Council must explain fine

There are mistakes – I’ve made a few. But there are some mistakes which I believe require a more significant explanation than is so far available from Scottish Borders Council (SBC) regarding the £250,000 fine for their sloppy recycling of their employees’ personal data. (By the way, where does the £250,000 go?)

Thank goodness for the intelligent vigilance of your journalist who picked up the supposedly placatory statement from the council that there were funds set aside to cover such errors. How many council botch-ups are built into council planning, thus reducing the budgets for more needy 

Let’s start talking some hell and brimstone. I am fully aware there are probably some “paer souels”and sad victims clustering round this pickle. The council employee responsible maybe had some major personal problem at the time of making the arrangements (my genuine condolences – it’s one hell of a place to be now I imagine).

The firm had maybe employed some human product of our lackadaisical society who thought they’d never be found out – if thought was a process (s)he was capable of.

Nevertheless, it is ludicrous to refuse to name that firm. I feel there ought to be a blow-by-blow account of how such a catastrophe came about.

If there is some poor soul with a personal problem, names need not be given but serious disciplinary/counselling/redeployment should be undertaken if intelligent management is available.

In the case of the naming of the firm, if it is not named, I’m sure I’ll be one of many Borderers who might suspect even more complex skuldugery. If it goes bankrupt there are council schemes for fresh starts.

I know we should all be as measured and sensible as the chief executive (obviously a graduate of the “how to say nothing media school”). I’m not calling for resignations. These are too common, ineffectual and lucrative. Stand on the bridge and take the flak. Exercise some intelligent management of the situation – both within the organisation and on the public front – the taxpayer front.

Explanations lead to understanding and learning how to avoid repetitions – and respect from the taxpayers who would appreciate being treated like the intelligent beings most of them are.

On the other hand, sadly I say all this and realise some convoluted explanation might be forthcoming; but, given our double dealing culture, will any of us believe it? There is a great need for greater involvement by more sections in the running of our society – a spreading of power might avoid botch-ups on such a scale.

My passion arises from knowledge and experience of many of the shortcomings of our support systems for the voiceless taxpayers. I believe in tax but it must be well administered..

No wonder so many try to avoid it!

May Bowie