Yorkshire Housing - Hiding Away?
by the Editor
I will start by saying that I have met many good people who work for Yorkshire Housing and most locally are a decent bunch and I am grateful to many of them for what they have done for me over the years. This article is certainly not aimed at them, instead it is aimed at researching the Common Purpose type influence upon this organisation that is evident in material that I will present.
Just shy of 7 years ago, Yorkshire Housing decided to close their Newmarket Street office to the public, thus denying us any officially open office in Skipton for a company that deals with a large portion of the social housing stock in Skipton. Now many of the staff have been good enough to ignore this decision on occasion and still allow the public access to the office. This hasn't deterred Head Office though it would seem, as now Yorkshire Housing's Skipton Office is fully closing early next year.
I have reliable information that proves that Yorkshire Housing is closing many of its main offices across Yorkshire with the Head Office in Leeds to remain open. The staff are being ejected from their offices with some unceremoniously being given the shove from the business to boot. Others are to remain working the area, but with no fixed office to base themselves from.
A concerning way of running a business. Hide from the public and boot the staff out of their base as well. On top of that smash staff morale by getting rid of some members of staff. How will the remaining staff retain their camaraderie if they are separated in this manner? I imagine it won't be easy. Is this progress or simply change for change's sake?
Why you might ask is this organisation, which is there to serve us, arguably hiding from those in need locally? That is a question that I cannot answer, but there is much concerning me about this outfit which I will now go in to.
Outgoing Chief Executive Mervyn Jones was replaced by Nick Atkin in the past year. As to whose policy the office closure is I do not know so please do not take it that either of these 2 men had any part in it. Put simply I don't know who made this decision.
A cursory look at this Nick Atkin's Twitter account along with other employees of the company shows things to do with disruption and the smart agenda. Please see some snapshots below:
If we did deeper into this particular piece of article linked in this tweet, it is horrendous material designed to push invasive technologies into our lives and homes. I am not casting any aspersions on this gentleman's intentions with this tweet, but this is the smart agenda and it is not good.
I decided not to clutter the article directly with it, but should you want to see the info graphic, please click the link below:
What particularly amused me in the above propaganda is that the shutting down of the New York Times website should be viewed as a negative. Many would see that as a positive.
Quite why anyone aware of the health implications would want a smart mattress is beyond me. I will put it bluntly, this is a control and death grid and it must be defeated.
Further investigation shows this:
I have contacted this organisation to ask who they are as to me they feel decidedly like a Common Purpose change agent type body. It seems it costs £750 to join, but who are these people. They are not our elected servants. To whom is their allegiance? What is their cause? Our public servants are there to take instruction from us and not to take policy influence from corporate bodies.
https://www.policyyorkshire.org is their website.
Steve Thorlby-Coy is another whose Twitter account caught my attention. This man is Head of ICT at Yorkshire Housing.
He is promoting Corporate Rebels in this tweet.
I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment in the tweet that yearly reviews can be ineffective. If something is wrong it should obviously be highlighted immediately and likewise good things should be highlighted immediately. There's no point waiting a year to say keep doing that and having someone stop doing the good things in the meantime.
This article though admittedly not the one he linked is from them and it is rude (apologies in advance to readers):
Again Corporate Rebels has that feel of change agent about it.
Mentions of pyramids, rebellion and the customer being placed second are some other notable points I found on their website.
I have rambled on for quite a while now about tweets so I will highlight the one more on the subject of Disrupters:
This seems to be to do with the Disruptive Innovators' Network so do we now have "Disrupters" working within our social housing? Again this all seems to be change agent material.
If Nick Atkin or Steve Thorlby-Coy ever read this, this article is nothing against you personally, you might well be ordinary decent blokes (there's warmth to be detected on some of their posts). I don't know you on a personal level so I can't make any accurate comment, but the Yorkshire Housing involvement with the Disrupters makes those on these courses potential candidates for being Neuro-Lingustic Programming (NLP) victims. Now NLP isn't inherently bad in itself, it depends entirely on its application. The way I hear some change agents talk makes me concerned they are forgetting how to be real people and have descended into some full on corporate mindset. We must be on hand to help anyone in that position out of such a mindset.
For readers aware of Common Purpose alarm bells are no doubt ringing and with good reason I would say as from what I have seen of these disrupter groups, it seems very much something in the same vein as Common Purpose. It may not even be deliberately malicious, but groups like this driving a groupthink agenda created by man has obvious downfalls. I'm also not saying that people never change things for the better. The main point is that collective thinking where groups responsible for vital services to the public, self validate their own ideas in this manner without the public being properly involved is something that, for me, raises cause for concern.
Indeed, according to the leaked membership list of Common Purpose that did the rounds a few years back a certain Nadhia Hussain was listed as being a Common Purpose graduate working for Yorkshire Housing. This doesn't mean she is a bad individual, but research Common Purpose and ask why people in public service positions and in key positions in emergency services have been inducted into Common Purpose. At best to me it seems a waste of public money or worse, as when you research Common Purpose, the nationwide influence of their graduates lays them wide open to claims of being a mass grid of influencers pulling stings.
We already have some examples of members of staff from Yorkshire Housing with worrying links. Again this is nothing against either of them, they might not be aware of the dangers of these courses and groups.
We have an organisation with Common Purpose, Policy Yorkshire and the Disrupters linked. This same group is now being very evasive to the people of Craven. Are we now to have to go to Leeds if we want to nip into the Yorkshire Housing office?
Why did the council allow our social housing stock to be largely transferred to this entity?. As I have said those on the ground in Skipton seem a decent lot and I'd trust most of them, but these self same people could have been employed by the council holding these properties in trust for the people.
How do we get our social housing back in public hands now and away from an organisation that seems set on being unavailable for easy face to face contact with those in desperate need?
I would like to hear more from any Yorkshire Housing employees with valid insight into this situation. Your privacy is assured and no names will be published without consent. I'll also work with you to avoid disclosing any information that may specifically point to you in any whistleblowing information you may want to pass to the Craven Freedom.
Those concerned in this article also have the right of reply if you want to take issue with anything published here. None of this is personal, I believe the content to be evidenced, factual and in the public interest to discuss. Of course if anything on here is not factual, I will of course withdraw it as soon as any falsehood is shown to me.
Perhaps we can force the local office to remain open in order to serve the public?