Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

Sandwell council is currently “reviewing” its green space strategy, previously undertaken in 2006. Much of this appears to have taken place on the quiet, and I only found out about it by chance when a “workshop” dealing with matters of “biodiversity” was passed to me to attend at the Sandwell Valley.

This ties in with Sandwell council’s much heralded clap trap of “vision 2030”. This verb laden plethora of local gov speak bollocks is what makes councillors salivate, and what many of their academia jockey officers at senior level think will appeal to the masses- the idiots.

Here they are in all their glory.

 

 

The first thing to note about these 10 ambitions- (no idea as to how they were formed and by whom), is that they are all geared around people, the family unit, education, transport links and jobs. These are all political  campaigning tools, but they are also appealing to the purely selfish, consumer society that wants everything easily and wants it cheaply out of some sense of automatic entitlement- i.e your typical Labour voter.

Personally I have no interest in children, no interest in education, no interest in transport extensions and creating shitty poorly paid jobs to reduce the jobless figures. What I do have is an interest in protecting the environment, wildlife and biodiversity and habitats. NONE OF THE AMBITIONS ABOVE EVEN MENTION ANY OF THIS.

I am not alone in thinking this or pointing it out. At the workshop, attended by invite to many of the same faces that are rather passive friends of Sandwell council and the party who run the show without any opposition, also stated the same. THERE IS NO AMBITION FROM SANDWELL COUNCIL’S “VISION” TO PROTECT WILDLIFE, THEIR HABITATS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

Sandwell council’s partner, CPUK, who had been undertaking a survey of the local  authorities green space and their wildlife classification designation presented a series of data sets dealing with population density, access to designated sites and quality of these based on the green flag award status. This latter award has been used as a political tool in many ways by Sandwell’s Labour group, although as I have pointed out in one case, it is not an award deserving of the cloth where wildlife is being destroyed due to poor quality maintenance issues.

After the presentation which revealed that there are just 12 designated local nature reserves in Sandwell’s six towns (7 of them in West Bromwich alone), there was an opportunity for some group think around the table. This looked at the council’s vision and the issues and challenges that face achieving better biodiversity in the borough.

I pointed out , as did others that the vision above , particularly concerning building more houses, is in direct opposition to encouraging biodiversity and wildlife habitats. Time and time again in Sandwell, and in particular in Tipton and Oldbury, two towns which have just 1 local nature reserve between them, every area of green space is being sold off by Sandwell council to create housing.

Two highly controversial schemes, one at Lion Farm playing fields to create a retail park and another at Londonderry Lane playing fields to build an aquatics centre as part of BIRMINGHAM’S Commonwealth games do not show much optimism for achieving a green space strategy- unless that strategy is about getting rid of green space in Sandwell to make some Malvern dwelling party political donor more money.

There is also the ludicrous “Dudley Port Garden city” – a testament in itself to rewarding land banking and tax avoidance and how mass house building to rip up green space and create one giant housing estate is favoured by the same mealy mouthed socialists.

In short, there are no political champions in Sandwell’s one party dictatorship state for wildlife and biodiversity, and this was another point where I was not alone in thinking the same. It was notable that not a single councillor of Sandwell’s grossly overpopulated amateur politicians (linked extensively by nepotism and cronyism), was present at the workshop. How many were invited I do not know, but it is difficult to see any evidence of any of them ever expressing any interest in the environment publicly, except to pay lip service to the idea.

And that unfortunately is why I think this strategy is just another example of piss and wind- a talking shop for ideas, none of which will ever make it off the sticky note and into council policy. Where there is a quick buck to be made out of selling off green space, (the Hussein family appear to have swindled and collared all the bogs in Sandwell already), the local elected at Sandwell appear to be set on doing this. Titford pools is another area that is threatened by part of the Jeremy Knight Adams  scheme at Lion Farm- yet this area could and should be designated as Oldbury’s sole local nature reserve. One has to suspect that the lack of ambition to classify such areas by the Labour Sheisters over many years is precisely why they will not do so in the future.

 

The future then for Sandwell’s green spaces, for its wildlife and biodiversity under the threat of house building and get rich quick retail parks looks very bleak- unless you live in the so called “green belt” of Sandwell where many of the Sandwell councillors choose to live.

If only there was a political champion for wildlife at high level in Sandwell- another point made widely, who could lead the ambition for wildlife. Unfortunately the political heavyweights in this area appear to be more interested in combating Tony the Tiger on cereal packets than getting down and dirty with protecting Sandwell’s quickly disappearing green space. I think we need a Sandwell Chris Packam instead.

 

Unfortunately from time to time someone gets on their high horse about Canada geese being the route of all evil, particularly it seems when relating to exaggerated fears concerning their droppings. Usually a white, middle aged to elderly male of the Homo Sapien species (gammon) writes a letter to their local paper and gets a little hot under the collar. Next week it will be something else, but probably about immigrants or something crime related, but for now animal coprophobia will have to do.

All of this five minutes of piss and wind may be what fills out papers, but unfortunately it does not explore the wider facts of a bigoted argument.

Animal faeces contains parasites- all animal faeces, especially including that of man. What the gammon does not appear to appreciate however is that his own dog, present in his own house, is as likely to be a host for said parasites as it is a receptor finding it from that of a wild animals like Canada geese.

I have for the record looked at different animal faeces below, together with studies which show the potential for zoonotic transfer to humans. It is of course just that, “possible” ,but almost usually very rare or unlikely.

DOGS

No one likes dog shit- not even the former idiot who ran Sandwell council, whose regime murdered geese in two parks attempting to use their excrement as a lamentable reason for doing so.

 

Worse than stepping in dog mess are those who now colostomy bag it in single use plastic and artistically decorate any passing tree with the handles.

This article estimates that there are over 8 million dogs in the UK (compared to around 100,000 Canada geese), and that the canines produce over 1000 tonnes of faeces per day. One compares this to the much cited nonsense of Natural England papers, oft quoted by those at Sandwell council and elsewhere about geese defecating in pounds.

Dog faeces can produce several illnesses.  The most notable of these remains Toxocariasis, a rare infection caused by roundworm parasites.

According to the NHS website

“Roundworm parasites are most commonly found in cats, dogs and foxes, and usually affect young children.”

 Dogs are also a source of danger from their faeces to livestock in fields. Not surprisingly as well as the threats of worrying sheep and other animals as well as attacking them, signs usually ask dog owners to keep their pets under control.

According to this leaflet,

“There is growing evidence of the links between two specific diseases in livestock and the presence on grazing land of faeces from infected dogs.

The two diseases are: • Neosporosis – which can cause abortions in cattle

• Sarcocystosis – which can cause neurological disease and death in sheep.”

Neospora eggs are produced by infected dogs and excreted in their faeces. Cattle will become infected if they eat food or drink water contaminated with Neospora eggs. The researchers have stated that dogs are the definitive host of this parasite, and not foxes or other wild mammals.

” Sarcocystosis is also caused by parasites, Sarcocystis spp , which use a number of intermediate hosts, including dogs. The main points to note are:
•
Sarcocystis eggs are produced by infected carnivores and excreted in their faeces.  • Sheep will become infected if they eat food or drink water contaminated with Sarcocystis eggs.”

Because most adult cattle, sheep, and many pigs harbour cysts in their muscles, dogs and other carnivores should not be allowed to eat raw meat, offal, or dead animals.”

 

HORSES.

For some unknown reason, horse owners are not required to pick up their animal’s droppings like dog walkers.

Horse manure can be a direct danger to some breeds of dog, particularly working dogs. The wormer Ivermectin is for some reason highly toxic to these dogs. This link gives cause for concern for collie owners.

“Initial symptoms could be similar to those of a stroke with dilated pupils and an unsteady gait with possible seizures, difficulty breathing and eventually a coma. Ivermectin toxicity cannot be reversed, and if the drug has been digested within 4 – 6 hours, your vet may induce vomiting and/or give your dog activated charcoal to help minimize the amount of ivermectin that is absorbed. “

Higher concentrations of ivermectin used in horse wormers can be very dangerous in excreted faeces to dogs.

CANADA GEESE

I have never become sick or ill as a result of handling and rescuing wildfowl including geese in over 20 years, and neither has anyone I know who have being doing it much longer. The risk to those directly handling wild birds is proportionately greater than those who may happen to step in some goose poo from time to time.

When setting out Sandwell council’s ludicrous reasons for culling I noted the following

RISKS APPEAR IMAGINED RATHER THAN PROVEN. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE IN ANY STUDY TO CONFIRM TRANSMISSION OF POTENTIAL CITED PATHOGENS CARRIED IN EVERY ANIMAL, INCLUDING MAN, THAT CAN BE TRACED BACK TO BEING CAUSED BY CANADA GEESE OR THEIR FAECES.

Public health England link “outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis …..to drinking or swimming in contaminated water and contact with infected lambs and calves during open visits to farms. “

THEY DO NOT MENTION CANADA GEESE, as likely sources.

Another 2004 citable study Found

“the results… indicate that Canada geese might only serve as an accidental carrier of cryptosporidia infections to humans and probably play a minor role in the animal to human transmission cycle of the pathogens.”

  Ecoli is an ubiquitous pathogen found in the gut of warm blooded animals including man. Most strains pose no risk to human health. Ecoli 0157 is a strain that has been reported in the region in association with free roaming cattle at Sutton park in 2012.

Moriaty et al  has also published a related study “Survival of Escherichia coli, Enterococci, and Campylobacter   (SPECIES) in Sheep Feces on Pastures” . Sheep and cows of course graze within Cretan areas, where large numbers of people gather and pass through.

The study found concentrations of E. coli, enterococci, and Campylobacter (species) appear to be higher in sheep faeces than in cow pats, but both may contain all the pathogens cited as being harmful to human health that the council cannot show any evidence of being present in Sandwell’s geese.

In short the risk of pathogens from farm animals are higher than from Canada geese, yet Sandwell council appear to hypocritically encourage the animal to human contact with farm animals at its farms, according to its own facebook page allowing children to handle new born lambs.

It is therefore difficult to know whether to blame one animal for transmission of parasites in their droppings to another, humans for creating much of the issues, or the tiny parasites themselves. One could indeed ask, which came first, the parasite, or the eggs? What is not acceptable is  singling out one species for continued persecution whilst ignoring others.

Most bizarrely of all, the gammon is happy to feed on animals whose meat could cause far more severe illness than their associated droppings, yet I have read letters of how they would happily exterminate geese and “feed them to the homeless.” So much compassion for their fellow man, just hopefully the homeless won’t go shitting on the grass! 😆 

 

 

Some memorable moments and favourites of the last twelve months.

 

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

As a result of the continued lack of action by Sandwell council to take action regarding environmental issues at this supposedly “green flag” park, I have now made a formal complaint to this authority regards misleading statements of intent made by officers as well as the cabinet member Bill Gavan in the press.

I share the frustration of the RSPCA officers who have had to attend this park on multiple occasions, to do the council’s dirty work for them, and for also having to put up with their gross fucking ignorance.

As a professional organisation you would expect better from a local council, but we are of course talking about the rotten borough of Sandwell here, where metaphorically like the collapsed vent at this pool causing the potential issues, all manner of professional courtesy and honour are already sunk down the well of opprobrium.

I also have yet to hear from Keep Britain Tidy as to how in the hell this park was able to receive one of their  “green flag” awards.

Here is the letter sent to the council.

24/11/18

Dear Sir,

 

Reference complaint Victoria Park Smethwick- groundcare and environmental issues and related wildfowl deaths.

 

I wish to raise a formal complaint about the condition of this park pool and the related wildfowl deaths that have been occurring since the summer, which appear to be continuing as a result of lack of action taken by officers to deal with longstanding known issues, namely the collapsed vent underneath the pool which means that it cannot retain water.

In July public concern was first raised in an article published the following month in The Express and Star about dead birds on the lake, and that they had not been removed by the council, thus potentially propagating disease in the water.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/sandwell/smethwick/2018/08/06/dead-geese-left-rotting-in-pool-at-black-country-park/

 

I have had numerous discussions and correspondence in my role as swanwatch coordinator with officers, also involving the cabinet member Cllr Gavan and also the RSPCA who have been out tirelessly rescuing birds and retrieving dead ones for the council.

I have reported this matter to the wildlife investigation scheme, not least because of the appalling manner in which two of the council’s environmental health officers were putting down rat poison in poorly secured bait boxes attached only with cable ties. Some of these were visibly open. Regardless of what has caused the deaths of birds on the lake, Natural England may well want to take this matter further with Sandwell council and I will be assisting them with all the evidence that I have.

My complaint stems from the misinformation that officers have given me, as well as statements made to the RSPCA as well as in the press by Cllr Gavan on behalf of the council that action would be taken. NO ACTION HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING IN FIXING THE DAMAGED POOL. This means that any potential pathogens in the pool are still there. The officers also claimed that aeration equipment would be added and that quotes had been sought. This was in September, and still nothing has been done.

I have informed Keep Britain Tidy about the disgusting state of this pool and syringes/ drug misuse etc surrounding it. It defies belief that this pool received a green flag when it was visibly in this condition and that birds continue to die as a result of council inertia and lack of care.

My correspondence with officers, which evidences their delay in taking any action can be read below. This is already in the public domain, and I will also be putting this complaint letter in the public domain as well.

 

21/8/18

Contacted Max Cookson, “waste and transportation manager” SMBC copying in cabinet members Cllr Bill Gavan and Cllr Dave Hossell.

Reference made to conversation with MC a few weeks earlier following publication in Express and Star of multiple bird deaths at this site. At meeting with Max Cookson I had asked who had collected the dead birds and where they had been taken ? He had said that he would contact me with this information but hadn’t done so. I query a number of issues surrounding the litter in the pool and also the fact that SMBC are aware that the pool cannot retain water due to the collapsed and unrepaired drainage channel underneath the pool. N.B The picture of a Severn Trent water van in this park is noted, but what were they doing there? Is there no link to anything going on or may have transpired in the pool?

21/8/18

Reply from Max Cookson stating that he would supply me the information in the next week or so and also claiming that the council were looking at aerating the pool. He had copied in to this council officers Matt Darby, Jo Miskin and Darren Jones.

21/8/18

Reply from Cllr Gavan acknowledging the email and also asking the above named officers whether it would be possible to clear up the litter around the edge of the pool? (Sent from his I phone.) N.B this being one month since the dead mallard had been submitted to the AHPA and longer still from the claimed deaths of dead birds weeks earlier that had been “left rotting” by the council in the lake.

 

13/9/18

I Emailed Max cookson also copying in Cllr Gavan and other officers that he had previously tasked with clearing the litter. I pointed out that no action at all had been taken and that I had also not been contacted by Max Cookson or anyone else as had he had stated would happen in his email of 21/8 .  N.B Three weeks had gone by without reply. I also had at this point obtained the “post mortem” of the single bird that they had sent for post mortem myself via an foi request, also without having been informed by MC as to whom he had contacted at DEFRA.

17/9/18

A forwarded email from John R satchwell sent to myself and for some reason him copying in chief executive Jan Britton and someone called Alan Caddick (no idea). Many claims made in the email but no detail as to when the council would be taking action, and largely telling me what I already knew and had found out myself via the freedom of information request. I am certain that he did not compose this email himself, and the fact that it was a forwarded email would appear to confirm this.

On 8th October, I visited Victoria Park and was horrified to see a dead swan carcass on the pool, as well as a dead goose on the island and at least two dead mallards in the water. Another mallard was visibly sick on the water. I am aware that the swan had not been at the site on my previous visit of 4th October. A passer by reported that it had been alive the day before on the water. More dead birds and sick ones have since been recorded.

I hope that this matter will be looked at swiftly, and that action will be taken without any further delay to prevent more deaths of birds.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

Ian Carroll.”

In recent weeks a number of articles and stories have surfaced again regarding the subject of wildfowl and bread, and whether it is appropriate to feed them this foodstuff.

This has been specifically sparked by The Queens’s swan marker, David Barber and his colleague Professor Chris Perrins being quoted in numerous news stories  

as well as on social media about a dramatic decline in swan numbers and also the fact that the birds have began to “starve” as a result of previous social media spread “awareness” campaigns against feeding birds bread.

Barber is quoted “‘There has been a great deal of press coverage in recent months regarding the ‘Ban the Bread’ campaign which is confusing many members of the public who like to feed swans. Supporters of the campaign claim that bread should not be fed to swans on the grounds that it is bad for them. This is not correct.

Swans have been fed bread for many hundreds of years without causing any ill effects. While bread may not be the best dietary option for swans compared to their natural food such as river weed, it has become a very important source of energy for them, supplementing their natural diet and helping them to survive the cold winter months when vegetation is very scarce.”

Specifically surrounding the other often quoted statement about bread and angel wing Chris Perrins is quoted as saying ‘There is no evidence of a connection between feeding bread and angel-wing; at least some cygnets develop this condition without ever having seen any bread’.

I have previously blogged on this very subject on this website, based on my own personal experiences over the last 20 plus years of rescuing swans and wildfowl.

Also on how The Canal and Rivers Trust appears to have started this phenomena via their marketing campaign when they became a charity.

I’ve also looked at one particular brand of “bird food” made from mashed up fish guts, and how claims made in advertising are wide of the mark.

My only surprise about the recent coverage is that Messrs Barber and Perrins have gone out of their way to make a public statement on this issue, and for these two men, especially an academic to make it is I believe unprecedented. THERE MUST BE A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE WITH DEPLETED SWAN NUMBERS AND HOW THE DECREASE IN HUMAN INTERACTION IS HAVING A CAUSAL EFFECT.

That so many swan rescue organisations, rescuers and others are now asking members of the public to help out and continue feeding birds responsibly including bread can only be welcomed if it stops this prime example of “moral panic” from being continued. Ask yourself why local authorities want people to stop interacting with wildfowl and feeding them. Could it make culling a more easier task if no one is there to watch over them?

 

A recent freedom of information request to Sandwell council has revealed the egg control measures employed for 2018 in their parks and open spaces. It is important that these figures are obtained and made public for evidence that the council are undertaking the “management” of egg numbers as they claimed they would. Of course we also don’t trust a word they say from past experience, so for this purpose it serves as a later reminder to potentially catch them out about certain matters if they go back on what they claimed that they would be doing.

I will look at the analysis of the figures below, but the main news this year is that SMBC have once again started to hire the services of a so called “pest controller” to do their dirty work for them. This is surprising given that in meetings with officers last year it was intimated that council workers would be doing this work, given the issues surrounding pestex and the impossibility of verifying their claimed figures. It would be possible for an outside contractor to sex up the number of nests/eggs just to keep them in business- particularly if they are being paid by the hour. How would the council verify any of the numbers? Even current manager Max Cookson said as much at one meeting that we had with him.

The new contractors are revealed to be “Betapest”, with Sandwell council paying them £3,250 to undertake the work.

The questions asked were as follows.

1) In 2018 how many Canada goose  nests were identified, how many eggs did each of these nests contain, and  at which Sandwell sites were these nests located?

2) In 2018 how many Canada goose eggs were pricked and at which sites did this take place?

3) In 2018 how many Canada goose eggs were oiled and at which sites did this
take place?

4) In 2018 how many Canada goose eggs were removed from nests
and at which sites did this take place?

5) Please state which company was used to carry out this work, and at what cost to the council?

The council responded

“We respond as follows: 1) Please see attached documents for this information regarding Parks and Open Spaces. With reference to Countryside sites, although they were visited, no pricking, oiling or interfering with nests took place. Only a small amount of nests were found and the eggs had already hatched. Gosling numbers were extremely low this year on
Countryside sites.

2) None

3) Please see attached documents for this
information.

4) None

5) Betapest – £3,250 ”

EGG FIGURES 2018

The following figures were presented in the council attachment for each park. I will look at each site in turn with issues raised about the claimed figures. It is apparent that this year the contractors made repeat visits to each site, with some receiving three, in essence doubling or tripling the work for themselves with often no new nests appearing. Whether this is a good use of council tax payers money is another question.

The key numbers are In total seven sites were visited. A claimed total of     29    nests bearing  a  total number of 156 eggs of which were treated  107 , which equates to      69%.

Three nests are claimed at West Smethwick Park with visits made on 11/5/18 and 15/6/18 with no new being found.

Just one nest was identified at Smethwick Hall Park with visits on the same days.

The Smethwick trio was rounded off with two nests being found at Victoria Park Smethwick. Much can be said about the current appalling situation at this park and the way in which birds have died on here, which is all down to Sandwell council and their wilful lack of action. At the time of the claimed visits, on the same dates as at the other parks, the pool had be now seriously depleted due to the unfixed collapsed vent. The island on the pool had also been cut back, supposedly by someone the council knew from the friends group for that park who is in the landscape gardening industry. It is unlikely that any of the geese at this park at the time are still alive, and certainly no offspring survived. Of course, the RSPCA had to cope with used syringes before they launched the boat to attempt to save birds.

And so to the scene of the much publicised culls of 2013/14 at Tipton. The first thing I would stress is that I would strongly dispute the figures of 13 eggs being found in a single nest, in fact all the numbers appear to be much higher than in the previous parks, which suggests to me that the geese were using nests from the previous year where the treated eggs from previous years were still in situ. WE KNOW FROM THE PREVIOUS FOI REQUESTS, THAT THE COUNCIL DO NOT REMOVE ANY EGGS FROM THE NESTS, BUT JUST PRICK THEM, AND THIS AS THEY HAVE REPLIED TO QUESTION 4 WAS THE SAME FOR THIS YEAR.

There is a disproportionate figure for this site, but what I am certain of, is that despite the contractors claiming to have left some eggs, not a single gosling at this site survived more than a few days. They were either predated, or killed by the swans. In fact on one visit to the site, I bumped into two pcso’s who had come across a commotion involving two woman who feed the birds at this park. They had seen the male swan attacking a gosling and had tried to stop him, to no avail.

Visits to this site were made earlier in April, then again with further visits on 11/5 and 15/6. Whereas I do not dispute the number of nests being plausible on the two islands, the numbers in each nest are unlikely, for the reason stated above.

 

Dartmouth park, scene of the other cull in 2013 appears to have had 14 nests identified, this on the two pools. There is once again one nest with a claimed 13 eggs in it which I do not believe to be plausible for the reasons stated above. This site also received three visits on the days parallel with Victoria Park Tipton.

I am not aware that many of the goslings that were allowed to hatch survived this year and the numbers were certainly down on previous years.

 

Three visits were made to this site with just one nest being found. I am certain that this figure is correct, given that two goslings did hatch. They only survived however due to the male swan at the site being killed by an out of control dog, something which Sandwell council has a big problem with at its formal parks.

 

 

This site which appears as a form of hybrid countryside and formal park identified no nests over three visits.

The lack of figures for the countyside sites identify that “Gosling numbers were extremely low this year on Countryside sites”. I would concur with this statement, but would also draw attention to previous years where SMBC had pestex interfering with nesting birds only for them to claim eye watering numbers of nests and eggs at places like Forge Mill Lake. Predators at the countryside sites, fox, crow , magpie, heron and also swans account for many goslings not surviving in any case.

For clarity and discussion, the following table shows numbers at the sites previously given in FOI requests to SMBC since 2013.

 

If you look at the figures for Victoria Park Tipton and Dartmouth Park over the five previous years, this years figures appear all the more dubious and inflated. So Victoria Park Tipton number of nests 2013 2, 2014 4, 2015 2, 2016 2, 2017 no figure. This year 7 claimed.

Dartmouth Park 2013 6 ,2014 3 ,2015 9 , 2016 6  , 2017 no figure. And this year suddenly we are supposed to believe that 14 appeared.

Whatever the motive for presenting these two parks as having the most number of nests/eggs, the number actually hatching and surviving cannot be disputed.

We will of course be asking the same questions next year, and reflecting on the results. But rest assured that we will always be watching Sandwell council and their actions , as they just cannot be trusted.

This is a goose free cruelty article, but summarises the behaviour of two of the main protagonists in the cull of Sandwell’s geese. The one is an ex parks manager, whose biased report appears to have led to the culls in 2013 and 2014. The other purported to lead Sandwell council and had ambition to become the metro mayor of the coined “West Midlands Greater Authority” before his death in April 2016.

This post summarises the bonfire event which took place in Brunswick Park in Wednesbury in 2014 and the subsequent events where members of the public were injured by a so called “stray firework” – that being the tagline that Sandwell council and its leader were happy to promote in the media, until a freedom of information request revealed significantly more about the organisational shambles that was operating on that fateful night.

Though he was lauded in eulogies by the political class and his friends in the media, Darren Coooper was a deeply unpleasant man in life. Not only was he involved in a long social media trolling campaign with others against a Birmingham woman whose husband had began to expose the institutional Council corruption rife under his leadership, but he looked after those around him , seemingly unable with the Chief executive, Jan Britton, Monitoring officer Neeraj Sharma and audit risk manager Peter Farrow,  to detect any of the activities of fraud and corruption and wrongdoing occurring at the authority, not least of his own then Deputy.

If it hadn’t been for Julian Saunders’, “Sandwell Skidder blog” , it is unlikely that any of the wrongdoing would ever have come to light- especially when the mainstream local media danced to his tune and his thuggishly tribal football firm analogies and West Bromwich Albion, an organisation he gleefully boasted about ripping off as a child by sneeking into the ground.

I could write much more, but I’ll leave that to Julian Saunders, though perhaps all you need to know about Darren Copper, the man the myth, and his intellect can be summed up in his own posting below. You are as they say “what you eat”.

Sandwell Council actively promoted the 2014 “free event” on social media at the Wednesbury park leading up to the night in question. This is perhaps where the planning went out of the window, as well as several thousand pounds up in smoke.

The council also put out this gem on twitter.

 

The following story concerning the Brunswick Park event and aftermath appeared in this BBC new article the following day.

It was reported in this article that three people had been injured with others treated for minor panic related injuries.

Another BBC article from the same day reported that the crowd had been “double that had been expected”.

It also quotes then Cabinet Member Maria Crompton.

We see here then the threads that Sandwell council would attempt to present in subsequent media interface.

• That it was all down to a  “rogue firework” being to blame.
• That they, Sandwell council, had done all they could to ensure crowd safety by pushing the crowd back, and in this case to “outside the cordon”

Both of these statements were later revealed to be extraordinary lies. You can account for a “stray firework” by ensuring the crowd are not within the safety zone, and as will be demonstrated, that is not what happened on the night, and it would have been known to staff and councillors that this had been the case. But who briefed the cabinet member to state such lies?

The Express and Star article of the 7th November then focussed attention on a “probe” into the event and the cause of the incident.

It states

“Numerous calls were made on the public address system for people to move away from the fireworks before the display started. The event was delayed for 20 minutes as the crowd was forced back.”

Also in the article Councillor Elaine Costigan is quoted as saying

“She said: “If you get a rouge  (sic) firework, what can you do. There were a lot of people there but even if it had been 1,000 in the crowd you can still get a rouge  (sic) firework.

“People are still saying what a fantastic event and exhibition it was. We have to look forward now.”  “

As will be evidenced, there was very much that Sandwell council could have done to prevent this incident from ever happening in spite of “rogue fireworks”.

Two further Express and Star articles gave the human impact story of those actually injured, and the fiasco of the event by now was starting to unfold on social media about the organisation, the enormous crowds and the fact that it was a free event that had been atrociously planned.

The article of 8th November Wednesbury firework victim tells of horror, tells the story of Jason Deeley-Brewer who was burnt by the firework.

 

Mr Brewer, who needed hospital treatment accused the council of failing to protect the public, and this claim would be proven correct in the subsequent investigation.

The article also stated “He says he will now take legal action against event organisers Sandwell Council over his injuries. “

and “Mr Deeley-Brewer has contacted solicitors to begin the process of a claim against Sandwell Council.”

Also in another Express and Star  article of 11th November, the mother of a schoolgirl also injured in the event

“said her daughter had been traumatised by the accident at a packed Brunswick Park in Wednesbury when a stray rocket veered into the 12,000-strong crowd and struck her.

She claimed seven-year-old Kacey-Lou had been left with a fear of fireworks. “

It is also stated in the article that the girls father “has sought legal advice over the matter with a view to suing Sandwell Council. “

Nothing further appeared in the press until the following month, but by this time, rumours had began to filter out of the event, and from within the council itself as to who had been responsible for the fiasco taking place, as well as giving the order for the fireworks to be let off, despite the crowd being too large to accommodate the venue safely.

By this time Sandwell council had as required reported the matter to The Health and Safety Executive, though with incomplete details as to who had been injured. I requested this information via the HSE, and they supplied the following RIDDOR form submitted by the council, which clearly shows only one person being injured. “Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

Unfortunately RIDDOR is a rather rudderless measure of accidents given that it only requires reporting of the most serious types of injury or death. It does not however discharge Sandwell council and the firework company from negligence under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, as will be evidenced.

In the form it states that a roman candle malfunctioned, and that Jubilee fireworks were “responsible for the firework display.” The dishonest liar who completed this form negated to mention anything about organisation of crowd safety or that the crowd were within an area too close to the display. The council officers and those in senior positions were well aware that more than this number had been injured, in fact their own employees had.

With at least two threats of publicised legal action, the council then appeared to go on the offensive, trying to build on the mythology of the “stray firework”. In the article of 27th December, The Express and Star give Cooper free reign to promote this lie without question.

 What we do know is by this time, and very quickly after the event, it was apparent as to which officer of the council had made the decision for the event to go ahead and that he had overruled the firework organisers in doing so. It appears that this tactic of “the stray firework” was an attempt by Cooper to blame the firework company and even manufacturers of the roman candle article rather than his protected officer. At this point, this lie became a conspiracy and plot to deny the truth.

“We do all we can to ensure safety”

All then appears to have gone quiet, with no news stories about anyone taking legal action, nor of the investigation that the council had claimed to have been investigating. Of course, any reasonable news organisation or journalist would have asked to see the council report to verify the voracity of claims being made by leading councillors happy to blame “stray fireworks” ,and by implication the event contractors Jubilee fireworks, rather than themselves, and specifically the man that they were protecting from scrutiny.

On 10th September 2015, The Express and Star published another article , this time focussing on the event moving away from the venue of Brunswick Park which was suddenly no longer big enough to accommodate the crowds. It is clear at this stage that the investigation must have been finalised, and that one of the recommendations within it  was the reason why the event was being pulled in 2015.

We once again see Councillor Costigan quoted making a misleading statement, leading towards the firework and away from the reason why the firework had reached people.

A further article appeared in The Express and Star following the 2015 Dartmouth Park event, which was again marred by organisational problems and yobs throwing their own fireworks at another free event. Again the mythology of “the stray firework” was repeated.

By this time, I had been given specific information by informants within Sandwell council and what had really happened that night in 2014 in Wednesbury- a far cry from the lies issued by councillors that had been given space within the local newspaper without checking for accuracy.

I submitted a freedom of information request to Sandwell council, asking for the Sandwell council report. Specifically I asked.

“(ii) It is alleged that several calls were made on the public address system before the fireworks were set off with a delay of 20 minutes. Can you confirm that this was the case, and therefore on whose instruction on the night the firework display was told to commence? Which officer of the council gave the nod to commence the display on the night?
(iii) I am requesting any recorded information that you hold where any officer of the council admitted making a decision to proceed with the display despite the safety concerns.
(iv) Within the report, or separate to it, can you produce any recorded evidence or record of investigation which shows direct evidence that a faulty firework was to blame for this incident, and not your council’s organisation of crowd control on the night?”

The council were then forced to release the report.

The first thing to note about the report is that its author Chris Williams  “Senior Lead Officer (Health and Safety)” had completed it sometime in November of that year.

 It is therefore apparent that when Cooper was quoted in The Express and Star article of 27th December that he would have had FULL knowledge of this report and conclusions.

The witnesses to the event are listed as follows.

Witnesses: Mark Bowhay, Wayne Chattin, Kayleigh Love, James Piggott, Christopher Jones (Wardens). Sunish Patel, Tony Potter, John Satchwell.

All of those listed as witnesses were employees of Sandwell Council. Specifically at this point in time, they also including the warden service were managed by John Satchwell– parks manager.

Why there were no independent witnesses to the event, and why their input does not appear to have gone into this report remains unclear? This automatically has to ring alarm bells in that if all of these individuals were managed by the same individual, and the one who had a pivotal role in the disaster that unfolded , then there may well have been pressure to agree on a specific story, which may not have been the one that happened.

Where were the firework staff, the injured parties, the St John ambulance staff who treated them, as well as several hundred members of the crowd who must have seen something?

“Prior to the event, the site plan was drawn up and event safety arrangements and risk assessments prepared. Risk assessments were also obtained from Jubilee Fireworks. Some informal planning meetings took place prior to the event but no minutes/documentation were forwarded or considered as part of the investigation.”

One has to ask from this statement if these “informal meetings” really existed at all ? Why would it not have been forwarded to the investigator as key evidence ?

“At 19:15, it became apparent that the numbers attending the event were much higher than in previous years. This was due to the fact that it was a free event and weather was perfect for a firework event. There had also been excellent marketing and communications for the event, particularly on social media.”

This of course is where the planning of such an event was key. The free event was the whole issue of the cause of the problem, but only Sandwell council could attempt to claim some self praise in light of a report about its own utter failure to manage an event by its own staff !- “there had been excellent marketing and communications for the event”

“Announcements were made by Free Radio asking spectators to move but this did not prove to be successful as the announcements could not be heard at the bottom of the park and people were reluctant to move into the main body of the park.”

So now the council even desperately attempt to blame the radio station!

“John Satchwell (Parks and Countryside Manager) was attending the event as an observer and quickly identified the difficulties that staff were having in moving spectators out of this area. John asked the wardens to locate ‘megaphones’ so that they could be used to get the safety message across to spectators. This had limited success and subsequent comments on social media by persons who attended the event stated that they had difficulty in understanding what the instructions were.”

He had no business as an observer intervening in this event. That is where the whole report starts to unravel and the event descend into chaos.

We then have several unsubstantiated statements blaming the people who had been invited to this free event. Remember they had paid nothing to turn up and gain entry, they had lost nothing in being there.

“Staff continued to attempt to move spectators from the safety zone but was subject to abuse and physical threats of violence. “

“…staff and the firework company continued to receive abuse.”

“A terrific amount of abuse was directed towards wardens and staff following the incident.”

This appears a direct attempt to present mitigation for an unprofessional decision being made.

“It was made clear by the fireworks company that they were concerned about people standing in the safety zone but not at the rear of the firework display.”

 

This key statement about John Satchwell’s key intervention is the whole reason why this firework display took place, despite the firework staff being effectively overruled by him to “let them have it”.  He had no business making this decision as he was not part of the events management.  The key statement about him “taking responsibility for what happened” means that he would take responsibility for ignoring the advice of the firework professionals, aware that they were being pressured, not least I have no doubt by Satchwell to ignore key legislation about health and safety at such events.

Any subsequent talk therefore of “rogue fireworks” by councillors and others is only an attempt to divert attention away from this key decision and “responsibility.”

DISTANCE

The distance of 41 metres is key.

The report mentions The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, as well as two published guidance manuals for managing such events.

These two documents can be downloaded below for clarity.

Working-Together-On-Firework-Displays

hsg154

In terms of the now former guidance HSG123, the Sandwell council report states the following

“The HSE guidance document ‘Working together on firework displays, a guide to safety for firework display organisers and operators’ sets out the minimum safety distances to be
maintained for firework displays (nominally 100 metres for fall-out areas and 50 metres for the safety area). At the Brunswick Park display, the result of the malfunction was to displace the candle in such a way that it fired its final shot slightly backwards into what should have been a spectator free zone. This resulted in a number of people being hit. The distance from the firing zone to the estimated position of the main casualty was measured as 41 m.”

This therefore confirms that people were struck within an area in which they should not have been, and that the display took place despite the organisers and Sandwell council being aware of this- a far cry from the initial pack of lies about the stray firework.

Of course, this then means that the council admit to not adhering to practices under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and by this admission, they should have been expected to face legal action.

The report however chooses to ignore other statements made in the HSG guidance manual such as the following paragraphs. This is by no means an exhaustive list , but ones in which Sandwell council failed on the night in question, but omitted from Chris Williams report.

“Defining the main features of the display
11 One of the first things to be done is to decide on some basic details, for example:
• What is the expected size of the audience?

• Is there to be a bonfire? (lt IS preferable not to light the bonfire before the fireworks are fired as stray sparks may accidentally set off the fireworks.”

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to undertake this advice and by failing to identify the size of the audience. They also failed to ensure safety by lighting the  bonfire before the display, thus pushing the crowd back.

“15 Once you have selected a display operator, you and the operator are strongly advised to agree your respective areas of responsibility for health and safety.”

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities in that some random bloke popped up from the crowd taking over with no defined role.

 

“18 The display site needs to be large enough to ensure all the above areas can cope with: the types of fireworks to be used (this affects the size of the safety area and the fall-out area) a change in the direction or strength of the wind;  the expected number of spectators.”

 Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to ensure adequate safety areas and adhering to them

“Provision of site facilities

37 Prevent spectator access to the safety, fall-out, bonfire and display areas, by a suitable form of physical barrier.”

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to prevent spectator access by failing to form suitable physical barriers. 

“41 A small public address system or loudspeaker will ensure that announcements and instructions can be clearly heard by all spectators at larger displays.”

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to ensure that all spectators at larger displays could here instructions and announcements.

“Crowd safety

49 Provide an adequate number of stewards responsible solely for crowd safety. Ensure stewards receive adequate briefing, and a clear chain of command exists. Make them easily identifiable, for example they could all wear fluorescent jackets.”

 Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to adhere to a chain of command.

“50 Pay particular attention to keeping spectators out of the safety, firing and fallout areas. Control entry to the spectator area to avoid overcrowding.”

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to keep spectators out of the safety area. They failed to control entry into the spectator area.

“What if something goes wrong?

Plan in advance! 54 Well before the day of the display, you will need to consider what could go wrong on the day. Draw up a plan to deal with each emergency or contingency, answering the questions ‘What action will be taken?’ and ‘Who will take that action?’ Involve the display operator in this exercise where necessary.

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to provide any form of written and  minuted risk assessment process.  In the reports words

“In previous years the main fireworks event at Dartmouth Park had been subject to regular meetings prior to the event. This was not case for this years ‘free’ event(s).”

Spectators in the safety, firing or fall-out areas

61 If spectators break through the barrier into the safety, firing or fall-out areas, ensure that firing of fireworks stops as soon as is practicable.

Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to stop the firework display when it was fully aware that the area had been breached. It commenced the display in disregard for this.

“Disorderly behaviour by spectators

62 If trouble seems to be developing, call the police before attempting to deal with the matter yourselves.”

 Sandwell council failed in its responsibilities by failing to call the police. There is no mention of anyone calling the police, not least because of the alleged “threats and intimidation”. Of course, these may not even have happened, we have to take the council’s witnesses words for it!

There are multiple failures in the risk assessment process and the HSG154 GUIDANCE.

The council failed in managing overcrowding, failing to anticipate crowd numbers, keep records and adhere to The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

In the report’s own words:

“The risk assessment and safety documentation did not adequately address the potential risk of how the safety/fall-out zone would be managed.”

Indeed the mantra of Sandwell council and its heralded free event appears to have been “If we burn it, they will come.”

The report itself concluded the following about the cause of the incident.

After the publication of the FOI request, The Express and Star finally redeemed its credibility by reporting on the facts of the case, rather than the lies of councillors and that an officer of the council had been “responsible” for allowing the event to continue despite knowing the dangers of doing so.

The following post on a firework forum about this event , perhaps sums up perfectly the essence of the case.

But Cooper’s protection of John Satchwell was not just motivated about protecting a council officer from blame, who was to blame and who had “accepted responsibility”, no, it was because Satchwell himself was a member of the Tipton Green Labour party.

It was for this reason, a fully complicit attempted burial of the truth to hide behind “the stray firework” mantra, and all those officers and Labour councillors who took part in it after the council report had been written and the facts established are not only dishonest liars of the worst kind, but they were also attempting to prevent legal action being taken against the council.

It is worth stating that if this FOI request had not been submitted, then Cooper, Satchwell and co would have escaped any real scrutiny of their and Sandwell council’s actions that night and that blame would have been put down to a “rogue firework”.  Indeed this is just one example of a veritable selection box of stories occurring in Sandwell council whereby things were covered up or evidence distorted to protect those close to Darren Cooper, and all apparently under the noses of the senior officers and directors. One can only now be grateful that this poor man’s peaky blinder Mafioso is no longer in control of Sandwell council, but unfortunately the legacy burns on with an eternal flame of idiots still in post and those who choose to look the other way when something goes wrong.

The council had to call in RoSPA when it all went pear shaped again with a free display in Dartmouth Park in 2016 amidst widespread criticism; they clearly had learnt very little from past events. The RoSPA report is notable for mentioning aggressive security guards and swearing DJ’s- remember the witnesses at the 2014 event saying similar things about the crowd?

FS12993788_RoSPA_Sandwell_MBC_DP_Bonfire_Final_020317 (2)

If only fireworks came with suitable protection around them; but don’t rely on johnnies, they are easily prone to being “faulty”. 😆

 

 

Following the last post concerning Victoria park Smethwick and the continued death of birds at this site, I contacted the Express and Star newspaper, who in the first week of August had previously exposed the situation that had been occurring for some weeks.

It was stated in this article by the cabinet member that “We have been liaising with the Environment Agency and the RSPCA and have sent a bird off for an autopsy to ascertain what is causing this problem. We are awaiting the results from DEFRA.”

All this sounded positive spin, yet the reality was quite different.

Once again the latest Express and Star article contains the following from Councillor Gavan about Sandwell council’s apparent proactive approach. .

“We are very sad to see that birds are dying at the pool and we are investigating the most recent spate of deaths.

“Dead birds are currently with the RSPCA and Natural England for autopsy to try to establish the cause of death.

“We are working closely with the friends group, DEFRA and the RSPCA and Natural England to deal with issues at the pool as quickly as possible. Our engineers are working to fix the collapsed drain and we are shortly to tender for oxygenating equipment for a number of our pools.

“We will also work with a contractor to remove litter and refuse from the pool.”

There are a  number of facts of the case which need to be put on record surrounding these SMBC press office claims.

• Sandwell council were aware of the bird deaths in July, and have had over three months to collect litter, fix the collapsed drain, and to install oxygenating equipment.
• The RSPCA have told me that Sandwell council stated to them that they would be doing this following the initial incidents in August- BUT DIDN’T.
• The RSPCA have had great difficulty in getting anyone from management in Sandwell council to contact them or get back to them.
• The RSPCA left dead birds that they had collected for the council with SMBC/Serco to arrange collection with DEFRA.
• Two weeks later leading up to the report I put in on 8th October about fresh dead birds, they were still in a Serco freezer at Oldbury.

I CONTACTED THE WILDLIFE INCIDENT UNIT AT NATURAL ENGLAND- SPECIFICALLY DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF RAT POISONS PUT DOWN HAPHAZARDLY BY SANDWELL COUNCIL EMPLOYEES.

The wildlife incident unit picked up all the bodies, and so this had nothing to do with the council “arranging” to do anything to investigate the issue. They would still be going off in the Serco freezer if it had been left to Sandwell council managers.

I also contacted The Environment Agency who told me that because it wasn’t a River they couldn’t investigate it, but just issue the council with “advice”- presumably as they had in July, but I wonder what they had advised and if the council had followed it? The officer from the EA who rang me back said that someone from the council had said that they would ring me back in five days, though I note that this didn’t happen.

In terms of litter, this is merely a symptom of the council’s neglect, but a red herring in terms of it having anything to do with the bird deaths at the pool. Most of the litter is connected to drug and alcohol misuse and little else. This week some of it finally appears to have been collected, but only as a result of the bad publicity. I am still sending off a dossier of evidence to Keep Britain Tidy as regards their Green Flag designation of this park.

 

In August I detailed how several birds had been found dead in this “green flag” park managed by Sandwell council. It had been reported in The Express and Star newspaper that these birds had been “left rotting” in the pool for several weeks and that the council had supposedly sent off birds for post mortem.

Despite issuing statements in this article around Botulism being the likely cause of death and attempting to focus attention on the unproven toxin rather than the environmental conditions at the park in question , there were also some unanswered questions as well as issues surrounding what I had seen two of Sandwell council’s environmental health officers or pest controllers  doing at this location at an earlier date with baited stations and rat poison. THIS REMAINS THE CASE.

Despite using a media platform initially to suggest that they were in control of the situation as regards removing any dead birds from the water, unfortunately subsequent inaction by council officers has failed to alleviate what has occurred at this site or even attempt to investigate it. There were conflicting statements made at different times by councillors/officers as to how many birds had died and what was happening with the alleged post mortems.

It subsequently transpired that just one female mallard had been sent off for post mortem and received on 19th July. I had to obtain this myself via an FOI request to The Animal Plant and Health Agency, after failures from SMBC officers to provide me with any basic details,  where it appeared that someone from Sandwell council/Serco (Smbc’s waste partner contractor), had informed them that around 20 birds had been found dead to that date.

The limited post mortem APHA reference number 26-B0162-07-18 , hampered by the decaying carcass quality was only tested for avian influenza, and so no botulism was even considered or looked for.

Numerous more deaths of several species have since been noted since August, and these were also reported to Sandwell council, and the RSPCA have been heavily involved in catching sick birds, as well as retrieving dead ones from the lowered water levels. These birds were then given to Sandwell council to arrange further post mortems with Defra. Unfortunately it appears that this did not happen.

 

 

 

I am setting out below the full email correspondence between myself and Sandwell Council surrounding this issue for the record. What can be seen here is the dithering, inaction and inconsistent statements which in themselves raise questions as to why SMBC are rather muted about issues surrounding this lake and what is behind the cause of the birds’ demise.

 

21/8/18

Contacted Max Cookson, “waste and transportation manager” SMBC copying in cabinet members Cllr Bill Gavan and Cllr Dave Hossell.

Reference made to conversation with MC a few weeks earlier following publication in Express and Star of multiple bird deaths at this site. At meeting with Max cookson I had asked who had collected the dead birds and where they had been taken? He had said that he would contact me with this information but hadn’t done so. I query a number of issues surrounding the litter in the pool and also the fact that SMBC  are aware that the pool cannot retain water due to the collapsed and unrepaired drainage channel underneath the pool. N.B The picture of a Severn Trent water van in this park is noted, but what were they doing there? Is there no link to anything going on or may have transpired in the pool?

21/8/18

Reply from Max Cookson stating that he would supply me the information in the next week or so and also claiming that the council were looking at aerating the pool. He had copied in to this council officers Matt Darby, Jo Miskin and Darren Jones.

 

21/8/18

Reply from Cllr Gavan acknowledging the email and also asking the above named officers whether it would be possible to clear up the litter around the edge of the pool? (Sent from his I phone.) N.B this being one month since the dead mallard had been submitted to the AHPA and longer still from the claimed deaths of dead birds weeks earlier that had been “left rotting” by the council in the lake.

13/9/18

I Emailed Max cookson also copying in Cllr Gavan and other officers that he had previously tasked with clearing the litter. I pointed out that no action at all had been taken and that I had also not been contacted by Max Cookson or anyone else as had he had stated would happen in his email of 21/8 .  N.B Three weeks had gone by without reply. I also had at this point obtained the “post mortem” of the single bird that they had sent for post mortem myself via an foi request, also without having been informed by MC as to whom he had contacted at DEFRA. (see above)

17/9/18

A forwarded email from John R satchwell sent to myself and for some reason him copying in chief executive Jan Britton and someone called Alan Caddick (no idea). Many claims made in the email but no detail as to when the council would be taking action, and largely telling me what I already knew and had found out myself via the freedom of information request. I am certain that he did not compose this email himself, and the fact that it was a forwarded email would appear to confirm this. The wording of this is very similar to that I had received from the APHA , then vla about deaths at Rattlechain lagoon and is deliberately non specific. So who wrote this email really?

On 8th October, I visited Victoria Park and was horrified to see a dead swan carcass on the pool, as well as a dead goose on the island and at least two dead mallards in the water. Another mallard was visibly sick on the water. I am aware that the swan had not been at the site on my previous visit of 4th October. A passer by reported that it had been alive the day before on the water.

I contacted the RSPCA for assistance in rescuing the mallard.

 

 

A boat was launched, after removing a syringe from the edge of the water, the mallard was caught and the officers also retrieved the other dead birds. To watch the RSPCA catch the bird click here.

 

The open bait box, minus any bait was also noted at the edge of the pool.

As Sandwell council continue to procrastinate and dither on taking environmental action, one can only hope that someone who is not out of their depth at two feet of water will hopefully seize the initiative and start caring about this park. Here is a video I took on 16th August concerning the litter and issue surrounding the collapsed and badly “repaired” water leak. Two months on- still no action.

The claims made by Sandwell council’s press office and cabinet member within this article cannot be further from the truth. Accordingly I am contacting Keep Britain Tidy with evidence to demand that this park is judged again in its current state.

 

 

 

 

A  chance encounter some time back with some suspicious looking geezers  led me to enquire about so called “pest control” in Sandwell’s parks and open spaces. The issue of “what is a pest and when does it become one?” is obviously a moral question and not one with which this local authority would of course have been historically interested. The fact that there exist non-lethal methods of managing populations of certain mammals or birds does not appear to compute to those in power or “responsibility, and we have certainly seen the sinister side of “pest control” by a private company that SMBC hired to kill geese.

So firstly, I wanted to ask Sandwell council what types of poisons were used within its parks. The request was made via whatdotheyknow.com as has been the case with other requests to this council.

Dear Mr Carroll, Re: FOI 9893981 – Rodenticides and poisons used in parks and green spaces

I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request made on 22 November 2016 relating to the use of rodenticides in parks and green spaces within Sandwell. I would advise you that pest control in parks is generally carried out by the council’s own Pest Control team but at Sandwell Valley Park it is undertaken by a private company.  

I have set out the answers your questions below for the financial year April 2015 – March 2016 

1. Could you please reveal a list of the rodenticides and other chemicals used for controlling species in parks and green spaces within the borough of Sandwell? 

The Rodenticides used on our sites are:  

Rascal Difenacoum Grain  

Rascal Difenacoum Paste 

Ratimor Difenacoum Wax Blocks 

Sakarat Difenacoum Grain Bait  

2. If held can you state the volume/cost of these chemicals used in 2015/2016 financial years? 

Rascal Difenacoum Grain = 16.5 kg at a cost of £17.32 

Rascal Difenacoum Paste = 900 grams at a cost of £10.60. 

Ratimor Difenacoum Wax Blocks 95 Kg at a cost of £216 

Sakarat Difenacoum Grain Bait 20 Kg at a cost of £32.40

3. Are rodenticides / chemicals used near children’s play areas, areas of open water or are there any areas where they are restricted from use- and for what reasons? 

“Rodenticides are always placed in a safe location, by trained operatives based on a site specific risk assessment and depending on the nature of rodent activity in the area. Rodents are often attracted to water sources so it may be appropriate to bait adjacent to this area but all reasonable steps are taken to protect non-target species.   All rodenticides are used strictly in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines, particularly in relation to health and safety. Other than the precautions referred to above, there are no restrictions on the location where rodenticides are used.  “

With regard to other chemicals used I would refer you to the answer you received following a previous Freedom of Information request:

 

4. Are they employed for use in any of Sandwell’s judged Green flag parks?    

“Rodenticides are deployed in parks which have gained the Green Flag award.” 

Discussion.

All this is rather interesting, especially given my encounter with two individuals who appear to be in the employment of Sandwell council- appearing at Victoria Park Smethwick in a van with a Sandwell council logo. It was clear that they had with them a tub of something, yet no apparent means with which to conceal it and were gazing into the water and surrounding vegetation.

On closer inspection it was apparent that this tub was a container of Ratimor wax blocks– as confirmed in the FOI answer from Sandwell council. But this container is at direct odds with Sandwell council’s answer that it uses Ratimor Difenacoum blocks- as closer inspection reveals that this particular container has red blocks on it. This means that this particular container is Ratimor Bromadiolone blocks instead. Here is the proof of this, so please compare the two with the picture above that the SMBC operatives had with them. An online search of this particular anti-coagulant substance reveals quite a lot about it and also the methods that should be deployed when it is unfortunately used.

The following data sheets sets out how the company producing this poison say that it should be used.

Ratimor Wax Blocks Data Sheet

This clearly states “Apply bait in locations out of reach of children, pets, domestic animals and nontarget wildlife, or tamper-resistant bait stations. “

The active ingredient of this poison is Bromadiolone. A safety data sheet on this substance can be viewed below.

Ratimor_Bromadiolone

There have to be concerns as to what these two individuals were doing with this bait, in this, a so called “Green flag” Sandwell park and also the ways in which it was being deployed. I expressed my concerns at the time to the RSPCA.

It is evidently clear that the SMBC operatives WERE NOT following the guidance of the manufacturers about valid PPE. No gloves were being worn.

 

 

 

It was also clear that one of them was also smoking at the time, and to add further insult to injury, the fag end was discarded into the bushes- now I wonder if a member of the public had done this they would be fined?

The two individuals promptly left when they knew that I was on to them, though it remained a mystery to me on close inspection of where they had been that there were No bait stations visible at all. I am certain of that because I clearly searched for them. I also do not know what they were doing using a stick- but I’m sure they weren’t bloody fishing- so were any blocks being dropped!

At a later date however, I observed rat bait stations in clear reach of hands in plastic easily destroyable containers, “secured” only by a couple of loose cable tags.

One wonders why this poisonous material was being left at this site, clearly against the guidance use of the manufacturers.

I am unaware of how often and frequently this operation has continued over time and where this poison has been deployed, yet this week, a story in The Express and Star reveals that a number of birds and geese have been reported dead in recent weeks at the same Smethwick Park.

It is reported here that just one bird has been sent for post mortem, which if looking to confirm botulism poisoning is a hopeless task. There are dead birds on the island, and the pool has also been supposedly “fenced off” even though there is a fence around the pool already.

There have to be questions asked about the new housing development taking place on the site of a former Sandwell college, immediately adjacent to the pool, and what may have entered the water from this site. Why is it that this side of the pool has been fenced off to fence off the fence?

This pool has long had a problem of a collapsing drain underneath that every time there is a heavy downpour it collapses severely depleting the pool. This happened a few weeks ago again, and has yet to be repaired- but it is clear that it has never been repaired properly to start with.

It may well be the case that this factor along with the weather conditions has caused an outbreak of botulism in this park- but this is an environmental issue very much in Sandwell council’s own hands. Before they look at water quality, I would be looking at what is being dumped around it- and this extends to more than a few loaves of bread and rotting chapattis.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/sandwell/smethwick/2018/08/06/dead-geese-left-rotting-in-pool-at-black-country-park/