After much fighting talk, it turns out this solemn promise actually consisted of a stereoscopic projector and three minutes of psychadelic video footage which sort of resembles a bad experience with a Class A hallucinagenic drug:
It reminded us of a cross between that kaleidoscope sequence in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Oddyssey and an episode of Chris Morris's totally bizzare TV show, Jam.
So, did anybody see the future in a whole new light? For us, it was simply a reminder of the past - a questionable way of spending what we would guess was a considerable sum of money (stereoscopic projection does not come cheap). One student has already said they refused to attend because this is not how they wished to see their tuition fees being invested. The 'Prizes' given away are to include an iPad, a tour and a day at Sumners post-production facility - clearly not a sufficient attraction for most students.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Something's happening...
Indeed - something is happening. However, things that are not likely to happen on 29 November at 17:15 include:
1) Publication of expenses data: Salford is still yet to publish information requested in well over 100 Freedom of Information Requests about expenses and similar such data. We now know that Professor Martin Hall - the man who so heroically used the complexities of his professional craft (Archaeology) to dispell some of the nonsense espoused by South Africa's Apartheid government - is being asked to personally approve refusal notices for requests that appear to be us to be perfectly valid. This comes after him telling the Student Union's AGM last year that there was a "public interest" in publishing expenses data for the SLT on a quarterly basis, and he was simply waiting for the first quarter to elapse. Unsurprisingly, the data never surfaced. Worst still, Matthew Stephenson has claimed in a public response that this decision not to publish was taken by Salford's Audit Committee, of which our old friend Ian Austin is still listed as the Chair (more below).
2) Terminating expensive legal proceedings: after Salford's barrister made the revelation about the staggering expense of the current Libel proceedings being pursued, we pointed out in a previous post that if Salford have 'guessed' the correct culprit, they would appear unlikely to be able to recoup much of their considerable expenses as a result. On pure cost/benefit analysis, it would appear to be expedient for them to consider whether this is a worthwhile pursuit, especially if the case goes to trial.
3) Removing Ian Austin as Chair of Audit and as a Trustee: in spite of 'managing' his firm toward administration and having been slammed in the press for months on end now, Ian Austin is still listed as Salford's Chair of Audit. Why they are keeping him in his role totally confounds us.
4) Admitting that spending £20k on a Chandelier was a mistake: self explanatory, really.
Etc etc...
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
The Fletcher Memorial Home For Colonial Wasters
Monday provided a rare spectacle for the Place We All Know And Love, as the University of Salford continued to pursue their libel case against the author of blog 'The Rat Catchers Of The Sewers' (now closed down).
Things took a turn for the truly bizzare when one member of the public - there to support one of the presumed defendants, Dr Gary Duke - was found carrying a knife in his pocket after being searched at the Court entrance. He was quickly turned away by security and told to dispense with the weapon - which he possibly buried somewhere - before returning and being admitted to the building, there go about his normal business.
The hearing was supposed to decide whether or not to grant a Court Order and issue a Letter of Request to the Superior Court of California to try to compel the Californian hosts of the blog, Automatic Inc., to disclose the IP and user data for the Blog's creator and contributors.
This was rendered null and void when, literally minutes before the hearing was set to commence, Counsel for the Claimants produced a copy of an Affadavit from the Chief Executive Officer of Automatic. Inc supplying the requested IP data and user email account (the email account did not identify the author).
Yes, that's right, Automatic Inc., whose privacy policy states "your privacy is critically important to us" and "we don't share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law", did not even bother to wait for a Court Order (the costs for which they are not liable) and simply handed out IP data voluntarily.
The hearing was then simply an opportunity for Counsel for the Claimant to update on progress and for the Defendant to clarify the procedure henceforth. The case was adjourned until 21st December, where the Judge will decide whether to grant a Court Order against Virgin Media requiring them to disclose the User Account associated with the IP address acquired.
Present was one Ian 'Daffyd' Austin who, inbetween taking what looked to us like life-or-death calls on his mobile, fought back indigestion and muffled his way through the hearing with the occasional instruction to his Barrister, intermittently removing his glasses and sinking his head into his hands for some forceful 'eye rubbing' maneuvres.
Austin could be forgiven were he not totally focused on the task at hand, as that same morning news emerged via The Lawyer that the creditors of Halliwells LLP have formed a committee to decide who deserves the legal and financial equivalent of a Glasgow Kiss. There is a very real possibility that the creditors may try and pursue the former Equity Partners (including Austin) for personal liability for the truly enormous quantities of debt amassed by the LLP before its demise.
Given that Austin was party to the decision to trouser the property windfall from the Spinningfields' Landlords, and the decision to secretly change the LLP deed, he would have good cause to be concerned.
The Claimant's Barrister - whose name escapes us - looked like a cross between Alan "Not-For-Profit" Rusbridger and Jeffrey Lebowski, and proved eminently deferential to District Judge Smith throughout the hearing. He made a particular point about the enormous costs run up by the University in pursuing this libel case, emphasising that the author of the blog in question will be charged with these costs (although how such a person would actually supply the quantity of money necessary he did not touch upon).
So it's good to see Salford pursuing a worthwhile cause. If it were to transpire that their target suspect - Dr Gary Duke - was indeed the author of the blog, how exactly they hope to win back both their court costs and whatever sum of damages might be awarded from an unemployed lecturer - who they themselves fired not too long back - is something of a mystery.
That said, there is still the possibility that this case may never reach trial. District Judge Smith instructed Ian Austin to supply witness statements either from the Claimants or from a Solicitor acting on express instruction that explains whether or not the statements complained of are "arguably false".
Given that evidence emerged as recently as last week that might vindicate some of the allegedly defamatory statements, do not be surprised if 21st December is the last heard of this case.
More interesting still is that Counsel for the Claimant seemed to imply in a written submission to District Judge Smith that - once the user data has been acquired - they might want to enter into mediation rather than go straight to trial.
Watch this space.
Things took a turn for the truly bizzare when one member of the public - there to support one of the presumed defendants, Dr Gary Duke - was found carrying a knife in his pocket after being searched at the Court entrance. He was quickly turned away by security and told to dispense with the weapon - which he possibly buried somewhere - before returning and being admitted to the building, there go about his normal business.
The hearing was supposed to decide whether or not to grant a Court Order and issue a Letter of Request to the Superior Court of California to try to compel the Californian hosts of the blog, Automatic Inc., to disclose the IP and user data for the Blog's creator and contributors.
This was rendered null and void when, literally minutes before the hearing was set to commence, Counsel for the Claimants produced a copy of an Affadavit from the Chief Executive Officer of Automatic. Inc supplying the requested IP data and user email account (the email account did not identify the author).
Yes, that's right, Automatic Inc., whose privacy policy states "your privacy is critically important to us" and "we don't share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law", did not even bother to wait for a Court Order (the costs for which they are not liable) and simply handed out IP data voluntarily.
The hearing was then simply an opportunity for Counsel for the Claimant to update on progress and for the Defendant to clarify the procedure henceforth. The case was adjourned until 21st December, where the Judge will decide whether to grant a Court Order against Virgin Media requiring them to disclose the User Account associated with the IP address acquired.
Present was one Ian 'Daffyd' Austin who, inbetween taking what looked to us like life-or-death calls on his mobile, fought back indigestion and muffled his way through the hearing with the occasional instruction to his Barrister, intermittently removing his glasses and sinking his head into his hands for some forceful 'eye rubbing' maneuvres.
Austin could be forgiven were he not totally focused on the task at hand, as that same morning news emerged via The Lawyer that the creditors of Halliwells LLP have formed a committee to decide who deserves the legal and financial equivalent of a Glasgow Kiss. There is a very real possibility that the creditors may try and pursue the former Equity Partners (including Austin) for personal liability for the truly enormous quantities of debt amassed by the LLP before its demise.
Given that Austin was party to the decision to trouser the property windfall from the Spinningfields' Landlords, and the decision to secretly change the LLP deed, he would have good cause to be concerned.
The Claimant's Barrister - whose name escapes us - looked like a cross between Alan "Not-For-Profit" Rusbridger and Jeffrey Lebowski, and proved eminently deferential to District Judge Smith throughout the hearing. He made a particular point about the enormous costs run up by the University in pursuing this libel case, emphasising that the author of the blog in question will be charged with these costs (although how such a person would actually supply the quantity of money necessary he did not touch upon).
So it's good to see Salford pursuing a worthwhile cause. If it were to transpire that their target suspect - Dr Gary Duke - was indeed the author of the blog, how exactly they hope to win back both their court costs and whatever sum of damages might be awarded from an unemployed lecturer - who they themselves fired not too long back - is something of a mystery.
That said, there is still the possibility that this case may never reach trial. District Judge Smith instructed Ian Austin to supply witness statements either from the Claimants or from a Solicitor acting on express instruction that explains whether or not the statements complained of are "arguably false".
Given that evidence emerged as recently as last week that might vindicate some of the allegedly defamatory statements, do not be surprised if 21st December is the last heard of this case.
More interesting still is that Counsel for the Claimant seemed to imply in a written submission to District Judge Smith that - once the user data has been acquired - they might want to enter into mediation rather than go straight to trial.
Watch this space.
Monday, 8 November 2010
Freedom of Information?
On Friday 5th February 2010, an email was sent by Professor Martin Hall to a student - in response to an allegation that Professor Hall had sanctioned the rejection of Freedom of Information Requests - in which Professor Hall stated the following:
"I do not play any direct role in FoI requests, and we respond to FoI requests in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, which protect institutions from the abuse of the system. To hold me responsible for initiatives that were taken before I even knew where Salford is, is silly"
He went on to state:
"It is both ironic and absurd for you to lecture me on leadership. Your style of writing, combined with innuendo and unfounded allegations, is an excellent example of the sort of bullying we need to work against."
Unfounded allegations, ey? Well, repeat blunderer Matthew Stephenson - the University of Salford's Head of Information Governance - today issued a response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted to the University of Salford by eminent lawyer, Al Goodwin. Naturally, it was a refusal notice - but unfortunately for "Matt", he accidentally included within his response his email to 'Alison' (presumably the Vice-Chancellor's Chief-Of-Staff) asking her to get the Vice-Chancellor to personally approve the refusal notice:
"Alison,
This is the proposed refusal notice and internal review outcome for the request about the costs of our work with Halliwells.
As per the complaints procedure, the VC will have to agree to this response as the DVC was involved in the first request.
Cheers
Matt"
This is the proposed refusal notice and internal review outcome for the request about the costs of our work with Halliwells.
As per the complaints procedure, the VC will have to agree to this response as the DVC was involved in the first request.
Cheers
Matt"
Well well well! Not only is Professor Martin Hall seemingly PERSONALLY approving refusal notices, but his appointed and much-loved Deputy is personally approving invalid ones according to Mr Stephenson!
Quite a pickle, wouldn't you agree?
Quite a pickle, wouldn't you agree?
Friday, 5 November 2010
Sad Day
A terrible day for the University of Salford, who have now officially announced the resignation of the Head of the Law School, Professor Alistair Alcock.
Rumour has it he resigned on Monday, and whilst we have been made privy to one possible explanation for his departure, at the moment we can only speculate as to the cause.
Professor Alcock is a thoroughly decent man and, during his five year tenure, has succeeded admirably in leading his school in the face of difficult circumstances. The Law School under his leadership has performed exceptionally well and for this he ought be commended.
More to follow.
Rumour has it he resigned on Monday, and whilst we have been made privy to one possible explanation for his departure, at the moment we can only speculate as to the cause.
Professor Alcock is a thoroughly decent man and, during his five year tenure, has succeeded admirably in leading his school in the face of difficult circumstances. The Law School under his leadership has performed exceptionally well and for this he ought be commended.
More to follow.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Spiralling Costs
The most recent minutes of University Council reveal that the on-going "IT Transformation Programme" is running at a staggering £2.7m over the budget originally forecast by beancounters KPMG (who were hired as external consultants).
This was a point of considerable discussion at the meeting, but nevertheless Council gave the nod for the extra capital required to see the project through.
The blame has been primarily laid at KPMG's door, since apparently "£2 million of this sum was a result of items not originally specified by KPMG in their cost calculations."
The explanation continues: "it would have been difficult for KPMG to factor in the required additional expenditure into the original estimate; this was largely a result of an underestimate of the extent of institutional maturity and capability (both in terms of human and physical resources)."
If anybody can figure out what on earth this means - aside from sounding like yet another fantastic game of Bullshit Bingo - then please submit answers on a postcard.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though, for the minutes go on to explain:
"The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary advised that, as Chair of the Project Board, he would be commissioning a post project review and this would include a review of the use of consultants."
Praise the Lord!
This was a point of considerable discussion at the meeting, but nevertheless Council gave the nod for the extra capital required to see the project through.
The blame has been primarily laid at KPMG's door, since apparently "£2 million of this sum was a result of items not originally specified by KPMG in their cost calculations."
The explanation continues: "it would have been difficult for KPMG to factor in the required additional expenditure into the original estimate; this was largely a result of an underestimate of the extent of institutional maturity and capability (both in terms of human and physical resources)."
If anybody can figure out what on earth this means - aside from sounding like yet another fantastic game of Bullshit Bingo - then please submit answers on a postcard.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though, for the minutes go on to explain:
"The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary advised that, as Chair of the Project Board, he would be commissioning a post project review and this would include a review of the use of consultants."
Praise the Lord!
Oh Dear
Keeps getting worse for Salford's Chair of Audit.
The administrators have said it is likely that claims will be brought in respect of "claims for repayment of overdrawn drawings, claims for unpaid capital contributions [and] claims for breach of duty and breaches of the Limited Liability Partnership Agreement."
How will they determine who to bring claims against? Well, this will depend upon "the position of the individual member, whether they remained a member at the date of the administration, their involvement in the running of the business and their knowledge of the financial position”.
For the former Managing Partner, there when the iceberg hit and who was primarily responsible for managing the business during its "troubles", this might appear not to bode well.
It has also been alleged that Mr Austin may have been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
More to follow.
The administrators have said it is likely that claims will be brought in respect of "claims for repayment of overdrawn drawings, claims for unpaid capital contributions [and] claims for breach of duty and breaches of the Limited Liability Partnership Agreement."
How will they determine who to bring claims against? Well, this will depend upon "the position of the individual member, whether they remained a member at the date of the administration, their involvement in the running of the business and their knowledge of the financial position”.
For the former Managing Partner, there when the iceberg hit and who was primarily responsible for managing the business during its "troubles", this might appear not to bode well.
It has also been alleged that Mr Austin may have been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)