Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 17:48, Chris wrote:
ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm


Fantastic, that's great news. I was waiting for the latest on this -
the London Assembly Transport Committee held an extraordinary meeting
this morning on this issue. Mr Cooke's completely inexcusable partisan
behaviour during the election campaign was a total disgrace.

The background to this can be found on the Committee's agenda papers
for today's meeting - in particular the the statement he released
offering support for Mr Johnson can be read in Appendix B here (PDF):
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...n02/item06.pdf

His fig leaf of issuing said statement in a 'personal capacity' was
just that - he is supposed to be an independent impartial ombudsman,
and his actions completely invalidated that.

This will be a salutary lesson in how not to do things. What an
utterly stupid way to get the sack.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 2 Jun, 17:48, Chris wrote:
ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm


Fantastic, that's great news. I was waiting for the latest on this -
the London Assembly Transport Committee held an extraordinary meeting
this morning on this issue. Mr Cooke's completely inexcusable partisan
behaviour during the election campaign was a total disgrace.

The background to this can be found on the Committee's agenda papers
for today's meeting - in particular the the statement he released
offering support for Mr Johnson can be read in Appendix B here (PDF):
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...n02/item06.pdf

His fig leaf of issuing said statement in a 'personal capacity' was
just that - he is supposed to be an independent impartial ombudsman,
and his actions completely invalidated that.

This will be a salutary lesson in how not to do things. What an
utterly stupid way to get the sack.

Not being a reader of the Standard and the various freesheets found in
London, was there much/any coverage of his comments at the time?

Clearly he issued them in press release style in the hope they'd be widely
published, are we to assume that he firmly believed his contract wouldn't be
renewed anyway?

Paul S

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 18:15, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Not being a reader of the Standard and the various freesheets found in
London, was there much/any coverage of his comments at the time?

Yes:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23480878-details/TfL+watchdog:+It's+time+for+arrogant+Livingstone+t o+go/article.do

It'll be interesting what Boris says about this.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...
ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..
Serves the fat drunken grovelling ******* right he will have to get a proper
job now,I hear that there's a job going up at Transport for London as a
**** shovellers assistant there's also a job as a pox doctors clerk but you
have to be able to read & write to qualify.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jun, 18:15, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Not being a reader of the Standard and the various freesheets found in
London, was there much/any coverage of his comments at the time?

Yes:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23480878-details/TfL+watchdog:+It's+time+for+arrogant+Livingstone+t o+go/article.do


Takes up a lot of room doesn't he - I hope he pays for three tickets when he
uses 3+2 seating as pictured!

Paul S

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm

Muppet. Exactly what he deserved.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 2 Jun, 18:15, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Not being a reader of the Standard and the various freesheets found in
London, was there much/any coverage of his comments at the time?

Yes:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23480878-details/TfL+watchdog:+It's+time+for+arrogant+Livingstone+t o+go/article.do

It'll be interesting what Boris says about this.

U

'Brian Who', one suspects. It was always possible that this was a
long-term play for a position higher up in the Boris team, but I can't
see that happening now, regardless of the fact that the three Tory
members who turned up (if the fourth Tory member had appeared the
decision would have been split 4-4 with one abstention) gave Mr. Cooke
an extremely benevolent reading of the situation ('a technical breach',
one called it, and another talked about a 'witch hunt').

What sank him for me was that he not only held two private meetings with
Johnson but then released his statement without consulting the London
Travelwatch chief executive, which he's obliged to do if he's in any
doubt over whether a statement of his is politically controversial.
That he didn't think that someone running an impartial office
representing London's travelling public and funded by public money
releasing a statement firmly backing one candidate and attacking the
incumbent, four days before the election, was controversial beggars
belief and shows a sad lack of judgement.

The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

Tom

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 18:35, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 2 Jun, 18:15, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Not being a reader of the Standard and the various freesheets found in
London, was there much/any coverage of his comments at the time?

Yes:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...480878-details...

It'll be interesting what Boris says about this.


Indeed - especially as Brian Cooke's pre-election statement was
actually released *through* Boris Johnson's campaign.

See this MayorWatch piece:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/article_id-1583.html

It would appear that BoJo's campaign team realised this might not be
right, as they apparently removed it from the official backboris.com
website later that day according to a blog entry on the Livingstone
campaign website which (for the record) said this:

http://www.kenlivingstone.com/blog/b...r_freedom_pass
quote
[...]
In a new twist, Johnson's campaign team have tried to cover up the
truth by removing Brian Cooke's comments from their website. But you
can still read the staggering comments in the press release - it's now
posted on Ken's campaign website here.
/quote

The link on the above page leads to a PDF of Cooke's statement,
replete with a 'Conservatives - Back Boris' logo.


However *do* take a look at this MayorWatch article from the end of
February...
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/article_id-1398.html

....which concerns an apparent a 'mix-up' over whether Brian Cooke was
attending the launch of Boris Johnson's transport manifesto as a
supporter of Boris - as the Johnson campaign had initially publicised
- or as they later clarified, having been questioned by Mayorwatch,
"in an impartial capacity". At the time a London Travelwatch
spokesperson stated Cooke was going along "as a representative of
transport users, and is not endorsing the candidate" - interesting,
given what Cooke did two months later.

The fact that Boris Johnson's campaign embraced and seemingly
encouraged Mr Cooke's support - even after the February confusion -
does somewhat indicate that they didn't have an appreciation of the
role of the Chairman of London Travelwatch, just like it seems Mr
Cooke didn't either. Mr Cooke might plead political naivety (not that
I think this is any excuse whatsoever), but that isn't really a
defence that the Johnson campaign can use - if they do, they would
merely be admitting the fact that they weren't clued up on this.

A scan through of the relevant agenda paperwork certainly appears to
demonstrate quite forcefully that the Committee's dismissal of Mr
Cooke's was driven by his breaking the rules, rather than as a
partisan act of revenge.

As Mr Thant says, it'll be interesting to hear what Boris says.
Perhaps nothing? One hopes he won't pull some ludicrous move like
giving Mr Cooke a job.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On 2 Jun, 17:48, Chris wrote:
ON the spot, even though his term of office at London TravelWatch was
up in September...his support for Boris, his undoing. What a pillock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431766.stm


Fantastic, that's great news. I was waiting for the latest on this -
the London Assembly Transport Committee held an extraordinary meeting
this morning on this issue. Mr Cooke's completely inexcusable partisan
behaviour during the election campaign was a total disgrace.

I agree that it's the right decision. His comments were completely
inappropriate for someone in his position and given the well understood
and publicised rules governing the Mayoral elections and "purdah".

The background to this can be found on the Committee's agenda papers
for today's meeting - in particular the the statement he released
offering support for Mr Johnson can be read in Appendix B here (PDF):
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...n02/item06.pdf

A complete disgrace.

His fig leaf of issuing said statement in a 'personal capacity' was
just that - he is supposed to be an independent impartial ombudsman,
and his actions completely invalidated that.

*ding*

This will be a salutary lesson in how not to do things. What an
utterly stupid way to get the sack.

Yes but I do wonder if he didn't realise what the likely consequence
would be. I think he viewed his comments as ultimately more important
than retaining his post. In one sense he got what he wanted and who
knows what Boris said in their private discussions. Perhaps he'll become
assistant to Boris's "transport adviser" ex Nicholls (who single
handedly invented and delivered the Oyster card - hah!)?

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

Paul Harley wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get

Paul Harley

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.

Tom

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 20:25, Paul Harley wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:

The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.


Good, I think it was thoroughly deserved.


Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get


Yes - this got discussed on uk.transport.london at the end of Feb/
start of March in the "Mayoral Manifesto from London Travel Watch"
thread. Note however that this was intended to add to the public
debate on transport as opposed to being a partisan statement in favour
of the candidates or indeed against the incumbent.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 21:43, Tom Barry wrote:

Paul Harley wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

(snip)

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.


Thanks Tom, you've answered some of my questions about that, including
who is was who abstained from the vote - having looked up the
composition of the committee I couldn't work out who it might be, and
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to hear it was Jenny Jones
(though maybe I should read or listen to the arguments before I reach
that judgement). Maybe she'd built up a rapport with him over
transport issues, I dunno. At least it's not as bad as it might look
at first glance - she seemingly wasn't against punishing him, just not
punishing him so severely. Any idea who the Conservative AM who didn't
turn up was and why?

I think I will try and find time to look at the papers properly, read
the minutes when they come out and even watch the webcast. I don't
like this talk coming from the Tories of 'technical breaches' one bit
- flagrant breaches more like. It sits rather ill with their apparent
stand against cronyism and maladministration.


P.S. Paul Harley's post (the first of those quoted above) won't have
appeared in uk.transport.london coz for some reason he removed the
follow-up.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

Mizter T wrote:

Thanks Tom, you've answered some of my questions about that, including
who is was who abstained from the vote - having looked up the
composition of the committee I couldn't work out who it might be, and
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to hear it was Jenny Jones
(though maybe I should read or listen to the arguments before I reach
that judgement). Maybe she'd built up a rapport with him over
transport issues, I dunno. At least it's not as bad as it might look
at first glance - she seemingly wasn't against punishing him, just not
punishing him so severely. Any idea who the Conservative AM who didn't
turn up was and why?

Victoria Borwick, the only female Tory (so fairly easy to spot, then).
The remaining three sat in a line on the right (haha) with Jones next
along. The most forceful questioning came from the Lib Dem, Caroline
Pidgeon, who appeared to be channelling Gwynneth Dunwoody at times.

I think I will try and find time to look at the papers properly, read
the minutes when they come out and even watch the webcast. I don't
like this talk coming from the Tories of 'technical breaches' one bit
- flagrant breaches more like. It sits rather ill with their apparent
stand against cronyism and maladministration.

It's probably worth viewing through again, since I missed some chunks
first time round.

Tom

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 2 Jun, 18:07, Mizter T wrote:

His fig leaf of issuing said statement in a 'personal capacity' was
just that - he is supposed to be an independent impartial ombudsman,
and his actions completely invalidated that.

If it was a personal statement, why did he mention LTW at all?.....he
obviously felt that by doing so, his statement carried more weight,
and hence he involved his office & thus no longer was it a completely
personal statement.

I just hope Boris now does the right thing & does NOT give him any
sort of job. Having attended various meetings of LTW, I found him to
be only interested in Brian Cooke plc....

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Tom Barry wrote:
Paul Harley wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get

Paul Harley

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.

Tom

Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 13:54, wrote:
Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

No, because Brian was sacked for a gross breach of his employment
rules, whereas Lazala was sacked because Metronet had underperformed.

As any employer will tell you, it's a lot easier to sack someone for
gross misconduct than gross incompetence.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 15:24, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 13:54, wrote:

Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. *Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

No, because Brian was sacked for a gross breach of his employment
rules, whereas Lazala was sacked because Metronet had underperformed.

As any employer will tell you, it's a lot easier to sack someone for
gross misconduct than gross incompetence.


Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Jonn

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 16:15, Tom Barry wrote:
Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

By your own logic, everyone who'd never been promoted would still have a
job.

Surely the reason they've never been promoted, according to the Peter
Principle, is that they've already reached their level of
incompetence?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:
Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:
On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On 3 Jun, 17:56, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.


Quite. Dismissing someone for not being very good isn't easy - "I
wasn't very good because my manager wasn't very good / my instructions
and guidance weren't very good / my underlings weren't very good / the
whole company isn't very good", though of course said person isn't
likely to admit they weren't very good in the first place.

That's not to say that I think it's at all right that departing execs
like Mr Lazala get these massive pay-outs when they and/or their
organisation has been performing shabbily. But then again I can't
really comprehend the logic whereby some corporate execs receive an
annual salary of millions. 'Tis a mad world. Unless John B can
persuade me otherwise?

Brian Cooke Sacked!
 

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

On 3 Jun, 17:56, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.


Quite. Dismissing someone for not being very good isn't easy - "I
wasn't very good because my manager wasn't very good / my instructions
and guidance weren't very good / my underlings weren't very good / the
whole company isn't very good", though of course said person isn't
likely to admit they weren't very good in the first place.

Which indeed they might not be but that doesn't always mean that they
are to blame for what has gone wrong. In some cases the question can
arise how/why someone allegedly incompetent was recruited and/or
placed in a position beyond their capabilities.

That's not to say that I think it's at all right that departing execs
like Mr Lazala get these massive pay-outs when they and/or their
organisation has been performing shabbily. But then again I can't
really comprehend the logic whereby some corporate execs receive an
annual salary of millions. 'Tis a mad world. Unless John B can
persuade me otherwise?