send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Tuesday, 3 June 2014



The charming and ever polite Robin Yu, i/c FOI's is determined to prevent any swimming pool 'leaks'. 
The result?  A thoroughly innocent FOI has been well and truly 'legaled'. 

Watch out Shepherd're in line for a good caning!

I am responding to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which we received on 28 April 2014, for information held by the Council. You requested:
 Holland Park School-Freedom of Information request

Please supply me with the following information regarding the school's swimming pool:-
1. Who has overall responsibility for bringing the swimming pool back into full use?
2. Please provide full details of the problems that are causing the pool to be out of action-when discovered and the proposed remedy?
3. Please provide details of the contractors who are directly responsible for the build of the pool and those responsible for bringing the pool back into full operational use?
4. Was any  advice  taken from  specialist swimming pool contractors as to the design and structure of the pool- please proved full details of all relevant contractors and sub-contractors involved?
5. Please provide full details of all cost incurred  to date in resolving this problem and the estimated future costs of resolving this problem. Who is meeting  all of these costs?  
6. What is the time line for bringing the pool  back into full operational use?

I confirm that we hold the information requested.
1. Shepherd Construction Limited.

2.We have decided to withhold this information for the reasons below.

3.Shepherd Construction Limited.
4.Shepherd Construction Limited as the main contractor, were responsible for the design build of this element.

They engaged specialist subcontractors via a direct appointment.
5. As answer 2.
6. As answer 2.
We have decided to withhold the information for questions 2, 5 and 6 because there is the possibility of legal action to rectify and reinstate. The information relating to these questions is currently subject to a commercial dispute and any disclosure at this stage would compromise our legal recourse.
Under Regulation 12(5)(b), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature.
We are withholding this information because we believe that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. The “course of justice” is very wide and open to interpretation. However we consider that this includes both criminal and civil proceedings. As noted earlier, there is the possibility of legal action and we are arguing that release of this information at this time would adversely affect our legal position.
In applying the exception we are obliged to consider whether public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. It is reasonable to argue that it is in the public interest to release this information for reasons of accountability and transparency. Disclosure of the information would help the public understand the current issues with the swimming pool in Holland Park School, this being in the public interest due to the amount of money spent on redevelopment of the school, and issues with access to the pool for members of the public. However, there is a significant public interest in protecting this information as to not prejudice future legal proceedings. Once proceeding have been completed then the public interest in disclosure will be stronger. Therefore at this point in time, we believe that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  


  1. I just wanted to remind the Hornet that yet again their support for a particular campaign has failed yet again.

    Ken for Mayor - Failed
    PR for a voting system - Failed
    Numerous Labour candidates in by-elections - Failed
    The Stanley Independents - Failed

    It looks like a curse to me if you get the support of the Hornet

  2. Poor old Chicken Run Palmer. Pathetic as ever.

  3. Oh tedious fellow! Go and get a life outside petty local politics.
    1. The Hornet never supported Livingstone or PR or Labour candidates.Get a grip.
    The Inde's did very well taking nearly 1400 votes. Now go and count chickens

    1. 7.48 you are wrong - A comment made some time ago Hornet did support all those things

    2. That was a COMMENT....not the Dame...Bonehead!!

    3. Yes it was a comment no one is saying otherwise but it is a long standing comment that was never denied at the time.

      This blog may have been cleaned of the incriminating evidence (if you pay £20 I might go and look for the articles) but I have a long memory of these associations.

      Interesting that those who defend the Hornet just fire abuse - Says something about the kind of people who support it.

    4. 10.29, two things: 1, I think you've missed out on the worst of Palmer's nasty comments. 2, Palmer's done it again - deflected the argument from the case in hand. Is he the Council's paid Troll?

    5. What's he paid in? Big Macs?

  4. The Hornet is responsible for a political earthquake in K & C. In part due to the Dame's influence, independent residents stood at the local elections. The tories were so desperate to keep Cockle in the Town Hall, they let LBHF get away! Now the tories have to extract RBKC from the wreckage of bi-borough. It will doubtless cost K & C residents millions.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.