It seems yesterday's comments hit a nerve at the council. John Staples insisted its press release was crystal clear: the webpage would "publish the full press statements it has given to the media on specific stories if they have subsequently been chopped or altered and their meaning substantially changed when broadcast or published.
"....residents will be able to compare what was reported, or broadcast, with what was issued by Medway Council on controversial topics.
It would be updated on an ad hoc basis.Which means that residents will only get to learn what the council wants them to learn.
Mr Staples also insists that I never asked about asbestos checks. I assure you I did on at least two occasions.I quote his written response as received:
"Our records show that your enquiry was about the issue around caretakers (there was an enforecment notice after two school's site managers had not undergone proper training) and that you have not asked us if the HSE was carrying out an emergency audit following Woodlands - something that did not happen."
Their records might not show it. I did ask - formally - twice.
It is clear we are not going to agree on this.
The key issue remains that staff were exposed to asbestos at Woodlands, along with contractors' personnel. In some cases personal records will have to be kept for 40 years (the period which coincidentally seems to be when asbestosis and mesothelioma develops).
It is also a fact recorded in the papers from the auditors that 106 schools in Medway were to be inspected in a three month period following the failure of Woodlands to protect those people. It was "a tough target". Following those inspections all head teachers were required to undergo specialist training (something with Mr Fiddaman apparently objected to, but subsequently undertook).
It is also a fact that there was no sealing of the work areas, no protective gear, clothing was not changed following work and before mixing with other people, that cleaners moved from dirty areas to classrooms, that children were in school while the work was going on, and that none of the workforce was CRB-checked.
Deborah Upton, the council's legal eagle, housing chief and monitoring officer, said in her covering report: "The Council holds a legal duty to effectively manage asbestos in schools, and this duty cannot be delegated to others i.e. the Council ultimately retains
responsibility. However Health and Safety training and briefings are available to
all schools to ensure that they know what their responsibilities are in respect
of asbestos, and the Council has a Health & Safety officer dedicated to
schools.
"I am not satisfied that any enquiries were made of the School, or
that proper procedures were put in place to ensure that the school
appropriately met its health and safety responsibilities for asbestos, fire of [sic] other
health and safety matters in relation to the building works."
As the auditor's report comments: "A school can opt out of using the Council [for] delivery of a capital project. Who controls the school if they opt out?"
Even the government has a responsibility for Woodlands school that appears to be lacking.
As for the issue that sparked the debate, Mr Staples' colleagues continue to ignore the fears and worries that villagersw at Grain have arising from National Grid's LNG terminal at the bottom of their gardens.
RSS feeds