0920 [0045] Hrs GMT London Tuesday 3 March 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! No to “Crossrail hole scam…” CAMPAIGN TOLD YOU SO!
For over five years we have been saying that the EXISTING transport infrastructure – and all aspects of it – is more important than building an excessively wasteful and crassly conceived semi-railway line called Crossrail... We have investigated and argued the case against Crossrail more frequently than the London Guardian has carried items on transport needs, and we have done so with evidential consistency unmatched by anything that the Guardian can demonstrate. We have noticed that the Guardian has at the same time published fabricated claims to boost the image and the petty and personal and career interests of the touts, peddlers and promoters of CrossRail...
We have in that same five years of campaign against Crossrail hole scam agenda so far also exposed the Guardian’s role.
Three years ago, when it [the Guardian] published a deeply untruthful pre-emptive attack against Rod Eddington, hours before Eddington was due to publish his ‘transport study’ [that Gordon Brown had commissioned]. The Guardian was untruthfully critical of Eddington because Eddington had refused to endorse Crossrail..
The Guardian therefore acted as part of the Big Business lobby that was pushing for CRASSrail
Now, in a second piece published during one single day, the Guardian has run an alleged argument talking about the due maintenance and use of the existing trains network…. Factors that it persistently denied and suppressed whenever it peddled Crossrail… We shall examine the vacuity and the duplicity of the Guardian…
[To be continued]
AADHIKARonline quoting the second of the two articles published by the Guardian on their web site during 2 March 2009:
"
Network Rail urged to publish damning report on line delaysCompany accused of tolerating 'systematic weaknesses'
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 March 2009 13.43 GMT Article history
Photograph: Christopher Thomond
Network Rail was today urged to publish a secret report which accuses the not-for-profit company of tolerating "systematic weaknesses" after the west coast mainline was severely disrupted last year.
The Cooperative party, which launched the People's Rail group to campaign for greater openness, accused Network Rail of adopting a "Basil Fawlty" approach to management and of suppressing the critical report.
Network Rail came under fire today after the Guardian revealed that it is refusing to publish a secret report by PricewaterhouseCoopers into its corporate governance. This reveals that Network Rail regarded the disruption to the west coast mainline last year as a "trivial" matter that should not have led to a fine.
Michael Stephenson, the general secretary of the Cooperative party, told the Guardian: "The evidence compiled by PWC for this report reveals an organisation imbued with the Basil Fawlty school of customer relations: 'This rail system would run much better if it wasn't for the passengers.'
"Network Rail's determination to suppress this evidence further vindicates the People's Rail campaign for passengers and the public to get real control over their rail network."
Mark Lazarowicz, the Labour MP who chairs the Cooperative parliamentary group, has written to Sir Ian McAllister, Network Rail's chairman, to demand the publication of the PWC report. He told McAllister: "I understand this report has now been completed but you have decided not to make it public. Further, I understand your organisation has no plans to do so.
"We find this situation unacceptable given the enormous public interest in this issue and the overwhelming importance of the needs of the travelling public in having an effective and accountable rail system. The suppression of this report is clear evidence of the gross failings in accountability of Network Rail and the corporate governance structure of the organisation."
Louise Elllman, the Labour chair of the Commons transport committee, said: "We must be assured that Network Rail will take this report and its criticisms seriously and change the way it is run. It should be published. It is absolutely essential that Network Rail improves its efficiency if we are going to get value for money in difficult circumstances."
Their comments came after Network Rail went to extraordinary lengths to suppress the PWC report, which was commissioned after a vote at its AGM last year amid fears that it had become unaccountable. To deter leaks, numbered copies of the report were sent to its members, who act as proxy shareholders, with a warning that it was confidential.
But the Guardian can reveal the report's key findings:
• The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) had deep concerns about the disruption to the west coast mainline service over the 2008 new year. Thousands of passengers were stranded, prompting a £14m fine on Network Rail by the ORR. The ORR told the report's authors: "We have concerns as to the inconsistency of the Network Rail board's response to some of the regulatory interventions, specifically the 2007-08 new year overruns, where they responded on one level to disagree that there had been a breach, on another level that it had been a trivial breach and that even if there was a breach that a fine was inappropriate ... They took a whole series of positions."
• Sir Ian McAllister, chairman of Network Rail, is deeply sceptical about the £16bn Crossrail project, a scheme to link east and west London. One unnamed senior figure told the report's authors: "The chairman told me that he needs Crossrail like a hole in the head."
• Network Rail has packed its board with second-rate non-executive directors. The report says: "They are perceived to be weak and ineffective at carrying out their role of challenging the board."
Network Rail, whose £20bn debts are guaranteed by the taxpayer, is highly sensitive about the report. Stuart McVernon, its head of public affairs, warned members who were sent copies: "We and the members' review group would like to remind all members that ... the report is still being distributed as a confidential report and is individually numbered accordingly."
The report was commissioned after Network Rail's 101 members won a resolution at last July's AGM to undertake a review of its corporate governance.
A spokesman for Network Rail said: "Network Rail welcomes the members' review group's suggestions on further developments to Network Rail's corporate governance and its membership. The company will now work closely with its members in considering the way forward including reaching a common understanding of the detail of the proposals and the level of support for them."
"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.