When Nobody Is Accountable: How Safeguarding Failure Becomes the Default Setting

The most damaging feature of Britain’s safeguarding failures is not the absence of law, guidance, or inquiry. It is the absence of accountability when those systems are ignored.

Across grooming gangs, forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), radicalisation, and the operation of informal dispute mechanisms, the same reality persists: institutions can fail repeatedly without consequence.

This is not a secondary issue. It is the reason these failures continue.

Safeguarding Without Consequences Is Not Safeguarding

Over the past two decades, Parliament has acted again and again. Crimes have been defined. Duties imposed. Reporting requirements strengthened. Reviews commissioned.

What has not followed is a matching system of consequences for non-action.

When police fail to act on intelligence.
When councils ignore safeguarding warnings.
When agencies defer enforcement for fear of controversy.

Nothing happens to those responsible.

The system absorbs failure and moves on.

Grooming Gangs: Failure That Carried No Penalty

In the grooming gang cases, the crimes were already illegal. The powers already existed. The warnings were already there.

What did not exist was personal or institutional consequence for choosing not to act.

Senior officers kept their positions. Councils issued apologies. Lessons were “learned”. Careers largely continued.

The message to the system was unmistakable:
delay carries less risk than intervention.

That lesson has been internalised ever since.

FGM and Forced Marriage: Risk Known, Responsibility Dissolved

FGM has been criminalised for decades. Forced marriage is a criminal offence. Mandatory reporting duties exist.

Yet enforcement depends on disclosure within environments where disclosure is actively suppressed.

When cases are missed, delayed, or quietly closed, responsibility does not land anywhere concrete. It disperses across agencies, professionals, thresholds, and procedures.

No single decision-maker is held accountable for inaction. And so inaction becomes the safest option.

Informal Authority, No Formal Oversight

Sharia councils and other informal mechanisms persist not because the state endorses them, but because the state refuses to regulate or confront them.

When women are diverted away from civil courts, when domestic abuse is handled informally, when legal rights are obscured, there is no sanction for the institutions that looked the other way.

The absence of oversight is not neutral.
It is a choice — and one that carries no penalty.

Prevent: A System That Can Close Its Eyes

Prevent was designed as an early-intervention programme. Reviews have acknowledged drift, inconsistency and weak follow-up.

But again, the core problem is not design alone — it is that failure carries no consequence.

Cases can be closed prematurely. Thresholds can be misapplied. Warnings can be minimised.

When harm follows, responsibility evaporates into process.

How the System Protects Itself

Safeguarding failure persists because the system is structured to protect institutions, not outcomes.

• Reviews focus on process, not responsibility
• Apologies replace sanctions
• Reform is promised, then diluted
• Accountability is collective, never personal

This creates a culture where not acting is safer than acting.

The most dangerous decision becomes the easiest one to make.

Why This Is Not an Accident

A system that never penalises failure will produce more of it.

As long as:

• no one loses their job for ignoring risk
• no organisation faces sanction for delay
• no regulator enforces consequences

safeguarding will remain optional in practice.

What Accountability Would Actually Look Like

Real safeguarding requires more than law and guidance. It requires:

• named responsibility for decisions
• enforceable duties, not aspirational ones
• consequences for repeated failure
• independent oversight with powers, not recommendations

Without this, every future inquiry is already written.

The Question We Keep Avoiding

Safeguarding failures are always followed by the same question:

“How did this happen?”

The more uncomfortable question is the one rarely asked:

Why did nobody pay a price for allowing it to happen?

Until that question is confronted, the cycle will continue — and the most vulnerable will remain unprotected, not because the law is weak, but because accountability is absent.

#Safeguarding #Accountability #InstitutionalFailure #RuleOfLaw #GroomingGangs #FGM #ForcedMarriage #Prevent #PublicProtection #Justice

Imogen Walker Appointment, Morgan McSweeney, and Governance at Sandwell Council - an open letter to the Sandwell Council Leader

Dear Leader of Sandwell Council,

I am writing to you directly because the issues surrounding the appointment of Imogen Walker as Interim Head of the Leader’s Office at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council can no longer be dismissed as historic, speculative, or “local noise”.

The context has fundamentally changed.

Since concerns were first raised about that appointment, Morgan McSweeney — Ms Walker’s husband and a central figure in Labour’s national organisation — has now resigned as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister following a series of serious national scandals involving political finance transparency, the targeting of journalists, failures of judgement over senior appointments, and a growing crisis of trust.

Against that backdrop, it is no longer acceptable for Sandwell Council to remain silent about how it governed itself during a period of instability and external scrutiny.

I therefore ask you, as Leader of Sandwell Council, to address the following matters clearly and on the public record.

First, who authorised the creation of the Interim Head of the Leader’s Office role, on what date, and under which specific constitutional or delegated power?

Second, what recruitment process was undertaken for this role? In particular, where are the job description, any advertisement, shortlist, interview notes, and scoring records that would normally accompany a senior appointment of this nature?

Third, why have Freedom of Information responses indicated that key records relating to this appointment are “not held or could not be located”? Was a proper decision-making and record-keeping process followed, yes or no?

Fourth, what consideration was given to conflicts of interest arising from Morgan McSweeney’s national role within the Labour Party at the time of the appointment? What steps were taken to identify, manage, or mitigate any such conflicts?

Fifth, what role, if any, did Mr McSweeney play — directly or indirectly — in discussions, recommendations, or decisions relating to this appointment?

Finally, in light of Mr McSweeney’s resignation and the wider national pattern that has since emerged, do you still maintain that the council’s handling of this appointment met acceptable standards of governance, transparency, and accountability? If so, on what documented basis?

These are not hostile questions. They are basic accountability questions that any local authority — particularly one with Sandwell’s recent governance history — should be able to answer without difficulty.

For several years, those raising concerns were told to stop asking questions. Recent national events demonstrate why those questions were not unreasonable.

Silence at this stage is no longer a neutral position. It is a political choice.

Sandwell residents deserve clarity on whether their council was vulnerable to external political influence, whether proper processes were followed, and whether lessons have been learned or ignored.

I would welcome a clear, substantive response.

Yours sincerely,

Darryl Magher

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #GovernanceFailure #TransparencyNow #Accountability #Cronyism #PoliticalAppointments #FollowThePaperTrail #FOI #PublicInterest #LocalGovernment #LabourParty #QuestionsRemain #OpenTheRecords

From Sandwell to Downing Street: The Imogen Walker Appointment, Morgan McSweeney’s Shadow, and Why Keir Starmer Has Lost All Credibility

UPDATE 

Since this article was first drafted, Morgan McSweeney has **resigned as Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer following a series of national scandals involving undeclared political donations, the targeting of journalists, catastrophic judgement over senior appointments, and growing pressure from MPs, journalists, and the public.

This development fundamentally changes the context in which Imogen Walker’s appointment at Sandwell Council must now be viewed.

What was previously dismissed as “local noise” now sits within a clear national pattern of behaviour involving McSweeney’s influence, opaque decision-making, and a disregard for transparency.

The questions raised below are therefore more urgent, not less.

From Sandwell to Downing Street: The Imogen Walker Appointment, Morgan McSweeney’s Shadow, and Why Keir Starmer Has Lost All Credibility

For years, anyone raising concerns about the appointment of Imogen Walker at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was told to calm down, stop speculating, and accept that everything was perfectly normal.

A routine interim role.
A routine restructure.
Nothing to see here.

Fast-forward to today, and the man at the centre of that story — Morgan McSweeney — has resigned as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister amid a rolling national scandal involving undeclared donations, intimidation of journalists, catastrophic judgement, and a pattern of behaviour that now looks anything but incidental.

Sandwell wasn’t an anomaly.
It was an early warning.

The Sandwell appointment that never added up

Walker’s appointment as Interim Head of the Leader’s Office came during one of the most chaotic periods in Sandwell Council’s recent history. Governance failures, external intervention, commissioners circling — the sort of environment where every senior appointment should have been watertight.

Instead, what we got was:

• no publicly available job advert,
• no visible recruitment process,
• no interview records,
• no clear decision notice,
• no minutes explaining how or why the role was created,
• and FOI responses indicating key records were “not held or could not be located.”

This wasn’t a junior admin post. It was a politically sensitive advisory role sitting directly alongside the council leader, dealing with communications, risk, and reputation.

And yet the paperwork appears to have evaporated.

The McSweeney connection that Sandwell never addressed

At the time of Walker’s appointment, her husband Morgan McSweeney was not some peripheral activist. He was already one of the most powerful organisational figures in Labour, running Labour Together and shaping the party’s internal direction.

No one is claiming that marriage alone proves wrongdoing. But responsible governance would demand heightened transparency, explicit conflict-of-interest consideration, and a clear documentary trail.

Sandwell provided none of that publicly.

Which raises an unavoidable question:
What enquiries did Sandwell Labour leadership make about McSweeney’s role, influence, or proximity to this appointment — if any?

And if none were made, why not?

Patterns that no longer look coincidental

Since the Sandwell appointment, the national picture has deteriorated rapidly:

• Labour Together fined for serious political finance transparency breaches involving hundreds of thousands of pounds.
• A PR firm paid to “investigate” journalists asking legitimate questions.
• Senior MPs demanding inquiries.
• The National Union of Journalists condemning Labour’s actions.
• McSweeney at the centre of the disastrous Mandelson appointment — despite clear reputational red flags.
• Epstein-related revelations detonating at the heart of government decision-making.
• And finally, McSweeney’s resignation as Downing Street Chief of Staff.

Seen in isolation, each scandal might be waved away. Seen together, they form a pattern: control, opacity, factional loyalty, and contempt for scrutiny.

That pattern looks uncomfortably familiar to anyone who watched what happened in Sandwell.

Questions Sandwell Labour must now answer

Given what is now known, it is no longer acceptable for Sandwell’s Labour leadership to hide behind vague reassurances.

The current Labour leader of Sandwell Council should be asked, plainly and publicly:

• What discussions took place about Imogen Walker’s appointment?
• What role, if any, did Morgan McSweeney have in recommending, facilitating, or influencing that appointment?
• What steps were taken to manage conflicts of interest?
• Why do minutes and decision records appear to be missing?
• And in light of McSweeney’s resignation, does the council still stand by its handling of the appointment?

Silence is no longer neutral. It is political.

Why this leads directly to Starmer

Which brings us to Keir Starmer.

Starmer has built his leadership on the claim that he is the grown-up, the lawyer, the man of due diligence and forensic standards. And yet again and again, he has relied on the judgement of people who have demonstrably failed those tests.

He trusted McSweeney.
He trusted Mandelson.
He ignored warnings.
He downplayed concerns.
He reassured the public — until the facts collapsed underneath him.

At this point, incompetence is no longer a defence.

As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer knows exactly what due diligence looks like. He also knows what happens when you don’t do it. That makes repeated failures of judgement not accidental, but negligent.

A Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth clearly, cannot vet his closest advisers, and cannot explain how decisions were made has forfeited the moral authority to govern.

Conclusion: Sandwell was the canary

Sandwell Council didn’t just have a “local issue.” It exposed a culture — one that has now reached the heart of government.

Jobs appearing without records.
Power operating without accountability.
Questions treated as disloyalty.
And trust demanded instead of earned.

Morgan McSweeney’s resignation closes one chapter. But it opens a far bigger one.

And until Sandwell Labour, and Keir Starmer himself, answer the questions they’ve spent years avoiding — none of this is finished.

Sandwell Council, Labour Party, Governance Failure, Political Appointments, Transparency, Cronyism, Accountability, UK Politics

#Sandwell #ImogenWalker #MorganMcSweeney #LabourTogether #GovernanceFailure #Transparency #Cronyism #Accountability #Starmer #PoliticsUK

The Quiet Erosion of the Rule of Law: How Fear, Delay and Parallel Norms Are Failing the Vulnerable

(This article consolidates and updates analysis previously published across several pieces, incorporating further evidence added to a Master Document examining safeguarding, extremism, and institutional failure in the UK.)

This is not an argument about religion, culture, or identity. It is about governance, enforcement, and the consequences of a state that repeatedly hesitates when the law must be applied without fear or favour.

Across multiple policy areas — grooming gangs, Sharia councils, forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), radicalisation and Prevent, and the emergence of fear-driven “no-go” dynamics — the same pattern appears again and again.

The United Kingdom does not lack laws.
It lacks the will to enforce them consistently when doing so is uncomfortable.

A Pattern, Not a Series of Isolated Failures

The scandals exposed in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Telford were not anomalies. Nor were they confined to a single institution or period.

They followed a familiar sequence:

1. Risk is identified early, often locally.
2. Sensitivity and reputational fear take precedence.
3. Enforcement is delayed, softened, or replaced with mediation.
4. Responsibility is fragmented across agencies.
5. Victims disengage or are silenced.
6. Exposure eventually forces an inquiry.
7. “Lessons are learned.”
8. Implementation stalls.
9. The same failure reappears elsewhere.

This is not a failure of knowledge.
It is a systemic failure of governance.

Parallel Norms and the Illusion of Protection

Sharia councils in England and Wales have no legal authority. Governments repeatedly point to this fact as reassurance. It is not.

The Independent Review of Sharia Law (2018) confirmed that:

• women are routinely diverted away from civil courts,
• religious-only (nikah) marriages leave women without legal protections,
• discriminatory practices persist,
• safeguarding is inconsistent or absent.

The review made restrained recommendations: encourage or require civil registration of marriages, improve public awareness of rights, and introduce basic safeguards and oversight.

Most of these recommendations were not implemented.

The result is not the replacement of British law, but something more corrosive: informal social authority overriding access to the law, particularly for women under family or community pressure.

Grooming Gangs: When Delay Becomes Catastrophe

The grooming gang scandals show the cost of institutional hesitation in its starkest form.

Police and councils had intelligence. Victims reported abuse repeatedly. Patterns were visible. Yet action was delayed because of fear — fear of accusations of racism, fear of community backlash, fear of reputational damage.

Those fears did not protect communities.
They protected offenders.

The Jay Report, the Casey Inspection and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) all concluded that delay was not neutral. It multiplied harm. Children were criminalised. Survivors were disbelieved. Abuse continued for years after it was known.

Despite renewed political promises, implementation of inquiry findings remains slow, fragmented and contested. Survivors continue to disengage because trust has not been rebuilt.

Illegality Without Enforcement: FGM and Forced Marriage

Female genital mutilation and forced marriage are criminal offences. Mandatory reporting duties exist. Data is collected. Zero-tolerance statements are routinely issued.

Yet prosecutions remain rare relative to estimated prevalence. Enforcement depends heavily on disclosure within closed environments, while cross-border facilitation and religious-only unions continue to obscure abuse.

Raising the legal age of marriage to 18 was necessary and correct. But religious-only marriages, overseas arrangements and family coercion mean vulnerability persists.

Illegality alone does not protect victims.
Enforcement does.

Radicalisation, Prevent and Institutional Sensitivity

Prevent was designed as an early-intervention programme. Independent reviews have since acknowledged that it drifted from its original purpose, lost ideological clarity, and closed cases prematurely.

Concerns about trust and proportionality are legitimate. But too often they have produced hesitation rather than reform, weakening early-warning systems without replacing them.

Recent revelations that a counter-extremism adviser felt pressured after publicly criticising the lack of focus on Islamism at a Home Office event reinforce this concern. Regardless of intent, the perception of a chilling effect on expert input points to the same institutional instinct: message management over frank assessment.

Early intervention fails when institutions become afraid to name the threat they are tasked with addressing.

“No-Go Zones” and the Reality of Fear

There are no legally designated “no-go zones” in the UK. Police authority remains. The law applies everywhere.

But lived experience tells a more complicated story.

There are places where residents alter behaviour, avoid reporting harassment, change how they dress or move, and quietly withdraw. Long-standing residents relocate. Silence becomes normal.

This is not formal abandonment of the law. It is informal erosion of freedom through fear and social pressure.

When people do not feel safe exercising ordinary freedoms, the rule of law is already weakened — regardless of official assurances.

Why Denial Always Deepens the Harm

Each time legitimate concerns are dismissed as exaggeration or bad faith, the same outcome follows: harm accumulates, victims disengage, and eventual exposure becomes more damaging.

This pattern has repeated across safeguarding, extremism and community harm for decades. Inquiries arrive only after the damage is undeniable. Implementation then lags behind recognition.

The Choice the State Keeps Making

This is not about intolerance.
It is about equal access to justice.

The state cannot selectively enforce safeguarding.
It cannot subcontract protection to informal authority.
It cannot prioritise comfort over accountability.

Where enforcement is delayed for fear of controversy, harm fills the gap.

The law rarely collapses overnight.
It erodes quietly — through avoidance, fragmentation and delay.

The question is no longer whether this pattern exists. It is how long it will be tolerated, and how many more will be failed before it is confronted.

#RuleOfLaw #Safeguarding #InstitutionalFailure #GroomingGangs #ShariaCouncils #ForcedMarriage #FGM #Prevent #Radicalisation #PublicSafety #Justice #Accountability #GovernanceFailure

Reform in Sandwell: An Opportunity for Change — At Risk of Being Squandered

Sandwell is crying out for change.
That much is obvious to anyone who has lived here, worked here, or campaigned here over the last decade.

Trust in the status quo is low. Voters are disengaged, frustrated, and fed up with being taken for granted. This year’s all-out local elections in Sandwell present a rare and genuine opportunity to shake things up.

But opportunity alone doesn’t win elections. Organisation, visibility, and local engagement do.

And right now, serious questions need to be asked about whether Reform in Sandwell is anywhere near ready to meet that moment.

National messaging doesn’t win local elections

Reform’s national messaging clearly resonates with many voters. There is anger, there is appetite for disruption, and there is a desire to break away from tired political cycles.

But local elections are not general elections.

They are not won by slogans, glossy graphics, or borrowed outrage.
They are won by:

• Boots on the ground
• Door knocking
• Community meetings
• Local knowledge
• Named candidates people can question and trust
• Visibility where people actually live

So far in Sandwell, that local footprint is conspicuously thin.

Governance and engagement concerns

We have received information raising concerns about the internal organisation, governance, and culture of Reform in Sandwell.

It is alleged that these concerns include:

• Very low attendance at branch meetings
• Meetings taking place without formal minutes
• No regular public meetings open to residents and non-members
• Limited transparency around candidate selection and timing
• An inward-facing structure that discourages wider participation

It is also alleged that there is an atmosphere of excessive caution and mistrust, including fears of conversations being monitored and the alleged use of non-standard or “burner” communication methods.

These are allegations, but taken together they are red flags in any organisation that claims to be grassroots, democratic, and outward-looking.

Even setting all allegations aside, the visible reality remains:

• Minimal local campaigning
• No sustained ward-level activity
• Little evidence of outreach beyond existing members
• No clear, public local presence

A real opportunity — being mishandled

Let’s be clear:
Reform has an opportunity in Sandwell.

But it cannot rely on national branding to carry a local election campaign. If the current local management approach continues — inward-looking, centralised, and light on real-world campaigning — that opportunity risks being wasted.

Local elections reward those who show up early and often.

Labour, whatever one thinks of them, have already been campaigning locally for months. They understand the ground game. Reform must too — and fast.

Editor’s Comment (personal)

I’ll be honest: it’s disappointing and frustrating to have to write a blog like this.

I’ve spent years campaigning locally, advocating for transparency, accountability, and real change in Sandwell. This year’s all-out local elections present an ideal chance to finally achieve that — if the right candidates are put forward and supported properly.

Reform needs boots on the streets, not just posts online.
It needs greater outreach to non-members, not closed meetings.
It needs to start behaving like a local movement, not a national brand with a postcode attached.

I also sincerely hope that this election sees some strong, credible Independent voices step forward — and that voters give them a fair hearing and, crucially, their votes. Sandwell needs councillors who answer to residents, not party machines.

There is a window here. A real one.

But if it’s squandered — if this turns into another missed chance — then the next four years will be disastrous, not just politically, but for the communities that can least afford it.

There is an opportunity for change.

Don’t f#@! it up.

#Sandwell #SandwellElections #LocalElections #LocalPolitics

#ReformUK #GrassrootsPolitics #CommunityFirst

#ChangeInSandwell #Accountability #Democracy

#BootsOnTheGround #LocalEngagement

#IndependentCandidates #VoteLocal

The Pattern We Refuse to Confront: How Fear and “Sensitivity” Are Eroding the Rule of Law

The Pattern We Refuse to Confront: How Fear and “Sensitivity” Are Eroding the Rule of Law

This is not about isolated scandals.
It is about a recurring failure of governance that the UK has repeatedly refused to confront honestly.

Across issues as varied as grooming gangs, Sharia councils, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, radicalisation, and so-called “no-go” dynamics, the same pattern emerges: the state knows there is a problem, hesitates to act, delays enforcement, and only intervenes after harm becomes undeniable.

This is not accidental. It is systemic.

A Familiar Cycle of Failure

The cycle is now well established:

1. Risk is identified locally, often early.
2. Concerns are downplayed due to fears around “community cohesion”.
3. Enforcement is softened, delayed, or redirected into mediation.
4. Responsibility is fragmented across agencies.
5. Victims disengage or are silenced.
6. Exposure finally forces an inquiry.
7. Lessons are identified.
8. Implementation stalls.
9. The cycle repeats elsewhere.

This is not a lack of knowledge.
It is a failure of will.

Parallel Norms and the Retreat of the State

In the case of Sharia councils, the state insists — correctly — that they have no legal authority. But this reassurance ignores the practical reality: social authority can be more powerful than legal authority.

Women in religious-only marriages are routinely diverted away from civil courts. Disputes involving divorce, custody, and domestic abuse are handled without safeguards, oversight, or equality of arms. The 2018 Independent Review documented these risks clearly. The recommendations were modest. They were largely ignored.

The message sent was unmistakable: acknowledged harm, no urgency to act.

Grooming Gangs: When Fear Overrides Protection

The grooming gang scandals exposed the cost of institutional hesitation in the most brutal terms.

Police, councils, and safeguarding bodies knew what was happening. Victims reported abuse repeatedly. Intelligence accumulated. Yet enforcement was delayed because of fears around reputational damage and accusations of racism.

Those fears did not protect communities. They protected perpetrators.

Years later, inquiries confirmed what survivors already knew: the harm was foreseeable, the failure was systemic, and delay multiplied the damage. Today, despite fresh promises, implementation remains slow, fragmented, and contested.

The betrayal is ongoing.

FGM and Forced Marriage: Illegality Without Enforcement

Female genital mutilation and forced marriage are illegal in the UK. Mandatory reporting exists. Data is collected. Ministers issue statements of zero tolerance.

Yet prosecutions remain rare, prevalence remains contested, and enforcement relies heavily on disclosure within closed communities. Religious-only unions and overseas facilitation further complicate intervention.

The gap between law and lived reality persists because visibility is weak and enforcement cautious.

Illegality alone does not protect victims. Action does.

Radicalisation and Prevent: Early Warning Neutralised

Prevent was designed to intervene before harm occurs. Reviews have since acknowledged that it drifted from its core purpose, avoided ideological clarity, and closed cases prematurely.

Inconsistent data, diluted thresholds, and fear of controversy weakened early intervention. Trust collapsed. Threats evolved.

Once again, the pattern repeats: recognition without resolve.

“No-Go Zones” and the Reality of Fear

There are no legally designated “no-go zones” in the UK. But that statement misses the point.

There are areas and contexts where residents alter behaviour, avoid streets, change dress, do not report harassment, or quietly withdraw. Women adapt their movements. Long-standing residents move away. Silence becomes normal.

This is not formal abandonment of the law.
It is informal erosion of freedom through fear and social pressure.

When ordinary freedoms cannot be exercised safely, the rule of law is already compromised — regardless of official assurances.

Why Denial Makes Things Worse

Each time concerns are dismissed as exaggeration, myth, or bad faith, the same outcome follows:
problems deepen, victims disengage, and eventual exposure becomes more damaging.

We have seen this before.
We will see it again unless the underlying failure is addressed.

The state cannot selectively enforce the law.
It cannot subcontract safeguarding to informal authority.
It cannot prioritise comfort over protection.

Restoring the Rule of Law Means Acting Early

Restoring confidence does not require new slogans or further reviews. It requires:

• early enforcement, not delayed mediation
• clarity over authority, not ambiguity
• visible accountability, not procedural drift
• protection of individuals over preservation of reputations

If the law exists only on paper, it will fail in practice.

The question is no longer whether this pattern exists.
It is how many more people will be harmed before it is confronted.

#RuleOfLaw #Safeguarding #InstitutionalFailure #GroomingGangs #ShariaCouncils #ForcedMarriage #FGM #Prevent #PublicSafety #Justice #Accountability #GovernanceFailure

Sandwell Council, Imogen Walker, and the Curious Case of the Job That Just… Appeared

Sandwell Council, Imogen Walker, and the Curious Case of the Job That Just… Appeared

If you ever needed a case study in how not to inspire public confidence, allow me to introduce the saga of Imogen Walker, Sandwell Council, and the mysteriously self-assembling job role that apparently didn’t require paperwork, process, or—awkwardly—records.

Between August 2021 and shortly before the 2024 General Election, Walker held the rather grand title of Interim Head of the Leader’s Office at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.

This was during that period at Sandwell. You know the one.
School transport chaos. Governance failures. LGA involvement. Government commissioners. Reputational freefall. A council so troubled it practically came with its own “under external supervision” sticker.

Naturally, this was the moment a politically sensitive, senior advisory role quietly materialised.

The role (not the bins, not safeguarding, but vibes)

To be clear, this wasn’t about fixing potholes or collecting bins. Walker was brought in to advise then council leader Rajbir Singh on communications, risk, and stakeholder relationships.

In other words: messaging, optics, and political damage control.

Nothing controversial there—except for the small detail that nobody seems able to produce the usual boring but important things like:

• a job advert
• a recruitment process
• interview notes
• a decision notice
• or even clarity on who actually authorised it

But we’ll come back to that.

Enter the Sandwell Skidder (and the awkward questions)

Much of the scrutiny comes from the Sandwell Skidder, which has been banging this drum for years and refusing to go away quietly. Rude of them, really.

The Skidder alleges the role was “rigged” and filled without any competitive process, describing it memorably as:

“a job quietly created and quietly filled, with the paperwork apparently nowhere to be found.”

Now, councils usually respond to this sort of thing by dumping a lever-arch file on the table and saying “here you go, end of story.”

Sandwell’s approach was… different.

FOI responses: the dog ate the paperwork

Freedom of Information requests asked some fairly basic questions. You’d think these would be easy:

• Who authorised the role?
• When was it created?
• What was the job description?
• Was there a recruitment process?
• Where are the records?

The responses, in essence, boiled down to:
“We don’t appear to hold that.”

No decision record.
No job description.
No interview notes.
No evidence of delegated authority.

At a council already under external scrutiny for governance failings, this was… not ideal.

But don’t worry — the council said it was part of a “restructure” and that similar roles exist elsewhere. Which is comforting, in the same way being told “other councils also lose paperwork” is comforting.

Contractor? Employee? Schrödinger’s adviser

Walker was reportedly engaged as an independent contractor, invoicing the council, with costs estimated around £50,000 a year.

Critics have noted that this arrangement conveniently sidesteps certain transparency thresholds, particularly around expenses and reporting. No accusation of illegality has been proven — but it does add another layer of “why this way?” to a story already thick with them.

Again: legality isn’t the only test. Credibility matters too.

And then there’s the London meeting…

The Sandwell Skidder also alleges that Walker’s appointment followed a meeting in London involving Singh and senior Labour figures, including Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney — who just happens to be Walker’s husband.

No minutes.
No diaries.
No emails.
No paper trail.

So at present this remains an allegation — albeit one that stubbornly refuses to die, largely because nobody has conclusively knocked it on the head with evidence.

Transparency has a habit of doing that. When it’s missing, rumours thrive.

From Sandwell to Westminster (promotion season)

Fast-forward to 2024 and Walker is selected as Labour’s candidate for Hamilton and Clyde Valley via the party’s Anonyvoter system — another black box critics say centralises control and sidelines local members.

Since becoming an MP, she’s been appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Rachel Reeves and allocated additional Westminster office space. Entirely legitimate, we’re told. Just one of those coincidences that keep happening.

Local party members in Scotland, meanwhile, have expressed frustration about visibility and engagement — but that’s a story for another day.

The McSweeney pattern

None of this exists in a vacuum. Morgan McSweeney has spent years centralising control within Labour: deselections, imposed candidates, rule tweaks, and a style of politics best described as “discipline first, democracy later.”

Supporters credit him with professionalising Labour and winning elections. Critics call it a factional takeover with clipboards.

Then came the Mandelson episode — McSweeney backing Peter Mandelson for a senior role, only for it to implode spectacularly amid revelations about Epstein links, leading to outrage, apologies, and MPs sharpening knives.

At some point, patterns stop being coincidences.

So where does that leave Sandwell?

No court has ruled against Imogen Walker.
No regulator has made findings of misconduct.

But public trust isn’t built on “nothing technically illegal was proven.” It’s built on clarity, records, and transparency — especially in councils with a history like Sandwell’s.

Until the council can produce a clean, auditable trail explaining:

• how the role was created
• who authorised it
• how it was filled
• and why the records are missing

this story isn’t going anywhere.

Not because of bloggers.
Not because of politics.
But because opacity invites suspicion — and Sandwell has already spent too long earning it.

#Sandwell #GovernanceFailure #ImogenWalker #Transparency #FOI #LocalGovernment #LabourParty #Cronyism #PoliticalAppointments #PublicTrust #ReceiptsPending