Before the last election, there was no mention of the plans for Saracens RFC to set up a Premier League Rugby stadium at Barnet Copthall. Quite the opposite in fact, the local Tories circulated a completely foundationless made up story that the Lib Dems in Mill Hill were planning a football stadium on the site for Kentish Town FC.
The Barnet Eye exposed this as a complete lie. Kentish Town FC play in a minor league and get crowds of 30 people, all friends and partners etc. Furthermore, the Lib Dems had not even heard of the plans. It was perhaps the worst example of a scare story. What the Tories did not mention is that Nigel Wray, who runs Saracens RFC was planning a takeover of Copthall Stadium. Mr Wray lives in Totteridge and is a neighbour of Council Leader Richard Cornelius. It is fair to say the pair know each other quite well.
Barnet Council did a sweetheart deal with Saracens RFC. This resulted in a magnificent new stand being built and Saracens refurbishing the dilapidated old stadium and providing much needed facilities for the community, when not using the stadium. I've attended a few events at the stadium and I believe that it is a positive asset. I do however feel that the deal they got (peppercorn rent, long lease) was not the best that Barnet could have negotiated for the taxpayer.
Saracens RFC have become a part of the community in the year they've been here. What I find interesting is there future plans. There are many issues which have been left unresolved. Firstly the ground, with a 10,000 capacity is too small for Heiniken cup games. This requires a 16,000 capacity, so Saracens need to build more capacity. There have long been rumours that the local Tories asked them to shelve these plans until after the election, when they can be rushed through on a nod and a wink. The thing is, I was recently talking to a rugby journalist and it seems that Saracens have far more ambitious plans than that. The leading rugby club in the UK is Leicester and they get crowds of around 22,000. For Saracens RFC to achieve their dream and overtake them, they will need a home capacity of 25 - 30,000. If you look at Copthall, there is one decent stand taking up approx 1/6th of the available space. There are temporary stands at each end and a dilapidated stand on the other side. To say the stadium is ripe for development is an understatement.
So there are three options that any sensible person would consider
1) Saracens RFC are happy to stay a small club, becoming nomads for Heineken Cup games.
2) Saracens RFC are happy to stay a small club, but will extend their ground to be able to Play Heineken cup games at some point in the future.
3) Saracens RFC are a fiercely ambitious and competetive club, who want to become the biggest club in Europe, with a state of the art stadium, with great transport links on the edge of London.
Now I personally have never yet met anyone involved in sport who wasn't fiercly competetive. I've never met anyone at any club who wasn't ambitious. Saracens don't have a short lease, they are there for the duration. If they had a 30,000 seat, brand new stadium, they could extend the Northern Line on a disused railway line from Mill Hill East and have a direct train service from the heart of London to the Stadium. This would be a huge generator of cash for the club and would most certainly enable the club to achieve its ambitions.
Saracens RFC have hosted fundraising events for the local Tory MP Matthew Offord. As mentioned Mr Wray is a friend of Council Leader Richard Cornelius. It is simply unbelieveable to assume that they have not all discussed the future development of the green belt Copthall site.
Now unlike the Tory leaflet about Kentish Town FC, I make no claims that any of the above scenarios is correct. I will however say this I'll wager any Tory Councillor who cares to take the bet that if they get back in that we will see a massive expansion in the size of Copthall Stadium before the next election if the Tories win. Lets say £500.
And before anyone calls me a Nimby, I personally wouldn't object to the 30,000 stadium plan, if it was combined with improved transport links. If that was the price for an extension to the Northern Line and a new Thameslink Station (or Brent Cross Light rail link) at the RAF museum, it would actually be a great result for Mill Hill and Barnet. It is crazy that we have these amazing assets in Barnet and we don't have any decent public transport for them. What I do object to is the way the Tories never let us plebs know about their plans until after the election.
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
Barnet Council - The Flytippers Paradise
As someone who cares passionately about my manor and the green belt, scenes like this really upset me.
The disgusting anti social idiots who use the green belt as their private dumping ground make me sick. Every act like this costs you and me, the honest and decent citizens of Barnet money.
The council has to spend an absolute fortune on cleaning this crap up. If you have old waste like this, Barnet Council operate a facility at Summers Lane Finchley, where you can simply take this rubbish and they will dispose of it free of charge. This particular scene at Arrendene is approx 10 mins drive from Summers Lane, so it is clear that the ignorant morons who did this were just too lazy to bother driving up the road to Summers Lane. There really is no excuse.
So you may wonder what you should do if you see someone flytipping in the London Borough of Barnet. The Council Website has a page with instructions - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930241/flytipping/280/flytipping and it says
The website also gives contact details
Address:
North London Business Park (NLBP), Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 4600
Fax: 0870 889 7459
You can also report incidents online using the Fixmystreet page
http://barnet.fixmystreet.com/
So all well and good? Well not really. Just suppose that like me you have a couple of dogs and like me you walk them at 6am in the morning on occasion. Just suppose you see an antisocial git dumping rubbish and you want to get something done about it?
Well you've got the council hotline number. So you ring up in the hope that for once, you can catch them red handed and really get on top of the problem. Then you suddenly get a nasty reminder that this isn't Barnet, it's Capitaville. You see the council has outsourced all its services to Capita. They control the phone lines. When Capita took over, the hard right local Tories who promoted the scheme said that one reason for outsourcing the service was so that flexibility could be introduced into the service and it could be brought into the 21st century.
So what happens if you ring the hotline? Well you get a recorded message saying that Barnet Council is closed and if you need to speak to them, you must call between 9am and 5.15pm Monday to Thursday or 9am and 5pm on Friday. So if you see a flytipper on a Friday at 5pm, then you can't ring up to report it for three days.
Over the last year, I've noticed a huge increase oin flytipping in Barnet. I regularly walk around many of the open spaces and I've seen rubbish dumped in Cressingham Park, Arrendene, Mill Hill Park and Sunny Hill Park in the last month. The sad truth is that Barnet Council do not take flytipping seriously. If they did all of the openspaces and other flytipping hotspots would have signs giving a 24 hour number to sort the issue out. The Council should work with police to get tough with the idiots who cause this problem and have a zero tolerance policy to the issue.
Recently there was a problem of dumping in the carpark at Mill Hill Park. The council could have made a major impact on the problem by setting up CCTV surveillance of the site and then publicly prosecutting the perpetrators.
We have a council election in May. At present the candidates are asking for your vote. My local Conservative Councillors have not said a dickybird about flytipping over the last four years. My local Conservative MP Matthew Offord has said nothing about flytipping. There has been no focus on this most anti social of behaviours. That is why the London Borough of Barnet has become a flytippers paradise. I think the only way to deal with it is zero tolerance. I'd also like to see the council have the power to confiscate the vehicles of flytippers, especially commercial flytippers such as builders etc. There are two reasons people flytip. The first is lazyness and the second is greed. They want you and I to pay for the disposal of their waste. This won't stop until such time as we get councillors who care about the environment and who have the intelligence to actually realise that you need to take action to address the matter. Sadly for all of us, our Barnet Conservative Councillors and their preferred contractors Capita think that a 9-5 council is fit for purpose in the year 2014. Next time you see something dumped in your local street, park or kids play area, just remember that Capita are getting paid the best part of a billion quid of your tax money, courtesy of our local Conservatives, to sort the problem out.
 |
| Old mattresses dumped at Arrendene Open Space |
The council has to spend an absolute fortune on cleaning this crap up. If you have old waste like this, Barnet Council operate a facility at Summers Lane Finchley, where you can simply take this rubbish and they will dispose of it free of charge. This particular scene at Arrendene is approx 10 mins drive from Summers Lane, so it is clear that the ignorant morons who did this were just too lazy to bother driving up the road to Summers Lane. There really is no excuse.
So you may wonder what you should do if you see someone flytipping in the London Borough of Barnet. The Council Website has a page with instructions - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930241/flytipping/280/flytipping and it says
Flytipping
Flytipping is the illegal dumping of waste.
You can help improve your environment and report incidents of flytipping by contacting us. Please make a note of the exact location. All flytipping reported on public land will be cleared within 24 hours.
If you witness an incident of flytipping we advise you not to put yourselves at risk.
Do not approach the person. Make a note of the vehicle registration number and the date and time of the incident and contact us with this information. We can then investigate.
Flytipping can vary in scale significantly, from a bin bag of rubbish to larger quantities of waste dumped from trucks. This sort of waste can be found anywhere, such as roadsides, in lay bys or on private land. The council will take action against anyone found to be fly tipping within the borough under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for which there is an unlimited fine and possible imprisonment.
The website also gives contact details
Address:
North London Business Park (NLBP), Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 4600
Fax: 0870 889 7459
Email: first.contact@barnet.gov.uk
You can also report incidents online using the Fixmystreet page
http://barnet.fixmystreet.com/
So all well and good? Well not really. Just suppose that like me you have a couple of dogs and like me you walk them at 6am in the morning on occasion. Just suppose you see an antisocial git dumping rubbish and you want to get something done about it?
Well you've got the council hotline number. So you ring up in the hope that for once, you can catch them red handed and really get on top of the problem. Then you suddenly get a nasty reminder that this isn't Barnet, it's Capitaville. You see the council has outsourced all its services to Capita. They control the phone lines. When Capita took over, the hard right local Tories who promoted the scheme said that one reason for outsourcing the service was so that flexibility could be introduced into the service and it could be brought into the 21st century.
So what happens if you ring the hotline? Well you get a recorded message saying that Barnet Council is closed and if you need to speak to them, you must call between 9am and 5.15pm Monday to Thursday or 9am and 5pm on Friday. So if you see a flytipper on a Friday at 5pm, then you can't ring up to report it for three days.
Over the last year, I've noticed a huge increase oin flytipping in Barnet. I regularly walk around many of the open spaces and I've seen rubbish dumped in Cressingham Park, Arrendene, Mill Hill Park and Sunny Hill Park in the last month. The sad truth is that Barnet Council do not take flytipping seriously. If they did all of the openspaces and other flytipping hotspots would have signs giving a 24 hour number to sort the issue out. The Council should work with police to get tough with the idiots who cause this problem and have a zero tolerance policy to the issue.
Recently there was a problem of dumping in the carpark at Mill Hill Park. The council could have made a major impact on the problem by setting up CCTV surveillance of the site and then publicly prosecutting the perpetrators.
We have a council election in May. At present the candidates are asking for your vote. My local Conservative Councillors have not said a dickybird about flytipping over the last four years. My local Conservative MP Matthew Offord has said nothing about flytipping. There has been no focus on this most anti social of behaviours. That is why the London Borough of Barnet has become a flytippers paradise. I think the only way to deal with it is zero tolerance. I'd also like to see the council have the power to confiscate the vehicles of flytippers, especially commercial flytippers such as builders etc. There are two reasons people flytip. The first is lazyness and the second is greed. They want you and I to pay for the disposal of their waste. This won't stop until such time as we get councillors who care about the environment and who have the intelligence to actually realise that you need to take action to address the matter. Sadly for all of us, our Barnet Conservative Councillors and their preferred contractors Capita think that a 9-5 council is fit for purpose in the year 2014. Next time you see something dumped in your local street, park or kids play area, just remember that Capita are getting paid the best part of a billion quid of your tax money, courtesy of our local Conservatives, to sort the problem out.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Tube Strike day
So yet again there is a tube strike. The unions are striking in protest at TFL and Boris Johnsons proposals to close all of the ticket offices on the network. Unlike most armchair Tory commentators, I use trains, buses and tubes every day. Whilst no one likes disruption, I agree with the stance of the unions on this issue. For a simple reason. I've never seen ticket offices without queues of people requiring assistance at busy times. The stance of TFL is that people will have to sort themselves out in another way (ie sod the customer) and they'll get used to it. This is typical of businesses that have a monopoly. When people criticise the transport unions they forget the main reason we have a safe network is the unions. As a user of the network, I think this happens to be a rather important consideration
Monday, 28 April 2014
Food Bank Collection - Next Sunday, May 4th - Sacred Heart Church Mill Hill
Currently the Colindale food
bank is almost empty and they are appealing in particular for:
Tinned fish e.g. tuna, sardines, salmon etc; Tinned meat e.g. corned
beef, hot dogs, ham etc; Dried rice; Long life milk. However they do
NOT need tinned tomatoes or baked, kidney, or black eye beans at the
moment Other food items needed are: Cereals e.g. crunchy nut,
Weetabix; Oats; Noodles; Hot chocolate; Coffee, Tinned fruit; Tinned
vegetables; Cooking oil; Non-food items needed are: Washing powder;
Washing up liquid; Shower gel/soap; Toothpaste; deodorant etc;
Toilet rolls and Nappies'
The collection is open to all and the Sacred Heart, Mill Hill is being used as a collection point. Please deliver food before masses at 8.30, 10.00, 11.30 and 6pm. As you can see from the list, this is vital for families with young children. The rise of foodbanks in a wealthy country as ours is a sad indictment indeed.
The collection is open to all and the Sacred Heart, Mill Hill is being used as a collection point. Please deliver food before masses at 8.30, 10.00, 11.30 and 6pm. As you can see from the list, this is vital for families with young children. The rise of foodbanks in a wealthy country as ours is a sad indictment indeed.
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Barnet Tories - The good, the bad and the ugly
In May we have council elections. Now I am not a Conservative voter, but I am often asked who are the good Tories, who I wouldn't mind seeing back in the Council chamber next year. I've also been asked whioch ones I think we'd be best shot of.
So here's the Conservative councillors which I think have made some sort of contribution in Barnet in the last four years and why.
The Good
Lisa Rutter - Chipping Barnet. Lisa has been a stalwart support of the youth music projects which my business has sponsored over the last four years. Always friendly and polite and a genuinely nice person.
Kate Salinger - Coppetts. Deserves a lot of credit for her stance as the only Conservative to stand up against the Tories greedy allowance hike when re-elected in 2010. Geniuinely nice to boot.
Sury Khatri - Mill Hill. Sury was one of three Tories who beat me in the Council elections in 2010. When the result was announced, I shook all of their hands and asked that they do as good a job as they could in representing Mill Hill. Sadly Brian Schama has been prevented by circumstances from being too active in the last year and is standing down. Sury however has far surpassed my expectations and has proven himself to be a first class councillor.
David Longstaffe - High Barnet. When councillor Brian Coleman disgraced himself by assaulting Helen Michael, David came down to make sure that Helen was OK and expressed his personal disgust at Colemans behaviour. He is a decent chap who has a sense of humour.
The Bad
Robert Rams - East Barnet. Has a long history in Barnet of being less than straightforward. Got caught out tweeting that he was at Mill Hill Library when he wasn't (I was around the corner and nipped straight in to see him). Boasted he'd ended my blogging career in 2008, when the Barnet Times removed my blog following my expose of how Barnet Council had made a video featuring an anti semite making anti semitic statements on You Tube. We exposed his latest efforts as Porkiemeister in chief yesterday http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-fisk-of-biggest-porkie-ever-told-in.html - He has recently started a new blog all about American Wrestling. We hope he has far more time to dedicate to this blog after the election.
Reuben Thompstone - Golders Green. The Cabinet member responsible for the Mapledown disabled school funding cut. During questioning by councillor Jack Cohen, he admitted he didn't read the consultation submissions from parents, staff and carers. When asked why, he claimed that he didn't want his judgement to be swayed. One has to ask, what is the point of consultation if the person who makes the decision deliberately doesn't read the results. In effect, Mr Thompstone wasted everyones time. As far as I am concerned, for this admission alone, he has to go. Let us not forget that Thompstone is one of the Tories who voted himself a payrise as his first act of office. He doesn't even pretend to do the work that the allowance as a cabinet member should pay for. The man is a waste of space. As if this isn't bad enough, he had the audacity to complain to the local paper about their coverage of the Mapledown scandal. Here is what he said (and our comments) http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/mapledown-school-open-letter-from.html
The Ugly.
Councillor John Hart - Mill Hill. When I say ugly I don't mean in the physical sense. For an octogenarian, John is actually quite dapper. I actually quite like him on a personal level as he's quite entertaining. He has however got the most extreme right wing Thatcherite views of anyone in the council, possibly anyone in Barnet. At the Mapledown Scrutiny meeting, Hart stated that the parents of disabled children were simply "looking for a handout". I'm sorry to say that for such a comment, he simply has to go.
Tom Davey - Hale. Mr Davey has shown that he has ugly views and keeps obnoxious company. He was caught out on facebook making the most vile comments about the disabled, black people, benefit recipients and even his own girlfriend - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/time-for-councillor-tom-davey-to-resign.html - his justifation was that this was pub banter with his mates. The fact Mr Davey seems to think his mates would find comments about hitting his girlfriend funny says it all. I was raised in a house where we believed that people who hit women were the scum of the earth. I may be old school but I think anyone who can make a joke out of beating up his girlfriend is very immature and should not be in public office until he has grown up.
Councillor Brian Gordon - Edgware. Mr Gordon was another Tory who didn't vote to send the Mapledown budget cut back to the CRC. His comments during the meeting betrayed a complete lack of compassion for hard pressed parents. Mr Gordon has a long history of all manner of faux pas. He has previously found himself in the spotlight for blacking up and doing a very poor impersonation of Nelson Mandela. Perhaps the worst feature of Mr Gordons personality is his cowardly nature. He is currently a councillor in Hale Ward, but has taken the chicken run to Edgware ( a safe Tory ward, unlike Hale, which is marginal). If he actually added anything to the council, one may concede he desereved a safe run, but as far as we are concerned, a man who simply cannot understand why the Mapledown cut was a mistake and who shows no compassion for the parents of some of Barnets most disabled youngsters really should not be in public life.
Do you know who your local councillor is? You can find out here http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1
The point I am trying to make is that all parties have people in them that are bad and that are good. Whilst we decide who to vote for mainly on party lines, maybe we should also consider the person behind the rosette. I believe that being a councillor is an important job and a good councillor is a real asset to the local community. In Mill Hill we have a very interesting situation. We have three candidates who I know well and are standing for parties I am not inclined to vote for. George Jones is standing for UKIP. George has been a Mill Hill resident for many years. He is a former next door neighbour of my sister in law and is a thoroughly decent chap. I don't agree with UKIP, but George has been involved in all manner of local campaigns over many years. If he were elected I have no doubt he'd be a hard working councillor and he'd do his best for the locality.
Jeremy Davies is a Lib Dem candidate and was a councillor from 1994 until 2010. He was an excellent councillor and persuaded me to stand for the party in the 2010 council election. I left the Lib Dems after the coalition government enacted the massive hike in Student loans. There are many coalition policies which make it impossible for me to endorse the National Lib Dems. I think it is very likely I will vote for Jeremy in the local elections.
As I mentioned above, Sury Khatri has been an excellent councillor. I am tempted to cast a vote for him, simply because the local Tories have need for a sane voice and I know him to be the sanest, most intelligent and most thoughtfull of the Tories.
I haven't completely made my mind up yet. Let's just say these are my current thoughts.
So here's the Conservative councillors which I think have made some sort of contribution in Barnet in the last four years and why.
The Good
Lisa Rutter - Chipping Barnet. Lisa has been a stalwart support of the youth music projects which my business has sponsored over the last four years. Always friendly and polite and a genuinely nice person.
Kate Salinger - Coppetts. Deserves a lot of credit for her stance as the only Conservative to stand up against the Tories greedy allowance hike when re-elected in 2010. Geniuinely nice to boot.
Sury Khatri - Mill Hill. Sury was one of three Tories who beat me in the Council elections in 2010. When the result was announced, I shook all of their hands and asked that they do as good a job as they could in representing Mill Hill. Sadly Brian Schama has been prevented by circumstances from being too active in the last year and is standing down. Sury however has far surpassed my expectations and has proven himself to be a first class councillor.
David Longstaffe - High Barnet. When councillor Brian Coleman disgraced himself by assaulting Helen Michael, David came down to make sure that Helen was OK and expressed his personal disgust at Colemans behaviour. He is a decent chap who has a sense of humour.
The Bad
Robert Rams - East Barnet. Has a long history in Barnet of being less than straightforward. Got caught out tweeting that he was at Mill Hill Library when he wasn't (I was around the corner and nipped straight in to see him). Boasted he'd ended my blogging career in 2008, when the Barnet Times removed my blog following my expose of how Barnet Council had made a video featuring an anti semite making anti semitic statements on You Tube. We exposed his latest efforts as Porkiemeister in chief yesterday http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-fisk-of-biggest-porkie-ever-told-in.html - He has recently started a new blog all about American Wrestling. We hope he has far more time to dedicate to this blog after the election.
Reuben Thompstone - Golders Green. The Cabinet member responsible for the Mapledown disabled school funding cut. During questioning by councillor Jack Cohen, he admitted he didn't read the consultation submissions from parents, staff and carers. When asked why, he claimed that he didn't want his judgement to be swayed. One has to ask, what is the point of consultation if the person who makes the decision deliberately doesn't read the results. In effect, Mr Thompstone wasted everyones time. As far as I am concerned, for this admission alone, he has to go. Let us not forget that Thompstone is one of the Tories who voted himself a payrise as his first act of office. He doesn't even pretend to do the work that the allowance as a cabinet member should pay for. The man is a waste of space. As if this isn't bad enough, he had the audacity to complain to the local paper about their coverage of the Mapledown scandal. Here is what he said (and our comments) http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/mapledown-school-open-letter-from.html
The Ugly.
Councillor John Hart - Mill Hill. When I say ugly I don't mean in the physical sense. For an octogenarian, John is actually quite dapper. I actually quite like him on a personal level as he's quite entertaining. He has however got the most extreme right wing Thatcherite views of anyone in the council, possibly anyone in Barnet. At the Mapledown Scrutiny meeting, Hart stated that the parents of disabled children were simply "looking for a handout". I'm sorry to say that for such a comment, he simply has to go.
Tom Davey - Hale. Mr Davey has shown that he has ugly views and keeps obnoxious company. He was caught out on facebook making the most vile comments about the disabled, black people, benefit recipients and even his own girlfriend - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/time-for-councillor-tom-davey-to-resign.html - his justifation was that this was pub banter with his mates. The fact Mr Davey seems to think his mates would find comments about hitting his girlfriend funny says it all. I was raised in a house where we believed that people who hit women were the scum of the earth. I may be old school but I think anyone who can make a joke out of beating up his girlfriend is very immature and should not be in public office until he has grown up.
Councillor Brian Gordon - Edgware. Mr Gordon was another Tory who didn't vote to send the Mapledown budget cut back to the CRC. His comments during the meeting betrayed a complete lack of compassion for hard pressed parents. Mr Gordon has a long history of all manner of faux pas. He has previously found himself in the spotlight for blacking up and doing a very poor impersonation of Nelson Mandela. Perhaps the worst feature of Mr Gordons personality is his cowardly nature. He is currently a councillor in Hale Ward, but has taken the chicken run to Edgware ( a safe Tory ward, unlike Hale, which is marginal). If he actually added anything to the council, one may concede he desereved a safe run, but as far as we are concerned, a man who simply cannot understand why the Mapledown cut was a mistake and who shows no compassion for the parents of some of Barnets most disabled youngsters really should not be in public life.
Do you know who your local councillor is? You can find out here http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1
The point I am trying to make is that all parties have people in them that are bad and that are good. Whilst we decide who to vote for mainly on party lines, maybe we should also consider the person behind the rosette. I believe that being a councillor is an important job and a good councillor is a real asset to the local community. In Mill Hill we have a very interesting situation. We have three candidates who I know well and are standing for parties I am not inclined to vote for. George Jones is standing for UKIP. George has been a Mill Hill resident for many years. He is a former next door neighbour of my sister in law and is a thoroughly decent chap. I don't agree with UKIP, but George has been involved in all manner of local campaigns over many years. If he were elected I have no doubt he'd be a hard working councillor and he'd do his best for the locality.
Jeremy Davies is a Lib Dem candidate and was a councillor from 1994 until 2010. He was an excellent councillor and persuaded me to stand for the party in the 2010 council election. I left the Lib Dems after the coalition government enacted the massive hike in Student loans. There are many coalition policies which make it impossible for me to endorse the National Lib Dems. I think it is very likely I will vote for Jeremy in the local elections.
As I mentioned above, Sury Khatri has been an excellent councillor. I am tempted to cast a vote for him, simply because the local Tories have need for a sane voice and I know him to be the sanest, most intelligent and most thoughtfull of the Tories.
I haven't completely made my mind up yet. Let's just say these are my current thoughts.
Saturday, 26 April 2014
A fisk of the biggest Porkie ever told in the London Borough of Barnet
I don't really like doing overly political blogs at the weekend. I like to relax and have a bit of fun. However I cannot sit back and let people spin stories that I believe to be a complete distortion of the truth. East Barnet councillor and Tory Cabinet member Robert Rams has published a story on his bog (Story being the only applicable word) that simply cannot go unchallenged. I started writing blogs about Barnet in May 2008 and I can honestly say I have never seen anything which has so outraged or upset me as what Councillor Rams has to say
The Source is here
http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/labour-blunder-cuts-1-9m-of-funding-for-disabled-children-in-barnet-but-council-leader-averts-crisis/
The Barnet Eye feels that the only way to deal with this is to do a Fisk. Our comments are in red italics - Here is what Councillor Rams had to say, including our comments.
An incredible blunder by Labour Group Deputy Leader Cllr Barry Rawlings has effectively cut all Short Breaks funding provided by the council to institutions across Barnet, along with a whole range of other support services for children with disabilities, to the value of £1.9m - As Councillor Rams will go on to show, this is not an "incredible blunder" but has enabled his boss Richard Cornelius to use executive powers to overturn an appalling decisions by Councillor Rams and his Cabinet Colleagues. The blunder was by his Colleague who enacted a cut without actually bothering to read (by his own admission) the results of the consultation.
The Labour member ‘called in’ the Cabinet Resources Committee report that extended the contracts for these services to the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday evening and then, with colleagues, voted that it be sent back to the administration - Councillor Rams fails to mention that Lib Dem Jack Cohen and Conservative members Brian Salinger (a former Leader) and Maureen Braun, a long time previously loyal Tory all voted to send the cut back to cabinet. Why does Rams fail to mention this. Councillor Braun even asked "Who is more vulnerable than disabled children". His comments would be highly misleading to anyone who was not at the meeting or had read proper coverage.
Without these contract extensions, the council is left without the legal power to pay its providers, meaning services would have to be stopped - again Highly misleading. The services would have only been stopped if the Council Leader had not decided to use the constitutional powers at his disposal. To claim otherwise is, in our view, not befitting a member of the administration.
Council Leader Cllr Richard Cornelius said:
“This needs to be reversed. I am taking urgent action to avoid these services being wrecked.
“Cllr Rawlings and Labour have created a right constitutional mess and have effectively removed all funding from these organisations. In their attempts to make the funding of Short Breaks at Mapledown School a political football – never having highlighted or varied this particular saving in their budget amendment – they have recklessly made the situation much worse - Again Richard Cornelius fails to mention the role of his own colleagues and the Libe Dems in taking the decision. As to the issue becoming a political football, surely this is also misleading. As Tories supported Councillor Rawling, it was a cross party decision. Jack Cohen specifically stated that this sort of decision should not be about Party Politics and Salinger and Braun agreed. Committee chair Hugh Rayner was also keen to ensure that the effects of the decision were mitigated. He asked if an emergency session of the relevant committee could be held and council officers offered no reason as to why not .
“Labour are faffing around calling for meetings, but what they’ve done needs urgent action and cannot wait for a committee meeting to be called. This is no longer just about Short Breaks, but also about children in care, mental health services and all sorts. I am ensuring that these services can continue.” - This statement shows that Rams contention was totally incorrect and that the atrocious initial decision was reversed, allowing time for alternative funding to be arranged. In fact what Richard Cornelius has done is simply what any decent person should do on realising a bad decision was made. It is very regrettable that he has decided to use it as a clumsy attempt to politicise a rather sensible piece of work by the scrutiny committee
With no more Cabinet Resource Committee meetings able to take place before the election, the long term funding issue for Mapledown is to be reviewed by the new Education Committee under the new Council - There is no constituional bar on an emergency session of the old CRC. Having said that, given the consensus that the cut was a mistake, use of executive powers to extend the funding for a year is universally agreed as correct.
Council Leader Cllr Richard Cornelius continued:
“The Mapledown situation needs to be determined by the new committee and so I will ensure their funding, to maintain services at the existing level, for one year to give the school a chance to adjust and for alternate funding to be found.” - Let me translate "A new committe will sort the mess out which the incompetents on the old CRC created. In the meantime I've used the powers at my disposal to ensure that the sensible decision of Councillor Rawlings to call in the decision, and the wisdom shown by Labour, Lib Dem and SOME Conservative members of the scrutiny committee to call for a review of the decision has ensured that Mapledown school, which is universally recognised as excellent, can carry on doing the great work, with which we associate it.
+++ End of Rams blog
And there is the paragraph that Richard Cornelius didn't write, Robert RAms didn't write, and Reuben Thompstone didn't write, but they all damn well should.
As Leader of the Council, I would like to personally apologise to all the pupils, carers and parents of Mapledown School and I would like to personally assure them that Barnet Council has accepted that the original cut was an ill thought out decision. We promise to try and learn from our mistakes. We will undertake to properly read all future consultations and if we cannot avoid cuts, we will visit the establishments facing the cuts, prior to the decision, so we can understand the effects of our actions.
For the avoidance of doubt, lets be 100% clear as to what happened. The Tory CRC passed the decision to cut after school and respite care. Labour called the decision in for review, as they are perfectly entitled to do under the Barnet Council constitution. After hearing all of the evidence, the Tory Controlled scrutiny committe voted to send the decision back to the CRC for further consideration. At this point, the Leader of the Council intervened as he's perfectly entitled to do under the constitution and took a sensible executive decision. This reversed the cut and ensured all of the other services continued. Up until this point, I think we can all agree that everything followed the normal rules of how business is done in Barnet.
Then Councillor Robert Rams wrote his blog. This is quite extraordinary. It doesn't mention the fact that the decision was made by a Tory controlled committee. It doesn't mention that two Tories and one Lib Dem voted with Labour. It implies that the vital services were threatened, which they clearly were not. And it presents a financial decision taken to increase a budget in a hugely political light, in the Purdah period prior to an election. I cannot possibly understate just how "disappointed" I am with the behaviour of Councillor Rams in posting this blog. It is a complete distortion of the truth. I really find it sickening and I hope that as meany people as possible who live in Mr Rams East Barnet ward are made aware of what happened and how Mr Rams chose to present it. I am also extremely disappointed at Richard Cornelius. He did the right thing to use his executive powers to sort out the mess his CRC created. He has not done the right thing in making totally misleading statements.
The Source is here
http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/labour-blunder-cuts-1-9m-of-funding-for-disabled-children-in-barnet-but-council-leader-averts-crisis/
The Barnet Eye feels that the only way to deal with this is to do a Fisk. Our comments are in red italics - Here is what Councillor Rams had to say, including our comments.
An incredible blunder by Labour Group Deputy Leader Cllr Barry Rawlings has effectively cut all Short Breaks funding provided by the council to institutions across Barnet, along with a whole range of other support services for children with disabilities, to the value of £1.9m - As Councillor Rams will go on to show, this is not an "incredible blunder" but has enabled his boss Richard Cornelius to use executive powers to overturn an appalling decisions by Councillor Rams and his Cabinet Colleagues. The blunder was by his Colleague who enacted a cut without actually bothering to read (by his own admission) the results of the consultation.
The Labour member ‘called in’ the Cabinet Resources Committee report that extended the contracts for these services to the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday evening and then, with colleagues, voted that it be sent back to the administration - Councillor Rams fails to mention that Lib Dem Jack Cohen and Conservative members Brian Salinger (a former Leader) and Maureen Braun, a long time previously loyal Tory all voted to send the cut back to cabinet. Why does Rams fail to mention this. Councillor Braun even asked "Who is more vulnerable than disabled children". His comments would be highly misleading to anyone who was not at the meeting or had read proper coverage.
Without these contract extensions, the council is left without the legal power to pay its providers, meaning services would have to be stopped - again Highly misleading. The services would have only been stopped if the Council Leader had not decided to use the constitutional powers at his disposal. To claim otherwise is, in our view, not befitting a member of the administration.
Council Leader Cllr Richard Cornelius said:
“This needs to be reversed. I am taking urgent action to avoid these services being wrecked.
“Cllr Rawlings and Labour have created a right constitutional mess and have effectively removed all funding from these organisations. In their attempts to make the funding of Short Breaks at Mapledown School a political football – never having highlighted or varied this particular saving in their budget amendment – they have recklessly made the situation much worse - Again Richard Cornelius fails to mention the role of his own colleagues and the Libe Dems in taking the decision. As to the issue becoming a political football, surely this is also misleading. As Tories supported Councillor Rawling, it was a cross party decision. Jack Cohen specifically stated that this sort of decision should not be about Party Politics and Salinger and Braun agreed. Committee chair Hugh Rayner was also keen to ensure that the effects of the decision were mitigated. He asked if an emergency session of the relevant committee could be held and council officers offered no reason as to why not .
“Labour are faffing around calling for meetings, but what they’ve done needs urgent action and cannot wait for a committee meeting to be called. This is no longer just about Short Breaks, but also about children in care, mental health services and all sorts. I am ensuring that these services can continue.” - This statement shows that Rams contention was totally incorrect and that the atrocious initial decision was reversed, allowing time for alternative funding to be arranged. In fact what Richard Cornelius has done is simply what any decent person should do on realising a bad decision was made. It is very regrettable that he has decided to use it as a clumsy attempt to politicise a rather sensible piece of work by the scrutiny committee
With no more Cabinet Resource Committee meetings able to take place before the election, the long term funding issue for Mapledown is to be reviewed by the new Education Committee under the new Council - There is no constituional bar on an emergency session of the old CRC. Having said that, given the consensus that the cut was a mistake, use of executive powers to extend the funding for a year is universally agreed as correct.
Council Leader Cllr Richard Cornelius continued:
“The Mapledown situation needs to be determined by the new committee and so I will ensure their funding, to maintain services at the existing level, for one year to give the school a chance to adjust and for alternate funding to be found.” - Let me translate "A new committe will sort the mess out which the incompetents on the old CRC created. In the meantime I've used the powers at my disposal to ensure that the sensible decision of Councillor Rawlings to call in the decision, and the wisdom shown by Labour, Lib Dem and SOME Conservative members of the scrutiny committee to call for a review of the decision has ensured that Mapledown school, which is universally recognised as excellent, can carry on doing the great work, with which we associate it.
+++ End of Rams blog
And there is the paragraph that Richard Cornelius didn't write, Robert RAms didn't write, and Reuben Thompstone didn't write, but they all damn well should.
As Leader of the Council, I would like to personally apologise to all the pupils, carers and parents of Mapledown School and I would like to personally assure them that Barnet Council has accepted that the original cut was an ill thought out decision. We promise to try and learn from our mistakes. We will undertake to properly read all future consultations and if we cannot avoid cuts, we will visit the establishments facing the cuts, prior to the decision, so we can understand the effects of our actions.
For the avoidance of doubt, lets be 100% clear as to what happened. The Tory CRC passed the decision to cut after school and respite care. Labour called the decision in for review, as they are perfectly entitled to do under the Barnet Council constitution. After hearing all of the evidence, the Tory Controlled scrutiny committe voted to send the decision back to the CRC for further consideration. At this point, the Leader of the Council intervened as he's perfectly entitled to do under the constitution and took a sensible executive decision. This reversed the cut and ensured all of the other services continued. Up until this point, I think we can all agree that everything followed the normal rules of how business is done in Barnet.
Then Councillor Robert Rams wrote his blog. This is quite extraordinary. It doesn't mention the fact that the decision was made by a Tory controlled committee. It doesn't mention that two Tories and one Lib Dem voted with Labour. It implies that the vital services were threatened, which they clearly were not. And it presents a financial decision taken to increase a budget in a hugely political light, in the Purdah period prior to an election. I cannot possibly understate just how "disappointed" I am with the behaviour of Councillor Rams in posting this blog. It is a complete distortion of the truth. I really find it sickening and I hope that as meany people as possible who live in Mr Rams East Barnet ward are made aware of what happened and how Mr Rams chose to present it. I am also extremely disappointed at Richard Cornelius. He did the right thing to use his executive powers to sort out the mess his CRC created. He has not done the right thing in making totally misleading statements.
The Barnet Tweets of the week 26/4/2014
It's Saturday, so it's time for your fave feature, its the good, the bad and the ugly from the world of Barnet Tweeters !
1. Labour Candidate Devra Kay has jumped on the Matthew Offord bandwagon of human rights for animals, in her case mythical ones !
Dr Devra Kay @LaBloggeuse
@CllrRobertRams do you actually believe the shite you are tweeting & blogging about Mapledown? You clearly have no sense of shame.
David Constable
@DavidConstable
@CllrRobertRams pls inform Cllr Davey if he wants my vote, he needs to use "I" a lot more and "i" a lot less 
@JuliaHines
1. Labour Candidate Devra Kay has jumped on the Matthew Offord bandwagon of human rights for animals, in her case mythical ones !
Dr Devra Kay
Happy St George's Day. Happy birthday William Shakespeare and unhappy death day to Shakespeare, Cervantes and maybe the dragon.
2. Trouble making Cafe owner Helen Michael has something to say about the the shape of our bums ! Not quite sure whether she's boasting or feeling worried? (needless to say I'll get a slap for that comment!)
BBC News: Why big buttocks can be bad for your health http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27026521who … needs silicone when you have the real thing?
3. Mrs Angry lives up to her name !
4. David Constable makes a rather telling observation
"new tube ticket machine" pictured in Evening Standard looks awfully like a ticket office... pic.twitter.com/bYFliCo4D6
4. Paul Evans comes up with a cracking idea !
♬ Paul Evans ♬
Still laughing at the
suggestion that people waiting to greet the rescued Chilean miners
should do so dressed in Planet of the Apes costumes
5. David Constable demonstrates his incredible powers of perception !
"new tube ticket machine" pictured in Evening Standard looks awfully like a ticket office... pic.twitter.com/bYFliCo4D6
5. Press Journalist Dan O'Brien has a Eureka! moment
Lesson learned. Always read @BarnetCouncil press releases carefully! Going through one on gritting trucks to see if lone gunman identified.
6. Has East Barnet Tory given up on his own seat? Seems like he prefers going over to Twickenham?
Great morning in Twickenham leafleting - great to see Tony Arbour AM as well as @glamgirlgourmet and @JonHollis9
7. Good to see that the voters are focussing on the stuff that really matters in this council election !
8. Everyone in Barnet should read this
Responses to public questions for Business Management OSC this evening have been published http://bit.ly/1nGl2OB
9. Barnet Council is having a nappy recycling week next week.
-
Next week is Real Nappy Week (28 April - 3 May). Real Nappy event taking place this Saturday. More info linked below http://bit.ly/1hbTRKs
lbbrecycling
10. And finally..... A cracker from Mill Hill Music Complex
As it's Easter weekend, here's a special Saturday joke on our facebook site https://www.facebook.com/millhillmusiccomplexlondon/posts/689869017740382?stream_ref=10 …
Well that's it for this week. Hope ou found something useful, funny or interesting in there somewhere. Each week we publish the tweets that we've seen this week that caught our eye. Let us know if you've seen any that you think are worthy of the list. The only rule is that the tweets should be relevant to Barnet or tweeted by someone with links to Barnet.
Friday, 25 April 2014
The Friday Joke 25/4/2014
A man walked into a police station in Barnet and said "Excuse me officer, I've just been attacked by a mad woman in Finchley"
Six months later Councillor Brian Coleman was convicted of assault after CCTV footage exposed this lie in the Magistrate Court. He had attacked Helen Michael and lied for six months about the incident to Police.
Yesterday his nomination to stand as a candidate in the Council Election was announced.
Whilst we consider this to be a joke we are not laughing.
Thanks to Mr Mustard for pointing out Coleman was convicted in a magistrates court
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Mapledown School - Video footage of Barnet Council Scrutiny commitee where decison sent back for consideration
Yesterday we printed our report of the meeting, detailing how the committee voted to sent the Mapledown Disabled School budget cut back to the Barnet Tory Cabinet to recondsider (The limit of their powers). Here is some video footage of key portions of the meeting
Public Questions.I've decided not to comment here. The pictures speak for themselves.
Sarah Sackman representing the Mapledown parents
The big vote and public reaction
Sarah Sackman representing the Mapledown parents
The big vote and public reaction
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Mapledown Special School - A victory for the parents and common sense
Tonight I've been at Hendon Town Hall for the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee Tonight the committee were reviewing the decision to cut theMapledown Special school afterschool and respite budget by£45,000.
So I made my way up to Hendon Town Hall at 7pm for the meeting. I arrived to find myself sitting next to fellow blogger Mrs Angry and surrounded by parents of disabled childrens parents from Mapledown School. Before the meeting started, I had a brief chat with Steve Carroll, the headmaster of Mapledown school. Mr Carroll explained that he couldn't really say anything. As we were chatting, the councillor responsible for the cut, Rueben Thompstone (Rubes as we know him) barged me out of the way and told Mr Carroll how much he was looking forward to finally visiting the school. Mr Carroll was the soul of discretion. As I am not psychic I can only guess what he may have been thinking.
The format of the meeting started with the usual Barnet BS, followed by public question time. The committee consisted of Chair Hugh Rayner, Tories Brian Salinger, Big Mo Braun, Little Brian Gordon, John Hart, and Rowan "yer boat" Turner. From Labour we had Barry Rawlings, Alison Moore and Geoff Johnson. For the Lib Dems we had Jack Cohen.
The questions and answers from the public can be viewed here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b24259/Public%20Questions%20and%20Responses%2023rd-Apr-2014%2019.00%20Business%20Management%20Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf?T=9http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b24259/Public%20Questions%20and%20Responses%2023rd-Apr-2014%2019.00%20Business%20Management%20Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf?T=9
We had some excellent public questions from Mapledown parents
Christine Canavan asked why nationally respite budgets had gone up 22% and locally they'd been cut by 27%. For the Councillor a Mr Harrison said that the "funds were not earmarked"
Tina asked why the school had not been visited prior to the cuts to assess the effects. Mr Harrison gave a rather obtuse answer imply "Rubes" would have to answer that one himself.
Then the chair, Councillor Rayner said "Is Sue Here?" "No?" "Erm Good".
We then had Theresa. She asked if any account had been given to what cash would end up being spent as a result of this cut. In other words, when carers get destroyed by stress, who foots the bill and how much will it be. Sadly the answer was that no one had bothered to assess that.
Then we had Labour candidat for Finchley, Sarah Sackman. She'd been asked by the parents to represent them. The chair, Councillor Rayner, ensured that her political role was noted. She explained the high demand for services, the benefits of respite and the results of the withdrawal of services. Sadly certain councillors sought to play up her party role and play down the points she'd made.
She very eloquently pointed out that the Council was out of step with the Tory lead government, who viewed carers and respite as great value for money. They'd increased the budget nationally. She explained that if the parents could no longer cope, the costs would legally fall to the council.
Councillor John Hart suggested that the parents should sort the financial black hole out themselves and urged parents and carers to raise money themselves (whilst caring for disabled children 24 X 7).
Sackman pointed out that Mapledown was not just a nice to have but a necessity. She suggested that councillors should work with parents and help them resolve the issue.
Councillor Brian Gordon suggested that no one likes cuts. He is quite right, the audience reminded him that no Councillors had an allowance cut under the Tories. The meeting was descending into uproar. As with many recent council meetings, the general public start off being very polite. As often happens, myself and Mrs Angry, being old hands, display no such deference. A constant stream of heckling emerged from our corner. Eventually (as often happens) the rest of the gallery realises that there is no need for the deference. Councillor Gordon deployed his usual charm and was the tipping point. The chair of the meeting, Rayner gave the audience a good telling off.
Lib Dem Leader Jack Cohen made his usual intelligent point. He suggested that care for the disabled should be outside the usual political argy bargy and asked whether parents had been properly consulted.
Sarah Sackman explained how they were not. They had no idea of the sclae of cuts when consulted. She also explained how parents of disabled children have more to do than simply complete surveys on the Barnet council website.
Then we had Christine Canavan, explaining the purpose and definition of respite. A short period of rest from a difficult or unpleasant situation. She said "please take time and reconsider your decision". She then stated she was "shocked, let down and angry" at the lack of consultation.
Then we had Rubes up for questions. Barry Rawlings suggested that maybe the cabinet hadn't thought through the cut. He explained how there was cash in the public health budget. He also suggested that the cut may have been unconstitutional because the matter was still in oversight.
Then we heard from Rubes. Sadly the man is clearly a buffoon. Virtually his first words were that he was "sorry for all the bad publicity". No SH*T Sherlock, we bet you are. He said he was "pleased to hear from the parents". He looked anything but. He looked like a man who'd sat on a shoebrush in truth.
Then Mr Carroll, the headmaster was asked to clarify a few issues by Cllr Rayner. He asked why the school couldn't use its reserves to fund the services. Mr Carroll explained that this would be illegal. The budgets are ring fenced. Rubes shifted even more uncomfortably. He explained how the school had raised £200,000 in donations, but this was for special projects and there was a limit.
If Rubes thought things were bad, they were about to get much worse. He was about to get barbequed by Jack Cohen. Rubes clearly has little comprehension of just how careful you have to be when Jack is on form, and boy was he on form. Jack asked if Rubes had bothered to read any of the responses from parents to the consultation. Rubes replied along the lines that he had better things to do and the officers had read them, he'd read a management summary. Jack persisted "So when you looked, you didn't look at the answers" Jack suggested that the council constition suggested that "due respect had to be given to decisions". Rubes shifted his large posterior uncomfortably. Jack then said "Disability is a proected characteristic. How can you tell is that this decision will protect their equalities". Rubes retorted that the budget cut had left some services in tact. Several of his Tory colleagues looked rather uncomfortable.
It suddenly became apparant that he'd lost his colleagues. Brian Salinger stated that it wasn't clear what the decision had actually meant in real terms. He doubted the cabinet had understood the implications. Rubes disagreed. Then, from a rather unexpected source, the final blow. Councillor Maureen Braun, not a friend of this blog asked Rubes "Who is more vulnerable than disabled children". Rubes tried to string a sentence together, but failed. Braun had summed up the general feeling in the room. Rayner had sensed early on that the Torie were on a loser. He had spent the evening trying to figure out how to extract his reputation from this situation. He clearly didn't want to shaft Mapledown, but couldn't work out how to protect his Tory friend. He moved to a vote and to the amazement of all, Salinger and Braun, to their great credit voted to send the report back to the cabinet. In short a Tory Committee had agreed that the Mapledown cut was unfair and unjust and needed review.
Rayner realised that with an election looing, this presented a constitutional issue. He tried to get a council officer to help him out but no one really seemed to know. Rubes, a large man, seemed to have shrunk and seemed to resemble a demented leprachaun. He looked totally gutted.
Brian Salinger couldn't contain himself and ran to the back to shake hands with Mr Carroll. Mr Rayner ordered him back, but Salinger just ignored him. Mrs Angry and myself were, for a second overcome with emotion. We've sat through a lot of committee meetings and such an outcome was unexpected to say the least,
For the record (and it was not 100% clear), it appeared that Hart, Turner and Gordon did not vote to send the report back. I get the feeling that Braun, Salinger and Rayner had realised the game was up. Hart and Gordon are simply too entrenched in their ways to deviate from the party line. As for Turner. He gives the impression of having the intellect of a Compare the Meerkat.
In fact all that has happened is that the decision has been referred back to a committee stacked with dopey Tories who didn't do their job properly the first time. Will they learn. I suspect that Rayner will order them to make the problem go away ASAP. He is a senior power in Barnet Torydom.
I made a point of congratulating Braun and Salinger. Councillors should realise that when they do the right thing, it gets recognised. I just hope that the Tories can see sense and undo a very bad decision.
It was clear to anyone with a heart that Mapledown is a special case and the kids there deserve to be protected. It is clear Braun got it. It is clear Salinger got it, I suspect Rayner got it. Sadly Rubes Thompstone, Brian Gordon, John Hart and Rowan Turner clearly don't get it. If any are your local councillor and you are inclined to vote Tory, please consider their actions. Salinger and Braun displayed a modicum of human decency. As this blog covers the council election, this will be remembered. We hope that all voters consider this when casting their vote.
So I made my way up to Hendon Town Hall at 7pm for the meeting. I arrived to find myself sitting next to fellow blogger Mrs Angry and surrounded by parents of disabled childrens parents from Mapledown School. Before the meeting started, I had a brief chat with Steve Carroll, the headmaster of Mapledown school. Mr Carroll explained that he couldn't really say anything. As we were chatting, the councillor responsible for the cut, Rueben Thompstone (Rubes as we know him) barged me out of the way and told Mr Carroll how much he was looking forward to finally visiting the school. Mr Carroll was the soul of discretion. As I am not psychic I can only guess what he may have been thinking.
The format of the meeting started with the usual Barnet BS, followed by public question time. The committee consisted of Chair Hugh Rayner, Tories Brian Salinger, Big Mo Braun, Little Brian Gordon, John Hart, and Rowan "yer boat" Turner. From Labour we had Barry Rawlings, Alison Moore and Geoff Johnson. For the Lib Dems we had Jack Cohen.
The questions and answers from the public can be viewed here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b24259/Public%20Questions%20and%20Responses%2023rd-Apr-2014%2019.00%20Business%20Management%20Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf?T=9http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b24259/Public%20Questions%20and%20Responses%2023rd-Apr-2014%2019.00%20Business%20Management%20Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf?T=9
We had some excellent public questions from Mapledown parents
Christine Canavan asked why nationally respite budgets had gone up 22% and locally they'd been cut by 27%. For the Councillor a Mr Harrison said that the "funds were not earmarked"
Tina asked why the school had not been visited prior to the cuts to assess the effects. Mr Harrison gave a rather obtuse answer imply "Rubes" would have to answer that one himself.
Then the chair, Councillor Rayner said "Is Sue Here?" "No?" "Erm Good".
We then had Theresa. She asked if any account had been given to what cash would end up being spent as a result of this cut. In other words, when carers get destroyed by stress, who foots the bill and how much will it be. Sadly the answer was that no one had bothered to assess that.
Then we had Labour candidat for Finchley, Sarah Sackman. She'd been asked by the parents to represent them. The chair, Councillor Rayner, ensured that her political role was noted. She explained the high demand for services, the benefits of respite and the results of the withdrawal of services. Sadly certain councillors sought to play up her party role and play down the points she'd made.
She very eloquently pointed out that the Council was out of step with the Tory lead government, who viewed carers and respite as great value for money. They'd increased the budget nationally. She explained that if the parents could no longer cope, the costs would legally fall to the council.
Councillor John Hart suggested that the parents should sort the financial black hole out themselves and urged parents and carers to raise money themselves (whilst caring for disabled children 24 X 7).
Sackman pointed out that Mapledown was not just a nice to have but a necessity. She suggested that councillors should work with parents and help them resolve the issue.
Councillor Brian Gordon suggested that no one likes cuts. He is quite right, the audience reminded him that no Councillors had an allowance cut under the Tories. The meeting was descending into uproar. As with many recent council meetings, the general public start off being very polite. As often happens, myself and Mrs Angry, being old hands, display no such deference. A constant stream of heckling emerged from our corner. Eventually (as often happens) the rest of the gallery realises that there is no need for the deference. Councillor Gordon deployed his usual charm and was the tipping point. The chair of the meeting, Rayner gave the audience a good telling off.
Lib Dem Leader Jack Cohen made his usual intelligent point. He suggested that care for the disabled should be outside the usual political argy bargy and asked whether parents had been properly consulted.
Sarah Sackman explained how they were not. They had no idea of the sclae of cuts when consulted. She also explained how parents of disabled children have more to do than simply complete surveys on the Barnet council website.
Then we had Christine Canavan, explaining the purpose and definition of respite. A short period of rest from a difficult or unpleasant situation. She said "please take time and reconsider your decision". She then stated she was "shocked, let down and angry" at the lack of consultation.
Then we had Rubes up for questions. Barry Rawlings suggested that maybe the cabinet hadn't thought through the cut. He explained how there was cash in the public health budget. He also suggested that the cut may have been unconstitutional because the matter was still in oversight.
Then we heard from Rubes. Sadly the man is clearly a buffoon. Virtually his first words were that he was "sorry for all the bad publicity". No SH*T Sherlock, we bet you are. He said he was "pleased to hear from the parents". He looked anything but. He looked like a man who'd sat on a shoebrush in truth.
Then Mr Carroll, the headmaster was asked to clarify a few issues by Cllr Rayner. He asked why the school couldn't use its reserves to fund the services. Mr Carroll explained that this would be illegal. The budgets are ring fenced. Rubes shifted even more uncomfortably. He explained how the school had raised £200,000 in donations, but this was for special projects and there was a limit.
If Rubes thought things were bad, they were about to get much worse. He was about to get barbequed by Jack Cohen. Rubes clearly has little comprehension of just how careful you have to be when Jack is on form, and boy was he on form. Jack asked if Rubes had bothered to read any of the responses from parents to the consultation. Rubes replied along the lines that he had better things to do and the officers had read them, he'd read a management summary. Jack persisted "So when you looked, you didn't look at the answers" Jack suggested that the council constition suggested that "due respect had to be given to decisions". Rubes shifted his large posterior uncomfortably. Jack then said "Disability is a proected characteristic. How can you tell is that this decision will protect their equalities". Rubes retorted that the budget cut had left some services in tact. Several of his Tory colleagues looked rather uncomfortable.
It suddenly became apparant that he'd lost his colleagues. Brian Salinger stated that it wasn't clear what the decision had actually meant in real terms. He doubted the cabinet had understood the implications. Rubes disagreed. Then, from a rather unexpected source, the final blow. Councillor Maureen Braun, not a friend of this blog asked Rubes "Who is more vulnerable than disabled children". Rubes tried to string a sentence together, but failed. Braun had summed up the general feeling in the room. Rayner had sensed early on that the Torie were on a loser. He had spent the evening trying to figure out how to extract his reputation from this situation. He clearly didn't want to shaft Mapledown, but couldn't work out how to protect his Tory friend. He moved to a vote and to the amazement of all, Salinger and Braun, to their great credit voted to send the report back to the cabinet. In short a Tory Committee had agreed that the Mapledown cut was unfair and unjust and needed review.
Rayner realised that with an election looing, this presented a constitutional issue. He tried to get a council officer to help him out but no one really seemed to know. Rubes, a large man, seemed to have shrunk and seemed to resemble a demented leprachaun. He looked totally gutted.
Brian Salinger couldn't contain himself and ran to the back to shake hands with Mr Carroll. Mr Rayner ordered him back, but Salinger just ignored him. Mrs Angry and myself were, for a second overcome with emotion. We've sat through a lot of committee meetings and such an outcome was unexpected to say the least,
For the record (and it was not 100% clear), it appeared that Hart, Turner and Gordon did not vote to send the report back. I get the feeling that Braun, Salinger and Rayner had realised the game was up. Hart and Gordon are simply too entrenched in their ways to deviate from the party line. As for Turner. He gives the impression of having the intellect of a Compare the Meerkat.
In fact all that has happened is that the decision has been referred back to a committee stacked with dopey Tories who didn't do their job properly the first time. Will they learn. I suspect that Rayner will order them to make the problem go away ASAP. He is a senior power in Barnet Torydom.
I made a point of congratulating Braun and Salinger. Councillors should realise that when they do the right thing, it gets recognised. I just hope that the Tories can see sense and undo a very bad decision.
It was clear to anyone with a heart that Mapledown is a special case and the kids there deserve to be protected. It is clear Braun got it. It is clear Salinger got it, I suspect Rayner got it. Sadly Rubes Thompstone, Brian Gordon, John Hart and Rowan Turner clearly don't get it. If any are your local councillor and you are inclined to vote Tory, please consider their actions. Salinger and Braun displayed a modicum of human decency. As this blog covers the council election, this will be remembered. We hope that all voters consider this when casting their vote.
Andrew Dismore Press Release - 1 in 10 Barnet boys born now will not see retirement age
According to official
figures revealed in the Daily Telegraph today, 1 in 10 newborn Barnet boys born
now will not reach the age of 65.
Andrew Dismore, Labour
London Assembly member and parliamentary candidate for Hendon said:
“This is a real
indictment of the performance of the NHS under this Government. to think that
10% of the baby boys born in Barnet today
will not reach retirement age is shocking. we are not talking about
those born in past years , but the position as it is today in real time.
“We need a Labour
Government committed to the NHS to get to grips with this, to see what we can
do to avoid this appalling outcome.”
for further information
call Andrew Dismore
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Barnet Eye is happy to publish relevant stories on issues of public interest. Please email your info to us.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
A night out
I won't be sleeping in my own bed tonight. I won't be speaking to my wife either. I don't know who I'll be sleeping with. Before you start gossiping, I'm sleeping in a Church in Mill Hill with a bunch of homeless people as part of the Barnet night shelter scheme. Up to 15 homeless people every night are given a bed in one of our local religious institutions. The scheme is run by the Barnet Homeless Action group.
Tonight the shelter is at John Keeble Church in Mill Hill. I am one of two volunteers staying with the guests. Whilst sleeping in a cold drafty church with a bunch of strangers is not my idea of fun, I do believe we should help out the members of our community who need a hand. One night on a hard floor is a small sacrifice, given the 364 other days in a comfy bed.
Anyway that is what I'm doing for those less well off in our community this week. I'm not writing this blog so you all think what a wonderful chap though, I'm doing it to try and raise awareness of the fact that there are homeless people in Barnet and they really do need somewhere to sleep of an evening, otherwise they'd be on the street. I personally don't believe that in this day and age anyone should be forced to sleep rough. As a society we should make sure everyone has basic accomodation as a right. Sadly this govenrment and this council disagrees. They are quite happy to pull away the safety net. I find that totally appalling, do you?
Tonight the shelter is at John Keeble Church in Mill Hill. I am one of two volunteers staying with the guests. Whilst sleeping in a cold drafty church with a bunch of strangers is not my idea of fun, I do believe we should help out the members of our community who need a hand. One night on a hard floor is a small sacrifice, given the 364 other days in a comfy bed.
Anyway that is what I'm doing for those less well off in our community this week. I'm not writing this blog so you all think what a wonderful chap though, I'm doing it to try and raise awareness of the fact that there are homeless people in Barnet and they really do need somewhere to sleep of an evening, otherwise they'd be on the street. I personally don't believe that in this day and age anyone should be forced to sleep rough. As a society we should make sure everyone has basic accomodation as a right. Sadly this govenrment and this council disagrees. They are quite happy to pull away the safety net. I find that totally appalling, do you?
Monday, 21 April 2014
We are all broken now - Do we really live in a "caring society" anymore
I have been having a bit of a crisis of conscience over the weekend.
I was born in Edgware General Hospital(remember that) in 1962. At Easter 1967 I started school at St Vincents Catholic School on the Ridgway. Being (undiagnosed) dyslexic, my schooling was difficult. At age 11 I started at Finchley Catholic High School in September 1974.
It is fair to say that I didn't enjoy much of my time at school. I had several disadvantages. Firstly I'm born in late August so I was the youngest in the year. Secondly my mum had me six weeks premature, so biologically I was really an October baby. For many kids born in August, there is always the issue that you are a year younger than your oldest classmates. Chuck a bit of dyslexia in, especially during the 1960's when the official term for the syndrome was "thicko" and you have all the makings of a really unhappy time.
Now luckily for me, I managed to adapt and turn my education around. I am also 6'1' so by the time I hit puberty, I'd caught up and overtaken many of my previously bigger peers. Having said that the experience taught me a lot about human nature. When you are 11 and you have a reading age of five, you are not made to feel great about yourself. Many of the teachers at my primary school used to think that this stupidity was elective and so rather than support me, they simply berated me. It was the same with maths. I've never been able to do my "times tables". I just couldn't learn by rote. We used to get tested on these and every week I'd fail. Strangely enough I am not bad at the subject. I got an O Level and an A Level in Maths. I was just bad at memorising random bits of information. Things take a while to sink in. Same with names.
When I was nine years old, I became aware that not everyone had even my limited gifts and skills. Let me explain. When I was a kid, my annual holiday was a week away with my Dad to the Roman Catholic pilgrimage site of Lourdes in France. Every day involved attending masses and processions. Now you may not think this was much fun for a nine year old, but in actual fact it was great. My Dad was a big gruff Aussie, and once he'd done his praying for the day, we'd go to bars & cafe's. I'd get all the fizzy drinks I could drink, all the waffles, cakes and crisps I could eat and we'd always end up with some group or the other from some strange place on the planets, who my Dad would strike up a rapport with, As he was Ex RAF and widely travelled, he'd always entertaion various groups with tales of bombing Germans. When he met Germans, he'd always end up talking to ex aircrew and comparing stories.
Anyway I digress. One year our group was joined by a Downs syndrome chap called Stephen and his brother, who I can't remember. Stephen was 27 and in a wheelchair. My Dad informed me (in his usual gruff, non PC way) that Stephen was backwards and had the mind of a five year old. For me this was good, as it meant I had someone who was technically around my age to talk to. Even better news was the fact that Stephen was obsessed with football. He collected football cards. He was also a Newcastle United fan, so there was no obvious clash of teams. I soon became very jealous of Stephen, as his folks took him to watch every Newcastle home game and he got a seat at the front of the ground. He had numerous signed items of memorabilia. Our group would tour the bars of Lourdes and we had a grand old time. At the time I didn't really get the concept of a "mental age of five". As I had a reading age of five, I sort of figured we were peers.
I asked Stephen if he went to school. He told me rather indignantly that he was "grown up". He had a job and he earned proper money. His folks, hearing the conversation and clearly worried I may inadvertently say something which would upset Stephen, butted in and said "Oh, Stephens the richest of the lot of us. He's a celebrity in Newcastle, as he knows all the players in the team". So now I was completely confused. Realising that I couldn't carry the conversation on with Stephen, I waited until we got back to the Hotel. I had a conversation with my Dad which went like this.
Me : "Dad, something I don't understand, if Stephen has a mental age of five, how come he doesn't have to go to school?"
Dad : "He's 27, you stop going to school when you are 18".
Me : "But he'll never grow up properly if he doesn't get taught?"
Dad : "No, boys like Stephen grow up, but their brain is only able to do stuff a five year old can do"
Me : "But Stephen has a job and earns more money than his parents".
Dad : "That's a figure of speech. They have special jobs for people like Stephen, so he can do his bit and feel proud of himself, People like Stephen aren't lazy or worthless, they are just different"
Me : "So why do people say he's got a mental age of fivc if he's got a job and he can do stuff?"
Dad : "Well, we use these sorts of labels so we know how to help him. It doesn't mean he thinks like a five year old. It doesn't mean he's broken in any way, it just means we know he might need some help"
So anyway, I then decided that when we say someone has a mental age of X or a reading age of Y, all it really meant was we need some help. Maybe a bit more help, but that is all. We are not worth any more just because our "mental age number" is higher. So hold that thought. People with a lower "mental age" just need some help. They are not "Broken"
So anyway, fast forward a year. Same hotel, same group of people. I was really looking forward to seeing my friend Stephen again. We turned up, but Stephen was not their. I was really upset. Where was he. Later that evening, my Dad took me to one side and said "Roger, don't talk about Stephen. He died a couple of months ago and his family are very upset. They'd already booked the holiday and it would be better if you didn't keep reminding them of him. Don't mention him again". For some reason, I'd not actually realised that he'd died. No one had thought to say, so they'd just said "He's not here".
A couple of days later, his mum took me to one side. She told me Stephen had really been looking forward to seeing me and talking about football. Having been told by my Dad not to discuss him, I was now in a quandry. I said "I was really looking forward to seeing him. I brought some football cards for him". At this, his mother burst into tears. I expected to get an almighty clobbering from my Dad, for upsetting her, after he'd told me to say nothing. When we got back to the hotel, I said "Are you cross?" He said "Why should I be". I then said "I upset Stephens mum..." He replied "No, she wanted to talk about him. It helps women sometimes to have a good cry". I was now even more confused.
Our little group had our own chaplain. At one of the masses, he said a few words about Stephen. He said something along the lines that when you get to the Pearly Gates, there is a massive long queue. People like Stephen, who have had a very hard life, are ushered to the front as a reward for putting up with a difficult life. He then said that those of us who care for people like Stephen and were his friends will also get to jump the long queue and Stepehen is up there waiting to see us all and get us to the front. He said that was one reason we should all be happy we had Stephen in our life and were his friends.
Over the Easter holiday, I got to thinking about these events. Probably for the first time in 40 odd years. The events at Mapledown School, where the Council has cut the funding for after school clubs and family respite activities by £45,000, whilst still finding millions to do up Tory wards (see earlier blog) have disturbed me. As I consider the life of Stephen, the superstar, who knew the 1970 Newcastle team and was richer than the rest of his family, I considered how the Coalition had closed Remploy factories, presumably the type of place Stephen worked? Wheras back in the late 1960's we had the decency to see that Stephen needed to be valued, now we have the spectacle of Tory Councillor Tom Davey, spitting bile at the disabled and benefits claiments. Lets face it, if Stephen was in Barnet today, there is no Remploy to give him dignity. To Mr Davey, he'd be just another scrounger on benefits.
As I consider the government we collectively elected and the changes they've made and the council we collectively elected, the type of people they have in power and the policies they are enacting on people like Stephen, I conclude that I have got it all wrong. The only people who are broken is us. We are the sick bastards who tolerate politicians who stick the boot into the likes of Stephen and all of the other disabled people and people who for whatever reason cannot get a job.
The Government claim that "keeping open Remploy factories is not economically viable". Well lets take this argument to its logical extreme, Have we reached the point where only those who are economically viable have a role to play in society? Are only the economically viable going to receive medical treatment? Is this a society in which you want to live?
My youth taught me that it is horrible to be mocked, excluded and treated differently. Life experience has taught me that people like Stephen can enrich your life. They can only do this if they have a chance.
I was born in Edgware General Hospital(remember that) in 1962. At Easter 1967 I started school at St Vincents Catholic School on the Ridgway. Being (undiagnosed) dyslexic, my schooling was difficult. At age 11 I started at Finchley Catholic High School in September 1974.
It is fair to say that I didn't enjoy much of my time at school. I had several disadvantages. Firstly I'm born in late August so I was the youngest in the year. Secondly my mum had me six weeks premature, so biologically I was really an October baby. For many kids born in August, there is always the issue that you are a year younger than your oldest classmates. Chuck a bit of dyslexia in, especially during the 1960's when the official term for the syndrome was "thicko" and you have all the makings of a really unhappy time.
Now luckily for me, I managed to adapt and turn my education around. I am also 6'1' so by the time I hit puberty, I'd caught up and overtaken many of my previously bigger peers. Having said that the experience taught me a lot about human nature. When you are 11 and you have a reading age of five, you are not made to feel great about yourself. Many of the teachers at my primary school used to think that this stupidity was elective and so rather than support me, they simply berated me. It was the same with maths. I've never been able to do my "times tables". I just couldn't learn by rote. We used to get tested on these and every week I'd fail. Strangely enough I am not bad at the subject. I got an O Level and an A Level in Maths. I was just bad at memorising random bits of information. Things take a while to sink in. Same with names.
When I was nine years old, I became aware that not everyone had even my limited gifts and skills. Let me explain. When I was a kid, my annual holiday was a week away with my Dad to the Roman Catholic pilgrimage site of Lourdes in France. Every day involved attending masses and processions. Now you may not think this was much fun for a nine year old, but in actual fact it was great. My Dad was a big gruff Aussie, and once he'd done his praying for the day, we'd go to bars & cafe's. I'd get all the fizzy drinks I could drink, all the waffles, cakes and crisps I could eat and we'd always end up with some group or the other from some strange place on the planets, who my Dad would strike up a rapport with, As he was Ex RAF and widely travelled, he'd always entertaion various groups with tales of bombing Germans. When he met Germans, he'd always end up talking to ex aircrew and comparing stories.
Anyway I digress. One year our group was joined by a Downs syndrome chap called Stephen and his brother, who I can't remember. Stephen was 27 and in a wheelchair. My Dad informed me (in his usual gruff, non PC way) that Stephen was backwards and had the mind of a five year old. For me this was good, as it meant I had someone who was technically around my age to talk to. Even better news was the fact that Stephen was obsessed with football. He collected football cards. He was also a Newcastle United fan, so there was no obvious clash of teams. I soon became very jealous of Stephen, as his folks took him to watch every Newcastle home game and he got a seat at the front of the ground. He had numerous signed items of memorabilia. Our group would tour the bars of Lourdes and we had a grand old time. At the time I didn't really get the concept of a "mental age of five". As I had a reading age of five, I sort of figured we were peers.
I asked Stephen if he went to school. He told me rather indignantly that he was "grown up". He had a job and he earned proper money. His folks, hearing the conversation and clearly worried I may inadvertently say something which would upset Stephen, butted in and said "Oh, Stephens the richest of the lot of us. He's a celebrity in Newcastle, as he knows all the players in the team". So now I was completely confused. Realising that I couldn't carry the conversation on with Stephen, I waited until we got back to the Hotel. I had a conversation with my Dad which went like this.
Me : "Dad, something I don't understand, if Stephen has a mental age of five, how come he doesn't have to go to school?"
Dad : "He's 27, you stop going to school when you are 18".
Me : "But he'll never grow up properly if he doesn't get taught?"
Dad : "No, boys like Stephen grow up, but their brain is only able to do stuff a five year old can do"
Me : "But Stephen has a job and earns more money than his parents".
Dad : "That's a figure of speech. They have special jobs for people like Stephen, so he can do his bit and feel proud of himself, People like Stephen aren't lazy or worthless, they are just different"
Me : "So why do people say he's got a mental age of fivc if he's got a job and he can do stuff?"
Dad : "Well, we use these sorts of labels so we know how to help him. It doesn't mean he thinks like a five year old. It doesn't mean he's broken in any way, it just means we know he might need some help"
So anyway, I then decided that when we say someone has a mental age of X or a reading age of Y, all it really meant was we need some help. Maybe a bit more help, but that is all. We are not worth any more just because our "mental age number" is higher. So hold that thought. People with a lower "mental age" just need some help. They are not "Broken"
So anyway, fast forward a year. Same hotel, same group of people. I was really looking forward to seeing my friend Stephen again. We turned up, but Stephen was not their. I was really upset. Where was he. Later that evening, my Dad took me to one side and said "Roger, don't talk about Stephen. He died a couple of months ago and his family are very upset. They'd already booked the holiday and it would be better if you didn't keep reminding them of him. Don't mention him again". For some reason, I'd not actually realised that he'd died. No one had thought to say, so they'd just said "He's not here".
A couple of days later, his mum took me to one side. She told me Stephen had really been looking forward to seeing me and talking about football. Having been told by my Dad not to discuss him, I was now in a quandry. I said "I was really looking forward to seeing him. I brought some football cards for him". At this, his mother burst into tears. I expected to get an almighty clobbering from my Dad, for upsetting her, after he'd told me to say nothing. When we got back to the hotel, I said "Are you cross?" He said "Why should I be". I then said "I upset Stephens mum..." He replied "No, she wanted to talk about him. It helps women sometimes to have a good cry". I was now even more confused.
Our little group had our own chaplain. At one of the masses, he said a few words about Stephen. He said something along the lines that when you get to the Pearly Gates, there is a massive long queue. People like Stephen, who have had a very hard life, are ushered to the front as a reward for putting up with a difficult life. He then said that those of us who care for people like Stephen and were his friends will also get to jump the long queue and Stepehen is up there waiting to see us all and get us to the front. He said that was one reason we should all be happy we had Stephen in our life and were his friends.
Over the Easter holiday, I got to thinking about these events. Probably for the first time in 40 odd years. The events at Mapledown School, where the Council has cut the funding for after school clubs and family respite activities by £45,000, whilst still finding millions to do up Tory wards (see earlier blog) have disturbed me. As I consider the life of Stephen, the superstar, who knew the 1970 Newcastle team and was richer than the rest of his family, I considered how the Coalition had closed Remploy factories, presumably the type of place Stephen worked? Wheras back in the late 1960's we had the decency to see that Stephen needed to be valued, now we have the spectacle of Tory Councillor Tom Davey, spitting bile at the disabled and benefits claiments. Lets face it, if Stephen was in Barnet today, there is no Remploy to give him dignity. To Mr Davey, he'd be just another scrounger on benefits.
As I consider the government we collectively elected and the changes they've made and the council we collectively elected, the type of people they have in power and the policies they are enacting on people like Stephen, I conclude that I have got it all wrong. The only people who are broken is us. We are the sick bastards who tolerate politicians who stick the boot into the likes of Stephen and all of the other disabled people and people who for whatever reason cannot get a job.
The Government claim that "keeping open Remploy factories is not economically viable". Well lets take this argument to its logical extreme, Have we reached the point where only those who are economically viable have a role to play in society? Are only the economically viable going to receive medical treatment? Is this a society in which you want to live?
My youth taught me that it is horrible to be mocked, excluded and treated differently. Life experience has taught me that people like Stephen can enrich your life. They can only do this if they have a chance.
Dean Cohen - The man who lined the pavements of Golders Green with gold !
Being a rather lazy sod, and given that it's a bank holiday and I was going to have it off today (i meant from blogging, you have such a filthy mind!). I will keep it brief.
My fellow blogger Mrs Angry has put some streling work into exposing the Pork Barrelling that has gone on in Golders Green, where her stirling research has shown the Tory Cabinet member for roads, who is the local Councillor for Golders Green has channelled over a Million quid towards to doing up the roads. Strangely, one of the most deprived parts - Colindale got diddly squat (That's sweet fa to those of you unfamiliar with Barnet Eye Lingo!).
Now the Eagle eyed amongst you willspot just how well some Tory marginal wards have done in regards to the allocations. It is shocking how much money the Tory administration have thrown at their core voters, whilst at the same time cutting budgets for Mapledown School, which has seen £45,000 slashed from its budget.
The figures speak for themselves. This administration has a double standard. Councillors like Dean Cohen line the streets of their own wards with gold whilst slashing the budget for those wards they really don't think matter. Leafy Totteridge, where the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius lives has seen its budget nearly quadrupled since last year. Clearly Dean Cohen likes to keep a smile on his bosses face.
As I said, I am keeping it brief. Please take a minute to read the full story on Mrs Angry's blog. She deserves a Community Award for her expose of this sleazy behaviour - http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/scandalous-barnet-councils-million.html
Is it just my imagination or is the london Borough of Barnet starting to resemble a dodgy Banana republic, where the rich live in Palaces and the poor live how they can? Tomorrow night, I will do an overnight shift at a homeless nightshelter in Mill Hill, something I never dreamed I'd see. On the first Sunday of every month, my Church, the Sacred Heart in Mill Hill organises a collection for a food bank in Colindale (the ward which got nothing in an allocation based on 'need'). The foodbank is non denominational. We just collect the grub and drop it off for distribution amongst families who are struggling. The person running the scheme has been amazed by the number of locals in Mill Hill, of all faiths and none, who have heard about the collection and dropped in bags of food. I believe that the people of the London Borough of Barnet are generous and would not approve of such disgusting unfairness, if they actually realised what was going on. Homeless shelters and foodbanks are sadly a part of the Tory Project in Mill Hill. That would be bad enough but to find that the rich wards are being subsidised by the poor ones is simply disgusting.
My fellow blogger Mrs Angry has put some streling work into exposing the Pork Barrelling that has gone on in Golders Green, where her stirling research has shown the Tory Cabinet member for roads, who is the local Councillor for Golders Green has channelled over a Million quid towards to doing up the roads. Strangely, one of the most deprived parts - Colindale got diddly squat (That's sweet fa to those of you unfamiliar with Barnet Eye Lingo!).
Now the Eagle eyed amongst you willspot just how well some Tory marginal wards have done in regards to the allocations. It is shocking how much money the Tory administration have thrown at their core voters, whilst at the same time cutting budgets for Mapledown School, which has seen £45,000 slashed from its budget.The figures speak for themselves. This administration has a double standard. Councillors like Dean Cohen line the streets of their own wards with gold whilst slashing the budget for those wards they really don't think matter. Leafy Totteridge, where the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius lives has seen its budget nearly quadrupled since last year. Clearly Dean Cohen likes to keep a smile on his bosses face.
As I said, I am keeping it brief. Please take a minute to read the full story on Mrs Angry's blog. She deserves a Community Award for her expose of this sleazy behaviour - http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/scandalous-barnet-councils-million.html
Is it just my imagination or is the london Borough of Barnet starting to resemble a dodgy Banana republic, where the rich live in Palaces and the poor live how they can? Tomorrow night, I will do an overnight shift at a homeless nightshelter in Mill Hill, something I never dreamed I'd see. On the first Sunday of every month, my Church, the Sacred Heart in Mill Hill organises a collection for a food bank in Colindale (the ward which got nothing in an allocation based on 'need'). The foodbank is non denominational. We just collect the grub and drop it off for distribution amongst families who are struggling. The person running the scheme has been amazed by the number of locals in Mill Hill, of all faiths and none, who have heard about the collection and dropped in bags of food. I believe that the people of the London Borough of Barnet are generous and would not approve of such disgusting unfairness, if they actually realised what was going on. Homeless shelters and foodbanks are sadly a part of the Tory Project in Mill Hill. That would be bad enough but to find that the rich wards are being subsidised by the poor ones is simply disgusting.
Sunday, 20 April 2014
Why Religion has to evolve
Happy Easter to all the readers of the Barnet Eye, whatever faith or none you may have. As is our tradition, on such Holy occasions I like to share a few of my personal thoughts on the subjects of faith and religion with my readers. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am a rather bad Roman Catholic. I go to church and I subscribe to the philosophy of caring for my neighbours, forgiveness and trying not to be judgemental. There are issues which my views are not aligned to the church, such as contraception (the absence of families with ten children in the pews indicates I may not be alone in this). I have a strong dislike of people who try and "convert" people to any faith, especially my own, by means other than being good, caring citizens who a decent person may want to emulate. I don't use this blog to preach because I think faith is a personal journey and it seems to me that there are many paths. I get a lot out of my faith. An hour a week for quiet contemplation is something which has helped keep me sane in this troubled world. I probably shouldn't say this but many of my best blogs have been formulated during my weekly trip to mass. Anyway that is the preamble, here is the blog.
Marie Stopes or Alexander Fleming? Which one of those two has given religion its greatest challenge in the last 100 years. A few years ago I was having a chat with a friend who is a staunch feminist. She said that Stopes had "thrown the shackles off women by inventing the contraceptive pill, allowing them to indulge in risk free sex". As any friend of mine will attest, I can be a bit of a wind up merchant and I shot back at her "Nope, actually that accolade falls to Alexander Fleming, inventor of penicillin, he removed the fear of VD, which was actually the most sensible reason for not sleeping around". My friend, who is never short of a word or two was gobsmacked. She said "I've never really thought about it, but you may in some ways be at least half right". For her, this was actually a life changing moment (well this may be me exagerrating!). She went off and thought about it, studied the subject and came to the conclusion that equality starts with access to education and medical care. Contraception will only be adopted in less developed societies when women are healthy and educated. She came back to me recently and asked a question "Do you think that the mainstream religions are 'fit for purpose'?"
This is for me a very interesting question. The reason all major religions have become successful and widely adopted is because they bring stability to society. The rules which we associate with religions were in general very sensible measures for a society in a world without antibiotics, sanitation, disinfectant and good hygiene. Without antibiotics, extra marital sex could infect the participants with life threatening contagious diseases. Without contraception it could result in the most inconvenient of sprogs. Kosher and Halal food hygiene laws ensured that the populace were far less likely to get food poisoning. And observance of the Sabbath gave everyone a much needed day off. Following these rules, would mean your particular group would have a significant advantage over other cultures. So putting all of the moral stuff to one side, if we say that in a pre 20th century society all of these religious rules were pretty sensible, how should faiths react to the developments that make these laws nothing more than sometimes inconvenient traditions?
I was raised in the Catholic tradition, so we have a tradition of "Fish on Friday" and Lentern fasting. For many of us, this means knocking boozing on the head for 40 days. I would imagine that neither of these two traditions do us any harm and some may do us some good. If the Pope said "Being Catholic means eating seven portions of vegetables a day and only eating Red meat on Sundays, Saints Days and Thursdays, it would doubtless improve public health (assuming people listened). As for sex, if the Pope was to say "All of the rules we came out with were designed for a pre antibiotic, pre contraceptive world and things have changed, we have a new set of rules now" what would they be? I thought long and hard about this and I realised that for the Pope it isn't that easy. What would the new rules be? Only sleep with people you are in a committed relationship with, don't cheat on your spouse, use precautions if you are sleeping with someone who you don't know their sexual history and ensure that you use contraception if you don't intend having a baby are the rules most members of the secular world would generally say are sensible. Or are they? Well I think that in the UK, that is pretty much the rules that most people try and follow and society hasn't fallen apart yet. But then the UK is a special place. You may say "in what way?" Well you see we have the NHS. If you want the Pill, you go to the NHS, if you get the clap and you need some penicillin, you go to the NHS.
The problem for Poor Old Pope Francis is that most of the people he represents don't live in the UK. They don't live in countries with any health service to speak of. Contraceptives, anti biotics etc are luxuries. Would it be right for the Pope to say "Well you lot in the decandent West, who have all the food and all the money, can shag away, but the other 90% of Catholics had better follow a far more draconian set of rules, because if they embrace decadence it will kill them. Is that really fair?
Which brings us back to the conundrum at the beginning. As my friend decided, for the world to be truly equal between the genders, we have to have universal equality. Horrors such as FGM happen because in backward societies, people do not receive an education that makes them realise the wrong of the practise.
I have come to the conclusion, and you may not agree, that religion has a role to play to sort this problem out. Someone like Pope Francis has a network which is unrivalled in any other organisation. That organisation has wealth and influence. It can't address all of the worlds ills, but it can get a message to the dispossessed around the globe in a way that no other organisation can. We have a new Pope who seems to be setting an agenda on global fairness. He seems to be keen to dump much of the baggage that has discredited the Church in the eyes of many of us. The Church, which originally rejected the theories of Charles Darwin and evolution, now has to evolve to survive. I for one hope it evolves to be a force for good in the world and find a place of relevance. Of course there are a whole multitude of faiths. These two need to evolve and adapt. Finally there is Atheism and Humanism. Both of these reject the role of faith in the world. Given the problems many Atheists and Humanists associate with faiths, this is not an unreasonable stance, but I personally think that this too has to evolve. I think that Atheism and Humanism should have a standpoint which says "We don't believe, we recognise the rights of others to believe and we will work with people who believe for the common good, where it is appropriate". For me the great challenge is global poverty. I believe all decent people of faith or no faith should find this repugnant and we should get much better at talking across boundaries and demarkations to address it. As far as I am concerned, you judge someone by their actions, not by their label. I think a Christian who tolerates unfairness is a disgrace as a human being, but no more or less so than a Jew, an Atheist or a follower of the Bug Eyed Spaghetti Monster who also tolerates unfairness. Likewise if someone is working to combat unfairness and inequality, they are a good person regardless of label.
So the first part of this evolution should be to stop judging each other by the label we wear, forget our tribal demarkations and get on with the job in hand which is making a better world. If we all signed up to that, maybe it could start to happen.
End of todays Easter Sunday Surmon !
Marie Stopes or Alexander Fleming? Which one of those two has given religion its greatest challenge in the last 100 years. A few years ago I was having a chat with a friend who is a staunch feminist. She said that Stopes had "thrown the shackles off women by inventing the contraceptive pill, allowing them to indulge in risk free sex". As any friend of mine will attest, I can be a bit of a wind up merchant and I shot back at her "Nope, actually that accolade falls to Alexander Fleming, inventor of penicillin, he removed the fear of VD, which was actually the most sensible reason for not sleeping around". My friend, who is never short of a word or two was gobsmacked. She said "I've never really thought about it, but you may in some ways be at least half right". For her, this was actually a life changing moment (well this may be me exagerrating!). She went off and thought about it, studied the subject and came to the conclusion that equality starts with access to education and medical care. Contraception will only be adopted in less developed societies when women are healthy and educated. She came back to me recently and asked a question "Do you think that the mainstream religions are 'fit for purpose'?"
This is for me a very interesting question. The reason all major religions have become successful and widely adopted is because they bring stability to society. The rules which we associate with religions were in general very sensible measures for a society in a world without antibiotics, sanitation, disinfectant and good hygiene. Without antibiotics, extra marital sex could infect the participants with life threatening contagious diseases. Without contraception it could result in the most inconvenient of sprogs. Kosher and Halal food hygiene laws ensured that the populace were far less likely to get food poisoning. And observance of the Sabbath gave everyone a much needed day off. Following these rules, would mean your particular group would have a significant advantage over other cultures. So putting all of the moral stuff to one side, if we say that in a pre 20th century society all of these religious rules were pretty sensible, how should faiths react to the developments that make these laws nothing more than sometimes inconvenient traditions?
I was raised in the Catholic tradition, so we have a tradition of "Fish on Friday" and Lentern fasting. For many of us, this means knocking boozing on the head for 40 days. I would imagine that neither of these two traditions do us any harm and some may do us some good. If the Pope said "Being Catholic means eating seven portions of vegetables a day and only eating Red meat on Sundays, Saints Days and Thursdays, it would doubtless improve public health (assuming people listened). As for sex, if the Pope was to say "All of the rules we came out with were designed for a pre antibiotic, pre contraceptive world and things have changed, we have a new set of rules now" what would they be? I thought long and hard about this and I realised that for the Pope it isn't that easy. What would the new rules be? Only sleep with people you are in a committed relationship with, don't cheat on your spouse, use precautions if you are sleeping with someone who you don't know their sexual history and ensure that you use contraception if you don't intend having a baby are the rules most members of the secular world would generally say are sensible. Or are they? Well I think that in the UK, that is pretty much the rules that most people try and follow and society hasn't fallen apart yet. But then the UK is a special place. You may say "in what way?" Well you see we have the NHS. If you want the Pill, you go to the NHS, if you get the clap and you need some penicillin, you go to the NHS.
The problem for Poor Old Pope Francis is that most of the people he represents don't live in the UK. They don't live in countries with any health service to speak of. Contraceptives, anti biotics etc are luxuries. Would it be right for the Pope to say "Well you lot in the decandent West, who have all the food and all the money, can shag away, but the other 90% of Catholics had better follow a far more draconian set of rules, because if they embrace decadence it will kill them. Is that really fair?
Which brings us back to the conundrum at the beginning. As my friend decided, for the world to be truly equal between the genders, we have to have universal equality. Horrors such as FGM happen because in backward societies, people do not receive an education that makes them realise the wrong of the practise.
I have come to the conclusion, and you may not agree, that religion has a role to play to sort this problem out. Someone like Pope Francis has a network which is unrivalled in any other organisation. That organisation has wealth and influence. It can't address all of the worlds ills, but it can get a message to the dispossessed around the globe in a way that no other organisation can. We have a new Pope who seems to be setting an agenda on global fairness. He seems to be keen to dump much of the baggage that has discredited the Church in the eyes of many of us. The Church, which originally rejected the theories of Charles Darwin and evolution, now has to evolve to survive. I for one hope it evolves to be a force for good in the world and find a place of relevance. Of course there are a whole multitude of faiths. These two need to evolve and adapt. Finally there is Atheism and Humanism. Both of these reject the role of faith in the world. Given the problems many Atheists and Humanists associate with faiths, this is not an unreasonable stance, but I personally think that this too has to evolve. I think that Atheism and Humanism should have a standpoint which says "We don't believe, we recognise the rights of others to believe and we will work with people who believe for the common good, where it is appropriate". For me the great challenge is global poverty. I believe all decent people of faith or no faith should find this repugnant and we should get much better at talking across boundaries and demarkations to address it. As far as I am concerned, you judge someone by their actions, not by their label. I think a Christian who tolerates unfairness is a disgrace as a human being, but no more or less so than a Jew, an Atheist or a follower of the Bug Eyed Spaghetti Monster who also tolerates unfairness. Likewise if someone is working to combat unfairness and inequality, they are a good person regardless of label.
So the first part of this evolution should be to stop judging each other by the label we wear, forget our tribal demarkations and get on with the job in hand which is making a better world. If we all signed up to that, maybe it could start to happen.
End of todays Easter Sunday Surmon !
Saturday, 19 April 2014
The Barneteye tweets of the week 19/4/2014
As is our tradition, here is this weeks Tweets of the week from the wierd and wonderful place that is Barnet. We feature the good, the bad and the ugly! If you see a tweet that you think qualifies, then simply reply to it, copy @Barneteye in and say #TOW
And as usual we've had some crackers.
1. From our old chum Brain Coleman, who rather oddly found it strange that none of his mates refused to sign his nomination papers for Barnet Council !
Brian Coleman @BrianTotteridge
@_MrMustard Dear me. I hope you didn't go commando on the BBC. We bloggers have standards to maintain.
@neilgiller @KiddRonnie can calling a fellow Jew militant be anti PC!? Anyway 3 victories this season against u means #northlondonisred !!
@barnetbugle @_MrMustard @GreenPartyPoppy owned by Tesco. Support local independent traders. Joie De vie in North Finchley lovely pastries
And as usual we've had some crackers.
1. From our old chum Brain Coleman, who rather oddly found it strange that none of his mates refused to sign his nomination papers for Barnet Council !
Brian Coleman
Nomination papers in . Many thanks to those who signed them , no one whom I approached declined
2. Deputy Leader of the Tories, Councillor Dan Thomas leaves a rather ambiguous tweet. We rather hope for all concerned that he was simply referring to a pint and nothing more exciting !
A swift one in the Griffin to live music a nice way to finish fiancée's birthday evening.
3. Mrs Angry worries that Mr Mustard was "properly tucked in" for his appearance on the BBC. What can she be referring to?
4. Councillor Robert Rams has devised a new election winning strategy. Wind up his constituents who support Spurs !
5. Mill Hill Music Complex with a great (somewhat recycled) Joke
The Friday Joke https://www.facebook.com/millhillmusiccomplexlondon/posts/689335034460447?stream_ref=10 … Have a great Good Friday, We are open as usual !
6. Barnets fiestiest Cafe Owner stands up for independent Traders
Helen Michael
7. Richard Logue wisely advises us to watch former Barnet resident and Mill Hill Jazz Club regular, now and international superstar Imelda May last Night. Catch it on iPlayer !
Imelda May is something of a national treasure in Ireland and if you want to see why watch her on Graham Norton now on BBC 1
8. Now nationally famous, Mr Mustard revels in his national stardom?
my day is
complete. Blodwen has commented on the blog. Such a lovely name and so
lovely to say. Welsh & English bloggers are united
9. Barnet blogger Mr Reasonable expresses his disgust at Councillor Tom Davey's rather puerile and offensive tweets.
Whatever your politics you need to read Cllr Tom Davey's posts on Facebook. You will be horrified and revolted. http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/04/vile-facebook-messages-of-social-cleansing-tory-councillor/ …
10. Barnet Unison release their Easter single - A surefire, toe tapping hit.
Sing along to “A Tale of Bob in Barnet” http://ow.ly/vV1NJ “When he called there was no one there.”
That's all folks !!! Hope you enjoyed them all as much as I did !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)