Business Link Hampshire – Beyond Prediction Confirmed – The Call That Never Came
In preparation for the expected ‘phone call, from Nick Keogh, at 10.30 a.m., I collected together the material I had researched on the Internet the previous evening, computer diary notes I had printed off, an A4 pad and my telephone notebook. The A4 sheets were put in a ring binder and all were taken upstairs to my large desk with the old computer and telephone.
One of the documents that I downloaded and printed off was a Candidate Brief for applicants for the post of Managing Director of WSX Enterprise. It was of interest because it laid out the business Link Philosophy, which just happened to be the way it had been conveyed to me by others, was as I understood it but was not as practiced by Business Link Hampshire, at least not as far as I was concerned, or some other people I have met over the years, though those were before Jonathan Morris’ tenure as Managing Director of Business Link Hampshire.
For example, the note contained the following:
“Today’s business Link service is provided through three key elements:
I – Information
D – Diagnosis
B – Brokerage
Information is available primarily through telephone and web based support together with events. Diagnosis may be undertaken through those same points of contact but often requires a face to face intervention from a Business Link Adviser at a clinic or at the business premises.”
It was relevant to my forthcoming telephone conversation as telephone support was not particularly appropriate; there was relevant material I actually needed to show Nick Keogh, or whoever else I spoke to. The situation was also a far cry from the supposed up to four face to face, one to one, meetings a year to which I was supposed to be entitled, along with other Business Link customers, of course.
By 10.35 p.m. I was ready and busied myself on the computer, which is the one I use for E-mails at present, while I waited. Time passed and nothing happened, no ‘phone call, not by 11 o’clock, or anytime afterwards. Jo returned from her hair appointment just before 11.30 a.m. and I had still not received the promised ‘phone call.
Jo has a Membership Card for Havant Garden Centre, Wyvale in Bartons Road, Havant, and had received a two for one meal offer in the Garden Centre Restaurant. As out granddaughter was coming the following day and I was otherwise occupied in the later part of the week, today was our last day to use it, so we decided to do just that.
I ‘phoned business Link Hampshire, at 11.40 a.m., intending to ask for Sarah Anderson and query the missed telephone call from Nick Keogh. All I got was an answering service with the usual “You call is very important to us”; you need a wry, to black, sense of humour if you ever bring your business to Hampshire, though that is not just down to the local Business Link but most of the publicly funded business support in Hampshire as a whole. The glaring exceptions who are friendly and helpful are the Chambers of Commerce and Southern Entrepreneurs, plus their friends, of course.
I left a message to say that I had not received a call from nick Keogh, as promised, plus, of course, my phone number.
Jo and I went to Wyvale Garden Centre and had a pleasant enough lunch, though, unfortunately, they were not really geared up for the number of people who responded their meal offer, so, it was quite a long wait. Of the meals on offer, I opted for fish and chips, with mushy peas, though I prefer garden peas. At least it was better than I have had at Fuller’s pubs where the portion mushy peas is smaller than the dollop of tartar sauce and the chips are of the chunky variety. Wyvale would have been preferable to Fuller’s at the normal price; at the offer price they easily beat Fuller’s.
One of the other diners thought the Garden centre was not as good as it was, though job and I were of a different opinion. The restaurant is not quite as good as it used to be, the relatively high prices not helping, at least for several items; £3-50 to £4-00 for a slice of cake is a bit much to say the least. However, the surroundings are pleasant and the revamp, restocking of the Garden Centre has gone well.
On returning home I, immediately, checked the answering machine. There was nothing from Business Link, nor for the rest of the day.
During the afternoon, while job was out at afternoon tea with her friends, I got on with some research and writing. During that time I checked the statistics on my BlogSpot Blog. I was fascinated to notice a surge of visitors from Fareham, where Business Link Hampshire has its main Office; no coincidence, there had been visits from Business Link Hampshire. Those statistics were for the were only for yesterday and the Blog Post I put up last Sunday, 21st February, unless they caught my Monday evening Post early this morning.
I presumed that had something to do with me not receiving the promised ‘phone call from Nick Keogh, though they might have had the courtesy to ‘phone me and tell me it was off, postponed, or whatever, and given some sort of reason.
In the mid to late 1990s, before I was “blanked” by Business Link Hampshire, I had an advisor come to my house. He was on time to the minute. He took a pride in being on time and told me he had arrived ten minutes earlier and been waiting in his car over the road until the appointed time. How things change. If Business Link Hampshire was as in those days, as I found Business Link Sussex was and with whom I should have stayed, I would have brought a considerable amount of engineering business to the area, let alone the tourism side that my advisers are sure is worth so much, as were Business Link Sussex.
On the basis of the figures we have worked on, Hampshire and part of Sussex has lost £800m to £1bn pounds worth of business, over the last decade, compared with what would have been; it could be a little les, it could be a great deal more but should never have been lost at all.
The logic of the above is that, as long as I am blocked, Hampshire loses of the order of £100m per year in tourism income.
Why do public funded organisations, decline, year after year, to assist in bringing that level of business to their own region?
Do you really want to bring your business to Hampshire?!
Apart from other matters, on which I am working, I really will have to finalise the last fraction of a percent of the manuscript of “Remembering Lorelei” and let it go. I have been apprehensive about riding two publicity eruptions at once, one from the contest of the book, the other due to other matter, the Hampshire Business Link matter only being on the periphery of that. I am getting over the apprehension to the extent that I am increasing my presence on the Internet.
That is something else to bear in mind about Hampshire, you will need to use the Internet, or have connections outside the County if you wish to make sure that your voice is heard; the usual channels are poor to blocked, or, at lest, severely compromised.
My Web Sites are abroad anyway, or were last time I checked (a very appropriate current under the circumstances), though having a very good computer consultant as a son-in-law, who happens to be Russian, with family in the Baltic States and Russia, means that I could have them moved further afield if absolutely necessary; courage in the upper echelons of Hampshire is not very great as it is, let alone, perhaps, needing to contemplate falling foul of Russian Oligarchs, along with the possibility of polonium in their cups of tea.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Structure of Water and Other Liquids
I recently came across a review paper that shows a considerable amount, of progress in the last decade or so, in the understanding of the structure of liquids. That paper “The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy” constitutes a comprehensive review of work in the field. The authors, Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell and M.R. Hoover, are not lightweights in the science field, though many mainstreamers are likely to find fault, not least because the thrust of the paper and the evidence contained, referred to, therein, is diametrically opposite to what the mainstream wish to hear.
As the authors point out, the term structure is used in the materials science sense, to designate the three dimensional arrangement of atoms, or molecules, not the structure of s single molecule, or oligomer, as used in chemistry.
The structure of water is due not to just the well known hydrogen bonds but van der Waals bonds between and among the various oligomeric (cluster) structural units.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) is extremely useful for crystal structures but of no use for liquids. Currently, the only effective investigative tool for non-crystalline solids, such as glass structures, directly but only partially, is transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and this cannot be used easily, directly, on liquid structures. These difficulties have lead many scientists to hold the naïve view that all liquids, like most crystalline matter, are, broadly, completely homogenous structures down to the unit cell, atomic, or crystalline level and that they exhibit structural characteristics in line with the random network model, one of the two models developed in the 1930s for glasses.
Zachariasen’s 1932 model for the structure of glass was arrived at by model fitting to X-ray scattering but is based on no direct data from other methods. Even so it has dominated thinking in physics and chemistry ever since. I recall such diagrams from the time of my Master of Technology Degree, in Non-Metallic Materials, at Brunel University during the 1970s.
Opposed to Zachariasen’s model of a homogonous structure, was the early “crystallite” theory, which also brings back memories. That model posited that small 5-50 Ao fragments of various crystalline structures floated in a “monomeric sea”.
Between the 1930 and 1980s the concept of a homogeneous (random-network), or heterogeneous (crystallite) structure for glass (frozen liquids) was reconsidered at various times. Transition electron microscopy (TEM) rather than X-ray diffraction (XRD) produced definitive relevant data in common boro- and alumino-silicate glasses, which showed a heterogeneous nano-structure of very many transparent glasses which have even 2 or 4 separate phases; a phase is defined as a region of characteristic structure, or composition separated by a surface.
The whole of the glass-ceramic industry depends on this incipient nanoheterogeneity, or actual phase separation in glass, for its existence. The existence and the high probability of nano-heterogeneity in most strongly bonded glass and liquid structures are now established as the “standard model”.
After surveying experimental data and the resulting thinking about glass and liquid structures over the last several deacedes, Roy, et al, conclude that the actual expereiental data on the structrue of many glasses and liquids can be summarised as follows:
a) The ubiquity of nanoscale heterogeneity in the structure of many covalently bonded liquids
b) That such heterogeneity on the nanometer scale is the rule rather than the exception for the structure of all strongly bonded liquids (i.e. principally excepting ionic and metallic melts)
The Structure of Water
Roy, et al, wrote their paper in the “language” of materials science. However, they found that, via some 17 million hits on Google for “structure of water”, materials scientists have rarely studied what is an extremely common material. The vast majority of papers on the “structure of water”, in the chemical and biomedical literature, started and, most often, ended with statements and claims about what molecules exist in water on the basis of particular, increasingly specialised tools, with the prominence of hydrogen bonding in the molecules rarely being commented on.
Roy, et al, cite a prodigious work, a website by Martin Chaplin of South Bank University, London. As they say, it is an enormous, complex and well organised review of the entire field of water structure and related fields, like homeopathy, the treatment of the latter being unusual in that it is scientific, balanced and fair minded. The ambiguity in the chemical literature on the structure of water is well illustrated by the collected illustrations of that structure, as conceived, proposed, deduced.
What comes out of all of this is that water, along with other liquids, has a structure, in the materials science sense, that can store information and have information impressed in it by means of epitaxy (shape), pressure generation, electrically, magnetically, etc., and that information can be retained.
In their conclusion, Roy, et al, point out the key role of the nano-heterogeneity of liquid water and the resulting ease of change of structure. They go on to say that the understanding and mental images of the structure of water have been radically distorted in the minds of most scientists and, thence, the medical community. Liquid water (OH2) like its remarkably similar analogue SiO2, is not a homogenous structure at the molecular level. It is a dynamic equilibrium among changing percentages of assemblages of different oligomers. The structure, architecture, and these assemblages, or units, themselves are dependent on temperature, hence it’s many anomalous property temperature relationships, as well as on pressure and on composition. As a result the structure is more responsive to composition of low level solutes, to magnetic fields and to “subtle energies”.
There is an extreme structural flexibility that predisposes the water to change by both epitaxy and succussion, the latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-air bubble colloid.
The latter factors provide a theoretical feasibility for, as the authors put it, “the robust outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who have reached more or less similar conclusion by other routes”.
To quote the following paragraph directly:
“The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and properties of water.”
Also, in the words of the paper, relating to homeopathy, with which I have to agree:
“The central thrust of this paper, which has presented an argument which nullifies the simpleminded argument of ‘zero concentration of solute, hence no possible effect,’ is that it is structure NOT composition which ahs the effect.”
As Roy, et al, say, their paper outlines testable hypotheses about the ability to alter the structure of water in the ultra-dilute regime, though epitaxy, coupled with succussion (vigorous shaking) generating pressure and nano-bubbles leading to properties markedly different than those of untreated water.
As the authors point out, the term structure is used in the materials science sense, to designate the three dimensional arrangement of atoms, or molecules, not the structure of s single molecule, or oligomer, as used in chemistry.
The structure of water is due not to just the well known hydrogen bonds but van der Waals bonds between and among the various oligomeric (cluster) structural units.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) is extremely useful for crystal structures but of no use for liquids. Currently, the only effective investigative tool for non-crystalline solids, such as glass structures, directly but only partially, is transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and this cannot be used easily, directly, on liquid structures. These difficulties have lead many scientists to hold the naïve view that all liquids, like most crystalline matter, are, broadly, completely homogenous structures down to the unit cell, atomic, or crystalline level and that they exhibit structural characteristics in line with the random network model, one of the two models developed in the 1930s for glasses.
Zachariasen’s 1932 model for the structure of glass was arrived at by model fitting to X-ray scattering but is based on no direct data from other methods. Even so it has dominated thinking in physics and chemistry ever since. I recall such diagrams from the time of my Master of Technology Degree, in Non-Metallic Materials, at Brunel University during the 1970s.
Opposed to Zachariasen’s model of a homogonous structure, was the early “crystallite” theory, which also brings back memories. That model posited that small 5-50 Ao fragments of various crystalline structures floated in a “monomeric sea”.
Between the 1930 and 1980s the concept of a homogeneous (random-network), or heterogeneous (crystallite) structure for glass (frozen liquids) was reconsidered at various times. Transition electron microscopy (TEM) rather than X-ray diffraction (XRD) produced definitive relevant data in common boro- and alumino-silicate glasses, which showed a heterogeneous nano-structure of very many transparent glasses which have even 2 or 4 separate phases; a phase is defined as a region of characteristic structure, or composition separated by a surface.
The whole of the glass-ceramic industry depends on this incipient nanoheterogeneity, or actual phase separation in glass, for its existence. The existence and the high probability of nano-heterogeneity in most strongly bonded glass and liquid structures are now established as the “standard model”.
After surveying experimental data and the resulting thinking about glass and liquid structures over the last several deacedes, Roy, et al, conclude that the actual expereiental data on the structrue of many glasses and liquids can be summarised as follows:
a) The ubiquity of nanoscale heterogeneity in the structure of many covalently bonded liquids
b) That such heterogeneity on the nanometer scale is the rule rather than the exception for the structure of all strongly bonded liquids (i.e. principally excepting ionic and metallic melts)
The Structure of Water
Roy, et al, wrote their paper in the “language” of materials science. However, they found that, via some 17 million hits on Google for “structure of water”, materials scientists have rarely studied what is an extremely common material. The vast majority of papers on the “structure of water”, in the chemical and biomedical literature, started and, most often, ended with statements and claims about what molecules exist in water on the basis of particular, increasingly specialised tools, with the prominence of hydrogen bonding in the molecules rarely being commented on.
Roy, et al, cite a prodigious work, a website by Martin Chaplin of South Bank University, London. As they say, it is an enormous, complex and well organised review of the entire field of water structure and related fields, like homeopathy, the treatment of the latter being unusual in that it is scientific, balanced and fair minded. The ambiguity in the chemical literature on the structure of water is well illustrated by the collected illustrations of that structure, as conceived, proposed, deduced.
What comes out of all of this is that water, along with other liquids, has a structure, in the materials science sense, that can store information and have information impressed in it by means of epitaxy (shape), pressure generation, electrically, magnetically, etc., and that information can be retained.
In their conclusion, Roy, et al, point out the key role of the nano-heterogeneity of liquid water and the resulting ease of change of structure. They go on to say that the understanding and mental images of the structure of water have been radically distorted in the minds of most scientists and, thence, the medical community. Liquid water (OH2) like its remarkably similar analogue SiO2, is not a homogenous structure at the molecular level. It is a dynamic equilibrium among changing percentages of assemblages of different oligomers. The structure, architecture, and these assemblages, or units, themselves are dependent on temperature, hence it’s many anomalous property temperature relationships, as well as on pressure and on composition. As a result the structure is more responsive to composition of low level solutes, to magnetic fields and to “subtle energies”.
There is an extreme structural flexibility that predisposes the water to change by both epitaxy and succussion, the latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-air bubble colloid.
The latter factors provide a theoretical feasibility for, as the authors put it, “the robust outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who have reached more or less similar conclusion by other routes”.
To quote the following paragraph directly:
“The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and properties of water.”
Also, in the words of the paper, relating to homeopathy, with which I have to agree:
“The central thrust of this paper, which has presented an argument which nullifies the simpleminded argument of ‘zero concentration of solute, hence no possible effect,’ is that it is structure NOT composition which ahs the effect.”
As Roy, et al, say, their paper outlines testable hypotheses about the ability to alter the structure of water in the ultra-dilute regime, though epitaxy, coupled with succussion (vigorous shaking) generating pressure and nano-bubbles leading to properties markedly different than those of untreated water.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Business Link Hampshire – Prediction Confirmed, Business Assistance and Advice Limited and Difficult to Obtain
Just before going out I ‘phoned Sarah at Business Link Hampshire about my appointment, with Jenny Oakley, at 10.45 a.m. on Tuesday 23rd February at the Emsworth Pastoral Centre, as I had not received an E-mail giving the location of the Pastoral centre, as promised, or confirming the appointment, though I had already realised, discovered, that the Pastoral Centre was at a church in the Centre of Emsworth. Someone by the name of Mark answered and said that Sarah had just picked up the ‘phone to speak to someone else.
I used the opportunity to double check on surnames, partly in order to have a closer look at my E-mails to see if I had missed anything. Mark advised me that Sarah’s surname was Anderson and it transpired that his was Bartlett. I asked if he was any relation, meaning to David Bartlett, Business director of Business Link Hampshire, but Mark said he was not any relation, though commented that “everybody asks that”, which was not really surprising..
I had known David Bartlett since the late 1990s, when he was at many meetings I attended, in Hampshire, while setting up my Technology Diversification Centre project as well as many meetings to do with the project, to which he was invited, also a member of the Board of Havant Borough Partnership to which my project was given, only for Havant Borough partnership to wreck it and the cover-up to ensue; the people of Havant are still unaware of having had their money (up to £1m at today’s prices, quite possibly more) used to pay back the money defrauded from Europe via the Government Office, though that was not just my project that was used to do that, as confirmed by the Well-Wisher, the former senior Havant Borough Council Officer, after retirement, though I had been aware of for other reasons, including “non-charge invoices”, to claims for matched funding, being requested at meetings, by the people to whom my project was given.
In the early 2000s I was “blanked” by Business Link Hampshire; it was as a Business Banker who used the term, though at the same meeting conceded that my non engineering interest were definitely viable as a business, a view which was later confirmed by others but never received any support from Business Link Hampshire. In 2004 I approached Business Link Sussex for help and they agreed my non-engineering interest were worth a very great deal, more than my engineering career. While Business Link Sussex were being very helpful, David Bartlett contacted me to suggest that I come back to Hampshire. I made the mistake of doing so; it saved me a great deal of travelling but my time and resources were simply wasted; I was only allowed to meet with David Bartlett, none of the more knowledgeable, appropriate, people with whom I requested to have discussions, ostensibly because his time was free and other peoples’ time would be expensive, and I progressed absolutely nowhere. So it remained for many years.
Just before I was due to leave for my appointment, the ‘phone rang; it was Sarah Anderson, of Business Link Hampshire, calling me back after my conversation with Mark Bartlett.
Sarah told me that my appointment with Jenney Oakley at Emsworth Pastoral Centre on 23rd February had been cancelled. They had, obviously, caught up with the fact that I had met Jenny Oakley before, in 2008 and, it seems, that I had problems with Business Link Hampshire before. According to my contemporaneous notes, which I usually try to make during such telephone conversations, it was said, had been said, that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley, which incensed me, somewhat, as it was totally untrue, though someone with Business Link Hampshire seems to have been putting several untruths about in relation to myself and Business Link Hampshire, in relation to other matters, so why not a supposed, manufactured, complaint as well.
Apparently, Jenny Oakley had said our previous meeting did not go well. That is entirely true, it amounted to a wasted one and a half hours. I had been invited to a one-to-one meeting and had accepted, primarily out of curiosity.
While I was at a networking meeting, arranged by Southern Entrepreneurs, some time before the meeting with Jenny Oakley, I mentioned the coming meeting to an experienced Hampshire businesswoman, who I had previously met. Her reaction was simply to look downwards and shake her head. That had nothing to do with Jenny Oakley, simply the appalling reputation that Business Link Hampshire had at the time, as well as for many years previously and, as yet, it does not seem to have improved. I had expected the meeting to be a waste of time, as someone within Business Link Hampshire has been working against me for years, though is far to cowardly to come out into the open. I fully expected the meeting to be a complete waste of time, as it was, though also recognised that Jenny Oakley was in a totally invidious position and that, left to her own devices, the outcome would have been different, quite possibly very different. I have more than enough experience of the machinations within industry and business not to be aware of such circumstances.
The 2008 meeting “not going well” was no reason, or excuse, for Jenny Oakley not to get back to me, in some form at least, though, as I have written, I fully recognise the difficulty of her position; hence my reaction to the suggestion that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley. As the underlying situation was none of her doing that would have been totally unfair. Similarly, the “block” and machinations being at a higher level than her would also have made it unfair. Besides, I made a formal complaint against Business Link Hampshire back in the early 2000s, probably during the years it was known as Business Link Wessex, as I recall. (I may have time to check and come back to edit this later.)
The complaint, against Business Link Hampshire/Wessex, was to Glen Atherfold, then of the Small Business Service. That was when I learned that a formal investigation into a Business Link amounts to, essentially, approaching the Business Link concerned on the basis, “Have you done anything wrong?”, “No?”, “Good, that’s all right then,” investigation over, case closed. Like other Public Bodies and Publically funded bodies, including Local Government, Business Links are a law unto themselves, though, probably, not, unlike at least some Local Government, above the law.
In the event, I told Sarah that I would like to see the complaint that I was supposed to have made against Jenny Oakley. I mentioned the letter I had received from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, principally about moving information to SEEDA, the South east England Development Agency, under which the local business Links now come, and, in passing, mentioning my request never to be contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, something I had never done and something clearly generated within Business Link Hampshire itself.
As far as the latest foray is concerned, I came across the Business Link people, Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting, as described in my previous Blog entry (Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction) and on the January 2010 page of my Journal Web Site. That is also why I was so careful to spend time talking to them, ask questions and make notes of exactly what I was entitled to receive in terms of business advice and support from Business Link Hampshire. The intention was to go along with it as far as the person near the top controlling these matters would allow, once they, or someone close to them, found out and to chronicle developments and my experiences on the Internet. What I had intended to do was to write the detail of the encounters in, more or less, inverse proportion to the how positive my encounters with Business Link Hampshire turned out to be and the amount of help received. If it developed well, what I wrote would be in generalities, if it went poorly, there would be more detail. In part that would be because, if it went well, I would be more occupied in following up Business Link Hampshire’s leads, as well as seeing no great sense in publicising details for those involved with the cover up and trying to prevent me getting into the public domain to come across.
At some stage Sarah Anderson suggested that I might like to talk to Debra Wyatt, who, when I asked about her position within Business Link Hampshire, was advised that she occupied the position of Director of Operations. It is strange that I am never directed to the person pulling the negative strings, the coward hiding in the background.
Sarah said it had been decided that a telephone consultation would be better; never mind what the customer wants, though this is a publicly funded organisation after all, the raison d’être is the customer in theory, though not in practice.
I decided I would go along with the suggestion and see what happened, though, having already discussed the Business Link Hampshire block on me, discrimination against me at Borough Councillor and County Councillor level, as well as with Business Link South East (outside Hampshire) and others, I would be letting them know how I was getting on, as well as blogging events.
The conversation with Sarah Anderson made me a little late for an appointment, though I arrived to find out that it had been cancelled anyway, due to illness, though no-one had called me to say so. As a result, I returned home, earlier than expected and, soon afterwards, went through my E-mails trying to find the E-mail Sarah said she sent me on 4th February. I could find nothing under Business Link Hampshire, either in the main folder, the Business Link Hampshire folder, the old Business Link Wessex folder, or the Junk E-mail folder, under either “Business Link”, “Sarah”, or “Anderson”.
As with many other organisations, I have no doubt that the majority of people at Business Link Hampshire are decent, helpful, capable people; the problem, as ever, comes when there is a senior person, or two, or three, or, very occasionally, more, with their own agenda.
That does not detract from the fact that Business Link Hampshire have contributed mightily to preventing me bringing tens of millions of Pounds worth of engineering business to Hampshire as well as tens to hundreds of millions of Pounds worth of tourism business to Hampshire, Sussex, Essex, etc. I am quite prepared to discuss that in even more public venus than this Blog; the person hiding within Business Link Hampshire would not be so prepared, though that person is not alone.
On Tuesday 23rd February, I am due to receive a ‘phone call from Nick Keogh, of Business Link Hampshire. We shall just have to see holding my breath. That has nothing to do with Nick Keogh, though has everything to do with the person manipulating matters behind the scenes.
I used the opportunity to double check on surnames, partly in order to have a closer look at my E-mails to see if I had missed anything. Mark advised me that Sarah’s surname was Anderson and it transpired that his was Bartlett. I asked if he was any relation, meaning to David Bartlett, Business director of Business Link Hampshire, but Mark said he was not any relation, though commented that “everybody asks that”, which was not really surprising..
I had known David Bartlett since the late 1990s, when he was at many meetings I attended, in Hampshire, while setting up my Technology Diversification Centre project as well as many meetings to do with the project, to which he was invited, also a member of the Board of Havant Borough Partnership to which my project was given, only for Havant Borough partnership to wreck it and the cover-up to ensue; the people of Havant are still unaware of having had their money (up to £1m at today’s prices, quite possibly more) used to pay back the money defrauded from Europe via the Government Office, though that was not just my project that was used to do that, as confirmed by the Well-Wisher, the former senior Havant Borough Council Officer, after retirement, though I had been aware of for other reasons, including “non-charge invoices”, to claims for matched funding, being requested at meetings, by the people to whom my project was given.
In the early 2000s I was “blanked” by Business Link Hampshire; it was as a Business Banker who used the term, though at the same meeting conceded that my non engineering interest were definitely viable as a business, a view which was later confirmed by others but never received any support from Business Link Hampshire. In 2004 I approached Business Link Sussex for help and they agreed my non-engineering interest were worth a very great deal, more than my engineering career. While Business Link Sussex were being very helpful, David Bartlett contacted me to suggest that I come back to Hampshire. I made the mistake of doing so; it saved me a great deal of travelling but my time and resources were simply wasted; I was only allowed to meet with David Bartlett, none of the more knowledgeable, appropriate, people with whom I requested to have discussions, ostensibly because his time was free and other peoples’ time would be expensive, and I progressed absolutely nowhere. So it remained for many years.
Just before I was due to leave for my appointment, the ‘phone rang; it was Sarah Anderson, of Business Link Hampshire, calling me back after my conversation with Mark Bartlett.
Sarah told me that my appointment with Jenney Oakley at Emsworth Pastoral Centre on 23rd February had been cancelled. They had, obviously, caught up with the fact that I had met Jenny Oakley before, in 2008 and, it seems, that I had problems with Business Link Hampshire before. According to my contemporaneous notes, which I usually try to make during such telephone conversations, it was said, had been said, that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley, which incensed me, somewhat, as it was totally untrue, though someone with Business Link Hampshire seems to have been putting several untruths about in relation to myself and Business Link Hampshire, in relation to other matters, so why not a supposed, manufactured, complaint as well.
Apparently, Jenny Oakley had said our previous meeting did not go well. That is entirely true, it amounted to a wasted one and a half hours. I had been invited to a one-to-one meeting and had accepted, primarily out of curiosity.
While I was at a networking meeting, arranged by Southern Entrepreneurs, some time before the meeting with Jenny Oakley, I mentioned the coming meeting to an experienced Hampshire businesswoman, who I had previously met. Her reaction was simply to look downwards and shake her head. That had nothing to do with Jenny Oakley, simply the appalling reputation that Business Link Hampshire had at the time, as well as for many years previously and, as yet, it does not seem to have improved. I had expected the meeting to be a waste of time, as someone within Business Link Hampshire has been working against me for years, though is far to cowardly to come out into the open. I fully expected the meeting to be a complete waste of time, as it was, though also recognised that Jenny Oakley was in a totally invidious position and that, left to her own devices, the outcome would have been different, quite possibly very different. I have more than enough experience of the machinations within industry and business not to be aware of such circumstances.
The 2008 meeting “not going well” was no reason, or excuse, for Jenny Oakley not to get back to me, in some form at least, though, as I have written, I fully recognise the difficulty of her position; hence my reaction to the suggestion that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley. As the underlying situation was none of her doing that would have been totally unfair. Similarly, the “block” and machinations being at a higher level than her would also have made it unfair. Besides, I made a formal complaint against Business Link Hampshire back in the early 2000s, probably during the years it was known as Business Link Wessex, as I recall. (I may have time to check and come back to edit this later.)
The complaint, against Business Link Hampshire/Wessex, was to Glen Atherfold, then of the Small Business Service. That was when I learned that a formal investigation into a Business Link amounts to, essentially, approaching the Business Link concerned on the basis, “Have you done anything wrong?”, “No?”, “Good, that’s all right then,” investigation over, case closed. Like other Public Bodies and Publically funded bodies, including Local Government, Business Links are a law unto themselves, though, probably, not, unlike at least some Local Government, above the law.
In the event, I told Sarah that I would like to see the complaint that I was supposed to have made against Jenny Oakley. I mentioned the letter I had received from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, principally about moving information to SEEDA, the South east England Development Agency, under which the local business Links now come, and, in passing, mentioning my request never to be contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, something I had never done and something clearly generated within Business Link Hampshire itself.
As far as the latest foray is concerned, I came across the Business Link people, Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting, as described in my previous Blog entry (Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction) and on the January 2010 page of my Journal Web Site. That is also why I was so careful to spend time talking to them, ask questions and make notes of exactly what I was entitled to receive in terms of business advice and support from Business Link Hampshire. The intention was to go along with it as far as the person near the top controlling these matters would allow, once they, or someone close to them, found out and to chronicle developments and my experiences on the Internet. What I had intended to do was to write the detail of the encounters in, more or less, inverse proportion to the how positive my encounters with Business Link Hampshire turned out to be and the amount of help received. If it developed well, what I wrote would be in generalities, if it went poorly, there would be more detail. In part that would be because, if it went well, I would be more occupied in following up Business Link Hampshire’s leads, as well as seeing no great sense in publicising details for those involved with the cover up and trying to prevent me getting into the public domain to come across.
At some stage Sarah Anderson suggested that I might like to talk to Debra Wyatt, who, when I asked about her position within Business Link Hampshire, was advised that she occupied the position of Director of Operations. It is strange that I am never directed to the person pulling the negative strings, the coward hiding in the background.
Sarah said it had been decided that a telephone consultation would be better; never mind what the customer wants, though this is a publicly funded organisation after all, the raison d’être is the customer in theory, though not in practice.
I decided I would go along with the suggestion and see what happened, though, having already discussed the Business Link Hampshire block on me, discrimination against me at Borough Councillor and County Councillor level, as well as with Business Link South East (outside Hampshire) and others, I would be letting them know how I was getting on, as well as blogging events.
The conversation with Sarah Anderson made me a little late for an appointment, though I arrived to find out that it had been cancelled anyway, due to illness, though no-one had called me to say so. As a result, I returned home, earlier than expected and, soon afterwards, went through my E-mails trying to find the E-mail Sarah said she sent me on 4th February. I could find nothing under Business Link Hampshire, either in the main folder, the Business Link Hampshire folder, the old Business Link Wessex folder, or the Junk E-mail folder, under either “Business Link”, “Sarah”, or “Anderson”.
As with many other organisations, I have no doubt that the majority of people at Business Link Hampshire are decent, helpful, capable people; the problem, as ever, comes when there is a senior person, or two, or three, or, very occasionally, more, with their own agenda.
That does not detract from the fact that Business Link Hampshire have contributed mightily to preventing me bringing tens of millions of Pounds worth of engineering business to Hampshire as well as tens to hundreds of millions of Pounds worth of tourism business to Hampshire, Sussex, Essex, etc. I am quite prepared to discuss that in even more public venus than this Blog; the person hiding within Business Link Hampshire would not be so prepared, though that person is not alone.
On Tuesday 23rd February, I am due to receive a ‘phone call from Nick Keogh, of Business Link Hampshire. We shall just have to see holding my breath. That has nothing to do with Nick Keogh, though has everything to do with the person manipulating matters behind the scenes.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction
On Tuesday 24th January 2010, I attended the Chamber of Commerce Meeting at 1000 Lakeside, North Harbour, Portsmouth, the former IBM Building, happening to arrive, in the car park, at about the same time as Maureen Frost, Chief Executive of Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce.
The Meeting was on one of the upper floors of the building and well attended, as usual, plus numerous people and organisations with stands.
One of the stands was, inevitably, occupied by Business Link Hampshire Stand. The two representatives of Business Link Hampshire, to whom I spoke were Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, though, principally, principally Susan Obbard. I had met Susan Obbard before, during a similar Chamber of Commerce meeting held at Fratton Park, home of Portsmouth Football Club. On that occasion I had asked for business assistance and gave Susan Obbard my business card but heard nothing thereafter. I wondered if she would remember, half thought of using another name, but then decided to go ahead, using my own name, see what happened, then chronicle everything on the Internet as well as advising others I had spoken to at Business Link South East (outside Hampshire), County Councillors and others.
It was during that conversation that Madeleine Morton said she thought she had met me before, at a Business Breakfast at Cams hall Golf Club. That had been a long time before, though I also remembered Madeleine from an East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce meeting at the east Hampshire Council Offices in Petersfield.
What I learned from Susan Obbard was what I had always thought about Business links and the helped that they should offer.
Like anyone else, I was entitled to on-to-one business counselling and support, up to four meetings per year, each of one hour to an hour and a half duration.
At such a meeting, certainly the first one, the topics that would be gone over were:
Strategy
Customers
Operations
People and skills
Finance
Information Technology
There would be telephone support and support on the Business Link website.
There would be one-to-one support with advisors.
Susan Obbard said that Jenny Oakley was very good at her job.
I asked Susan Obbard if there should be feedback from each of the on-to-one meetings and she confirmed that was the case. Similar, I checked my understanding, from what she had said and what I had understood from other sources
When I asked her how long it might be before I heard from them she said that Business Link Hampshire’s turnaround time was within twenty-four hours and that I should hear from them on the following day, Wednesday.
The above is what I understood Business Links should provide in terms of help. Watch these pages and my Blogs to see if it transpires, this time. My easy prediction is that it will not and business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me and that will be at the behest of a senior manager without he courage to come out in the open,
I did not hear from Business Link Hampshire on the Wednesday but that would have been a ratherrapid reaction, so left ti to see what would transpire.
On Friday 27th January I had a dental appointment early in the morning, in Havant. Everything turned out to be alright and no treatment was needed.
When I arrived home I learned there had been a ‘phone call for me from Sarah at Business Link Hampshire.
I ‘phoned Sarah back, at 12.34 p.m., at Business Link Hampshire, before leaving for my afternoon business appointed. Sarah thanked me for calling back and set about arranging an appointment for me to see the Business Link Advisor, Jenny Oakley.
There were possible appointments on Monday 15th January in Havant, or Tuesday 23rd January in Emsworth, with a third possibility being on Tuesday 9th February at Brambles Farm Business Centre, Waterlooville. Some of the available times clashed with my already arranged appointments.
The appointment in Havant would have been at the Civic Offices in Havant, Havant Borough Council Offices, where I had met Jenny Oakley in June 2008 and got absolutely nowhere; I gained nothing from the meeting and never heard from her again, let alone being provided with another three meetings over the following twelve months, all with assistance to develop my business, etc. I had no doubt, then, that Jenny Oakley was under instruction not to help me and that is what transpired; hence asking detailed questions of Susan Obbard at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting to make doubly sure that I was entirely correct in what I understood business Link assistance should actually be.
Of course, I mentioned none of the foregoing to Sarah, during our telephone conversation, simply making the appointment to see what would happen, though, this time, intending to follow through and put everything on the Internet.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing of the letter from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, which, in passing, alluded to my supposed request, never to contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, a request I had never made, having only asked them for assistance, many times, over several years but never received any.
In the end, the appointment was made for a meeting with Jenny Oakley at 10.45 a.m. at the Pastoral Centre, Emsworth (http://www.findachurch.co.uk/churches/su/su70/emsworthmc/). I told Sarah that I was not sure where the Pastoral Centre was, not being able to place it at the time. Sarah said that she would provide details of the location of the Pastoral Centre in the E-mail she would send me. I wondered I that would happen, or whether someone would catch up with my request for the meeting and block it, the E-mail from Sarah not then being sent; that was later to transpire, the E-mail never arrived.
The prediction, based on previous experience, is, of course, that Business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me. Developments, in whatever direction, will be published on the Internet, as will reactions from other people I contact, including County Councillors, Borough Councillors, people I have spoken to within Business Link South East, though outside of Hampshire, etc., though not necessarily with their names.
The Meeting was on one of the upper floors of the building and well attended, as usual, plus numerous people and organisations with stands.
One of the stands was, inevitably, occupied by Business Link Hampshire Stand. The two representatives of Business Link Hampshire, to whom I spoke were Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, though, principally, principally Susan Obbard. I had met Susan Obbard before, during a similar Chamber of Commerce meeting held at Fratton Park, home of Portsmouth Football Club. On that occasion I had asked for business assistance and gave Susan Obbard my business card but heard nothing thereafter. I wondered if she would remember, half thought of using another name, but then decided to go ahead, using my own name, see what happened, then chronicle everything on the Internet as well as advising others I had spoken to at Business Link South East (outside Hampshire), County Councillors and others.
It was during that conversation that Madeleine Morton said she thought she had met me before, at a Business Breakfast at Cams hall Golf Club. That had been a long time before, though I also remembered Madeleine from an East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce meeting at the east Hampshire Council Offices in Petersfield.
What I learned from Susan Obbard was what I had always thought about Business links and the helped that they should offer.
Like anyone else, I was entitled to on-to-one business counselling and support, up to four meetings per year, each of one hour to an hour and a half duration.
At such a meeting, certainly the first one, the topics that would be gone over were:
Strategy
Customers
Operations
People and skills
Finance
Information Technology
There would be telephone support and support on the Business Link website.
There would be one-to-one support with advisors.
Susan Obbard said that Jenny Oakley was very good at her job.
I asked Susan Obbard if there should be feedback from each of the on-to-one meetings and she confirmed that was the case. Similar, I checked my understanding, from what she had said and what I had understood from other sources
When I asked her how long it might be before I heard from them she said that Business Link Hampshire’s turnaround time was within twenty-four hours and that I should hear from them on the following day, Wednesday.
The above is what I understood Business Links should provide in terms of help. Watch these pages and my Blogs to see if it transpires, this time. My easy prediction is that it will not and business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me and that will be at the behest of a senior manager without he courage to come out in the open,
I did not hear from Business Link Hampshire on the Wednesday but that would have been a ratherrapid reaction, so left ti to see what would transpire.
On Friday 27th January I had a dental appointment early in the morning, in Havant. Everything turned out to be alright and no treatment was needed.
When I arrived home I learned there had been a ‘phone call for me from Sarah at Business Link Hampshire.
I ‘phoned Sarah back, at 12.34 p.m., at Business Link Hampshire, before leaving for my afternoon business appointed. Sarah thanked me for calling back and set about arranging an appointment for me to see the Business Link Advisor, Jenny Oakley.
There were possible appointments on Monday 15th January in Havant, or Tuesday 23rd January in Emsworth, with a third possibility being on Tuesday 9th February at Brambles Farm Business Centre, Waterlooville. Some of the available times clashed with my already arranged appointments.
The appointment in Havant would have been at the Civic Offices in Havant, Havant Borough Council Offices, where I had met Jenny Oakley in June 2008 and got absolutely nowhere; I gained nothing from the meeting and never heard from her again, let alone being provided with another three meetings over the following twelve months, all with assistance to develop my business, etc. I had no doubt, then, that Jenny Oakley was under instruction not to help me and that is what transpired; hence asking detailed questions of Susan Obbard at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting to make doubly sure that I was entirely correct in what I understood business Link assistance should actually be.
Of course, I mentioned none of the foregoing to Sarah, during our telephone conversation, simply making the appointment to see what would happen, though, this time, intending to follow through and put everything on the Internet.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing of the letter from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, which, in passing, alluded to my supposed request, never to contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, a request I had never made, having only asked them for assistance, many times, over several years but never received any.
In the end, the appointment was made for a meeting with Jenny Oakley at 10.45 a.m. at the Pastoral Centre, Emsworth (http://www.findachurch.co.uk/churches/su/su70/emsworthmc/). I told Sarah that I was not sure where the Pastoral Centre was, not being able to place it at the time. Sarah said that she would provide details of the location of the Pastoral Centre in the E-mail she would send me. I wondered I that would happen, or whether someone would catch up with my request for the meeting and block it, the E-mail from Sarah not then being sent; that was later to transpire, the E-mail never arrived.
The prediction, based on previous experience, is, of course, that Business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me. Developments, in whatever direction, will be published on the Internet, as will reactions from other people I contact, including County Councillors, Borough Councillors, people I have spoken to within Business Link South East, though outside of Hampshire, etc., though not necessarily with their names.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
