Featured post

10,000,000 Miles in a Nissan Leaf?

Monday, 7 October 2013

A Slightly Unfortunate Choice of Web Address

Well, it's not everybody's cup of tea and it's minor league techy - but I was a bit surprised getting a Tweet from The Environment Agency inviting me to apply for a job. (£150,000 a year, 3 day week , expenses, lease car, flexitime and a generous pension will do - thank you in advance)

I was intrigued by their use of the i-grasp web address (which actually didn't work with the link embedded in the Tweet - not a reassuring start, but sadly par for the EA course) - that url is loaded with other meanings especially for the waste handlers and recyclers we know come to the Avoncliff Mills blog for a bit of light relief and to vent a bit.....  

Onwards ...  the employment page taken literally would seem to infer some initial preferences in terms of employment candidates skill sets - employee attributes that whilst laudable and no doubt aligned with a sense of social responsibility should be tertiary to selecting the best candidate for the job - and should be applied at the end of the selection process between otherwise equally suitable candidates. Presenting these criteria at the outset is wrong , discriminatory and conflicts with several statutory duties the organisation is supposedly obliged to discharge - but as we know - conflicted decisions and dereliction of statutory duties litter the EA landscape without much actually being done to clear up the mess. However - it does look like the logo-soup was used to select the chairman.

The logo shower at the bottom of the i-grasp (Appleobviously missed a trick there)  EA employment portal page and the failure of the Twitter link to actually link to a listing of available positions is simply another albeit trivial but real manifestation of the woeful competence we see from this organisation. 

The incumbents are obviously not so stupid as not to see that the public perception of the EA is suffering and are ... quietly preparing a shell game  some of the details of which are covered in the EA triennial review document HERE (pdf) - frankly, looking at the proposals it looks like an attempt to even further attenuate public budgetary accountability and "outsource" the enforcement activities - which will suit the spendthrift self regarding passengers on the present gravy train just fine.

Something does need to be done - and they know it  - but predictably they aren't interested in providing value for money and actually delivering the services outlined in their statutory obligations to the people forced to pay for them. Creating "Trusts" is where they're heading - given the EA's performance - trust can be added to the miserable lexicon of words devalued beyond recognition by those in positions of actual public trust.

This is set to run. 

in terms of unfortunate web addresses try this

EDIT: In the meantime Richard Benyon and David Heath - both in a way responsible for controlling the Environment Agency have both been replaced in the latest (Oct 2013) ministerial reshuffle / deckchair adjustment exercise. We hope that their successors use their power and do not take the blandishments and fibs that they're briefed with at face value.


  1. There has been a number of ministerial changes taking place at Defra. Is this of a sign of change coming the way of the Environment Agency? One can only hope.

  2. Real, positive change will only come when some of the present incumbents are punished for their misdeeds and not rewarded - and accountability is put on a proper footing. The way it is skewed at the moment is unacceptable and actually promotes the sort of abusive and corrupt behaviour we have documented here for nearly 4 years.

    Should government employees be provided with immunity from the consequences of their actions? In some areas there is a case for immunity but blanket immunity? = we think not.

  3. Its a good job the EA are not paid performance related they would earn bu**er all infact they owe the TAX payer £millions in wasted money down the river SACK the idiots involved in this fiasco .

  4. You must have it wrong, it must be £15000 a year the water permitting teams only hire idiots looking at this lot.They cannot be paid on performance like you say if i were developers i would walk away. What a waste of public funds.

  5. Well, I've emailed documents to Richard Benyon and David Heath outlining what I have experienced working inside the EA, along with names and specific incidents that highlight what has been discussed here and over at Inside the EA. I'm in discussions with operators who also have documented their own experiences, with collaborates what I have seen and written about. Will something be done about? I don't know, but this waste and abuse HAS TO STOP. I've also sent hard copies and tweets to ensure they get the message. @EnvAgencyAbuse. I advise all to do the same if you expect change.

  6. I played the game and followed the link only to be told there were no vacancies for Director level on a salary in excess of £100,000. So the mess continues. I suppose I should keep applying and when a vacancy gets listed it will possibly indicate some moves at the top. In all probability it will end up being an internal promotion for some loyal person in the slime directly below the top. Someone adequately trained in delay, prevarication and procrastination. The successful applicant will have to know how to lie and must not understand the meaning of openness and transparency. Am I being a little cynical? I don't think so from my experience of dealing with the upper levels of the EA.

  7. I've been given permission to post about the recruitment and selection process. Will give you further insight as to how the Agency has ended up where it is:

  8. Using the logos in sequence...

    Believer in Religion

    can't help thinking that these are a strange combination of virtues to seek in possible employees - why not actively exclude people too like people who wear socks with sandals, are known to be noisy eaters and support Man Utd.??

    Now then ... what do you know about ... oh, never mind

  9. Changing the subject a bit, not sure but are you aware that weavers mill is on the market with cobb farr £895000. So how will he fit a turbine if he no longer owns it ? It seems the EA have been wasting all this tax payers money and he had no intention of fitting a turbine, maybe he was just trying to ruin your chances. Tax paying local

  10. Can this sorry process at Avoncliff go on indefinitely? The EA qango is rumoured to be disbanded by some time in 2014. Are they trying to drag it out until they don't exist any more. Then when the guilty parties are employed by the new trust or whatever replaces the EA they can make a decision and blame it all on the EA. Change of department name and change of uniform will not change the culture it will just give the printers lots of business with new cards and forms etc and the uniform makers with logos on similar style shirts etc. I believe I read somewhere the EA have just been through a uniform design update and made many changes so it will be another lot of new uniforms. I supposed it keeps the staff provided with old decorating and gardening wear at the taxpayers expense. Sorry this is turning into a general winge about the corrupt and wasteful EA.


Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil