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.