📌 Monthly Blog Summary – December 2025

December didn’t drift gently toward Christmas.

It built, piece by piece, from structural issues and political theatre to silence, exclusion and serious questions about public buildings, safeguarding and money.

Here’s the full December record — in chronological order.

1️⃣ Freeman of the Borough? Or Just Another Round of Political Theatre (5 Dec)

A critique of how Sandwell’s highest civic honour is increasingly handed to political insiders and establishment figures, while decades-long voluntary and community service goes unrecognised.
No criteria. No transparency. No resident voice.

2️⃣ PREVIEW: What Full Council WON’T Tell You — but You Definitely Should Know (7 Dec)

A resident’s guide to the agenda behind the agenda.
Public questions strangled, conflicts undeclared, scrutiny neutered and participation redesigned to be technically possible but practically meaningless.

3️⃣ Sandwell’s Three MPs: A Foundation Document for Accountability (7 Dec)

Residency, property, donors, voting records and silence.
Three MPs, three constituencies, and not one sustained challenge to Sandwell’s documented governance failures.

4️⃣ Sandwell’s Funding Mystery Machine: Scooby-Doo Meets the Consortium (9 Dec)

Satire backed by spreadsheets.
Six-figure grants, missing KPIs, councillor-linked organisations and governance that feels less like oversight and more like performance art.

5️⃣ Swept Under the Rug: Labour’s Motion on Women & Girls (9 Dec)

A forensic critique of a VAWG motion that carefully avoided naming Child Sexual Exploitation — despite Labour having voted against a national grooming gangs inquiry earlier in the year.

6️⃣ Sandwell Council: Another Evening in Wonderland (9 Dec)

Two meetings, one script, zero accountability.
Absent councillors, invisible conflicts of interest, paused webcasts, silenced residents and motions that avoided the most uncomfortable truths.

7️⃣ Friar Park Millennium Centre, FPUV & The Levelling Up Machine (9 Dec)

Millions funnelled into a politically connected building.
A reshuffled partnership board with no explanation.
An MP’s misleading letter — followed by silence.

8️⃣ Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector (22 Dec)

£1.66 million in two years.
No KPIs. No competitive commissioning.
A voluntary sector increasingly dominated by intermediaries while grassroots groups are told to “partner up”.

9️⃣ Follow the Power, Sandwell (Part 2) (23 Dec)

Money doesn’t move itself.
This post mapped the people, roles and relationships sitting between Cabinet, funded organisations and intermediaries — all declared, all compliant, all concentrating power in remarkably few hands.

🔟 BWA – Follow the Money (Again): Accounts Filed, FOIs Blocked, Trustees Silent (24 Dec)

New accounts, rising staffing costs, high unrestricted reserves and growing cash balances — alongside blocked FOIs and trustees who simply will not engage.

1️⃣1️⃣ Same Circle, Different Bauble: CBO, BWA & the Consortium Christmas Special (24 Dec)

Different logos. Same ecosystem.
Large reserves, shared structures, overlapping roles and familiar accounting patterns wrapped in festive language and goodwill.

1️⃣2️⃣ A Christmas Message – It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like an Unanswered FOI (24 Dec)

A seasonal round-up of missing minutes, delayed responses, “commercial sensitivity” and transparency politely placed in storage until the New Year.

1️⃣3️⃣ Wednesbury Town Hall – Peace on Earth (Terms & Conditions Apply) (27 Dec)

A Christmas-themed deep dive into Let’s Dance Again, showing a pattern of unexplained exclusions, safeguarding concerns treated as disloyalty, and a public building operating like a private members’ space.

1️⃣4️⃣ BWA – Follow the Silence (Part 3) (28 Dec)

After money and power comes silence.
Emails unanswered. Trustees disengaged. Deadlines ignored.
At this point, silence itself becomes the story.

1️⃣5️⃣ Sandwell’s Improvement Journey™: £1.5 Million, Zero Answers (28 Dec)

Wragge. Cox. Richards KC. Grant Thornton. Commissioners.
Reports commissioned, money spent, findings buried — and accountability quietly abandoned.

1️⃣6️⃣ When “Community” Comes With a Loyalty Clause (Wednesbury Town Hall – Follow-Up) (29 Dec)

New evidence. New patterns. Same themes.
Exclusions without explanation, safeguarding concerns followed by bans, opaque booking practices and financial activity that cannot easily be reconciled with published accounts.
Not allegations — questions that now demand answers.

❄️ December, Summed Up

What began as governance critique ended with serious questions about public buildings, safeguarding culture, financial transparency and how easily scrutiny is treated as disloyalty.

December didn’t create these issues.
It simply made them impossible to ignore.

When “Community” Comes With a Loyalty Clause (and a Calculator) - A Follow-Up on Wednesbury Town Hall

Peace on Earth (Transparency Required)

It’s amazing what happens when you open a window.

Since publishing my earlier piece on the use of Wednesbury Town Hall and the way certain “community” activities are being run, the amount of information that has landed in my inbox has been nothing short of astonishing.
And no — this isn’t gossip, rumour, or Facebook froth. It’s documents, letters, screenshots, and first-hand accounts.

So let’s be clear from the outset:
this blog follows on from the original, builds on it, and reflects new information received in recent days.

And yes — before anyone else rushes to sharpen a calculator — one of the figures previously referenced related to two people, not one. Accuracy matters, so that’s corrected here. What hasn’t changed, however, are the far more serious questions about governance, exclusion, transparency, and oversight.

“Decisions Are Final” – Community, But With Terms & Conditions

Multiple people — many elderly, some long-standing attendees — have now shared copies of letters informing them that they are no longer welcome at events, coffee mornings, trips, or activities.

The wording is strikingly consistent:

• Attendance terminated.
• No meaningful explanation.
• No appeal process.
• Decisions described as “final”.

For groups that publicly describe themselves as tackling loneliness and isolation, this raises an obvious question:
since when did community support come with a one-strike policy and no right of reply?

Trips, Refunds, and Who Holds the Keys

Documents seen show that trips and outings are being organised under the banner of the organisation, with payments taken and refunds issued directly.

What has caused concern for many is not the trips themselves — people enjoy outings — but how decisions and finances appear to be controlled.

Letters instruct excluded members to provide bank details directly so that refunds can be arranged. That immediately raises legitimate governance questions:

• Who authorises refunds?
• Who independently checks them?
• Who has access to bank information?
• What safeguards exist around personal data?
• Where is segregation of duties?

These are not accusations.
They are basic governance questions any properly run organisation should be able to answer without defensiveness.

Accounts That Don’t Explain Themselves

Several people with experience in finance and governance have now contacted me independently, all asking variations of the same thing:

“How do the accounts explain the scale of activities people are being charged for?”

This blog will not speculate with figures. It doesn’t need to.
The issue is simpler — the published financial information does not clearly explain income and expenditure relating to trips, events, and refunds, nor how funds are controlled or overseen.

Transparency isn’t optional just because an organisation calls itself a charity or a community group.

Promotion, Preferential Access, and Public Space

Another recurring theme raised by multiple contributors concerns the use of a public building.

Wednesbury Town Hall is not a private club. Yet concerns have been raised about:

• Preferential access and hire arrangements.
• Other groups being edged out or discouraged.
• Promotion of certain activities by elected representatives.
• A lack of clarity over who approved what, and why.

Public spaces must be open, fair, and demonstrably neutral — not quietly monopolised.

When Raising Concerns Becomes the “Problem”

Perhaps the most troubling pattern is this:
people say they were excluded after raising safeguarding, conduct, or fairness concerns.

That should ring alarm bells for anyone involved in community work.

Silencing people who ask questions is not protection.
It is the opposite.

A Simple Principle

Let’s strip this right back.

If an organisation is:

• using a public building,
• handling money from members,
• organising trips,
• holding personal data,
• excluding people without appeal,

then it must expect scrutiny.

That isn’t hostility.
It’s accountability.

If This Has Happened to You

If you have:

• received a termination or exclusion letter,
• been removed without explanation,
• been discouraged from raising concerns,
• questioned finances or governance and been shut down,

you are not alone.

You may wish to:

• keep copies of correspondence,
• note dates and witnesses,
• seek independent advice,
• or raise concerns with appropriate oversight bodies.

This blog exists so people know they are not imagining things.

Final Thought

“Peace on Earth” is a lovely slogan.
But peace without fairness is just quiet.

And quiet, in public life, is where problems grow.

#Wednesbury #CommunityGovernance #TransparencyMatters #PublicSpace #CharityAccountability #Safeguarding #AskingQuestions #FollowThePaperwork #NotHostilityJustOversight

BWA – Follow the Silence (Part 3)

BWA – Follow the Silence (Part 3)

If Part 1 followed the money
and Part 2 followed the power,

then Part 3 follows something much harder to pin down.

Silence.

Not a technical silence.
Not an “out of office” silence.
A very deliberate, very prolonged silence.

📧 The Emails That Went Nowhere

Following Part 2, formal written questions were sent:

• to the Chief Executive of the Bangladeshi Women’s Association, and
• directly to the Board of Trustees, by name and by role.

The emails were detailed.
They were polite.
They were evidence-based.
They set clear deadlines.

What came back?

Nothing.

No acknowledgement.
No holding response.
No “we’ll come back to you”.
No trustee engagement at all.

For an organisation receiving substantial public funding, that silence speaks volumes.

🧱 Trustees: The Dog That Didn’t Bark

At this point it’s important to be clear about roles.

Trustees are not decorative.
They are not optional.
They are not there “when convenient”.

Under charity law, trustees are legally responsible for:

• governance
• finances
• assets
• conflicts of interest
• transparency

When trustees don’t respond to serious, well-evidenced questions raised in good faith, that is no longer a communications issue — it is a governance issue.

And yet, the silence continues.

🧾 FOI: When Transparency Becomes Theoretical

Alongside the emails, Freedom of Information requests were submitted to Sandwell Council seeking clarity on:

• funding agreements
• monitoring reports
• assets and disposals
• conflicts of interest

The Council confirmed it does hold relevant information.

But the information was not released.

Instead, the response relied on technical limits and process warnings — effectively saying “yes, the information exists, but no, you can’t see it.”

An Internal Review is now underway.

Transparency, it seems, is available in principle.

🤐 When Silence Starts to Feel Like Strategy

Silence can mean many things.

Sometimes it means confusion.
Sometimes it means delay.
Sometimes it means poor administration.

But prolonged silence — from both trustees and senior figures — after multiple polite requests?
That begins to feel like a choice.

And choices have consequences.

🗣️ A Chilling Side-Effect

There is also an uncomfortable side-effect to silence.

When questions about governance and public money go unanswered, the focus subtly shifts — from the questions themselves to the person asking them.

That is not healthy.
It is not democratic.
And it does not serve the communities these organisations exist to support.

Scrutiny is not hostility.
Questions are not threats.
Accountability is not harassment.

❓ What We Still Don’t Know (Because No One Will Say)

At the end of Part 3, we are left with the same unanswered questions:

• why trustees will not engage
• who is accountable for responding
• when transparency will resume
• whether silence is now the default position

People notice these things.

Some are, to use the local phrase, getting a little Haqued Off.

⚖️ Legal & Accuracy Notice

This blog is based on published records, correspondence, and publicly available information.
No allegation of wrongdoing is made.
Any factual inaccuracies will be corrected upon receipt of evidence.

🎄 Closing Thought

After money.
After power.
After questions.

There is silence.

And silence, in public life, is rarely neutral.

To be continued.

#BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #Sandwell #Tipton #FollowTheMoney #FollowThePower #TheSilence #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #FOI 

Sandwell’s Improvement Journey™: £1.5 Million, Zero Answers, and a Lot of Shredded Paper

Sandwell’s Improvement Journey™: £1.5 Million, Zero Answers, and a Lot of Shredded Paper

Sandwell Council loves a journey.
Customer journeys.
Improvement journeys.
Governance journeys.

Oddly, none of them ever seem to arrive anywhere.

Let’s recap the actual journey residents have been taken on over the last decade:

• A flawed external investigation
• A solicitor later reprimanded for racist remarks
• A corrective review exposing bias and misconduct
• A senior King’s Counsel opinion
• Promised apologies
• Approved actions
• And then… silence

All quietly swept under the civic carpet.

We had the Wragge investigation, led by a lawyer later disciplined by his own regulator.
We then had the Cox Review, commissioned by the Council itself, which reportedly found bias, governance failures and improper political interference.
Then came the Jenni Richards KC opinion, advising on what should happen next.

What happened next?

Nothing.

No publication.
No apologies.
No Maxwellisation.
No accountability.
Just a lot of Freedom of Information refusals and a leader telling Full Council she “didn’t know what the Cox Review was” — despite emails proving otherwise.

Meanwhile:

• Councillors asking awkward questions were deselected
• Scrutiny was softened, chaired, reshaped and neutralised
• Officers who refused to change reports were shown the door
• Senior figures left with enhanced settlements and confidentiality clauses
• External auditors nodded along
• Commissioners focused on process, not truth

And the public picked up the bill.

By conservative estimates, £1.4–£1.8 million of public money has been spent on this saga — for a conclusion that amounts to:

“Let’s all agree never to talk about this again.”

Grant Thornton signed off governance improvements.
Commissioners declared progress.
Leadership declared the matter closed.

But here’s the problem:

You don’t fix governance by burying evidence.
You don’t restore trust by suppressing reports.
And you don’t demonstrate Best Value by refusing to explain why £1.5 million bought no outcome.

This isn’t ancient history.
The reports are still suppressed.
The recommendations were never delivered.
The lies were never corrected.
The costs were never fully disclosed.

So yes — questions are still being asked.
And they will keep being asked.

Because improvement journeys that end in a paper shredder aren’t improvement at all.

They’re just cover-ups with better branding.

#SandwellCouncil #GovernanceFailure #Transparency #PublicMoney #Accountability #FOI #SuppressedReports #CoxReview #GrantThornton #Commissioners #ImprovementJourney

Wednesbury Town Hall - Peace on Earth (Terms & Conditions Apply) 🎄

Wednesbury Town Hall, Let’s Dance Again & the Curious Case of Seasonal “Community Spirit”

Ah, Christmas.
The season of goodwill.
Of mince pies, fairy lights, community togetherness…
…and apparently ban letters for pensioners.

If you were under the impression that Wednesbury Town Hall is a public civic space — open, inclusive, neutral — then pour yourself a sherry and sit down, because recent events suggest otherwise.

What’s unfolding looks less like a community hub and more like a private members’ lounge, where access depends on whether you smile nicely, don’t ask awkward questions, and definitely don’t mention the word safeguarding.

☕ Come In, Warm Up… Actually No, You’re Out

Let’s talk about Let’s Dance Again (LDA).
On paper, it’s a charity dedicated to reducing loneliness and isolation among older people. Lovely. Heart-warming. Exactly the sort of thing you’d wrap in tinsel and goodwill.

In practice?
Less “peace on earth”, more “computer says no”.

It’s now clear that this is not a one-off:

• multiple elderly regular attendees have been excluded from events and trips,
• exclusion notices are often impersonal, unsigned, and abrupt,
• no welfare checks, no appeals, no alternatives offered,
• and — here’s the real Christmas cracker — some people were banned after raising safeguarding concerns.

Yes.
Raise concerns about safeguarding?
🎁 Congratulations — here’s your ban.

Nothing says safe, caring charity quite like punishing the people asking whether things are being done properly.

🔔 Peace on Earth… But Only If You Keep Quiet

This isn’t an admin hiccup. It’s a pattern.

Same tone.
Same process.
Same result.

Out you go.

For a group that exists to tackle isolation, the irony is thick enough to spread on toast.

And all of this is happening inside a public building, funded by the public, meant to belong to everyone. Not a private clubhouse. Not a fiefdom. Not a space where raising concerns gets you quietly removed like an unwanted bauble.

💰 Follow the (Festive) Money

Now let’s ruin the cosy atmosphere with numbers.

LDA’s own public records show:

• £14,300 total income,
• £12,392 of that from public grants,
• leaving roughly £1,900 for everything else.

Everything else being:

• weekly coffee mornings,
• entry fees,
• raffles and stalls,
• entertainment events,
• paid trips,
• exercise classes.

Either this is the most miraculous loaves-and-fishes operation since biblical times…
or the accounts don’t reflect the reality on the ground.

And here’s the festive cherry on top:
👉 there are no publicly available detailed accounts to check.

Nothing builds trust like “just take our word for it”.

🎅 Public Money, Private Rules

We also know LDA has received public funding from Sandwell Council.

Which raises some very basic, very reasonable questions:

• What due diligence was done?
• Were safeguarding arrangements checked?
• Were exclusions discussed?
• Were conflicts declared?
• Did anyone notice elderly people being removed from activities?
• Did anyone ask why accounts aren’t publicly visible?

Asking questions, it seems, is becoming a risky hobby.

🎁 The True Meaning of Christmas (Apparently)

So here we are, in the season of kindness, goodwill and compassion, looking at:

• elderly people excluded from social lifelines,
• others banned for raising safeguarding issues,
• a public building operating like a private venue,
• public money flowing with limited transparency,
• and governance that appears deeply uncomfortable with scrutiny.

This isn’t about personalities.
It isn’t about grudges.
It’s about public accountability, safeguarding, and basic decency.

Because if a charity can’t cope with safeguarding questions —
then it isn’t spreading goodwill.

It’s spreading risk.

And that should concern all of us.

🎄 To Be Continued… 🎄

Because this story isn’t finished.
Not by a long shot.

And unlike certain exclusion letters,
this conversation isn’t going quietly away.

#Wednesbury #Sandwell #PublicMoney #SafeguardingMatters #CharityGovernance #OlderPeople #Transparency #CommunityNotControl #FollowTheMoney #SeasonOfGoodwill

A Christmas Message - It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like… an Unanswered FOI 🎄

🎄 It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like… an Unanswered FOI 🎄

Ah, Christmas.
The season of goodwill, mince pies, and public bodies announcing that nothing further can be dealt with until the New Year — despite having had all year.

2025 has been a festive spectacular.

A year where:

• Meetings popped up like advent calendars
• Minutes vanished like the last Quality Street
• Consultations were held somewhere between Halloween and Narnia
• Transparency was placed in storage “pending review”
• And accountability went out for mulled wine and never came back

We’ve all enjoyed the Christmas classics: 🎅 “We do not hold that information”
🎄 “No notes were taken”
🎁 “Commercial sensitivity” (now available on page 43 of another document)
❄️ “We’ll respond shortly” — first aired in spring, now a festive tradition

This year’s standout performance must go to governance — boldly reimagined as:

“A loose collection of emails, good intentions, and people who’ve moved on.”

Spare a festive thought for the Freedom of Information Act, currently propping up the wonky leg of the transparency table while being told it’s very demanding and should try asking again in 20 working days.

To residents, volunteers and community groups who dared ask awkward questions this year:

• Who signed this off?
• Where’s the money gone?
• Why does this organisation exist twice?

Congratulations. You are now on Santa’s Naughty List (Appendix B).

As we head into 2026, councils everywhere are preparing their New Year’s resolutions: 

✔ “Lessons will be learned”
✔ “Processes will be reviewed”
✔ “Engagement will be improved”
✔ “Minutes will be taken next time (probably)”

I, meanwhile, will be leaving out: 

🥛 a glass of milk
🍪 a mince pie
📄 and a neatly drafted FOI request

Just in case.

Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, a peaceful break, and a New Year filled with:

• fewer working groups
• more actual answers
• complete accounts on first publication
• and governance that doesn’t require festive divination

Goodwill to all — and transparency, at least between Christmas and New Year.

🎄🧾🎅

Darryl

#FOIOnIce #MerryFOIChristmas #MissingMinutes #FestiveTransparency #FollowThePaperTrail #GovernanceGrinch #Sandwell #Accountability 

Same Circle, Different Bauble: CBO, BWA & the Consortium Christmas Special

🎄 Same Circle, Different Bauble: CBO, BWA & the Consortium Christmas Special ❄️

It’s that magical time of year again.

The lights are twinkling, the mince pies are out, and somewhere in Sandwell another community organisation’s accounts are quietly whispering:

“Haven’t we met before?”

Today’s seasonal guest star is the Confederation of Bangladeshi Organisations (CBO) — an organisation that, once you peel back the festive wrapping, looks remarkably like some old friends we already know.

Different logo.
Different press photos.
Same governance stocking.

Ho ho ho.

🎁 Not Exactly a Stocking Filler

First things first: this is not a tiny “keep-the-kettle-on” charity scraping together spare change.

According to CBO’s 2024/25 accounts, Santa has been busy:

• 🎅 Annual income: £352,464
• 🎄 Total reserves: £772,009
• ❄️ Current assets: £491,375
• 🏠 Fixed assets: £284,327
• 🏢 Freehold property (Carters Green): £250,000

That’s three-quarters of a million pounds tucked neatly under the tree.

This is grown-up money. Which means grown-up questions.

🎅 Surprise! Another Visit from the Sandwell Consortium

Now for the part where the sleigh bells really start ringing.

CBO is listed as an organisational director of Sandwell Consortium CIC.

And wouldn’t you know it — Bangladeshi Women’s Association is also an organisational director there.

What are the chances?

So:

• Same Consortium
• Same governance structure
• Same ecosystem
• Same familiar route by which funding magically travels from “partnership” to “delivery organisation”

It’s like Secret Santa, except everyone seems to already know who they’re buying for.

❄️ The Seasonal Accounting Classic: “Deficit, But Make It Festive”

If you’ve been following along this year, you’ll recognise this old carol.

CBO’s accounts show:

• An operating deficit for the year
• Yet total reserves increased to £772,009
• And designated funds remain safely tucked away

In other words:

“Yes, day-to-day looks tight… but don’t worry — the good china stays locked in the cabinet.”

Perfectly legal.
Perfectly familiar.
Perfectly deserving of an explanation that never quite seems to arrive.

☃️ Nearly Half a Million in “Current Assets”… But Who’s Counting?

Another festive favourite.

CBO reports:

• £491,375 in current assets
• And just £3,693 in short-term creditors

Which raises the age-old Christmas question:

🎶 “Is it cash in the bank, or money that might turn up later if everyone’s been good?” 🎶

Grant receivables are not the same as hard cash — something that only really matters once January arrives and the heating bill does too.

🏗️ Land, Property & Dreams of Retail Cheer

The accounts also reference:

• Property at Carters Green
• Land at Wood Lane
• And language around retail / income-generation ambitions

Because nothing says “community charity” quite like dipping a toe into development and trading.

Again — not wrong.
But once charities start dreaming of commercial elves and income streams, the questions multiply faster than a Boxing Day sale:

• Is this primary purpose trading?
• Ancillary?
• Non-primary with a subsidiary?
• And who exactly is signing off the risk while wearing how many other governance hats?

🎄 Same Tree, Same Decorations

By now the pattern should feel comfortingly familiar.

CBO:

• Sits inside the same Consortium structure as BWA
• Uses remarkably similar accounting strategies
• Holds substantial reserves and assets
• Receives funding routed through the same partnership ecosystem
• And relies on the public simply assuming that all of this is just how things work

And maybe it is.

But when the same decorations keep appearing on different trees, people are allowed to ask whether the box they came from is ever checked.

🎁 Why This Matters (Even at Christmas)

This isn’t about personalities.
It’s not about communities.
And it’s definitely not about cancelling Christmas.

It’s about scale, structure and accountability.

When organisations are:

• Handling hundreds of thousands of pounds
• Holding property and land
• Sitting on multiple boards in the same funding ecosystem
• And singing from the same accounting hymn sheet

…then transparency isn’t a seasonal gift.
It’s the bare minimum.

🎄 Merry Christmas, Sandwell.
🎁 Same circle.
🎁 Different wrapping paper.
🎁 And somehow, the turkey always ends up at the same table.

#Sandwell #CharityGovernance #PublicMoney #SameOldCircle #FestiveFinance #Transparency #FollowTheMoney

BWA: Follow the Money (Again) — Accounts Filed, FOIs Blocked, Trustees Silent

BWA: Follow the Money (Again) — Accounts Filed, FOIs Blocked, Trustees Silent

It’s that festive moment where organisations usually publish goodwill messages, thank volunteers, and wrap the year up neatly.

Instead, with the Bangladeshi Women’s Association (BWA), we’re unwrapping something else entirely:

📂 newly filed accounts
📧 unanswered emails
🧾 blocked FOIs
🖥️ unanswered questions about capital spending
🤐 trustees saying nothing
🎄 and yes… people getting Haqued Off

Let’s go through it — calmly, factually, and with a little seasonal cheer.

📊 The New Accounts: What’s Changed (and What Hasn’t)

BWA’s latest accounts (year ending 31 March 2025) are now filed.

Headline figures:

• Income: £475,924 (down from £512,645)
• Expenditure: £479,601 (up from £415,023)
• Result: £3,677 deficit (after a £97k surplus the year before)
• Total reserves: £318,788
• Unrestricted reserves: £177,021
• Cash at bank: £344,179
• Staff costs: £276,092 (↑ ~£63k in one year)

So despite income falling, spending — especially staffing — rose sharply, wiping out last year’s surplus.
Yet cash at bank increased, and unrestricted reserves remain substantial.

That combination alone warrants explanation.

🎁 The Reserves Question (Still Not Answered)

This is now year two of asking:

Why is a publicly funded community organisation holding £177k in unrestricted reserves while continuing to draw council and grant funding?

Reserves are legitimate.
Large unrestricted reserves plus continued public subsidy plus rising staffing costs require explanation.

No explanation has been provided.

🖥️ The IT Suite, Capital Spend & Asset Transparency

Well before the accounts were filed, concerns were raised in writing about potential capital spending, including the possibility of replacing a fully functional IT suite.

To date, there is still:

• ❌ no published asset register
• ❌ no disposal log
• ❌ no centre-level capital breakdown
• ❌ no clarity on historic capital grants
• ❌ no explanation of what assets exist, were replaced, or written off

For an organisation operating two community centres with years of public funding behind it, this is not a trivial omission.

It’s precisely why asset registers and disposal policies exist.

📧 Emails Sent. Silence Returned.

Since the last blog:

• Detailed governance questions were emailed to the CEO
• Trustees were copied directly
• Clear deadlines were set
• Polite chasers were sent

The response?

• One generic paragraph from the CEO
• No substantive answers
• No response at all from trustees

Trustees are legally responsible. Silence is not neutrality — it’s a governance choice.

✈️ The CEO Was Away. She’s Now Back.

For a time, the lack of response was attributed to the CEO being out of the country.

That explanation no longer applies.

The CEO is now back in the UK.
The accounts are filed.
The emails remain unanswered.

Which raises a simple question:
When does accountability begin?

🧾 FOI Update: Transparency, But Make It Impossible

A Freedom of Information request was submitted to Sandwell Council seeking:

• funding agreements
• monitoring reports
• asset records
• disposals
• conflicts of interest
• safeguarding and compliance incidents

The Council confirmed it does hold relevant information — but refused to provide any of it, citing Section 12 (cost limits).

Notably, the response also warned against breaking the request into smaller parts — a curious approach to a law designed to promote transparency.

An Internal Review is now underway, alongside narrower replacement FOIs.

What’s particularly striking is the Council’s admission that it does not have a single system linking grants, monitoring, underspends and assets.

That’s not an FOI issue.
That’s a governance issue.

🍞 Food Donations & Fairness

Concerns have also been raised locally about how donated food is collected and distributed.

No allegations are made here — but at a time of rising hardship, fairness, transparency and need matter.

These are exactly the kinds of questions trustees should welcome clarifying.

🗞️ What the Sandwell Skidder Has Said

This isn’t happening in a vacuum.

Local political blog The Sandwell Skidder has, over several years, raised questions about transparency, overlapping roles, and accountability involving BWA and Syeda Khatun.

Those posts form part of the public record and reflect long-standing community commentary — not proof of wrongdoing, but evidence that concerns about openness are not new.

❓ What We Still Don’t Know

Despite months of polite, documented correspondence:

• Why unrestricted reserves remain so high
• How staffing expansion is funded
• What assets exist at each centre
• What has been disposed of or replaced
• How capital grants were monitored
• Why trustees will not respond
• When — or if — transparency will improve

People notice these things.

And yes — some are getting Haqued Off...as Gregg might say! 

⚖️ Legal / Accuracy Notice

Legal / Accuracy Notice:
This blog contains commentary, observations and analysis based on publicly available records, correspondence and published material. Opinions are clearly identified as such. No allegation of wrongdoing is made beyond what is supported by public documents. If any party believes information is inaccurate, they are invited to provide evidence so corrections can be made.

🎄 Season’s Closing Thought

Transparency shouldn’t require FOIs, blogs, or festive persistence.

Accounts are filed.
The CEO is back.
The trustees remain silent.

The questions remain.

Watch this space.

#BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #Sandwell #Tipton #JubileePark #PublicMoney #FollowTheMoney #CharityAccounts #CharityGovernance #Transparency #Accountability #FOI #Audit #Trustees #CommunityCentres #LocalGovernment #SandwellCouncil #Governance #SeasonOfQuestions #HaquedOff

Follow the Power, Sandwell: Because Money Doesn’t Approve Itself (Part 2)

Follow the Power, Sandwell: Because Money Doesn’t Approve Itself (Part 2)

In Part 1, we followed the money.
It kept turning up in the same places, like a bad penny with a lanyard.

Link to Part 1: https://shorturl.at/2NA0A

But money doesn’t move itself.
It doesn’t wake up in the morning, log into the council’s finance system, and say:
“I think I’ll go via an intermediary today.”

Money moves because people move it.

So welcome to Part 2 — where we stop pretending this is all terribly abstract and start talking about who’s actually in the room.

Power in Sandwell rarely wears a name badge

It usually wears phrases like:

• “Trusted partner”
• “Infrastructure organisation”
• “Community leader”
• “Strategic delivery body”
• “Independent intermediary”

All very reassuring.
All very warm.
All very convenient.

And nearly always attached to the same small group of organisations and individuals.

Let’s start with the obvious one

Front and centre sits Sandwell Consortium CIC.

Not elected.
Not a council department.
Not subject to the same scrutiny as either.

But somehow trusted with hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, year after year, to “coordinate”, “support”, “enable” and “facilitate”.

In plain English:
the Consortium has become a permission layer.

If you’re inside the network — doors open.
If you’re outside — you’re encouraged to “partner”, “capacity build” or “engage constructively”.

Funny how “constructive engagement” always seems to mean working with the same people who already have the money.

Now let’s add the names nobody likes adding

Because this isn’t just organisational.
It’s personal.

• Cllr Syeda Amina Khatun MBE
  Cabinet Member. Former Mayor (one-year term, before anyone emails).
  CEO of Bangladeshi Women’s Association, a council-funded organisation operating firmly within the same ecosystem.

• Cllr Suzanne Hartwell
  Cabinet Member.
  Employee of BWA / Jubilee Centre, again within the same funding and partnership orbit.

• Cllr Jalal Uddin
  Cabinet Member.
  Former Finance Director of Sandwell Consortium CIC — yes, the same Consortium receiving nearly £1m in 2023/24.

• Cllr Ragih Muflihi
  Councillor.
  Senior figure within the Yemeni Community Association, another council-funded organisation that appears regularly in the grant lists.

• Cllr Kerrie Carmichael
  Council Leader.
  Public champion of several organisations within this ecosystem and the political authority ultimately responsible for the frameworks under which this funding operates.

All declared.
All technically compliant.
All individually defensible.

Collectively?
They form something rather more interesting.

Because then there are the fixers

Every system has them.
Sandwell is no exception.

• Rezina Choudhury — operational gatekeeper at Sandwell Consortium.
  The person you speak to if you want access to programmes, projects, and “opportunities”.

• Anam Choudhury — senior figure across BWA-linked community hubs and development activity.
  The delivery-side fixer.

Two different people.
Two different choke points.
One very neat system.

Between them, they sit exactly where money, access and influence intersect.

And just in case you think this is all new…

Enter Derek Rowley.

Former councillor.
Former Mayor.
Long-standing Labour Party figure.
Key player in internal party mechanisms over many years.

No longer in office, but very much part of the political architecture that shaped who rose, who stayed, and who had influence when this ecosystem was bedding in.

Power doesn’t disappear when someone leaves the council chamber.
It just moves to a quieter room.

So how does the power actually work?

Not through grand conspiracies.
Nothing so exciting.

It works through:

• Familiarity
• Trust
• Repeat funding
• Soft scrutiny
• Gentle language
• And a shared understanding of who is “credible”

Once an organisation is “trusted”, it tends to stay trusted.
Once a person is “experienced”, they’re always invited back.

And once a network is established, it becomes very good at reproducing itself.

Scrutiny? Yes… but not too much

Because questioning organisations wrapped in:

• community cohesion
• equality
• inclusion
• wellbeing

is uncomfortable.

Nobody wants to be accused of:

• “attacking the voluntary sector”
• “undermining communities”
• “not understanding lived experience”

So questions are softened.
Challenges are deferred.
And the system rolls on.

Power loves politeness.
Especially British politeness.

Let’s be clear about what this isn’t

This is not an allegation of wrongdoing.
It’s not a conspiracy theory.
It’s not a secret cabal in a candle-lit room.

It’s something far more mundane — and far more dangerous.

It’s power concentrating through habit.

Why this matters

Because power decides:

• who gets heard
• who gets funded
• who gets forgiven
• who gets ignored

Long before a single pound is paid.

And when the same people sit across:

• Cabinet
• funded organisations
• intermediary bodies
• community leadership roles

public confidence doesn’t collapse — it just quietly evaporates.

The uncomfortable truth

Sandwell doesn’t have a voluntary sector problem.

It has a power concentration problem.

Too much influence.
Too few hands.
Too close to the political centre.

And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Next:

Part 3 – Follow the Silence

Because when the same questions keep not getting answered, that’s not accidental either.

🕷️ Stay tuned.

#FollowThePower #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #LocalPolitics #PoliticalInfluence #Governance #Transparency #PublicMoney #VoluntarySector #CommunityFunding #Accountability #PowerStructures #BehindTheScenes

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available documentation, including Companies House filings and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council financial data.

All commentary represents opinion, analysis and satire, written in the public interest.

No allegations of wrongdoing are made against any individual or organisation.

Readers are encouraged to verify all information independently using original source documents.

Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector

Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector.

You know that phrase “the voluntary and community sector”?

The one that conjures up images of plucky volunteers, borrowed kettles and heroic biscuit tins?

Well… let’s talk about what it actually looks like in Sandwell when you follow the money.

Spoiler alert: it’s not the church hall raffle.

Once upon a time, there was a Consortium…

At the centre of Sandwell’s community-funding universe sits Sandwell Consortium CIC — an organisation that markets itself as a helpful co-ordinator, facilitator, enabler and general good egg.

In practice, it now looks suspiciously like a parallel commissioning arm of the Council, only without elections, scrutiny committees, or awkward things like public accountability.

Over just two financial years:

• 2022/23: ~£759,000
• 2023/24: £901,893

That’s over £1.66 million of public money.

Not for filling potholes.
Not for cutting grass.
Not even for directly delivering most frontline services.

But for… support.
And coordination.
And advice.
And other wonderfully flexible words that can mean absolutely anything you want them to.

But wait — it gets better

Sandwell Consortium doesn’t sit alone at the top of the money tree.

Look a little wider and you find the same familiar names cropping up again and again:

• SCVO
• Citizens Advice
• Black Country Women’s Aid
• Brushstrokes
• Murray Hall
• Kaleidoscope
• Ideal for All
• St Albans
• And a growing cast of “infrastructure” bodies

Different logos.
Different mission statements.
Same small club.
Same revolving door of six-figure grants.

This isn’t diversity of provision — it’s concentration of funding, year after year.

Now let’s add politics to the mix (because of course we should)

Here’s where things become… interesting.

Sandwell Consortium’s history and operation are not politically neutral. Over time, it has been closely intertwined with people who:

• Sit (or have sat) in Cabinet
• Shape funding frameworks
• Influence partnership structures
• Oversee the very grant systems that benefit Consortium-linked organisations

Entirely declared. Entirely “within the rules”.

But if this were the private sector, people would be muttering words like “capture” and “cosy arrangements” into their coffee.

In Sandwell, it’s called partnership working.

The red flags aren’t exactly subtle

When you actually read the grant spreadsheets — line by line, payment by payment — Sandwell Consortium lights up like a Christmas tree:

• Very high total funding
• Multiple large payments
• Repeated payments in the same periods
• Near-identical descriptions reused again and again
• Money coming in from several different directorates
• Very little publicly visible performance reporting

In fact, when scored against standard transparency and risk indicators, it sits right at the top alongside other “too big to question” organisations.

At some point, a charity receiving this level of funding stops looking like voluntary sector support and starts looking like an outsourced council department with a nicer website.

And meanwhile, the rest of the sector is told to be grateful

Small groups are encouraged to “engage”.
New organisations are advised to “partner up”.
Communities are reminded to go through the “proper channels”.

Translation:
If you’re not already inside the ecosystem, good luck getting in.

Because when millions are locked into a tight network of “trusted partners”, there isn’t much left — except consultation exercises, pilot schemes, and photos for the annual report.

This isn’t about one organisation

Let’s be clear: this is not about whether Sandwell Consortium (or any other named organisation) does some good work. Many do.

This is about system design.

A system where:

• Intermediaries are paid millions to manage grants
• The same intermediaries sit at the centre of political influence
• Cabinet Members are embedded in recipient organisations
• Scrutiny is weak
• Outcomes are vague
• Accountability is blurred

All wrapped up in the warm, comforting language of community, co-production and partnership.

Lovely words.
Awful governance.

The question Sandwell should be asking

Not:
“Is the Consortium doing good things?”

But:

Why has so much public money, influence and decision-making power been concentrated in the hands of so few organisations, so close to the political centre of the Council?

Because when you follow the money, you don’t find chaos.
You find structure.
And when you follow the structure, you find power.

Next up: mapping the spider’s web — names, money, roles and relationships — all in one place.

Stay tuned. 🕷️

#FollowTheMoney #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #VoluntarySector #PublicMoney #Governance #Transparency #PoliticalInfluence #CommunityFunding #Consortium #Accountability #LocalPolitics #TaxpayersMoney #PowerAndMoney

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available information, including Companies House filings and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council financial data.

All commentary represents opinion, analysis and satire, written in the public interest.

No allegations of wrongdoing are made against any individual or organisation.

Readers are encouraged to verify all financial information independently using original source documents.

“Sandwell Council: Another Evening in Wonderland (Bring Your Own Popcorn)”

🎭 WELCOME TO SANDWELL COUNCIL — WHERE ACCOUNTABILITY GOES TO DIE AND COMMON SENSE TAKES A PERSONAL DAY

Two meetings tonight:

One at 6pm.

One at 6:15pm.

Double feature.

Sadly, neither was the thrilling sequel to “Council Actually Does Its Job.”

Let’s walk through the highlights — and by highlights, I obviously mean low-lights so dim they should come with a torch.

🚫 1. Half the Council Didn’t Bother Turning Up

A considerable number of councillors were absent.

Were they:

Christmas shopping?

Stuck in traffic?

Hiding from the rent rise vote?

Or just allergic to scrutiny?

Who knows.

But democracy works best when your elected representatives actually attend the meetings.

Minor detail.

🤝 2. Declarations of Interest? NONE. Yet everyone knows everyone.

Tonight, councillors queued up to tell us how much they adored, admired, worked with, grew up around, or spiritually bonded with the Freeman nominees.

“Known him 30 years.”

“He mentored me.”

“Our families go way back.”

“He’s basically the Godfather of Smethwick.”

Declarations of interest?

ZERO.

Apparently, Sandwell has invented Schrödinger’s Conflict of Interest — it exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.

📺 3. Mayor Loses Script — Webcast Paused — Slides Hidden — Transparency Optional

At the Full Council meeting, the Mayor misplaced his script, panicked, paused the meeting, and the webcast went black.

When it resumed, councillors saw slides the public did not.

Democracy in Sandwell now comes with deleted scenes.

And yes — this is the same Mayor with a conviction for assault presiding over a debate on violence.

You couldn’t make it up.

🙅‍♂️ 4. Public Participation: Terminated With Extreme Prejudice

No public statements.

Not because residents don’t care —

because the constitution has been redesigned to make sure they can’t participate.

It’s like building a town hall… and then barricading the doors.

❓ 5. Questions Answered With… Even More Questions

Hardship fund data?

“Er… we’ll look at it.”

Garden waste subscriptions?

“Er… numbers… somewhere.”

£19 million budget gap?

muffled paper rustling

“Er… let’s read the script.”

Dudley Port transport status?

“We are the ‘junior partner’.”

Translation:

“We have no idea. But we hope someone else does.”

🏘️ 6. Rent Rise Passed — Opposition Kicks Back

A Conservative opposition councillor did the unthinkable:

actually stood up for residents.

Refused to vote for the rent rise.

Asked good questions.

Pointed out that communication is terrible.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet still couldn’t explain what improvements tenants would see.

Rent rise passed anyway.

Naturally.

🚦 7. Traffic-Light Debate System: The New Anti-Democracy Toolset

Councillors were cut off mid-sentence by the Mayor’s little red light.

Apparently:

Explaining a complex housing policy = too long

Reciting a random inspirational quote = perfectly fine

Debate in Sandwell now operates like a school talent show with a grumpy judge.

🕳️ 8. Safe Borough Motion Completely Avoids CSE, Grooming Gangs, Rape

The motion about Violence Against Women and Girls managed to discuss:

Andrew Tate

Hate crime

Discrimination

“Allyship”

But completely forgot:

Child Sexual Exploitation

Grooming gangs

Rape of minors

Safeguarding failures

Every major national review

The victims in Sandwell and the region

This wasn't a debate.

It was a public relations massage — avoiding the most painful truth.

And while Andrew Tate was mentioned multiple times…the likes of Ali Dawah, Mohammed Hijab, or other online misogynists were conveniently omitted.

Curious, isn’t it?

Motion passed unanimously, naturally.

When you avoid the difficult bits, everyone agrees.

🔇 9. Universal Credit Debate Shut Down Mid-Flow

A procedural move was pulled like a rabbit from a hat to stop debate.

Even councillors looked confused.

Public watching probably thought the livestream had glitched again.

Nothing says “we care” quite like cutting off discussion about vulnerable residents.

🧳 10. Small Business Motion: All Sentiment, Zero Substance

Councillors praised small businesses (lovely),

but didn’t discuss:

business rates

crime

empty units

economic decline

Because who needs facts when you’ve got warm feelings?

Passed unanimously.

Job done.

Move along.

🎤 11. Meeting Ends With… BUFFIT

The Mayor wrapped up:

No “Merry Christmas”

No festive warmth

Just:

“You’re all welcome to a BUFFIT… I mean buffet.”

Honestly, it was the most unintentionally symbolic moment of the evening:

Disorganised.

Awkward.

Unclear.

And somehow still technically “the end.”

⭐ THE VERDICT

Tonight, Sandwell Council delivered:

Low attendance

Zero transparency

No public voice

Avoided questions

Avoided safeguarding truths

Rushed votes

Confusing procedures

Reduced debate

Unchallenged motions

And absolutely no Merry Christmas

If local democracy were a car, Sandwell’s would be:

🔥 Missing a wheel

🔥 Leaking oil

🔥 No headlights

🔥 Steering via traffic light

🔥 And the Mayor holding the map upside down

Residents deserve so much better than this.

#Sandwell #LocalGov #CSE #CouncilWatch #Democracy #VAWG #ResidentsMatter #Transparency #BuffitGate

Friar Park Millennium Centre, FPUV & The Levelling Up Machine: Who’s Really Being Levelled Up?

Friar Park’s New Gold Rush: Who Really Benefits?

You’d think Friar Park was about to become Monaco the way the PR machine is churning out glossy photos of diggers, hi-vis jackets and grinning councillors.
But behind the staged “community hub” narrative sits a very different story — one of political control, financial dependency, strategic opportunism and a breathtaking lack of transparency.

The Friar Park Millennium Centre (FPMC) is legally supposed to be non-political.
In reality, it has been welded so tightly to the Sandwell Labour machine you’d need industrial bolt cutters to separate them.

And now, with Friar Park Urban Village (FPUV) and the Wednesbury Levelling Up Partnership (WLUP) throwing millions around, the stakes are higher than ever — and so are the conflicts.

The Community Isn’t Buying It — FPUV Is Already Being Challenged

Let’s get this in early, because it matters:

The FPUV scheme is being challenged by residents AND by organised community campaigners.

Why?

Because:

• The consultation was threadbare
• Key information was withheld
• Residents were treated as an afterthought
• Environmental, access and safety concerns were brushed aside
• And the whole thing feels very much like a decision made behind closed doors long before the public were let in on it

So no — this is not a regeneration plan “backed by the community”.
It’s a regeneration plan being pushed at the community, and people are pushing back.

The Political Network Running the Millennium Centre

Let’s stop pretending FPMC is some neutral village hall.

For around 20 years it has been a political clubhouse for the same Labour network:

Cllr Simon Hackett

• Company Secretary (2004–2010)
• Director (2010–2024)
• Still a Charity Trustee today
• Holds political surgeries inside the building
• Tightly connected to the new Labour MP

The much-publicised “resignation” in 2024 was nothing but a paperwork shuffle.
He never left.
He simply moved seats.

Former Mayor Roy Handley MBE

A longstanding director and political ally.

A pipeline of Labour-friendly community operators

Always connected. Always revolving. Always in place.

This is not “community governance”.
This is institutional capture.

Follow the Money — It Always Tells the Truth

FPMC’s accounts show:

• Heavy dependency on public grants
• Payments from the Council and Police
• A building owned by the Council, but financially benefiting the charity
• A service-delivery footprint aligned with political interests
• Hundreds of thousands flowing annually

And then comes the headline:

**£2 Million of Levelling Up Cash

directly into a building controlled by political associates.**

This isn’t a community uplift.
It’s a community upgrade — for a select few.

WLUP: The Board That Controls the Money — And the Vanishing Chair

Welcome to the Wednesbury Levelling Up Partnership Board, where £20 million of public money is being allocated.

Originally chaired by Maria Jardine, a supposed “independent community voice”, she then mysteriously:

• disappeared from the membership list
• vanished from meeting minutes
• was replaced by Kallianne Titley
• all without a single public explanation

No statement.
No accountability.
No transparency.

Because why tell the public anything when you can just quietly reshuffle the deck?

Meanwhile, the Board now includes:

• Cllr Peter Hughes (Regeneration portfolio holder)
• Antonia Bance MP
• A trustee linked to the Centre
• A clutch of Labour councillors

Yes — the same people who benefit politically from FPMC’s expansion are the same people overseeing its funding.

But apparently this triggers zero declarations of interest.

Declarations of Interest: A Masterclass in Selective Amnesia

If you read the WLUP minutes, you’ll see something remarkable:

Almost no declarations of interest exist — despite mountains of conflicts.

A politically connected charity receiving millions?
No conflict.

Trustees sitting on the Board funding the building they oversee?
No conflict.

The MP sitting on a board steering money into a centre used as a Labour surgeries venue?
No conflict.

It’s magic.
Or, more accurately: it’s Sandwell.

The Quiet Operator: Anam Choudhury

Between 2017–2019, governance at FPMC was shaped by:

• Anamur (Anam) Choudhury
• Company Secretary
• Person With Significant Control
• Part of a familiar regeneration and community funding network

His presence highlights that the real action often happens off-stage, away from minutes and accountability.

NEW: The MP’s Misleading Letter — And Her Silence Since

This part is astonishing even by Sandwell standards.

After a meeting about the FPUV proposals, Antonia Bance MP sent representative a letter that:

• omitted key information
• misrepresented the nature of the meeting
• failed to address fundamental objections
• and raised more questions than answers

Residents wrote back asking her to clarify the inaccuracies.

She has not responded.
Not a word.

For an MP elected on promises of transparency, this silence is deafening — and telling.

What The Sandwell Skidder Has Already Reported

The independent Sandwell Skidder blog has, for years, documented:

• opaque building-use agreements
• questionable grant processes
• alleged misconduct by councillors
• a serious data-breach and housing controversy involving Hackett
• repeated failures of internal investigations
• the political capture of community assets

Whether every allegation was upheld is irrelevant.
The pattern is undeniable.

And that pattern is now resurfacing through WLUP and FPUV.

Why This All Matters (And Why Residents Shouldn’t Stay Silent)

Friar Park deserves regeneration that is:

• transparent
• fair
• competitive
• inclusive
• honest

What we’re getting instead is:

• a contested housing scheme
• selective consultations
• political control of community assets
• millions funnelled into one Labour-aligned hub
• a reshuffled WLUP board with no justification
• weak governance
• and an MP who won’t answer basic questions

This is not Levelling Up.
This is Levelling Over the residents who were supposed to be at the heart of it.

Questions Sandwell Council, WLUP and the MP Must Answer

1. Why was the WLUP Chair changed in secret?
2. Where are the full declarations of interest?
3. Why does a supposedly non-political charity host Labour surgeries?
4. Why is £2m going into one favoured building while other groups get nothing?
5. Why has Antonia Bance MP failed to answer questions about her misleading letter?
6. Why must residents challenge FPUV themselves?
7. Will the Council invite external scrutiny of WLUP and FPMC governance?

Until these questions are answered:

Residents are right to distrust this entire regeneration programme.

#Sandwell #FriarPark #MillenniumCentre #FPUV #LevellingUp #Wednesbury #WLUP #Governance #Transparency #PoliticalAccountability #Regeneration #SandwellLabour #CharityGovernance #CommunityCampaigners

See: Legal Notice and Disclaimer 

Swept Under the Rug: Labour’s Motion on Women & Girls Is a Study in Hypocrisy and Avoidance

🧹 Swept Under the Rug: Labour’s Motion on Women & Girls Is a Study in Hypocrisy and Avoidance

Tonight, Sandwell Council will debate a Labour motion claiming to “make Sandwell a safe borough for women and girls.”

And tonight — with depressing predictability — Labour will once again refuse to name the crimes that actually devastated girls in towns just like ours.

Not a single reference to:

Child Sexual Exploitation

Grooming gangs

Organised rape of minors

Historic multi-agency failures

National safeguarding inquiries or findings

Instead, we get white ribbons, awareness campaigns and all the usual PR packaging that looks good on leaflets but avoids the uncomfortable truth.

This isn’t leadership.

It’s stage-managed political theatre.

🔥 The Core Hypocrisy: Labour Rejected a National Inquiry

Earlier this year, Sandwell Labour councillors voted against supporting a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

Read that again.

The very inquiry designed to expose failings, uncover the truth and finally deliver justice for survivors — Labour rejected it.

And now they want applause for a motion that pretends to protect girls while refusing to even mention the abuse that shaped national safeguarding reform for over a decade.

This is cowardice masquerading as concern.

This is hypocrisy wrapped in PR.

🧾 What Labour’s Motion Includes (All the Safe Stuff)

The motion lists:

domestic abuse

harassment

coercive control

forced marriage

hate crime

male allyship charters

intersectionality workshops

16 Days of Action branding

All valid topics.

All politically convenient.

All risk-free.

What’s missing?

Only the one thing that actually matters if you are sincere about protecting girls.

❌ What Labour Deliberately Leaves Out

No mention of:

CSE

grooming

trafficking

rape of minors

Jay Report

Casey Review

IICSA

survivor testimonies

learning from past failings

accountability

transparency

This isn’t an oversight.

This is strategy.

If you name CSE, you must address your own failures.

If you address failures, you must accept responsibility.

If you accept responsibility, your PR narrative collapses.

So instead?

You sweep it under the political carpet.

Literally — as the meme below illustrates.

📣 The Leader’s Facebook Response Was Worse

When challenged, the Labour Leader replied:

> “There are too many different acts of violence and abuse to list every single one — the motion is all-encompassing.”

This is not an answer.

This is the exact evasive language condemned in every major safeguarding report.

Jay. Casey. IICSA.

All of them warned:

> Councils failed victims because they refused to name CSE explicitly.

If your motion were truly “all-encompassing,” you would not fear the words:

Child Sexual Exploitation. Grooming. Rape of minors.

The avoidance is deliberate, calculated and cowardly.

🚨 Labour’s Motion Protects the Council — Not the Child

This motion avoids:

accountability

inquiry

transparency

naming the harm

acknowledging survivors

facing past failures

Because those things aren’t politically comfortable.

Instead, we get the usual soft-focus PR:

allyship charters

training sessions

white ribbon pledges

feel-good awareness projects

All style, no substance.

All performance, no courage.

It’s not about safety.

It’s about safeguarding the Labour Group’s reputation, not safeguarding girls.

🎯 Final Verdict

Labour’s motion is:

Sanitised

Politically safe

Strategically evasive

Morally underpowered

Safeguarding-illiterate

Hypocritical given their vote against the national inquiry

A betrayal of survivors

A Council that cannot say the words Child Sexual Exploitation

cannot claim to stand with girls.

And a party that sweeps CSE under the rug does not deserve to lead the conversation on women’s and girls’ safety.

#Sandwell #CSE #VAWG #Safeguarding #Accountability #GroomingGangs #JayReport #CaseyReview #PoliticalHypocrisy #LabourCouncil #ResidentsVoice

Sandwell’s Funding Mystery Machine: Scooby-Doo Meets the Consortium

Sandwell’s Funding Mystery Machine: Scooby-Doo Meets the Consortium

If you’ve ever wondered what happens when public money, political convenience, and a voluntary-sector “ecosystem” get thrown together in a blender, welcome to Sandwell — where transparency goes to die and paperwork goes to hide under the nearest Cabinet report.

And if you haven’t wondered:

That’s fine too, the Council tends to prefer it that way.

“And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those pesky KPIs!”

Let’s begin with the headline act:

Sandwell Consortium CIC — the Council’s most expensive mystery box.

Over £1.66 million channelled through it in two years and:

• No KPIs - Key Performance Indicators 
• No outputs
• No measurable results
• Duplicate funding descriptions
• Councillor-linked organisations woven throughout
• And governance held together by one individual director

Honestly, it’s almost artistic at this point. Abstract governance.

Meanwhile in Tipton… BWA’s bank balance sparkles like a dragon’s hoard

The Bangladeshi Women’s Association — though not a major direct recipient of Council grants — operates two community centres and still manages to maintain:

£328,873 in cash

£322,465 in total reserves

Who knew community work could be so… liquid?

And while they operate across two separate Tipton sites, their accounts provide zero centre-level breakdown.
It’s like “Guess Who?” but with financial reporting.

• Does Jubilee Park cost more?
• Does Tipton Muslim Community Centre cost less?
• Is one subsidising the other?

We don’t know.
Because they don’t say.

Plot twist: We asked the CEO… and the questions weren’t answered

In the spirit of openness, transparency, and general good governance, reasonable questions were put to Cllr Khatun, BWA’s CEO.

And in the spirit of Sandwell’s traditional response to oversight:

• The questions were not answered
• No information was provided
• The silence was so complete it could be used as soundproofing

Nothing says “confidence-building governance” like unanswered questions.

Back to the Consortium: where sunlight fears to shine

As a reminder:

• £1.66 million given
• No KPIs
• No published outcomes
• No commissioning rationale
• Councillor-linked organisations on the board
• A former senior council officer as the sole individual director

It's like someone tried to build a governance model using a Ouija board.

Follow the Money? Follow the Guesswork.

Trying to understand Sandwell’s funding flows is like trying to assemble flat-pack furniture without instructions:

• You’re definitely missing pieces
• Something’s upside down
• Someone insists it’s “fine”
• And by the end you’ve lost all faith in humanity

Updated List of Reasonable Questions Sandwell Residents Might Ask

1. Why are six-figure grants being issued without KPIs or impact reporting?
2. Why is a single individual director overseeing a multi-million-pound funding gateway?
3. Why is BWA holding £328k cash while providing no centre-level accounts?
4. Why do councillors connected to the ecosystem take part in shaping the funding environment?
5. Why did the CEO of BWA not answer the questions that were put to her?
6. Why is competitive commissioning avoided like radioactive waste?

The uncomfortable conclusion…

Sandwell’s voluntary-sector funding system isn’t an accident.
It’s a design:

• opaque
• interconnected
• conflict-prone
• unmeasured
• and largely unscrutinised

If this were an episode of Scooby-Doo, the unmasking would reveal:

“We’d have gotten away with it too, if people didn’t insist on asking basic questions.”

#Sandwell #Transparency #LocalGov #Governance #PublicMoney #Scrutiny #PoliticalAccountability #Tipton #CommunityFunding

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available documentation including Companies House filings and SMBC financial data.

All commentary is opinion, analysis and satire made in the public interest.

No allegations of wrongdoing are made.
Readers are encouraged to verify all financial information using original source documents.

Sandwell’s Three MPs: London Living, Landlords, Lobbyists & The Skidder Files – A Foundation Document for Accountability

Sandwell’s Three MPs: London Living, Landlords, Lobbyists & The Skidder Files – A Foundation Document for Accountability

A deep dive into Antonia Bance, Sarah Coombes and Gurinder Singh Josan – their homes, donors, voting habits, and what the Sandwell Skidder has been shouting from the rooftops.

Sandwell Council, MPs, Antonia Bance, Sarah Coombes, Gurinder Singh Josan, Governance, Accountability, Labour Party, Sandwell Skidder, Political Analysis, FOI, Oversight 

SANDWELL’S THREE MPS: A FOUNDATION FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Sandwell now has three shiny, well-packaged Labour MPs representing three of the most deprived areas in the country. What we don’t have is clarity about where they live, who funds them, and what they actually do for the people trapped between Tipton’s housing failures, West Bromwich’s broken systems, and Smethwick’s endless governance sagas.

This post brings every thread into one place: residency, money, voting records, transparency, and a special “Skidder Says” section for those who enjoy Sandwell’s longest-running political soap opera.

So let’s begin.

1. ANTONIA BANCE MP – TIPTON, WEDNESBURY & COSELEY

1.1 Where does she actually live?

Short answer: not here.

There is no public evidence that Antonia Bance lives in Sandwell, Dudley or anywhere inside the constituency.

Her only confirmed base is a constituency office in Wednesbury — an office, not a home.

Her only known “home” reference comes from a foreign-language bio placing her in Bexley, London.

No local property.

No local tenancy.

No trace.

A London-based MP parachuted into the Black Country? Absolutely.

1.2 Register of Interests

She owns no property in Sandwell or anywhere else in the Midlands.

She claims London accommodation expenses, as expected for an MP who actually lives in London.

No rental income, no land interests, nothing locally rooted.

1.3 Voting record

A perfect demonstration of Labour whip loyalty:

Voted for the Border Security Bill

Voted against an elected House of Lords (because who needs democracy?)

Voted for nationalising teacher pay for academies

Voted against assisted dying

Voted for tenants’ rights (though she’s said nothing about Sandwell’s housing failures)

Not a single sign of independence or Sandwell-first thinking.

1.4 Local accountability

She has never publicly challenged:

Sandwell Council governance failures

FOI culture

Safeguarding scandals

Housing failures

Commissioner interventions

Audit suppression

Planning controversies

She keeps her head down and her mouth shut.

Sandwell gets silence; Westminster gets obedience.

2. SARAH COOMBES MP – WEST BROMWICH

2.1 Where does she live?

Official line: “lives in West Bromwich.”

Evidence: none although heresay of rental in West Bromwich. 

What is verifiable:

She owns a London flat from which she earned rental income until late 2025.

She owns no property in West Bromwich or Sandwell.

So yes, another London landlord representing one of the poorest towns in Britain.

2.2 Donations, lobbyists and influence networks

Her campaign was showered with money:

Big-ticket individual donors

Union money

Arden Strategies-linked fundraising

Private healthcare-related donations flagged by EveryDoctor

Nothing illegal. Everything political.

A picture emerges: highly funded, highly influenced, newly installed.

2.3 Voting record – where it bites

Against the backdrop of West Bromwich’s poverty:

Voted to means-test winter fuel payments

Voted for bank surveillance of welfare claimants

Voted for cuts to disability payment structures

Voted for the Border Security Bill

Voted for assisted dying

Perfect score for Labour HQ; terrible for local pensioners, disabled residents and low-income families.

2.4 Hospitality & freebies

She has declared:

Wimbledon hospitality

BRIT Awards hospitality

An overseas trip to Jordan

Lovely treats.

Meanwhile, West Bromwich residents are lucky to afford the bus.

3. GURINDER SINGH JOSAN MP – SMETHWICK

3.1 Local roots – and local holdings

Unlike the others, Josan is from here — Smethwick born and raised.

But he also happens to be one of the largest landlords in Parliament, owning:

Multiple residential properties

Commercial holdings

His own property company (Josan Estates Ltd)

A fascinating combination when representing a borough with catastrophic housing issues.

3.2 Policing & governance background

Historically:

Member of the West Midlands Strategic Policing & Crime Board

Not on any local IAG although this is being disputed as is his influence on the independent nature of the group.

Extensive governance roles (NEC, academy trusts, HOPE not Hate)

Currently:

No public evidence he still holds any policing governance role.

3.3 Voting record

Predictably Loyalist:

Strong law-and-order rhetoric

No whip rebellions

Watch closely when the Renters Reform agenda arrives — landlord MPs often grow strangely quiet.

3.4 THE SKIDDER SAYS – Allegations, Claims & Colourful Commentary

This section summarises what The Sandwell Skidder has published over the years.

These are allegations, not established facts.

But they are widely read and politically influential around Sandwell.

A. Spellar & Watson’s “fixer”

Skidder routinely describes Josan as the long-serving fixer for John Spellar and Tom Watson — a loyal enforcer for the old Warley machine.

B. The 2017 ‘dossier politics’

According to Skidder:

Josan met him privately

Provided documents targeting Cllr Mahboob Hussain

Was part of a coordinated factional operation

The infamous 72-page dossier still hangs over local Labour history.

C. The ‘Sikh candidate bloc’ story

Skidder alleges Josan and others orchestrated a slate of Sikh Labour candidates, framing it as a “takeover.”

Highly contested, but it appears repeatedly on the blog.

D. The Rajbir Singh leadership saga

Skidder claims:

Starmer, Spellar and Josan helped install Rajbir Singh as council leader

Singh was a “puppet” for unelected figures behind the scenes

One of Sandwell’s shortest-lived leadership episodes, but Skidder insists Josan was integral to it.

E. Chance Glass & A1 Skip Hire

This is one of Skidder’s enduring themes:

He alleges “murky” connections between Josan and operators at the Chance Glass site

Claims personal involvement in skip-site disputes

Describes land deals and support as “deeply questionable”

No documentary evidence published — but this line has been consistent for years.

F. Defending Sandwell Labour

Skidder reports that Josan pushed the narrative that commissioners and interventions were “just Tory politics.”

A line inconsistent with official reports documenting catastrophic governance failings.

4. CROSS-MP ANALYSIS

Category Bance Coombes Josan

Lives locally? No evidence No evidence Yes (background)

Owns local property? No No Yes – lots

Donor/lobby links Limited Significant Moderate/unclear

Voting independence 0% 0% 0%

Governance interventions None None None

Major vulnerabilities Residency, silence London landlord, donors, votes Landlordism, Skidder allegations

5. WHAT SANDWELL DESERVES TO ASK

Where do our MPs actually live?

Whose interests do they represent?

Why are none of them publicly challenging Sandwell’s broken systems?

How have three MPs delivered no local governance accountability whatsoever?

Why do external blogs like Skidder do more investigative work on Sandwell than our elected representatives?