Elite Mischief – Gordon Brown and The Francis Crick Institute

Posted on November 11, 2012

I was recently contacted by Bloomberg News and asked to comment on
the  Francis Crick Institute, a massive research laboratory which is
being built in central London  on land immediately behind the British
library and a road’s width  from the Eurostar terminal.  The
laboratory will be handling dangerous toxins and consequently the site
is deeply unsuitable both  because of the risk of an accidental escape
of toxins  or terrorism.

In addition to the security dangers, the land was sold improperly by
the Department of Culture Media and Sport.  The bid was by public
tender withe DCMS secretary of state making a decision on strict
criteria. The sale was improper because Gordon Brown when Prime
Minister intervened consistently to ensure it went to the consortium
backing the Francis Crick Institute.

I met with Mrs Gerlin on 8 November. Whether she will use the story
remains to be seen.

The full details can be found by following links given in my Briefing
Note  to Mrs Gerlin dated 9 November.

——————————————————————————————————–

Mr Robert Henderson

October 25, 2012

Dear Mr Henderson,

I am a healthcare reporter for Bloomberg News in London. I am working
on a story about the Cricket Institute., which is to be located near
your home. I have read some of your objections to it on your blog and
have tried reaching you by email with no success.

I would be interested in speaking to you and would like to arrange to
meet you near the site. Are you able to meet with me the week of Nov.
6-8? I will be away from London until then, but if you think you have
the time, please call my office  (020 7673 2907) and leave a message
or send me an email at ager...@bloomberg.net.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards

Andrea Gerlin

Reporter

——————————————————————————————————–

Andrea Gerlin

BLOOMBERG NEWSROOM

City Gate House

39-45 Finsbury Square

London EC2A 1PO

Tel: 0207 330 7500

9 November 2012
Dear Andrea,

Let me summarise our meeting today.  The stories for you in the
Francis Crick Institute project are these:

1. Gordon Brown’s interference with the DCMS bidding process.   The
bids were meant to be assessed only by the DCMS ministers.  The
documents which you saw today showed that Brown was interfering as
early as 1 August 2007, the day before the expressions of interest
closed, and continued to be involved right up to the announcement he
made in the Commons in November 2007.  These documents show
unambiguously that  the bidding  for the land was a sham with the
Consortium bid behind what is now the Francis Crick Institute actively
supported by Brown from the beginning. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/gordon-browns-involvement-in-t...

2. The failure of the unsuccessful bidders to take action when I  sent
them the details of Brown’s  interference with the bidding process
which meant they had expended  their time and money for nothing.. This
is almost certainly due to the fact that the serious  bidders  rely
heavily on public contracts and did not want to put those in jeopardy
by making a fuss about this bogus contract bidding. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-failed-bidders-notified-th...
and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/notification-of-the-contaminat...

3. The failure of the officers of Camden Counci l who prepared  the
brief for the planning committee  to include the details of Brown’s
interference with the bidding process in the brief. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/challenge-to-the-granting-of-p...
and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/camdens-response-to-my-notific...

4. The failure of  the Mayor of London to take up the question of
Gordon Brown’s interference with the bidding process  after I had sent
him the details. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/notification-of-planning-irreg...
and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/boris-johnson-gives-the-go-ahe...

5. The new leader of the Green Party in Britain, Natalie Bennett,
took a leading role in the opposition to the laboratory, including
giving evidence before the Science and Technology select committee.
Despite having ready access to the media as she was a Guardian online
editor , Natalie refused to use the evidence of Brown’s interference
with the bidding process.   Try as  I might I never got a meaningful
explanation for why she would not use the material . At the least
there is a considerable disjunction between her public promotion of
herself as a Green campaigner  and her failure to use information
which, apart from being a potent weapon in the fight against the
siting of the laboratory , was a first rate political story in its own
right. As her politics are well to the left (see http://www.nataliebennett.co.uk/)
, a plausible motive for her failure to use the  information was her
unwillingness to damage a prime minister and a party with which she
had much sympathy. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-k...

6. The biohazard and terrorist dangers. These include the use by the
Consortium of a non-existent classification of biohazard level 3+.
They have been persistently challenged on this and never given a
straight answer.  The section on security in this post covers the
issue –
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/objection-to-ukcmri-planning-a...

These issues are serendipitous as news stories because there is a
cataract of elite misbehaviour still hitting the public, a substantial
part of which involves the ill consequences of privatisation through
the putting of public work out to private contract. I send by separate
email a selection of recent media stories about privatisation, both
wholesale and piecemeal, which will give you an idea of how disorderly
public contract awarding has become and how prone to corrupt
practices.

To make  the subject as accessible as I can for you I have placed
below links to every post made on the UKCRMI blog (I managed to sort
out the lost posts after you went). If you click on them they should
take you to each post directly. The titles of the links are self-
explanatory.

I am willing to make available to you any of my documentation which is
not already on the UKCRMI blog; to give Bloomberg an interview to be
broadcast or appear in written form and write an article for
Bloomberg.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

——————————————————————————

Links to UKCRMI blog posts

The new leader of the Greens knows how to keep mum

MPs back £660million medical research superlab

UKCRMI to become The Francis Crick Institute

MPs back £660million medical research superlab

New Scientist reports on the Science and Technology Committee’s
reservations about UKCRMI’s location

Notification of the contamination of the bidding process to the lead
contractor

O’Rourke wins prized £350m superlab contract

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 2nd March 2011

The failed bidders notified that the bidding process was a sham

Gordon Brown’s involvement in the sale of the land to UKCRMI

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 16 February 2011

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 9 February 2011

Choosing the short list of bidders

The full list of bidders

Science and Technology Committee – Next UKCRMI evidence

Science and Technology Committee 9 February 2011

No 10 ‘interfered to push through £600m plan for virus superlab’

Notification of planning irregularities to Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson gives the go-ahead to UKCMRI laboratory

My submission to the Science and Technology Committee has been
accepted

Camden’s response to my notification of planning permission
irregularities

A list of the bidders for the Brill Place site

Letter submitted to the Camden New Journal 2 January 2011

Correspondence with Councillors about the vote

How councillors voted on the UKCMRI planning application

Councillors asked directly about who voted and how

The Evening Standard on security

Which councillors voted which way?

Challenge to the granting of planning permision

Objection to UKCMRI planning application for a research centre in
Brill Place London NW1

Objection to planning application supporting documents

"Cricket Institute"?

dG

The least of Brown's worries just wait till the LIBOR enquiry gets
going.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Labour effectively switched off
all the mechanisms of financial regulation in order to sweat the
financial service sector for tax revenues.

By doing so, they thought they could get away with it but Global
Gordon forgot that banks are global and that the US regulatory system
would not be so forgiving.

The global banking collapse was born in the City it never was a
problem of deregulation but one of a lack of enforcement of even the
basic of existing regulations by the new regulatory body Labour
created.

The post mortem has now  finally kicked off over here but we only have
the Yanks' persistent digging to thank for it.

Give it another year or so and Labour will be up to their eyeballs in
shift fresh from the fan.

IIRC much of this was funded by the Welcome Institute.

1. It is the Prime Minister's job to interfere in government - s/he is in
charge of it.  So world class laboratories for London, named after one of
the greatest Nobel prize winners ever - what a good idea!

2. WTF should rival bidders sue?  Huge costs if they lose, so very risky,
plus as you point out they might not be allowed to bid for other contracts
if they shout 'foul'.

3. Ownership if almost nothing to do with planning - you can apply for
planning on someone else's land as long as you complete "declaration B" and
serve it on the owner with 21 days notice.  As the application is public -
anyone could have raised at the time - I have had planning apps rejected [as
invalid] because of 10cms encroachment shown on plans unknown to the
neighbours, but the application would have been perfectly valid if notice
had been served.  Obviously you can't actually build on someone else's land
without their permission (usually sale agreed subject to contract).

4. Why should he?

5. So what?

6. Biohazard - well yes there is a risk - remember when smallpox escaped in
Birmingham.  We also had something nasty leak out somewhere else.  Far
outweighed by the benefits.

Keep taking the tablets...

Elite Mischief Gordon Brown and The Francis Crick Institute

Posted on November 11, 2012

I was recently contacted by Bloomberg News and asked to comment on
the  Francis Crick Institute, a massive research laboratory which is
being built in central London  on land immediately behind the British
library and a road s width  from the Eurostar terminal.  The
laboratory will be handling dangerous toxins and consequently the site
is deeply unsuitable both  because of the risk of an accidental escape
of toxins  or terrorism.

In addition to the security dangers, the land was sold improperly by
the Department of Culture Media and Sport.  The bid was by public
tender withe DCMS secretary of state making a decision on strict
criteria. The sale was improper because Gordon Brown when Prime
Minister intervened consistently to ensure it went to the consortium
backing the Francis Crick Institute.

I met with Mrs Gerlin on 8 November. Whether she will use the story
remains to be seen.

The full details can be found by following links given in my Briefing
Note  to Mrs Gerlin dated 9 November.

Mr Robert Henderson

October 25, 2012

Dear Mr Henderson,

I am a healthcare reporter for Bloomberg News in London. I am working
on a story about the Cricket Institute., which is to be located near
your home. I have read some of your objections to it on your blog and
have tried reaching you by email with no success.

I would be interested in speaking to you and would like to arrange to
meet you near the site. Are you able to meet with me the week of Nov.
6-8? I will be away from London until then, but if you think you have
the time, please call my office  (020 7673 2907) and leave a message
or send me an email at ager...@bloomberg.net.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards

Andrea Gerlin

Reporter

Andrea Gerlin

BLOOMBERG NEWSROOM

City Gate House

39-45 Finsbury Square

London EC2A 1PO

Tel: 0207 330 7500

9 November 2012
Dear Andrea,

Let me summarise our meeting today.  The stories for you in the
Francis Crick Institute project are these:

1. Gordon Brown s interference with the DCMS bidding process.   The
bids were meant to be assessed only by the DCMS ministers.  The
documents which you saw today showed that Brown was interfering as
early as 1 August 2007, the day before the expressions of interest
closed, and continued to be involved right up to the announcement he
made in the Commons in November 2007.  These documents show
unambiguously that  the bidding  for the land was a sham with the
Consortium bid behind what is now the Francis Crick Institute actively
supported by Brown from the beginning. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/gordon-browns-involvement-in-t...

2. The failure of the unsuccessful bidders to take action when I  sent
them the details of Brown s  interference with the bidding process
which meant they had expended  their time and money for nothing.. This
is almost certainly due to the fact that the serious  bidders  rely
heavily on public contracts and did not want to put those in jeopardy
by making a fuss about this bogus contract bidding. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-failed-bidders-notified-th...
and
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/notification-of-the-contaminat...

3. The failure of the officers of Camden Counci l who prepared  the
brief for the planning committee  to include the details of Brown s
interference with the bidding process in the brief. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/challenge-to-the-granting-of-p...
and
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/camdens-response-to-my-notific...

4. The failure of  the Mayor of London to take up the question of
Gordon Brown s interference with the bidding process  after I had sent
him the details. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/notification-of-planning-irreg...
and
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/boris-johnson-gives-the-go-ahe...

5. The new leader of the Green Party in Britain, Natalie Bennett,
took a leading role in the opposition to the laboratory, including
giving evidence before the Science and Technology select committee.
Despite having ready access to the media as she was a Guardian online
editor , Natalie refused to use the evidence of Brown s interference
with the bidding process.   Try as  I might I never got a meaningful
explanation for why she would not use the material . At the least
there is a considerable disjunction between her public promotion of
herself as a Green campaigner  and her failure to use information
which, apart from being a potent weapon in the fight against the
siting of the laboratory , was a first rate political story in its own
right. As her politics are well to the left (see
http://www.nataliebennett.co.uk/)
, a plausible motive for her failure to use the  information was her
unwillingness to damage a prime minister and a party with which she
had much sympathy. See
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-k...

6. The biohazard and terrorist dangers. These include the use by the
Consortium of a non-existent classification of biohazard level 3+.
They have been persistently challenged on this and never given a
straight answer.  The section on security in this post covers the
issue
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/objection-to-ukcmri-planning-a...

These issues are serendipitous as news stories because there is a
cataract of elite misbehaviour still hitting the public, a substantial
part of which involves the ill consequences of privatisation through
the putting of public work out to private contract. I send by separate
email a selection of recent media stories about privatisation, both
wholesale and piecemeal, which will give you an idea of how disorderly
public contract awarding has become and how prone to corrupt
practices.

To make  the subject as accessible as I can for you I have placed
below links to every post made on the UKCRMI blog (I managed to sort
out the lost posts after you went). If you click on them they should
take you to each post directly. The titles of the links are self-
explanatory.

I am willing to make available to you any of my documentation which is
not already on the UKCRMI blog; to give Bloomberg an interview to be
broadcast or appear in written form and write an article for
Bloomberg.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

Links to UKCRMI blog posts

The new leader of the Greens knows how to keep mum

MPs back 660million medical research superlab

UKCRMI to become The Francis Crick Institute

MPs back 660million medical research superlab

New Scientist reports on the Science and Technology Committee s
reservations about UKCRMI s location

Notification of the contamination of the bidding process to the lead
contractor

O Rourke wins prized 350m superlab contract

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 2nd March 2011

The failed bidders notified that the bidding process was a sham

Gordon Brown s involvement in the sale of the land to UKCRMI

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 16 February 2011

Report and commentary on the STC hearing of 9 February 2011

Choosing the short list of bidders

The full list of bidders

Science and Technology Committee Next UKCRMI evidence

Science and Technology Committee 9 February 2011

No 10 interfered to push through 600m plan for virus superlab

Notification of planning irregularities to Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson gives the go-ahead to UKCMRI laboratory

My submission to the Science and Technology Committee has been
accepted

Camden s response to my notification of planning permission ...

read more »