Ralph’ – at least Phil won’t be able to grab Ms Smith by the nuts) without the benefit of a fair hearing.

Does this explain why we seem to have a CEO prone to histrionic outbursts, apparently bordering on the violent, in charge of a charity allegedly caring for ‘all those’ living with a condition that is subject to stigma and discrimination?

Thank goodness she’s not a divisive, power-crazed, megalomaniac: otherwise she might be prone to manipulate people. One could understand a lesser mortal than ‘Phil’ turning into a pc-obsessed, rug-munching, man-hating, strident, scheming, disingenuous, micromanaging, fascist control freak: phew, nothing to worry about there then.

At last a bit of Christmas cheer.

Phil Greenham “grabbed and twisted” testicles

Re the above posting, also from ‘The Independent’, this time dated 15 January 1994:
“Felicity Greenham, 41, a stress co-ordinator, grabbed and twisted her husband’s testicles when he tried to stop her entering the family home”

So when she was a ‘stress co-ordinator’ Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham couldn’t deal with stress – not being able to live up to her job title seems to be one of her consistent failings.

“Madness is badness of spirit, when one seeks profit from all sources”
Aristotle 384BC-322BC
Ancient Greek Philosopher, Scientist and Physician

Is Chief Executive bonkers?

Well, not being medically qualified, who are we to judge the compassionate Ms Felicity Greenham?.

However, a read through some notes on HPD (Histrionic Personality Disorder) does state (emphasis in red added):
“The essential feature of the histrionic personality disorder is a pervasive and excessive pattern of emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and flirtatious…
“Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. Females with HPD over identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasied intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow and have difficulty understanding others or themselves in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships. Women with HPD may show inappropriate and intense anger.
“People with this disorder are usually able to function at a high level and can be successful socially and at work. However, histrionic personality disorder may affect a person's social or romantic relationships or their ability to cope with losses or failures. People with this disorder may seek treatment for depression when romantic relationships end, although this is by no means a feature exclusive to this disorder. They often fail to see their own situation realistically, instead tending to dramatize and exaggerate. Responsibility for failure or disappointment is usually blamed on others. They may go through frequent job changes, as they become easily bored and have trouble dealing with frustration. Because they tend to crave novelty and excitement, they may place themselves in risky situations. All of these factors may lead to greater risk of developing depression.

Jeezy peeps, frightening! Though doubtless nothing to be concerned about really.

What’s in a name? #2

Why on earth would anyone with a lovely name like ‘Felicity’ wish to be known as androgynously abbreviated ‘Phil’?

Well, it seems that felicity, a noun, can mean:
“A cause or source of happiness”

Whereas phil, as a misspelt verb, can mean:
“To stuff”

’nuff said.

Another year approaches its end…

…and we approach 4,000 on our visitor counter.

A little end of the year quizette for all you keen readers – is 4,000 also:
1. the number of Christmas cards received by the delightful Ms Greenham from her adoring public?;
2. Ms Greenham’s daily quota of seemingly justifiable items of hate mail?;
3. the number of service users claimed by BPNW, when it’s probably a core group of less than 100 or so that can be arsed going to the place, have a subsidised ‘culturally sensitive meal’ and keep these ass-holes in power?;
4. the number of people who used to go to BPNW before becoming so pissed off with it that they no longer attend (but are still claimed as ‘service users’ by the, ahem, charity)?’
5. the cost in £ of the Great Leader’s trip to South Africa last year (at her own expense naturellement)?;
6. the monthly number of e-mails and other correspondence sent to the piss-weak Chair that the Great Leader intercepts and ‘deals with’?;
7. the number of lunches served at BPNW every day to an ever-grateful kowtowing service user base (oops, bit of exaggeration there à la BPNW);
8. the number of chicken recipes that the fuckwit former ‘Deputy Chief Executive’/‘chef’ could concoct?;
9. the number of aliases ‘generated’ by the former ‘Commissioning & Development Manager”?;
10. the number of faces that the Great Leader can present to the world?;
11. the number of Glam lipsticks etc that MAC cosmetics needs to sell if it still funds this gang of charlatans?;
12. the number of complaints we have to send to the likes of the Charity Commission, Local Councils, MPs, Companies House, PCTs etc before anyone competent will arrive unannounced and investigate these politically-correct, nannying control-freaks?; or,
13. none of the above?

Let’s just hope that the Great Leader and those that maintain her in power have only 4,000 minutes of the New Year before they fuck off. Though doubtless they’ll still be clinging on to power well beyond 3 January 2008…

Only £95k raised for charity at Manchester Pride 2007

We had, sadly wrongly, thought Manchester Pride 2007 might have maintained its piss-poor annual £120k average or so for funds distributable to charities after the alcohol-hazed, drug-fuelled, probably HIV-transmitting shagathon at the end of August this year. Not even hitting £100k is however pretty awful – heavens that probably equates to less than the costs of ‘Chief Executives’ at Manchester’s two HIV charities for a year of their compassionate efforts. One of them certainly isn’t worth the money, are you Felicity?

What a disgrace. If the bars and clubs occasionally did meaningful, organised and co-ordinated collections more would probably be available to distribute. There again, the fat profits at the August Bank Holiday wouldn’t be quite so fat would they? Nor come to think of it would over-politicised do-gooders be able to grandstand either.

Bless – Manchester Pride is for the benefit of whom? The profiteering and the politically correct we fear – get to the back of the queue you HIV+ f***ers.

You’ve gotta [try to] ’ave a larf - Happy Christmas to all readers

Whilst being HIV+ is certainly no laughing matter, humour can sometimes be a useful tool – particularly if you have also suffered at the hands of the politically-correct, po-faced, know-it-all ‘caring’ brigade. So, aside from the following somewhat naff:
Q: Did you know why they haven't found a cure for AIDS yet?
A: They can't get the [lab] mice to butt fuck.

..a further number of possibly amusing anecdotes etc can be found at www.poz.com.

Merry Christmas everyone, and here’s hoping you have a healthy New Year.

nil carborundum illegitimi

Self-perpetuating disaster?

If it’s true that prospective appointees to the Board of Trustees are approved by the unanimous vote of [a quorum] of Trustees at the relevant meeting, what a recipe for disaster. Not that one is in any way being judgmental of course, but if the Board were a group of weak fuckwit yes-(wo)men wankers who did the bidding of the Chief Executive without question - then it would be a recipe for perpetuating a group of weak fuckwit yes-(wo)men wankers who did the bidding of the Great Leader without question. It would be a prescription for weakness that deliberately sought to avoid selection of strong capable candidates...

Also, with a direct line to Pinocchio (erm sorry – the Chair), rather than being accountable to the entire Board a puppet-mistress (erm sorry – the Great Leader) would be able to ‘pull the strings’ and exert undue influence...

And another thing (more strings I’m afraid) – if disproportionate funding is being received from agencies with strings attached, eg to serve specific groups rather than for the benefit of all living with and affected by HIV, then that would be divisive and discriminatory wouldn’t it? Heavens, it would distort the ‘charity’ and make it unrepresentative of those it allegedly serves...

...Phew, what a good thing these worries aren’t the case and the caring and compassionate Great Leader is at the helm fighting everyone's corner. Even those of us who are British gay men - the original despised AIDS faggots (before it was realised that anyone can take a bite out of the shit sandwich that is HIV) who set up BPNW in the first place and committed it to be open to all.

Aren’t we doing well? World AIDS Day 2007

What a nauseating, self-congratulatory, vomit-inducing spectacle the vigil in Sackville Park, Manchester proved to be to mark World AIDS Day. There again, ‘spectacle’ rather overstates the damp squib of an event – a few huddled around the ‘speakers’ etc to commemorate the day in the pissing rain. Maybe it was the 18h00 start time when many thought that it was 21h00, or maybe it’s just that a lot of us are hacked off with a bunch of self-appointed do-gooders.

Fucking ridiculous, stop patting yourselves on the back. It’s time those in charge of local ‘charitable’ agencies were held accountable and replaced. As for ‘World AIDS Day’: what a sick joke – if they hadn’t noticed, every day should be World AIDS Day.

Still, keep pocketing your executive salaries – doubtless it all looks so good and compassionate on your CVs.

Board members

Further to the shite published in BPNW’s quarterly disinformation sheet, readers may remember two new trustees being announced (-
What has become of Rod and Danny?) in mid-07.

Before proceeding it seems we have to pause to mourn the exit from the Board of Ian Lee (resigned 20/11/07) and Kevin Leyland (resigned 11/09/07)

Still no sign of Danny, though a Rodney has been appointed (all we need is a Del-Boy, or is that the Great Leader?). As of today, according to Companies House, it appears that the following are the Board members/Trustees of the glorious BPNW:
- Jethro Nyanjowa - appointed 11/09/2007, the same date Kevin resigned.
- Rodney Hill - appointed 12/02/2007 - it just seemed to take ages for the appointment to reach Companies House
- Liam Armour
- Suresh “Pinocchio” Vaghela¹ (also the piss-weak Chair)
- Adela Mugabo
- Nicola “Ralph” Smith²
- Ed McConniffe (also Company Secretary)<sup>3

1</sup> strings as pulled by the puppet-mistress in chief.
² veritably a chatte fausse as per ‘Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’: a Bernadette character minus the wit, charm and humour.
³ unless the Governing Documents have changed a non-constitutional duality of roles. Also, the Annual Return still doesn’t seem to get to Companies House on time Ed. And one just thought it was ‘Ralph’ that was a crap Company Secretary when she filled that role too. Not that either Companies House or the Charity Commission will actually take action - too busy earning fat salaries at the taxpayers' expense one supposes.

Good to see that they seem to be allowing the Great Leader to continue her arrogant and politically-correct blundering toward the abyss. Shame you're all liable if negligence can be demonstrated and you did fuck all about it. Bless.

PS One hopes that you're all taking rumours of missing cash seriously, £7k so it is said. Now where was it one previously read about possibly iffy expenses and the like? That would be quite a few Viva Glam Lipsticks and Lipglasses wouldn't it Babs?

The hubris of the arsewipes

“Leadership is an opportunity to serve. It is not a trumpet call to self-importance.”
J. Donald Walters (Swami Kriyananda) 1926-
Romanian author, lecturer, and composer

If only the Great Leader and acolytes could follow the above maxim from the Swami. We leave it for others (such as unicornanon’s comment at the end of the Manchester Pride 2007 posting) to judge the self-important, egocentric crowing in BPNW’s latest rag re its ‘Diversity’ bus at this year’s Manchester Pride. What’s this?…using words like ‘fag’ - presumably in a post-ironic, witty and empowering “puffs now own the word, so fuck you!” way. One assumes they’ll be using crass terms to label ethnic-minority service-users next.

My, how drôle – shame such non-politically correct speak can’t be used in StalagluftRussellhaus itself.

Dunno what the hell BPNW’s doing at Pride anyway – the number of gay men who have ceased attending is startling. Shame that gay men are often actually or effectively excluded: some ‘cultural’ groups even find their very presence offensive.

What a pity the riddled (oops a BPNW non-approved word) gays had an open and ‘welcome to all’ policy – now we seem to have been usurped and politically correct gobbledegook is the order of the day. Shite like ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘diversity’ would appear to mean kowtowing (sorry about a word with imperialist connotations there Great Leader) to the bigoted intolerances of certain interest groups.

Anyway, time to step down off the soapbox…

…chacun à son goût.

Annual Return not filed on time again

Yes – it’s that time of year again when BPNW fails to file its Annual Return on time at Companies House (due on 13/10/07 it seems). A criminal offence apparently, not that anything’ll happen of course – there’ll be the usual excuses from BPNW and inaction on behalf of enforcing authorities.

Surely the Company Secretary can’t be failing in his duties can he? Still, maybe new board member, Jethro, can kick some ass. Micromanagement by the Great Leader still doesn’t seem to be getting the company to meet its legal obligations. Still, who gives a shit?

Keep on funding all you publicly funded and private institutions…. ….makes you feel good doesn’t it?

HIV incidence growing

Great to know that the impact of BPNW and other such, erm, caring organisations has such a marked effect on slowing the incidence of HIV infection.

For a clock with a difference click here, then click on “NOW”…. …keep up the good work Great Leader and all your ‘friends’ including Babs at MAC.

It seems with infection rates exceeding deaths (on a worldwide basis - the margin is presumably much greater in the affluent ‘first world‘) that the likes of the Great Leader will be able to enjoy fat salaries for many years yet.

Manchester Pride 2007

Just over a month to go to the annual jamboree. The annual bash only seems able to raise around £130,000 which is distributed to lesbian & gay groups and HIV organisations – including the cnuts (apologies to FCUK) at Body Positive North West Ltd. Shame it probably costs around 10 times this to stage the event. We reprint our comments (on last year’s alcohol-hazed shagathon) regarding the drug-fuelled pissed-up fuck-fest that is Manchester Pride 2007:

Bad news folks, the £10 tickets are now £15. Still it’ll be little or no surprise if the amount raised for charity and other causes is round about £120k or so. Most of the £1m+ raised will be frittered away on security, policing, extra street cleaning etc etc.

Originally conceived as a means of raising funds to be distributed to those affected by HIV, the pissed-up, drug-fuelled, shag-fest that is ‘Manchester Pride 2007’ occurs again over the forthcoming August Bank Holiday weekend.

Hopefully we won’t have the disgusting spectacle of a stage sponsored by Gaydar, as we had last year – a company-owned web-site probably responsible in no small part for significant levels of HIV transmission amongst gay men. Still, with plenty of alcohol, illegal drugs and, hopefully, good weather there should be many opportunities to compromise the drug regimens of the HIV+.

Shame that the few tens of thousands of pounds that actually go directly to genuine HIV causes (rather than spent on condoms [which are or should be available via the NHS], homosexual sporting & social groups, funding English as a foreign language lessons etc etc) could realistically be raised, or exceeded, if some of the ‘Gay Village’s’ businesses were to organise serious fundraising activities a few times a year.

Not that we probably won’t enjoy it – but, perleeze, acknowledge it for the self-indulgent orgy that it is.

Oh yeah, the Candlelight Vigil – a genuinely moving opportunity to remember those we have lost. Let’s try to avoid politicians grandstanding, too much organisational self-congratulation and some screaming queen shouting the odds at us. A brief, emotionally charged hour or two of remembrance at the end of a weekend when all that money’s been made by straight-dominated corporations and ‘gay entrepreneurs’ should perhaps last a little longer.

Mmmm, have a real good pat on the back for the successors to Operation Fundraiser (still LGF and GHT) – there again, we’re sure you’ll be doing that for yourselves ad nauseum. We are just so, so grateful.

A final thought on “all that money that Operation Fundraiser makes for HIV-causes”. With combination therapy - the use of two, three or even more anti-retroviral drugs together - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2188237.stm states that “it costs up to $12,000 (= c.£6,500) per person per year. With the cost of counselling, social support and medical care, the figure is a lot higher"; and, http://www.avert.org/aidsfaqs.htm reckons the overall annual cost at around £16k per case in the UK. So if the bringing together of all those people at the various Manchester 'Pride'weekends over the years have ‘generated’ any more than 8 cases or so of HIV infection (surely not unlikely with the million plus who will have attended over the late August Bank Holiday weekend for 10 years +), it would suggest that the total c. £120,000 raised wouldn’t pay for their current and future treatment costs. This ignores the lesser costs of treatment of other sexually transmitted infections, visits of the alcoholically inebriated to A&E departments, days lost subsequently at work through hangover (er, we mean sickness) etc. At least the taxes due on the additional profits made by Village Business Association members and others will go some way to reimbursing these..

..As we mention above, enjoy Manchester Pride for the self-indulgent orgy that it is. At least the bars and clubs should make a few £s.

Cosmetic concern about service-users?

If it’s true that MAC Cosmetics’ AIDS fund has given money to the shits at BPNW (£30k we hear) then heaven help us, eh Barbara Clocanas?

Either: you or your superiors can’t read and are too busy having the wool pulled over your eyes by politically correct fuckers, or maybe the report in the Pink Paper is plain inaccurate of course. And to think you stated in April 2007, “We have not since funded them [BPNW].”

What has become of Rod and Danny?

As of today, according to Companies House, it appears that the following are the Board members/Trustees of the glorious BPNW:
- Ed McConniffe (also Company Secretary)
- Ian Lee
- Kevin (“I have resigned”**) Leyland
- Liam Armour
- Suresh Vaghela (also the piss-weak Chair)
- Adela Mugabo
- Nicola Smith

Yet in last month’s quarterly disinformation sheet, we were told that two new joiners had reached the dizzying heights of the Board – what has become of ‘Rodney’ and ‘Daniel’? Either: they have wisely ‘seen the light’ and no longer wish to associate themselves with this gang of charlatans; or, Ed McConniffe’s as crap at his Company Secretary role as his talentless predecessor, Ms Nicola Smith, and he hasn’t let Companies House know of new appointments in a timely fashion.

Thinking of the ever-caring, beatific Martin Dean – given the vomit-inducing garbage that was included re his, erm, ‘resignation’ in the aforementioned quarterly arse-wipe sheet, how did the ever-capable then Company Secretary, Ms Nicola Smith, manage not to check last year’s Report & Accounts, which prophetically excluded ‘Saint Martin’ from being a Trustee/Director when, clearly and unfortunately, he still was?

** erm, no you haven’t (according to Companies House) Kevin dahling. It wouldn’t surprise us if the Supreme Being has got you by the short-and-curlies.

Garbage in June’s quarterly newsletter

What a load of self-congratulatory propaganda the latest newsletter contains. A read through shows that:
- page 1’s obsession with diversity masks the obvious fact that BPNW segregates its user base into various categories, for example gay men, Afro-Caribbean etc etc. We hope that ‘diversity’ is not Greenhamesque PC-speak for the tolerance of certain ‘cultural’ minorities’ intolerances – particularly of gay men.
- page 2 looks at volunteering, ie hoodwinking well-meaning individuals into doing ‘good works’, including raising funds for the organisation. Remember how the charity has abused funds in the past: key players in such abuses are still in position aren’t they Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham?
- page 3 looks at smoking and how BPNW, laudably (- patronisingly, surely), can help. If BPNW’s as effective in combating smoking as it is at reducing the rate of HIV infection in the NW of England, we’d better prepare ourselves for soaring rates of smoking relating ailments. Still it’ll be a good excuse for another ‘self-management’ course or some similar crap. Good job isn’t it Phil that you’re not paid by results?
- page 4 requires those that know the now ex-Trustee with, ahem, responsibility for Service Users to reach for their man-size Kleenex. “Martin has been on the board of trustees for several years”, well just over two actually, whilst contributing a “huge amount of time and effort to the direction of Body Positive, cumulating [the tosser who wrote this shite presumably means ‘culminating’] in the overall responsibility of the move & renovation of our new premises in Whalley Range” – so it’s Martin whose fault it is that the move to the knock-down price, inconveniently-located Russell Road was effected. Presumably ‘Saint Martin’ bears no relation to the aggressive, abusive, apparently racist & bullying piece of shit that features elsewhere in this blog. Doubtless the real truth about Martin’s departure (or ‘resignation’ on 31/05/2007) will come to light in the not-too-distant future.
- also on page 4 “We are also sad to inform you that… …Leon [has] recently left”. This presumably is the lying, disingenuous multi-named Leon Cavendish (aka Declan Cavendish, Leon Jackson etc). If only this slimeball had never graced BPNW with his (chame)leon presence – still he was close to the odious Ms Greenham so that probably kept him on site longer than necessary.
- finally on page 4 the new trustees Rodney, Adela and Daniel are welcomed. What of Ed McConniffe and Kevin Leyland who joined at the same time as Ms Mugabo in November 2006? As for Rodney and Daniel, you’re either very new to the Board or the Company Secretary has again failed to notify Companies House of resignations and appointments. As of today’s date, according to Companies House, the Board consists of the following:
1. Mr Ed McConniffe – Director
2. Mr Ian Lee - Director
3. Mr Kevin Leyland – Director
4. Mr Liam Armour – Director
5. Mr Suresh Vaghela – Director (& piss-weak Chair)
6. Ms Adela Mugabo – Director
7. Ms Nicola Smith – Director
8. Mr Ed McConniffe - Company Secretary (also at 1. above)
- aside from the inevitable picture of the ghastly Ms Felicity ‘Phil’ Greenham (who like Adolf Hitler, manages to get her picture everywhere), page 5 seems basically obsessed with gay male sex. This categorises gay men as some religious and political bigots would like you to believe as drowning in a cess pit of their own making: unless in the unfortunate minority who became HIV+ through no fault of their own (eg blood transfusion recipients, rape victims, via failed ‘safer’ sex practices), most people regardless of sexuality became positive through unsafe sexual activity or drug abuse. And looking at the way ‘straights’ behave in town on a Friday & Saturday night, together with ‘straight’ men who stop off for a bareback fuck in some gay sauna or cruising area (“I’m not queer, I don’t kiss other men!”) on the way home from the office to wifey and the kids – maybe messages aren’t just getting across (still it’ll keep Ms Greenham et al in their comfy jobs…).
- page 6 is obscene. Could ‘Father Peter’ be the same dog-collar wearing lump of excrement that once famously said, having failed to be admitted to the Board of BPNW in late 2005, “I’ll just have to wait for someone [on the Board] to die then”? The odious piece of religious dross that we refer to had business cards with ‘Paster Pete’ rather than ‘Pastor Pete’ emblazoned upon them – made him sound more like a painter & decorator – he also said that he could perhaps be useful in getting funds for the then strapped charity. The said ‘Paster Pete’ also was extremely rude when visiting an ill, agnostic service-user at North Manchester General Hospital some time ago. BPNW should be a principally secular space – not frequented by some dog-collar clad ‘do gooder’ representing the ‘religious industry’ with presumably second-rate, if any, professional counselling skills trying to explain how an all-powerful God isn’t a malevolent entity.

So the latest sheet is sheer propaganda – a bit like the Nazis’ cynical film of happy and contented inmates at their Theresienstadt (or Terezín) concentration camp in what is now the Czech Republic, when the truth was all too different.

When, oh when, will action be taken against those in power at BPNW who have manipulatively and disingenuously excluded service-users that have exposed them for the liars and incompetents that they are?

Yet more inaccurate information

Just a quick note for Trustee Ed McConniffe, the new Company Secretary.

Companies House records still show an outstanding legal charge in favour of the Royal Bank of Scotland in respect of the much-lamented, long-gone Lawrence House. Presumably the talentless previous Company Secretary, the effete Ms Nicola Smith, has omitted to notify the appropriate authority that the legal charge is no longer current.

Knowing you to be so much more gifted than the previous two incumbents of the Company Secretary’s position (Ms Nicola Smith and the odious Ms ‘Phil’ Greenham), perhaps you could clear up the various misleading inaccuracies that have accumulated under their tenures?

Annual Return for 15 September 2006

Heavens to Betsy, the dumbfucks at BPNW can’t even get the Annual Return (dated 15/09/2006) right for the charity last year. Usually the responsibility of the Company Secretary**, then the gorgeous Nicola Smith, it is incorrect in the following respect: fuckwit Nicola has been wrongly omitted as a Director (if only that were true!), an unconstitutional role that the multitasking moron fulfilled until her replacement earlier this year by Ed McConniffe as Company Secretary.

There again the most recent Report & Accounts, to 31 March 2006, are riddled (now there’s a word the PC-brigade at BPNW doesn’t like!) with inaccuracies, mistakes and worse.

** however the Annual Return in question has been signed off, and presumably inaccurately filled in, by trustee Mr Ian Lee. For your information Ian: Ralph (sorry, we mean Nicola) has been gracing the Board with her femininity and power-businesswoman suits, since 16 November 2004. There again, you may not have noticed her useless contribution over the years.