99% is ....... The Barnet Eye

Welcome to the Barnet province of the Peoples republic of Londonski-Borisov

2012-01-30T23:03:00.000Z

Ok, so tell me this. We live in Barnet. It is run by the Conservatives? It is part of London, which is run by a Conservative Mayor. We have a government which is Conservative (albeit propped up by a bunch of Lin Dem collaborators). So I guess this means that the people of Barnet really want to live in a regime run under Stalinist principles, doesn't it? Well I don't know how we got to this situation, but read this DPR (Delegated Powers Report). I don't think I've ever read a more Stalinist document in my life. For those of you who don't know what a DPR is, it means that a bloke at the council is allowed to sign it off with no debate by his democratically elected colleagues.
Icon
I suppose what put the icing on the cake is the fact the document is simply called ICON on the Council website - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10954 . And we all know that Russia was famed for it's ICON's

The porkie pies of Brian Coleman, GLA member for Barnet and Camden exposed

2012-01-30T19:53:00.000Z

Last week I received a leaflet from the Back Boris campaign. In it there was this piece of "information" (apologies for the poor quality of the copy) :-

I was intrigued to read the claim that Brian Coleman had "worked tirelessly" to drive down crime in Barnet. It occurred to me that this is fantastic news and I should be reporting on this achievement as a responsible blogger. I immediately sent a Freedom of Information request to the Chief of Police in Barnet, to make sure I had the full details to make a proper report on the issue. I asked the following questions :-

I have just received a leaflet from the Conservative Party stating that "Boris Johnson and Brian Coleman have worked tirelessly to drive down crime in Barnet. I would be interested to know how many meetings you or you predecessor have had with Brian Coleman to discuss crime reduction strategy in Barnet. I would also like to know how many anti crime initiatives have been instigated by Brian Coleman in Barnet since 2008. Please could you provide me with details of these as an FOI response. Please forward this to the appropriate department or furnish me with their details.

Now as regular readers of this blog will know, Barnet Council invariably answers FOI requests way beyond the statuatory time of 20 days, in which they are supposed to answer such requests. Usually there is no reason given for the delay. Even worse, the responses are as obtuse as possible. Information is not revealed, because the completely exact question was framed in a way which allowed a degree of interpretation and Barnet have chosen to interpret it in a way which means they don't give you the information they clearly know you are seeking.

This is the first time I've had reason to send an FOI to Barnet Police. I was wondering how their response would measure up to the quality of service I usually get from Barnet Council?

Well, I sent the request on the 22nd January and received the response today. That is a working week. Barnet Council should take note. And what did it say? Well, here is the full response :-
TICHBORNE Final Reply Borough Commander

So what does this tell me? First and most obviously that Brian Coleman was telling porkies when he stated he'd been "working tirelessly" to drive down crime. As a GLA rep he's actually held no meetings that the Metropolitan Police can find any trace of. In fact the only meeting the Met can find on record is one to discuss licensing issues in his Council ward of Totteridge.

Now if it was just a question of a politician over egging the pudding in the run up to an election, in an attempt to preserve his £52K a year salary, I suppose no one would be too surprised. The trouble is that it is fundamentally more serious an issue than this. By printing such a misleading document, Brian Coleman has inadvertently drawn our attention to his complete lack of interest in engaging with the Metropolitan Police in his area. Why is this important?

Coleman gets paid £52,000 per year by the taxpayer to advise and assist the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson in his role as Mayor. Brian Coleman represents Barnet. Boris Johnson recently abolished the committee that oversees the Police and brought them under his direct control. It is clear that the priorities of Barnet Police will not be brought to the table, because Brian Coleman hasn't discussed them.

Every Borough has different issues. Barnet is a very diverse Borough. We have the largest Jewish population, so one would think that there may be the occasional meeting between our GLA rep and the Police to discuss issues relating to hate crime. We have many major road networks in Barnet (A1,M1, A406, etc) , which also fall under Brian Coleman's remit as the Council cabinet member with responsibility for roads. Barnet is plagued with traffic accidents and injuries. Most of these are caused by speeding vehicles, surely this would warrant the odd discussion with the Police. Then there are issues related to poverty in Barnet, Coleman has the Environment portfolio at Barnet. It is no secret that a bad environment breeds crime. Badly planned estates are hotbeds of crime. Given that Barnet has major redevelopments, and the Mayor has the final say on many of these, surely Coleman should at least canvass the views of the local Police on whether the plans are going to have an impact on crime in the Borough? It is not the job of the Police to tell the Police how to do their job, but they can help set priorities. They control huge budgets, which if spent wisely can bring crime down and if spent badly can send crime soaring.

Let us consider the current "growth" crime in Barnet. This is theft of mobile phones. Barnet has seen a 10% rise in crimes related to mobile phones in the last 12 months. It is becoming a major concern for the police as stolen phones have become a tradable commodity. What has this got to do with Brian Coleman and his policies? Well he is the man who brought in the "pay by phone" scheme. This requires people to stand on the street, talking on their phone, often with wallet and credit card in their hand. Did Brian Coleman consider the impact of his scheme on phone related crime? Well if he did, he didn't discuss it with the Police.

One final note about the FOI response. It is refreshing to see a response which is clearly in line with the spirit of the FOI act. It was on time and answered the question. It also provided additional information, which was clearly related to the inquiry and has forestalled the need for a follow up question. In short, the Metropolitan Police in Barnet have given the council a timely lesson in how to do their job. I suppose that the point Brian Coleman and Barnet Council should learn from this is that if you do your job properly, there is no need to tell porkies, no need to claim credit where none is due and no need to waste everyones time with silly follow up enquiries.

Andrew Dismore give Brian Coleman a parking ticket !

2012-01-30T12:33:00.000Z

The Barnet Eye always appreciates a cunning stunt (I had to check that statement six times being dyslexic). Andrew Dismore pulled off a corker. He issued a parking ticket to Councillor Brian Colemanm the man responsible for the parking carnage in Barnet. Here is Mr Dismores press release
--------------------------------------

When out campaigning with Labour Councillors and activists against Barnet Council’s monstrous parking charges on Saturday 28^th January, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet could not resist the temptation to “ticket” Barnet parking supremo Cllr Brian Coleman’s car with Labour’s “parking ticket” campaign leaflet (photo and copy leaflet attached)

Mr Dismore said:

“It was too good an opportunity to miss.

When I saw Brian Coleman’s car parked on his off street parking space outside his church owned flat, it seemed to me grossly unfair that while others in his street needed parking permits for which he has jacked up the charges, he did not, so I “ticketed” him.

It’s a pity we can’t levy a fine on Cllr Coleman just as his parking wardens fine so many residents and business customers as they struggle with his outrageous charges and convoluted payment systems. But our parking ticket leaflets make the point by demonstrating the unfairness and asking people to sign labour’s petition against the charges.

He is now planning even higher charges with a proposed increase of 5% from April this year.

People power forced Westminster Council into a humiliating climb down over their proposed night time and weekend charges in the West End. We need people power to stop Conservative Barnet Council’s unfair charges too, so that’s why we are encouraging people to sign our on line petition, which has thousands of signatures already.”

For further details call Andrew Dismore 07957 625 813

---------------------------------

I hope that the people of Barnet make their point in a manner which Coleman really will have to take notice of by shunning him at the GLA elections. Does he deserve his £52,000 a year allowance to represent us? I dont' think so. Well done to Dismore for an amusing stunt. I think many Barnet residents will agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments.

Guest Blog - Housing Emergency - Time for an Alternative

2012-01-30T08:57:00.000Z

By Defend Council Housing,

Council Housing in Burnt Oak

Tenants' security, rents and benefits, and the principles of council housing are under all-out assault.
DCH and Housing Emergency have lauched an open statement and on 21st Feb 6.30 House of Commons Ken Loach, Owen Jones (author, Chavs), Stephen Battersby, Councillor Catherine West, Austin Mitchell MP, Gail Cartmail,tenants, unions and others will launch a new wave of meetings and campaigning round the country: Time for an Alternative. Meetings already organised around the country to galvanise action, including: 25 Feb Leeds, 16 March 7pm Cambridge, 26 March Tower Hamlets, 29 March Harlow. Many more are planned, by Tenants Federations, Trades Councils, local DCH and housing campaigners and others.

What you can do
1. sign the Housing Emergency statement - download the statement here. Get tenant, union, community and political group(s) to sign it.
2. Come to an organising meeting 7th Feb 6pm at Camden Town Hall Judd St WC1 9JE - see map here
3. Get people to the launch meeting 21 Feb 6.30pm meeting at House of Commons with Ken Loach, Owen Jones, Stephen Battersby and others - see leaflet here or contact
info@defendcouncilhousing.org.uk for copies
4. Organise a local meeting - get in touch if you want help with leaflets, speakers etc

For background information on the demand for investment in council housing and who supports the campaign see www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defend Council Housing is a regular contributor to this blog. Guest blogs are always welcome

Rog T's Cancer blog - another week another test

2012-01-29T16:48:00.000Z

For those of you who are regular readers and have read the previous posts, you can skip this first paragraph.This is the latest installment in my occasional series about how I'm adjusting to living with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary. I'm 49 years old and I recently had a prostate biopsy following two "slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took ten tissue samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which gives me a 3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active monitoring. I've no symptoms and sadly for a few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it won't be from Prostate cancer. Got the picture?

Friday morning, I had my third PSA blood test. This followed hot on the heels of my MRI last Saturday. I've had two so far. The first one I scored 2.8, which I was imformed was "slightly raised". It was one of ten different blood tests and at the time the last thing I expected was a diagnosis of prostate cancer. I'd had no symptoms and was part of a suggested "MOT" because the doctor hadn't seen me for a while. I actually went for a referal for a bad knee ! So then I had the follow up test. This I fully expected to be normal. It was 4.1 - it had gone up. I still thought it was because the test is "notoriously unreliable". The specialist recommended a prostate biopsy. I agreed, I thought this would put the silly suggestion of cancer to bed and I could sleep soundly. They took ten cores. One came back as cancerous. A low grade cancer, six on the Gleason scale. "Active monitoring" was recommended. This and the MRI are the start of this regime.

I've made a few lifestyle changes. I immediately read everything I could, to try and ascertain what I could do for myself. I read a great book on the subject - anti cancer - a new way of life - at the behest of my gym personal trainer. A well researched book, based on sound scientific principles, written by a trained medical practitioner. This recommends a diet based on pesticide free foods (organic as far as possible). The idea is to eat drink as many things as possible which have been shown to inhibit cancer and as few as possible which promote it. Out go the processed foods, the fatty foods, the high omega 6, low omega 3 foods. In come the low fat foods, the high omega 3, low omega 3 foods, the high in antoxidant foods and drinks. Green tea with honey, ginger and lemon replces black tea with milk, for example. Pomegranites and pomegranite juice come in. I've been doing this for nearly three months. The effect so far? Well my weight has come down from 106 kg to 98 kg. People keep telling me I'm looking great (usually not knowing the reason for the weight loss). How do I feel? Physically good right now. Mentally? Now this is a harder thing to describe. I am extremely positive. I am busy at the moment so I don't spend hours thinking about it, and I feel fine, but at times I have dark moments. I'm told by the family that I've been exceptionally moody right now. I don't know if this is purely down to the diagnosis, or other stresses in life. Who can say?

I've changed my working schedule. I'm volunteering one morning a week at The Passage - a homeless drop in centre. It is strange to think that although I have cancer, statistically I'll probably easily outlive most of the people I serve breakfast. A friend asked why I was volunteering there. Was it an attempt to set myself right with God in the face of a challenge to my health, a sort bargain "I'll help the homeless, if you heal me". Sadly for me, I doubt that God is open to such deals. The two things are unrelated, although I have found that sit does help me get my head around the human condition. I would recommend such work for anyone in my position. I am not sick, I have no symptoms and the only thing wrong at the moment is my unease at the possible difficult journey which awaits me at some point in the future. The thing is that we live in the here and now, not the future. I sleep in a warm bed in a centrally heated house. I can afford to eat organic carrots and bananas if I choose. The people I dole out the breakfast for have a choice of bacon, eggs, sausage tomato and toast. Food is a fundamental requirement. The day centre offers the chance to eat, get cleaned up and get warm. For me it puts it in perspective.

Which brings us back to the PSA test and MRI scan. There are three possibilities. The small cancer in my prostate will either a) be roughly the same as it was in August when I last had the PSA test, b) It will have continued to rise or c) It will have dropped. I suspect that the most likely option is a, then b then c. If the diagnosis is a or c, then to me at least that will validate the lifestyle changes and make me pleased that I've made the changes. What about if it has continued to rise? That will be a bit more problematic. Whilst I have no doubt that the changes are doing my general health a world of good, it will cast doubts on my strategy for dealing with the cancer. To me this won't mean that I've deluded myself, it will merely mean more research and potentially more changes, if there is anything else I can change. There are other factors I believe could create issues, such as mobile phone radiation and stress. These are issues I've really done nothing to address so far. I'm really not sure how you destress when you are me? Due to recent changes to my working day, I'm not using my gym where I do yoga, so I've actually removed one of the things which may help. I'm still going to my other gym, where I do have the luxury of the sauna and the jacuzzi after my session, which I'm taking full advantage of.

One of the most sensible things in the book I've been reading is the fact that there is no miracle cure for cancer. All you can do is alter the odds in your favour. The strange thing is that unless you have a clone double with the same condition and they don't make any changes, you never really know. On the 6th, when I see the specialist again, I may be told it's gone into meltdown. I may be told it's disappeared. Whatever they tell me I'll never know how the changes have affected me. If the news is really bad, it may have been even worse. If a miracle has happened, it could have happened anyway.

I have a friend who has been told he has 6-12 months to live. His doctor has told him that if he enjoys smoking, he may as well carry on because stopping won't cure him and if he enjoys it, then he might as well do it. The awful truth is that the doctor has a point. I'm hopefully at the point where I can make a difference by such changes. My anti cancer bible tells us we should avoid all carcinogens at all costs. The philosophy is to do everything in your power to improve your chances and remove all cancer promoters. I don't really smoke, so it's not a dilemma I have. Basically the theory is to get yourself as far as you can into the tail of the bell curve graph at the top of this blog. You do this by avoiding all things which promote cancer. I'm an engineer by trade, so it is a philosophy which seems sound to me.

Like religion and helping the homeless, it is something you do because you think it is the right thing for you. That is all you can do.

Exclusive - Guest Blog : The One Barnet Consultation

2012-01-28T10:43:00.002Z

By Wally Nickley,

------
Preamble by Rog T of the Barnet Eye,

Barnet council is about to launch a massive program of outsourcing under the title (currently) of One Barnet. These contracts are worth approximately One Billion pounds and it will have a huge impact on the people of Barnet. You may think that none of this will affect you directly. Sadly this is something that none of us can know for sure. The contracts will last for ten years and who knows what will happen in that time. For any of us, our lives can change in an instant. I will briefly give you two examples of people I know well, and why they demonstrate that such huge changes may affect us all.

In the case of my mother, she was a successful business woman. She was wealthy and in the year 2000 she was semi retired. She was in good health and went on three long cruises, spending her hard earned cash. In December 2000, she suffered a major stroke which changed her life. She couldn't communicate effectively and her ability to walk was severely restricted. She lost all self confidence and after a lengthy spell in hospital recuperating, she returned to live independently. Although financially secure, her ever declining health and frailty required ever increasing support from the NHS and Barnet Social services. She became reliant on the Barnet meals on wheel service for her main meal, as she was physically unable to cook. In april 2007 Barnet Council outsourced provision of these meals to Sodexho. For a period of weeks, the delivery of these meals became extremely unreliable and the quality decreased massively. The whole experience completely demoralised my mother as she had become to used to a routine. She knew the people who delivered the meals and they made sure she was OK, as they did for all of the other vulnerable people they served. My mother was extremely upset that they were summarily replaced. She became depressed and despondent. The summary actions of Barnet council emphasised to her that she was vulnerable and her independence was subject to the whim of the pen pushers at Barnet Council.

The second case is a friend of mine who I'll call Bill. I've known him since I was eight years old. Bill and his family used to live up my road. Bill was a successful website designer. Seventeen years ago he married a lovely girl from the Czech republic and planned to move there to make a new life. On his honeymoon, he broke his neck. He has been paralysed in a wheelchair ever since. His condition is described as permanently life threatening, so his care is directly funded by the NHS. Due to changes made by the Coalition, even though he is paralysed and totally reliant on a team of home carers for every function, he has been deemed a "jobseeker" and has had his benefits cut. Barnet Council abolished the disabilty rights units as a response to budget cuts. As a result, Bill has had no one to help him navigate the minefield of trying to survive, when thousands of pounds have been removed from his benefits. Due to his condition, he cannot regulate his body temperature, so turning off the heating is not an option.

Neither of the cases I described above, ever thought they'd have to be reliant on services provided by Barnet council, merely to exist. Lives can change in an instant and our needs can also change in an instant. I used these cases as examples to try and explain why the changes are important to all of us on a human level. There is another level to the One Barnet program we also need to consider. Does it make financial sense? Barnet has shown that it cannot manage small contracts. We need look no further than the Metpro and Freemantle/Catalyst contracts to see major disasters with huge financial impact on the taxpayer. Barnet are talking about contracts for ten years for a billion pounds. Would you think that someone who failed to run a whelk stall should be put in charge of running Tescos? That is in effect what they are doing. The most bizarre aspect of the whole thing is that they have spent millions on consultants to "redesign the council", when employing a far smaller team of auditors to sort out the existing mess would have saved a fortune. Surely they should have got their house in order first.

Then there is the impact on the local economy. Hundreds of Barnet jobs are being destroyed and exported to other Boroughs. You may think that this doesn't affect you. Consider this. There is a recession. The local business relies on the incomes of local people. Many businesses are struggling. As people are laid off, they spend less. Shops and businesses with no links to Barnet Council, see less turnover. For businesses already struggling, this may be the final straw. What about the people being transferred to private companies? They've been told that their conditions of employment will be protected for one year. What then? The only way private companies can make more money is to cut wages. The staff will either suffer pay cuts or be replaced by cheaper staff. More money out of the Barnet economy. Sadly unlike an in house team, any savings go to the shareholders of the companies.

Sadly, Barnet Council fail to try and do any "joined up thinking" in respect to any of this. Now it may well be that Barnet Council have information about the process which makes a positive case for the changes. Why haven't they gone public and made this case? Surely something which will so fundamentally change peoples lives and will involve ten year contracts, should involve public consultation? It is scandalous that we aren't being asked for our views. The Barnet Eye has seen (and published) much leaked detail about this process. None of it reassures us at all. Like Carlsberg, the Barnet Eye does not do public consultations about major changes to the way the Council interacts with the taxpayers. If we did, these are the questions we would ask you, before we changed anything. I sincerely hope that the other Barnet bloggers, the local media and our councillors also ask these questions, because I believe they are fundamental. Most of all I hope Barnet Council use it as a template.

------

One Barnet Public Consultation

Dear Barnet Council Taxpayer,

~~Barnet Council~~ The Barnet Eye is committed to public consultations before any major changes are made to the way services are delivered to the Barnet taxpayer. The Council are currenlty considering making major changes to the way services are provided and we believe that it is vital that the taxpayer, as the funder of this process is kept well informed of the process and is given the opportunity to comment on the changes so that Barnet Council can deliver a package of services which fully meets the requirements of the people who pay the bills.

The local economy.

Do you believe it makes sense, especially at a time of recession to export hundreds of jobs from the London Borough of Barnet, to other parts of London, other parts of the country and to other parts of the world?

Do you think that it is appropriate that local businesses are excluded from the process of providing council services?

Do you think that companies bidding for One Barnet Contracts should have to show that they are making a contribution to the local economy as a key deliverable of the contract?

Do you agree that all companies bidding for One Barnet Contracts should agree to pay the London living wage for all London based staff?

Quality of services.

For people with acute care needs from Barnet Council, do you think that private companies should be subject to large financial penalties if companies fail to deliver the current high quality of services?

As a Barnet resident, would you be happy discussing your council related business with a telephone operator in a foreign call centre?

When vulnerable people such as the elderly, the infirm and adults with care needs, experience constant changes to provision of care, this can cause stress, lead to depression and can massively impact their quality of life. Do you think that continuity of service should be guaranteed, by financial penalties, for any services outsourced by the council?

Financial security.

When the council reviewed bidders tenders for the One Barnet program, the council considered that "transfer of risk" only warranted less than 3% of the total scoring for evaluation of the bid. Do you believe that private companies taking on provision of services on behalf of the council, should pick up the financial risk for their failure to provide services/

When the council reviewed bidders tenders for the One Barnet program, the council considered that "Maximising commerciality of the services" warrented nearly 13% of the total scoring for evaluation of the bid. Do you think that this is more than four times more important than ensuring the council does not incur financial risk?

When the council reviewed bidders tenders for the One Barnet program, the council considered that "Maximising commerciality of the services" warrented nearly 13% of the total scoring for evaluation of the bid. Do you think that the council should be seeking to transform itself into a commercial supplier of services and incur the risks associated with this on behalf of the taxpayer.

When the council reviewed bidders tenders for the One Barnet program, the council considered that "Compliant high quality service delivery" warrented nearly 5.7% of the total scoring for evaluation of the bid. Do you think that this is less than half as important as "Maximising commerciality of the services"?

Do you think that the council should tie itself into a supplier for ten years, when the whole concept of such a massive outsourcing is completely unproven?

Cost to taxpayer.

In previous examples of Barnet Council outsourcing projects, badly drawn contracts have resulted in multi million pounds financial settlements being awarded against the council. Do you think the Council has the expertise to avoid similar problems?

As a taxpayer, who do you think should bear the risk of financial penalties caused by the failure of contractors. Should it be the taxpayer of Barnet or the service provider?

Best Value for taxpayer.

In house bids (ie the council providing the services themselves after efficiency savings) have not been considered by the One Barnet team. In house teams, who actually know how to provide the service were not invited to bid. Do you believe that excluding the in house option can be demonstrated to deliver best value for taxpayer.

Due to the scoring mechanism used by Barnet Council to decide the provider of the services, it is possible that a company tender could provide the highest quality of service and the highest guaranteed financial benefit to the Barnet taxpayer, but fail because another bid may demonstrate an aspiration to provide a more commercially saleable product. Do you think that it is appropriate that the Council puts risky, speculative income ahead of service and guaranteed return?

Transparency.

Do you think that Councils should follow the Barnet Council method of working, where all decisions are made in top secret and taxpayers are not allowed to know why decisions are made, on pain of legal action, or should they follow the Windsor and Maidenhead Council model where all decisions are made transparently and all relevant information is freely available via the Council website?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Wally Nickley sent me the "One Barnet consultation" for publication. He asked me to write a suitable preamble. Wally Nickley (not his real name) is a Barnet Council employee and avid Barnet Eye reader. Although guest blogs are usually printed without comment or edit, Wally specifically asked me to in this case. All figures etc used in Wally's consultation document are supplied by him. Although I happen to believe them to be correct they cannot be verified as the council refuses to release the information. I also amended the first sentence of the blog as Barnet Council was not asking the question and I felt this may be misleading.

What is going on at NLBP today?

2012-01-27T23:47:00.001Z

Dear Mr Walkley,

Please could you do me a favour? I am intrigued. My blog stats give me all sorts of interesting information. They tell me what people were looking at before they visited my blog and what google search they arrived on to find it, amongst other things. Now as CEO of Barnet, I'm sure you can get your IT department to tell you anything you need to know about who at Barnet was looking at my blog and why. There was very unusual pattern of hits today. I'm intrigued. Something is clearly going on. I'm sure you won't but I'd be most grateful if you could drop me a quick line, as it were, and let me know exactly what it is all about. Have I missed something?

I wasn't even going to look, but Linda asked me if anyone at NLBP had been looking at her blog. That was a rather less unpredictable spike.

Regards
Rog

The Friday Joke - 27/1/2012

2012-01-27T20:55:00.003Z

My friend Jeff always told me he wanted to die in bed with two hookers. He got his final wish, his wife burst in on him and shot him.

Have a pleasant friday night.

Guest Blog - Learn From the Past? London Borough of Barnet (LBB) Adult Social Care and Health Or Continue to Repeat in The Present and Future!

2012-01-26T20:11:00.000Z

By Linda Edwards

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts toimprove the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth atiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centresof energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down themightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Robert F. Kennedy

Past

Myadult daughter has a learning disability and is on the autistic spectrum. I am a family carer. I am a reasonable person. However, I am sure that the London Borough ofBarnet (LBB) Social Care and Health senior Managers and Directors would notagree!

Idon’t want anything for my disabled daughter that she is not entitled toreceive or that other vulnerable people do not receive. I believe this to be fair and reasonable!

Havingchallenged their shoddy commissioning and lack of monitoring of damaging andinappropriate services for my disabled daughter, they continued to fund theseservices and sign them off as “good value” for over 15 years. I believe this to be unfair, unreasonableand just plain stupid!

Theydoggedly refuted my formal complaint submitted 28^th March 2008 andwasted thousands of pounds of LBB and ratepayers money in defending thecomplaint, allowing it to progress as far as the Ombudsman stage.

Allthey had to do was become more competent in their monitoring and evaluatingprocess. This should undoubtedly haveled to the removal of the bullying service provider that was not providing theservice to which my disabled daughter was entitled to receive and which theyhad irresponsibly commissioned.

Mydaughter became emotionally unwell, struggling for many years because of thisinappropriate support, lack of management and staff being thrust on her that wewouldn’t trust to take our dog for a walk! They certainly knew very little about the needs of people on the autisticspectrum. Their management were soarrogant as to not want to learn from the Recommendations from the NationalAutistic Society!

What did LBB Adult Social Care and Health learn from my complaint?

They shortened the complaints process, making it harder for family carers to have a successful outcome.
They learnt that reporting and listening to lies (their response 4^th July 2008 to my complaint) prevails and succeeds within the culture of LBB Adult Social Care and Health.
How to best discourage paid and family carers from reporting complaints and safeguarding issues.
LBB Adult Social Care and Health Senior Managers vindictive behaviour results in promotion.

Whatthey should have learnt from my complaint:

Family Carers will challenge their dogma, injustice, oppressive culture and resistance to listen to vulnerable people and family carers.
We will find the energy and support to continue until there is a satisfactory conclusion for our family member and the people we are supporting and working with.
We will do this individually, supported by each other and through organisations and newly formed groups such as “The Campaign Against Destruction of Disabled Support Services” (CADDSS). For further details, please email CADDSS1 @ gmail.com

Update, Celebration and Thanks

Manyof you have read my previous articles and I am thrilled to share with you thatthere has been a ‘Eureka’ moment because of the change in my daughter’s ServiceProvider.

Iwould like to thank my daughter’s solicitor, Yvonne Hossacks without whom Iwould still be asking for a meeting, which if agreed, would go nowhere becauserarely was anything from LBB Adult Social Services and Health Managers followedup or actioned! There were so many timesover many years that I was disregarded but in her role as my daughter’s solicitor,she achieved some considerable change for my daughter. Solicitors representing vulnerable people inAdult Social Care and Health should not be necessary and I am a sure solicitorwho has a social conscience like Yvonne Hossacks would much prefer to beunnecessary and have more profitable work. Why is the culture of LBB Adult Social Care and Health so unfriendly toworking in partnership with family carers?

Thankyou to the Family Advocate who accompanied me to so many LBB meetings, eventhough the meetings achieved nothing for my daughter. She left many meetings feeling frustrated andupset and once remarked “I have been doing this job for over 30 years andhave seen no change in how they behave towards family carers!” However, it proved crucial that there wasa witness to the many broken promises and lack of action from LBB Adult SocialCare and Health Managers!

Ishould also like to thank my daughter’s LBB Social Worker who has ‘listened’to, ‘heard’ my daughter’s explicit needs, choices and decisions and checked outthat they were from her rather than from me as some LBB Managers havesuggested! In spite of her assessment ofmy daughter’s needs July 2011, in August 2011 when she was on holiday, the LBBIn-House Learning Disabilities Services Manager overrode her assessment andremoved my daughter’s crucial night support. This LBB social worker has supported the transition of the new serviceprovider and demonstrated her excitement at the recent amazing changes in mydaughter’s personal development. Thismust make the role of a caring social worker all the more worthwhile andsatisfying.

Mysincere thanks and appreciation to this new Head of Integrated LearningDisability Services who has been proactive in trying to heal the emotionaldamage done to my daughter after the LBB Manager of the In-House LearningDisability Services withdrew my daughter’s night support suddenly in August2011. The outcome for her was…….. Guesswhat? Promotion!

Thenew Head of Integrated Learning Disability Services has authorised DirectPayments for as long as my daughter needs night support and has alsodemonstrated a desire to work in partnership with me as the family carer. Whilst I fully accept she doesn’t approve ofmy ‘tone’ in correspondence, I hope she can try to understand that my daughterand I have been on the receiving end of LBB’s Adult Social Care and Health’s“oppression, injustice and resistance” for many, many years…..

Itwill take a long healing process and conditions set by family and paid carersbefore we can withdraw from our campaign to highlight the effects of the abuseof power that prevails in LBB Adult Social Care and Health.

Thankyou too, to the new service provider who I cannot name just yet for fear that Iam ‘dreaming’ about the way in which the new service provider are working withmy daughter and me, (family carer) and that tomorrow I may wake up to anothernightmare!

Trustingthey are working in this way with everyone, these are some of the differencesbetween the new service provider culture and the previous service providerbullies that LBB Adult Social Services and Health Director refused to removesince her response to my complaint on 4^th July 2008. The new service provider:

Responds to my emails
Responds to telephone messages.
Is proactive in planning for my daughter’s future and greater independence
Has not lied to me!
Has been respectful of my daughter’s needs.
Whilst they have been proactive in supporting my daughter’s needs, they have also reacted positively to her decisions and choices and encouraged her rather than attempted to control her.
The new Service Provider has been respectful of my own needs as a family carer (I am at last beginning to plan my own life because my daughter is being supported appropriately and I am no longer having to fight for my daughter’s support to be as it should be!) For example, on one occasion, when I became ‘panicky’ because of the many years of the previous staff being late, their response was “you’re allowed to panic, too!” There was no contempt or scorn, as I have been so used to in the past.
They have demonstrated respect, civility and understanding of everyone’s needs.
They have not blamed me if my daughter has made a decision that is opposed to their own view.

Ofcourse, with all the above, the new service provider has higher expectations tomeet and further to fall than the previous service provider bullies, but we areall willing to take this risk!

WhenI thank them, they respond, “We are only doing our job!” Why didn’t LBB Adult Social Care and HealthManagers and Director insist that the previous service provider bullies didtheir job?

Withmy daughter’s now superb service,why am I still campaigning about the past?

My daughter will never get the wasted years back that LBB Adult Social Care and Health robbed her of by rebutting my formal complaint.
She will not recover from the emotional damage done to her because LBB ignored the NAS Recommendations and my ‘expert’ knowledge and experience as a family carer
I was made unwell on many, many occasions. This still affects my work and my life.
LBB Adult Social Care and Health Directors and Managers have never acknowledged their responsibility for our many years of angst caused by them.
We have uncovered many similar issues that are being ‘swept under the constantly expanding LBB Social Care and Health carpet’
In spite of many issues of abuse, safeguarding, lies and rudeness reported to LBB Senior Managers and Director of Adult Social Care and Health, they have refused to remove the previous bullying service providers from the list for other LBB vulnerable people. This is outrageous!
A written acknowledgement statement and apology needs to be forthcoming.
A commitment for change needs to be put into place and monitored by independent lay leaders, including family carers.
£16,000 is owed to my daughter, which LBB promised to ensure was returned to her. This was never actioned and I have always been too exhausted and weary in fighting to ensure my daughter was safe and had the necessary support to worry about her money.

Present

Whyam I connecting my daughter’s past trauma caused by LBB Adult Social Care andHealth senior management to LBB Cabinet Resources Committee Meeting Monday 16^thJanuary 2012 to finalise the handing over of Learning Disabilities Services tothe new Local Authority Trading Company? There are a few reasons for this connection and my continuing campaign:

Cllr Rajput, Cabinet Member for Adults fervently believes that LBB Adult Social Care is providing a high quality of service to vulnerable people and their family carers. The problem is that whilst he may be taking note of carer’s surveys etc, he appears to be listening too much to the same senior managers and directors who have behaved so unprofessionally!
Many other vulnerable people are receiving a similar lack of support and respect and suffer from the same lack of partnership.
One of the people who asked questions at the Cabinet Resources Committee Meeting, asked about previous Safeguarding issues that had not been dealt with adequately when reported to LBB Adult Social Services and Health senior management.

Immediatelyafter the Cabinet Resources Meeting on Monday 16^th January, theDirector of Adult Social Care and Health rushed out of the meeting to approachthe person who had asked the Safeguarding questions. She informed us that it was not appropriateto bring Safeguarding issues to this public meeting (no personal confidentialinformation had been divulged). She alsosaid that had these Safeguarding issues been brought to her privately, shewould, as she always does, have dealt with them immediately… watch this spacefor update!

Councillor Brian Coleman, (together with his dear mother), who both give considerable service to the community, came downstairs to speak to the people who had asked Safeguarding questions at the Cabinet Resources Committee Meeting. Coincidentally, he also advised them that this meeting was not an appropriate place to ask Safeguarding questions.
The Director of Adult Social Care and Health had been responsible for responding to my complaint (4^th July 2008). I have continued to question LBB why what is written in glossy brochures and spoken in meetings and public conferences are not being put into practice.

Becauseof my behaviour in this way, the Director has refused to allow me to be amember of the Learning Disability Partnership Board. This is in spite of an “excellentinterview” and “vast knowledge and experience” as reported by thepeople who interviewed me for the position of being a member!

This decision is spiteful and undemocratic andshould have been challenged by Cllr Rajput – please look forward to my letterenclosing the communications and notes of meetings regarding my exclusion.

The Manager of Barnet Homes and the Director of Adult Social Care and Health spoke at the Cabinet Resources Committee Meeting about LBB having extensive carer involvement. I believe this to be true. However, is this involvement only with family carers who do not complain and challenge injustice? Once they complain about a service for their family member, senior management abuse their power and authority by discriminating and excluding them!

TheFrench sculptor Auguste Rodin said “Nothing is a waste of time if you usethe experience widely”

So how have I used “theexperience widely”? Whilst LBB AdultSocial Care and Health were actively rebutting my complaint and allowing all mydaughter’s problems to continue, little did I know that in another part ofBarnet were Safeguarding issues being reported to the very same people who weredisregarding the issues that I had complained about on behalf of mydaughter! Shame on all the people whoknew about this and did nothing!

Future

Pleasewatch this space for further celebrations of good practice from my daughter’snew service provider. I am optimisticand hopeful that the ‘honeymoon period’ of the first six months will continuebecause of the management of her service.

Recommendationsfor LBB Adult Social Care and Health,which I am so sure, will be disregarded:

Adhere in practice to Government policies and strategies, instead of merely speaking and writing about them.
Monitor and evaluate outcomes!
Adhere in practice to their own LBB policies and strategies, instead of continually speaking and writing about them.
Monitor and evaluate outcomes!
Whistleblowers should be embraced and helped to feel safe, as they are able to see what Managers and Directors don’t have the opportunity to see. Safeguarding training and administration is costing LBB a great deal of money. Therefore, as soon as whistle blowers have the courage to bring issues of abuse to the notice of managers, considerable energy and resources has been put into cover up, thus allowing the abuse to continue. This is unforgivable, unacceptable and must be reversed immediately!
The Director of Adult Social Services and Health ignored my three communications for a meeting (early 2011) so that I could describe how her response in refusing to remove the ‘cowboy’ service provider had put my disabled daughter at risk and damaged her and me, as a family carer. Instead, she passed my request to her senior manager to action as a complaint, when it clearly was not a complaint! Once again, wasting valuable resources and money in investigating a complaint that hadn’t been made rather than agree to meet with me to hear the outcome of not removing the bullying service provider. They must be made accountable for the money and resources they waste!
Some people are not suited to working with vulnerable people. The odd day training cannot break down a culture of bad practice that has been in place for many years, especially if Management endorses this practice. LBB need to be less concerned with protecting staff and themselves and more concerned with the rights of vulnerable people according to the Seven Key Outcomes for Social Social Care Service Users.

“Thetime is always right to do what is right” Martin Luther King, Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linda Edwards is a carer in Barnet. Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye

Brian Coleman calls Barnet traders lazy and boasts of his own uselessness !

2012-01-25T09:06:00.000Z

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read. The following is taken from the report pack for the next Council meeting.

Question 60 Councillor Alison Moore

Some local businesses are citing the cashless parking service and huge parking charge increases as a major reason for a reduction in trade, and even for shops and businesses closing down - when will the Cabinet Member listen to local people and reverse the enormous and unfair parking charge increases that he imposed last year?

Answer by Councillor Brian Coleman

Since Christmas there have been an interesting set of announcements to the Stock Exchange from many retail companies and a number of chains have called in the receivers. What all trading announcements had in common was that Internet sales are booming. Even Tescos have announced relatively poor trading and the vast majority of their supermarkets have free car parks. We need to manage these dramatic changes in the High Street , more flexibility on change of use, support for the nightime economy , more intelligent Planning decisions , the promotion of There are more empty shops in Whetstone where there are no parking controls than North Finchley where there are . The parking income figures prove the numbers visiting our High Streets and elsewhere are buoyant. Quality retail businesses that are flexible will always survive those that are not will go to the wall.

The lazy cop out is to blame the Council

--
I could ask WTF Brian Coleman knows about running a business, given that he makes his living from a string of taxpayer financed non jobs. Let us consider what Coleman said in a bit more detail. Firstly Brian Coleman acknowledges that High Street retailers are struggling and that this may be related to the boom in on line trading. This shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes a successful High Street. Firstly Brian Coleman implies that the only businesses on the High Street are retailers. In North Finchley the person leading the campaign against High Street parking charges is Helen Michaels. She runs a Cafe. The leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius acknowledged that restaurants are keeping many Barnet High Streets alive. Coleman clearly has no understanding that someone like Helen makes her living from passing trade, people buying a cup of tea and a sandwich. Don't such businesses matter. Then Coleman talks about the figures from Tesco's. Again Coleman shows a complete ignorance of that retailers business. Coleman states that the majority of their sites have car parks. In actual fact, the majority of Tescos outlets are small Tescos Express type outlets. These do not have parking facilities and are located on the High Street. Tescos have spent a fortune building this chain up and are as a result now far more vulnerable to the vampiric parking policies of the likes of Brian Coleman.

When Coleman talks about what needs to be done to re-energise the High Streets, he completely ignores the fact that the parking charges he's championed are the biggest single factor damaging businesses. Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of his outburst is the bit where he trumpets his own incompetence and uselessness. He exclaims that Whetstone is a less successful town centre, with many boarded up shops, than North Finchley. Who is the councillor for Whetstone? None other than Brian Coleman. If you needed a more stark example of what happens when you have a completely useless councillor, you couldn't find a better example.

His claim that retailers blaming the Council is a "lazy cop out" is offensive. Last week I had a meeting with North Finchley traders. Did I get the impression I was talking to a bunch of lazy bastards? Not at all. In fact, nothing could have impressed me more than their attitude. Helen Michaels said "We are not looking for handouts, all we want is for our customers to not be penalised when they park". Brian Coleman exemplifies all that is bad in career politicians. He fails to listen to anyone. He spouts complete nonsense about subjects he knows nothing about and he makes offensive comments about anyone who has the audacity to argue with him. He is standing for the GLA in May, at the same time as the elections for Mayor of London. If he wins, he will get £50,000 a year for doing a part time job. I think he's shown that he is unfit for this role.

Coleman claims that "The parking figures prove our High Streets are buoyant". I suspect that when the GLA Election results are published, those figures will "prove that the People of Barnet think Brian Coleman is useless".

When will Barnet Councillors grow some of these?

2012-01-24T10:12:00.001Z

Let's not mince any words. I am thoroughly sick of the way the cossetted councillors of the London Borough of Barnet hang impotently around the council chamber, pocketing huge allowances and doing nothing at all for the people of Barnet. Let me a few examples of this

Parking charges. They ALL know that these are killing the High Street, which is the heart of the community. Which of them have done anything to help. Even the Leader says "he can do nothing".

One Barnet. They know that the business case is a complete joke. No one has come forward to defend it. No one knows who the project sponsor is. We even had one Tory councillor telling a resident at the weekend that he didn't understand it and voted for it because he was told to. An opposition councillor told me that the report I leaked was shown to them for 10 minutes. They were not allowed to take a copy and weren't allowed enough time to read it properly, consider it or debate it. They are paid to scrutinise such things, yet are "not allowed to".

Overdevelopment. Councillors know that there are too many rabbit hutch flats going up all over Barnet. Which of them say a dickiebird to oppose it. One Tory Councillor told a resident at the weekend that he was "relieved Boris had canned the Brent Cross scheme". He voted for it.

Sell off of Church Farmhouse Museum for redevelopment. Another Councillor told a resident that he was "sickened" by this proposal. He has said nothing publicly about the proposal. (Note : I emailed every single councillor about this. Only Susette Palmer bothered to reply. She sent an email to council officials demanding to be informed of progress - an example to all).

Cabinet allowance rise. All of the Tory group, apart from Kate Salinger, voted for this, even though most knew it was morally wrong in the current climate.They ostracised her for her stand

Even the most lowly councillor gets thousands of pounds in allowances, for merely attending two council meetings a year. They have to do nothing else to get the cash. We elect them to represent us. Is it too much to ask them to grow some balls and represent us properly. This isn't party political. It is aimed at just about all of them (with a shamefully few honourable exceptions). DO YOUR JOB, REPRESENT THE PEOPLE PROPERLY.

Holocaust Memorial day - A special day in Barnet

2012-01-24T09:21:00.000Z

Today is the day we remember victims of the Nazi holocaust. Barnet has the largest Jewish community in Great Britain, largely as a result of this atrocity and the earlier pogroms and other persecutions of Jewish people in Europe. When I attended Orange Hill Senior High School in the late 1970's , the school had a large number of Jewish pupils, many had parents and grandparents with direct experience of concentration camps. Virtually none had families unaffected by the holocaust. Thirty years later many of those parents and grandparents have passed away and the stories move from being a living memory to a page in a history book. Holocaust memorial day is one way that we can remind ourselves of the risks of regimes who seek to divide our communities by race, creed or ethnicity. If the holocaust was the last time that ethnic cleansing was attempted, maybe people could say we'd learned the lesson. If discimination based on faith, colour or creed was a thing of the past we could treat it as a historical anomaly. Sadly, even in Europe, we've seen ethnic cleansing. Even more sadly we still see evidence of anti semitism even in Barnet. Synogogues and Jewish gravestones are often targets of those who seek to turn the clock back and bring an era of hatred back upon us.

When I was 16 I had the pleasure of working with a stonemason who was Jewish and had been an officer in the British army during the second world war. He had been one the first British officers into the Belsen concentration camp. The experience overwhelmed him and he suffered a nervous breakdown. The British army was completely unprepared for the sight that greeted them and they were unable to save thousands of people who they had liberated. The medical teams simply had no experience of how to treat people suffering acute starvation. The SS officers who were captured at the site immediately claimed protection under the Geneva convention. These cowards sought refuge under international law, having violated every law ever written in their treatment of the people of the camp. One of the most poignant things I was told was that for many of those who died, they simply gave up believing even hell could be no worse than where they were. Today on BBC radio 94.9 Vanessa Feltz played an interview by a father who's daughter was savaged by an out of control dog. In Belsen, brutal guards would routinely give the babies of camp inmates to guard dogs to be torn to bits. Anyone who couldn't work was systematically murdered. It is worth remembering that as well as the Jewish population, the disabled, the gypsy's, Homosexuals, political dissidents, and a host of other groups also suffered persecution and murder.

Over a cup of tea in 1977, I was told one thing which I simply refused to believe. After hearing the story of how my work colleague entered the camp, the stench and the pure horror of what he saw, he said something which seemed completely ridiculous. "Some people are trying to say that none of the things I've told you really happened. In the future as people die off, these lies will be told more regulalry. When the British army occupied the camp, we shot thousands of hours of film, as a record so that the truth of the situation can never be denied, remember this if ever you hear such a rumour".

At the time of the conversation, I was a dyslexic sixteen year old, considering a future working in the building trade (as a back up to my music career). It never occurred to me that anyone could possibly take such lies seriously. It never occurred to me that people would desecrate synogogues and Jewish graves in the London Borough of Barnet. As blogs had not been dreamed of, it never occurred to me that I'd write a blog and anyone would care what I wrote. It never occurred to me that the things I was told over numerous mugs of tea, may be important enough to be retold.

Sadly, the man who spoke those words to me passed away many years ago. With him, the things he saw went. Only the conversations with people like me remain. Those and the thousands of hours of film footage, which serve forever as a reminder of the foul, evil brutality of the regime which perpetrated the crimes. We have holocaust memorial day for one reason and one reason alone. Because we all need to be reminded of the truth of this abomination.

A statement : The Barnet Eye and Barnet Council

2012-01-23T19:51:00.001Z

On the 8th November 2011, I was told that I have prostate cancer. In the intervening weeks, I have done a huge amount of soul searching and taken a long hard look at my life and the things I spend my time doing. Writing a blog about Barnet Council takes an inordinate amount of time and creates a massive amount of stress in my life. There are many things I could do which would bring me far more pleasure and many subjects I feel I could write about, where possibly I could make far more difference to peoples lives. Barnet currently has four other bloggers who are more than capable of doing what I set out to do on my own in 2008. That is to cover the activities of the council in a way that the local press seems to not be interested in doing. I've spent a fair amount of time researching the issues, causes and treatment of cancer and I feel that there may be people who would benefit if I shared this knowledge. I also feel it is important to make the case for dyslexics and to try and dispel many of the misunderstandings and myths associated with the condition. Then there are all of the other issues I enjoy, local history, interesting things to do in Barnet, and non council related issues affecting Barnet residents such as the Thameslink service. I felt the time had come to move on. I also felt that the way forward for this blog was through more guest blogs, using the readership I've built up to give a platform for other local campaigners and activists such as Linda Edwards and Julia Hines. Their work deserves the widest possible audience.

I have one thing to say to anyone at Barnet Council who may be reading this. Thank you (in a Cee Lo Green sort of way). Your actions have made me realise that I've been getting lazy, complacent and have managed to shove my head up my own arse in relation to Barnet. Barnet Council needs as many active bloggers as possible at the moment, digging as deeply as they possibly can. Whilst in a perfect world, I would love to do all of the things I stated above, I don't live in a perfect world. I live under the jurisdiction of Barnet Council. What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. I rather suspect that when I do the round up of 2012, I will see this whole sorry saga as a huge own goal by Barnet. In other words, any major change of emphasis of this blog will just have to wait (although the guest bloggers are more welcome than ever).

There are many things I would like to say today, but it is very necessary to keep my powder dry. I can just advise one thing. Nothing I write on this blog, in relation to Barnet Council is done lightly. I have a large and informal circle of people who have advised, helped and steered me in the right direction from day 1. They are from the right, left and centre of political spectrum. They encompass a whole range of skills, talents and professions. When this blog is attacked, they are also attacked. What is heartening is that this is the message they have been at pains to make sure I understand and appreciate.

A few people have told me they are worried about me, especially following a few comments on the cancer blogs I've written recently. Please don't be. I couldn't feel fitter or more healthy than I do right now. I just perhaps share my darker thoughts a bit too much with you. Let me explain why.

In 1985, I co wrote a song. The chorus went like this

if you don't try,

You might as well be dead.

I have sung this song to myself ever since, whenever I've needed to motivate myself, be it to run for a bus, to drag myself out in the rain to a meeting, to get out of bed and go to work, when I've felt like dying (and I mean this mostly in relation to hangovers). It has seen me through good times and bad and helped me meet many challenges. I may be wrong, I may be deluded, but I truly wonder what certain people sing to themselves for motivation?

On Saturday morning I had an MRI at Barnet General. I'd been stressing on it all week. On Sunday morning, I had to take a washing machine to the flat of a friend who is suffering from a far more serious cancer than I have. I have been dreading seeing him. He is one of my best friends, but I was scared to see a window into my own future. Wheras I'll probably die of something else, he's been given a prognosis of 6-12 months. He's 45 years old. When I saw him, it was great. He has the right attitude to life. It isn't money, possessions or power which matter and make us happy. It is knowing we have people who love us. Nothing else matters at all, but you only find out when you are stripped to the bare bones of your existence.

That is why I'm truly afraid of nothing apart from seeing the people I love suffer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many apologies for the self indulgent tone of the second section of this post. I just really don't want anyone who cares about me to worry. If I wasn't feeling strong, I wouldn't write any of this

Boris launches the Brian Coleman charm offensive

2012-01-23T09:15:00.001Z

This weekend the Barnet Tories launched the Brian Coleman charm offensive. We got a leaflet showing just how hard Brian Coleman has been working on our behalf. Strangely it makes no mention of the way Coleman has hiked up parking charges. Apparently the fact that certain types of crime are down is completely down to all the hard work Boris and Brian have been doing. Strangely, the leaflet doesn't mention that theft of mobile phones is up by 10%. What is the police advice for residents? Don't make lengthy mobile phone calls on the street or have your valuables handy. What does Brian Colemans policy for pay by phone require? Lengthy calls on the street, with your credit card in your hand. Due to the document being bigger than the scanner. I've sent an FOI request to the police to find out exactly how hard Brian Coleman has been working with the Police. Should be interesting

It is nice to see that Boris completely associates himself with Brian Coleman and his policies. Next time you get a parking ticket, or if your business is suffering, ask yourself this. Do I really want Brian Coleman to be rewarded with £50,000 a year for the next four years at the GLA elections in May for these policies? Hear is a rather crappily scanned version of the leaflet.

In response to the taxpayer funded pro Boris rally at the Peel Centre last week, I received this letter from the Labour candidate Andrew Dismore. He clearly is rather upset at the taxpayer funding such a rally. I was under the impression that in the run up to an election, public funds should not be used to exclusively promote one side. I'm not taking sides in this, I don't belong to the Conservative or Labour party. You may think I'm a secret Dismore fan. In actual fact the Labour party expelled me in 2010 (even though I'd quit the party in 2009) and told me I was banned from membership for five years. What amuses me is that Brian Coleman could join the Labour party tomorrow if he wanted to, but I can't. Anyway, here's what Andrew has to say

Dear Editor,

The Press (19^th January) gave extensive coverage to the London Mayor’s meeting at the Peel Centre. However, chaired by the Conservative GLA member Brian Coleman, also facing the ballot box in May, one could be forgiven for thinking it was nothing more than a Conservative election rally.

Most of the time was taken up by the Mayor extolling his own virtues, supported by the rest of his “ backing group” panel. Ostensibly to discuss local economic issues, the GLA member was very careful to avoid calling any questioners who wished to raise the parking charges issue- the biggest elephant in the room and for which he is personally responsible - and indeed to avoid calling anyone likely to ask challenging and difficult questions in the short time they left for questions. Criticism was confined to outside the formal meeting.

Of course, if the meeting had been paid for by the Conservatives, one could hardly object to the holding an election rally: but it wasn’t. It was paid for by London’s council taxpayers.

Personally, I think the money could and should have been better spent on ameliorating the Mayor’s police cuts or fares rises, but clearly the Mayor and GLA member have other things on their mind as the May elections approach.

Andrew Dismore

Labour London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden

Exactly who is in charge of Barnet Council?

2012-01-22T10:05:00.000Z

"The Devils greatest trick is to convince us all that he doesn't exist"

Who is in charge of Barnet Council? Who has the desk with the sign on it saying "The buck stops here"? Is it council leader Richard Cornelius, the man who says "I'm sorry, I can't do anything about that" to residents when they ask why he can't sort out the mess created by the Councils parking policies. Is it "Non Stick" Nick Walkley, the CEO, who's name never seems to be on any embarrassing document? In Barnet we have the massive One Barnet outsourcing project. Who is the sponsor of this project? Who is the top man who thinks it's a good idea and is prepared to say "This is my baby, I think it will save the people of Barnet a fortune and I think it is the future of local government in Barnet". The strangest thing about such a huge, transformational project, which the council is spending billions on, is the fact that no one is prepared to stand up in public and explain it.

On Friday I had approx 400 different hits on this website from people at Barnet Council. More than half of these arrived through google searches for phrases such as "Barnet Eye". Why? I don't know, but I'll take a wild guess and say that it's because they are interested what is happening to the organisation they work for. Let me tell you something I found out on Friday. "Barnet Council strongly disapprove" of me and my blog. Funny that. All 400 of them who read the blog all thought "I strongly disapprove of Roger Tichborne and his blog". Maybe I should emigrate to Australia to be in the land of my ancestors. I must be so unpopular that I should hide my face behind a mask when I walk the streets of Barnet. If you work for Barnet Council, is that how you feel about this blog? The council have spent 3 1/2 years trying to completely ignore this blog. They routinely reply to the most routine and trivial email late. I have emailed the CEO of Barnet Council on numerous issue, I routinely copy him into every communication and yet he never, ever responds.

Does Mr Walkley believe in the One Barnet project? He has spent millions of pounds (of our money) promoting it and on consultants to implement it. Nick is an intelligent guy, quite friendly whenever I've chatted to him. Maybe he thinks I'm a complete moron or a fool. Maybe I am not worthy of a response. He's the CEO, he can talk to who he likes, yet he chooses never to respond to my emails. The leader, councillor Richard Cornelius does sometimes if he thinks it's appropriate. Why doesn't Nick. Is he scared of what I'll say? Many of his employees and many of the councillors email me regularly. If they say "This is in confidence and not for the blog" It stays in confidence and off the blog.

I've offered Nick the opportunity to write a guest blog which would be universally read by his staff, explaining what the whole One Barnet project is all about. I've offered to interview him. He could have persuaded me that it was a good idea. I'm not stupid. I can read a balance sheet or a business case. If the numbers stack up, I'd buy into it if it was good for Barnet. There are many great services in Barnet supplied by other organisations. I'm not implacably opposed to the concept of outsourcing.

Many people may think that I'm opposed to large corporations such as Capita, who are the front runner for the One Barnet contract. Let me let you into a little secret. I'm not. Several years ago I used to own shares in Capita. I bought them as an investment because I thought the company had an interesting business model and would produce a return on my money. I took an interest as they were the company which implemented the Congestion charge for former Mayor Ken Livingstone. I believed that this was a technology they could resell to cities around the world. I made thousands of pounds when I sold them, they had doubled in value. I sold them to invest the money in my own business. If I had any spare cash to invest right now, I'd probably invest some of it in Capita, because I'm sure they will clean up on the Barnet project. Whilst many people locally are implacably opposed to their business model, Capita as a PLC exist solely to produce a return for their shareholders. I can see no circumstances where the One Barnet project will not deliver a handsome return for them. I may not like what this will mean for many of us in Barnet, but as a cash investment, I really don't think you could argue with it.I wonder how many employees of Barnet Council and consultants working on the project are Capita shareholders? Is this something we should be interested in?

I can see what is in the deal for Capita, but I cannot see how it is in the long term interest of the people of Barnet to have this project proceed. I've read hundreds of documents and none support the proposition as being for the benefit of Barnet. Which brings us back to the proposition "Who runs Barnet Council". Why is this important? Because whoever that person is, they must fully understand the project and the benefits. They must step forward and say "I support this project because it will deliver these benefits". Let's have the conversation and move on. What happens in the absence of leadership? Well as I write this blog, there is a large ship lying on its side in the Med, there are families grieving and a cruise line is likely to disappear, due to the reputational damage of the actions of one man. The captain of that ship allowed a disaster to happen, letting his personal whim take precidence over doing his job properly. When it was clear that his mistake had caused a disaster, he legged it, leaving the people who were looking to him for guidance and ledership in the lurch. With no one at the helm, making the important decisions, the boat sank and people died. That is what happens when no one knows who is really in charge and what needs to be done.

At the start of the blog I quoted the old maxim that the devils greatest trick is convincing us that he doesn't exist. I suspect that this is the greatest trick of whoever at Barnet Council is responsible for the One Barnet project.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

Rog T's Cancer Blog - Cancer vs Dyslexia

2012-01-21T20:44:00.001Z

Barnet Council - Private Eye legal bullies 2011 strike again ?

2012-01-21T09:10:00.001Z

At 19.10 lat night I received a letter from Barnet Council legal team. The letter suggested that as the document I published on Thursday concerning the One Barnet tender process was marked confidential, I was not allowed to publish it and must remove it from my website immediately. They also suggested that I may be liable for any legal costs of claims arising from publishing it. As it the letter arrived at such a late hour on a Friday evening as I was going out, I removed the document from my website pending legal advice. Today I have a CAT scan, so I have other things on my mind, and in the absence of any legal advice, I do not intend to comment further on this particular issue until such time as advice has been sought other than to say that any legal challenges will be vigorously contended. I have put this clarification up merely to explain the removal of the document from this website.

I do however want to remind my readers of some general issues regarding Barnet Council and data security. I received this document from the London Borough of Barnet on 7th July in a freedom of information response. This clearly demonstrates that Barnet Council has been aware of issues surrounding information security since at least April 2011.

Is Action Plan Final Redacted)

On page 4 of this document it outlines the following risks regarding Information and Data management.

* Information is leaked through weakness and ICO impose a fine on the council for not taking all possible steps to prevent loss

* Information can be downloaded to personal home computers via Citrix leavving the council fully exposed to data falling into the wrong hands

* Unable to track source of information leak

So it is clear that there is an acknowledged issue with information security at Barnet Council. Whilst it may be easy or convenient for Barnet Council to kid themselves that this document is the only document to have been leaked regarding the One Barnet process and that I am the only person it may have been leaked to, they clearly haven't got a clue who has seen what or who has sent what to who.

Let us just for one moment consider exactly what is happening at Barnet Council at the moment. There are two contracts being tendered as part of the One Barnet process. One is worth £250 million and one is worth £750 million. Whoever wins those contracts will make a huge amount of money. This is public domain information. The companies who are bidding for these contracts are probably spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds putting together their tenders.

That makes the information used to decide the outcome of the tenders a valuable commodity.It is clear that the security surrounding these tenders has been compromised. If a document was leaked where there was clearly no financial benefit to the recipient and presumably no financial benefit to the person who leaked it, what else could have been leaked and to who? If a person is prepared to take the risk of leaking a document for no financial gain, what on earth could have been leaked if people were offered financial inducements? Many people working on the One Barnet program are consultants with no long term allegiance to Barnet Council. Other staff know their jobs are under threat and may be vulnerable to temptation. Now I am not alleging anything of the sort has happened. All I am saying is that in light of what has happened it clearly COULD of occurred and the Council would clearly be none the wiser.

As with the fact that Metpro were operating without licenses, CRB checks or accreditation, this weakness in process has happened because Barnet have no robust systems in place to detect problems. No one from the CEO of Barnet down can be sure that any information, at any stage of the One Barnet program hasn't been shared inappropriately with any third party. The truth is that the only leaks Barnet become aware of are the ones to bloggers. Whilst these are embarrassing, the ones which have the potential to really damage the council finances are ones to commercial companies that no one ever finds out about. These give companies an unfair competetive advantage to the detriment of the taxpayer.

What never ceases to amaze me in my dealings with Barnet Council is the way that whenever a crisis emerges, they always seek to shoot the messenger. If I was the CEO of Barnet, Mr Nick Walkley I would have been far more concerned with working out what is wrong with my organisation, why such problems occur and how I could restore faith in my administration. If Mr Walkley really believed that the document was damaging, he could have picked up the phone, explained why and asked me to remove it. If I had been unreasonable, he would then have been quite justified in taking whatever actions he deemed necessary. I could have explained exactly why I published it, what my concerns were and why I felt that such a leak showed that the program had been compromised (not by myself or this leaked document).

All of the Barnet bloggers have received leaked documents. I am not alone in this respect. Most are not published because they would put the person who leaked them at risk. Barnet Council have resorted to ever more stringent procedures to prevent leaks, but still the leaks happen. Most important meetings are now held in the offices of expensive city lawyers. Distribution of documents is supposedly strictly controlled, yet I am sure Mr Walkley and his team would be flabbergasted to see what bloggers have received and not published. All of this is unsolicited. I have never once asked a Barnet Council employee to tell me anything or give me any document. This has been going on for three years now, more or less since the blog first appeared. Barnet Council are fully aware of this situation, but seemingly have never asked the question "If staff can leak this to bloggers out of a sense of public duty, what could have been leaked by staff with other motivation?". That is by far the most serious question. Barnet Council are obsessed with leaks to bloggers, but have completely missed the elephant in the room - leaks to commercial companies. Let me give one example. I was given information which proved beyond doubt such information loss had caused Barnet Council financial loss. I could not act on the information (and destroyed the brown envelope) because it would without doubt have exposed my source and they would have lost their job. Who knows what else has occurred, which will never see the light of day? I believe that more than 99% of staff at Barnet are honest decent people who care passionately about the Borough. In every organisation, there is a small element who have a different motivation. The concern is that there is no effective process in place to ensure that such breaches ever come to light. It seems it only ever comes to light by chance or when the person does something extremely stupid.

One final piece of advice for Barnet Council and their legal team ( I am sure they will be avidly reading my blog today). Any document which contains information which you do not want the world to see should contain a legal warning on every page. Here is an example of such a warning :-

This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

A document carrying text such as this leaves no one in any doubt as to the legal status of the document. It is a sensible precaution that costs nothing. I would suggest that Barnet legal put their time to good use today and design a document template which ensures that every Barnet Council document which they believe to be sensitive carries this wording.

Oh and finally I'd like to thank everybody who has contacted me with pledges of support and advice.

Rog T's Cancer Blog - What is the point?

2012-01-20T14:27:00.000Z

For those of you who are regular readers and have read the previous posts, you can skip this first paragraph.This is the latest installment in my occasional series about how I'm adjusting to living with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary. I'm 49 years old and I recently had a prostate biopsy following two "slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took ten tissue samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which gives me a 3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active monitoring. I've no symptoms and sadly for a few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it won't be from Prostate cancer. Got the picture?

I started writing this blog on Wednesday. The idea was to put it up today (Friday) in the morning and the Friday joke in the afternoon. As regular readers of the blog will realise, events took an unexpected turn and all of my planned blogs went out of the window. Ironically the subject of this blog was going to be stress and the ways to deal with it. Why? Stress is recognised as a major factor in the development and progression of cancers. Rather ironically, I was going to talk about my regime for destressing. Sadly, when you are a blogger and you get sent explosive council documents by whistleblowers any concept of stress management goes out of the window.

In a perfect world, I'd have completely stopped blogging about Barnet Council. It takes up a lot of time and causes me a lot of grief. I'd much rather be writing blogs about music, football and health related issues, but I feel I am obligated to the people of Barnet to do my best. Whilst I recognise that there are four other fantastic bloggers currently beavering away, I do not feel able to step away. The fact that people trust me enough to send me documents and put their jobs at risk, means that I in turn cannot ignore this debt of trust. I am sure every single reader of the blog, if I asked them whether I should put my health first would say yes. Being a blogger means taking chances (if you are any good). At the height of the Metpro scandal, other bloggers confided many fears about where the whole thing was going. My advice was to stick together and win through strength in numbers.

My own issues right now are different. I have a PSA and a CAT scan lined up in the next couple of weeks. I have a business to run and a family to feed. Maybe I should take these responsibilities more seriously? This is a question I ask myself. Then I come back to the old conundrum. If I was to ignore all of the leaks I get sent and stop blogging, what sort of message would that send my kids? They'd say "Dad gives up when life gets hard". I don't want my kids to learn that lesson. What about my business? If Barnet Council destroy the borough with stupid policies that are anti business, then my business will die. What about my cancer? Yes the stress of all this is bad, and surely can't help. But then what is the point being alive if you can't look in the mirror? In some ways my resentment of the people running Barnet Council has deepened, because all the stress caused by running the Barnet Eye is caused by a Council who clearly don't care and seem to not really know what they are doing.

So how do I deal with stress? I play football twice a week. I go to the gym most days and follow my workout with a trip to the sauna and the jacuzzi, followed by a short swim. At the start of the year, I decided to try and limit my blogging to one blog a day (that hasn't gone to plan). I also have been trying (and failing) to spend more time playing guitar and writing songs. Sadly some of the other things I do to destress have not exactly gone to plan recently. Watching Manchester City has returned to being a fraught experience of hair pulling in recent weeks (with the kids invariably getting yelled at in the process). So how successful is the destressing going. Well like most things there are good days and there are bad days. More good than bad though.

I also had a meeting this week with my GP. It confirmed that I really think the medical profession struggle to deal with patients dealing with cancer. I believe that having a positive attitude to everything is the best way to deal with it. I've started a semi vegetarian diet and massively boosted my intake of antoxidants and foods with properties which are known to impede development of cancer. My GP asked me how I was and I told her this, adding I was drinking five cups of green tea a day. Her response "Well I suppose it won't harm you". In truth I wasn't too impressed with this response. Clearly she was of the view that green tea has no proven beneficial effect and that I shouldn't put my trust in such things. What I felt was wrong with her comment is that she clearly didn't recognise that my lifestyle changes are not about thinking that if I drink green tea I'll magically get better. It is about trying to take charge of the process and trying to do anything at all I can to improve my odds. I recognise that doctors are suspicious of alternative remedies that distract people from conventional treatments which are clinically proven. What they seem to miss is the fact that many such things are complimentary to conventional treatments. If nothing else, they give the patient a feeling of doing their bit in the fight. I believe that people who are up for the fight do better. This may or may not be true, but it makes me feel better about myself. I am not going to give in to negative feelings.

And you may ask, how am I feeling. Well right now, pretty good. I am positive about everything.

Stay healthy and have a good weekend (a friday joke may or may not follow, but I've already written one more blog than I was supposed to today).

Whistleblower puts a spanner in the works of One Barnet project - update

2012-01-20T09:26:00.000Z

Yesterday this blog published a document which was sent from a Barnet Council office (verified by the postmark) and was a printed copy of the selection process for the multi million pound One Barnet bidders. Before this was published, I had to satisfy myself about two issues. Was it legal to publish the document and was it the right thing to do? Firstly let me address the issues of legality. I had received the document anonymously through the post. It contained no information describing any legal reason why the document should not be published, other than a statement that it was confidential and that if it was leaked it could have financial implications for the council. The view was that the document was only confidential because Barnet Council would find it inconvenient to see it published. As the document didn't even contain a Barnet Council logo, it meant that either someone had carefully doctored the document or the council had deliberately removed any information so they could claim "plausable denyability". Having decided that there was no legal reason why the document shouldn't be published, we come to the question of "whether it was the right thing to do".

So what were the reasons to refrain from publishing it. The reason Barnet give is that it contains information that could have serious financial consequences the Council. I reject this argument. In the USA, which has a far lower tax base than us, all public tenders and such evaluations are published. This ensures transparency. It ensures that bidders know why their tender was rejected, so they can improve them next time they bid. There is no chance of shenanigans, because a fair playing field is guaranteed. I think that it is highly immoral that a company can be rejected by a public authority and not really know the weaknesses of its bid or the strengths of the rivals. Us as taxpayers should want companies to all put the best bids possible and up their games accordingly. I have been accused of many things since I started writing this blog. Perhaps the most stupid and misguided is that I'm a swivel eyed Trotskyite and that I'm implacably opposed to ANY form of private involvement in the public sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never belonged to a Trades Union, I run a small business which has been a supplier to several local authorities (including Barnet), I'm a member of the Federation of Small business and I stood at the last election as a candidate for for the Lib Dems. The reason I oppose the One Barnet process is because I understand business, I understand efficiency and I understand the concept of competetive tendering.

I oppose the One Barnet program for the following reasons :-

* It discriminates against small business and excludes them from the process
* There has been no transparency at all in the process
* The business case has not been made
* Councillors have been excluded from the process, removing democratic oversight
* There has been no consultation with the people of Barnet to ascertain their views
* The process threatens vital services for vulnerable people
* Barnet Council has a record of botched outsourcing projects, costing taxpayers millions
* Barnet Council has not got its procurement process in order. It is not fit for purpose for such a large contract

When I read the report, it became 100% clear to me that yet again Barnet was running the risk of embarking on a huge contract without correctly identifying the full risk associated with all bidders. This paper removed two of the companies who were bidding without resolving the issues of risk associated with the other bidders. Until all companies can accurately describe the costs and risks associated with their bids, it is completely irresponsible to proceed to the next stage. However Barnet Council try and gloss over this, you cannot exclude bidders if you are not comparing all tenders on an equal footing. Barnet council has had to pay a company called Catalyst, that runs its care homes over £8 million because the contract failed to remove the risk of financial loss from the Council. This project is far bigger, but yet again, despite their previous experience, they are proceeding to the next stage of the tender without resolving these issues.

Whether or not you agree with my reasons for opposing One Barnet, you cannot dispute the fact that risk is being ignored, because this is written in black and white in the report. Barnet Council claims that leaking this report would expose the Council to financial loss. What they don't say is that failing to expose it would have allowed the council to proceed with a hugely risky project. I am a Barnet Council taxpayer. I will ultimately fund this process. I expect my council to represent my interests in a professional and transparent manner. I expect to be able to find out the financial basis for the spending decisions they make. If they want to chose Capita Symonds and EC Harris as partners and exclude Mouchel and Jacobs, I expect to be able to see that this has been done on a fair basis that has delivered best value to me as the funder of the project. There is information that the Council has that should not be published. Things such as details of vulnerable people or plans to cope with terrorism. I also agree that evaluation of tenders should be conducted in private. The point is that once the decison has been made, details should then be published to show that the job has been done, properly. This document was published in November 2011. It does not say DRAFT, so we have to suppose it is the final report. The time for secrecy has gone and the time for the world to see why the decision was made is upon us. The fact that Barnet Council do not understand this shows that they are not committed to transparency and as such cannot guarantee "best value" for me the taxpayer.

It has been suggested that I won't be very popular in the corridors of power in Barnet today. They should be thanking me for doing something they should have done themselves. My blog stats yesterday show a huge public interest in the document. The stats show vistors to the blog from all the bidders along with a host of media organisations and other local authorities. I would propose to Barnet Council that no one leaks a document lightly. The mere fact that a senior member of staff has done such a thing demonstrates the fact that the executive have "lost the dressing room" on this.

It was suggested to me that publishing the document might open the council to the risk of legal action by disappointed bidders. This can only be the case if they have been unfairly treated. If this is the case, then it is correct to have leaked the document. It has also been suggested that I have created an impression that the Council cannot be trusted to look after confidential information. This is ridiculous, I did not leak the information or create the culture where it happens. Had I sat on the document, the Council would have been no more secure, but the world wouldn't have known. I could have secretly contacted the bidders and sold them the info. I'm sure they would have been interested. I didn't, all I did was accurately report exactly what happened. The Council could avoid all of this by opening its processes up to scrutiny. That is the way forward in the information age. There is no place for secrecy in local government finances. Anyone who does not recognise this is not fit to be running a council in the year 2012. One Barnet is a toxic brand. It is time this is acknowledged

Exclusive : Barnet Council whistleblower calls time on the One Barnet Project

2012-01-19T14:29:00.000Z

Firstly a health warning. This document was received by me in a brown envelope with a Barnet Council franked postmark (ie posted through the Councils mail system). I have no idea whether it is a pukka document or a spoof, knocked up to discredit the blog. You will have to read it to decide for yourself. I am basing the commentary on the assumption that it is the real deal, but this is merely conjecture on my part. I sought legal advice prior to publishing this. As there is no disclaimer anywhere on the document to indicate that is privelidged information subject to legal sanction, I assume there is no reason to refrain from publishing it.The front page says "The information contained in this document is confidential as it is highly sensitive commercial information. Any leakage of this information will have very serious financial implications for the council". When I received the document, this concerned me. I did not want to cause expense to the Barnet taxpayer. Having read the document, I believe that the leadership of the council are embarking on a dangerous and risky path and failure to publish this document would expose the taxpayer to avoidable risks. I believe public sector accounts and bids should be open and transparent and companies biddings for work should be able to find out why their bid was rejected. I also see no reason why the taxpayer should not be kept informed.

My thanks go out to the member of Barnet Council who sent this. Whistleblowing carries risks and they should be commended for their actions by everyone in Barnet who believes in open, honest and transparent government. Here is the report. Read it and then read my analysis. I believe that this shows that the whole One Barnet outsourcing project is built on a house of cards of risk, untested assumptions and shoddy process.Firstly, I must say how shocked I was to receive this document. As access to this was stricly controlled, it shows that people at the heart of the Barnet Council must lack faith in the process. They must believe that it is safer to send it to a blogger to expose the process than it is to keep this under wraps. Why?

First lets look at the percieved weaknesses of the two bidders moving to the next stage. Read the risks associated with the EC Harris and Capita Symonds bid. These are huge for a contract worth £290 million. For example on risk the EC Harris bid was weak because "Ownership is not set out for a number of identified risks" or Capita Symonds "More specific commitments required eg regarding the financial implications of change". So they want to sign a huge contract with companies, when they don't know who is responsible for the risks involved. We've seen this before. In the railway industry, National Express took over the East Coast mainline. Then there was an economic downturn, the contractor couldn't make any profit, so they gave it back to the Government. On the financial and commercials, Capita Symonds actually are charging the highest fee. In the financial commentary, EC Harris are the company which offers the best guranteed financial benefit. This is nearly £4 million higher than Capita Symonds. In the final picture, they move to second because Capita Symonds add £5.7 million worth of "confidence adjusted aspirational financial benefit". You may ask WTF? Well in English an aspiration is something we'd like. I aspire to get a better job or live in a better area. It is something I want. So Barnet Council have paid a team of consultants a fortune to decide that Capita Symonds are more likely than EC Harris to want to give us (the taxpayer) a few million quid? Could you make it up? It is clear to me that the wheels are off this project and it is clear to me that the whistleblower also knows this and has decided it is time to end this expensive charade. Whilst I doubt that Barnet CEO Nick Walkley will be overly chuffed to find his organisation has more leaks than Wales on St Davids day, the rest of us should be reassured that people at Barnet Council care enough to take the risk of letting us see how such decisions are made and why we should be calling time on such a flawed process.

*********************** Updated 20/1/2012 at 19:34 ******************************
The link to SCRIBD detailing this document has been removed following a letter received at 19.10 from Barnet Council Legal Department. The Barnet Eye will be taking legal advice on Monday to ascertain any further action.
*****************************************************************************

Here's a brief summary which may help you understand what this is all about and why it's important.

What is this leaked document ?

Barnet Council is seeking to become the first all commissioning council whereby it no longer delivers any services. To do this the council have employed consultants to implement the One Barnet Programme, the total cost to the tax payers for these consultants to implement this Programme will be over £10 million. This figure does not include the amount of council officer time and resources provided to the Programme at a time when services to the most vulnerable and young people have been cut.

Who will deliver Council Services?

The Council have decided that only the big FTSE companies are able to carry out this task.

“What is DRS?”

DRS means Development and Regulatory Services

The following Council Services have been brought together for this outsourcing. Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria;

The Document appears to be a summary of the evaluation of bids from four big Companies

· Jacobs Engineering (US international technical & profesional construction consultancy)

· EC Harris & FM Conway (EC Harris is a construction consultancy owned by Arcadis, a Dutch based international engineering and management consultancy). FM Conway is highway, building, cleansing and recycling company operating in London and south east. Clearly, EC Harris leads the 'partnership'.

· Capita Symonds (subsidiary of Capita Group plc)

· Mouchel Enterprise (a joint venture between Mouchel Group plc and Enterprise plc)

The document provides confidential information about what each bidders are claiming they can save and what income they can generate.

It is worth noting that a number of these services are income generating (like Parking) hence the attraction to the Private Sector e.g. the Cemetery & Crematorium). This assumption has been done before in Westminster!

Why is the report being leaked?

The local UNISON branch has already conducted a number of high profile strikes and it is clear that the whistle blowing release of this information indicates there are serious concerns. When organisations are engaged in competitive dialogue, confidentiality is a key risk to all parties.

The full cost of bidding is likely to be between £500,000 - £1m for each company involved in the full procurement process.

The One Barnet Programme has been under considerable scrutiny by local bloggers, residents and UNISON.

The fact that this document has been leaked suggests there is major disquiet over what is happening within the Council and its drive to outsource at any cost (cut following sentence - Someone has taken the very serious risk to alert the public about what is going on.)

This is a serious business, according to the OJEU notice this could be worth upwards of £270m - £290m to the private contractor in a ten-year contract.

*So who is the lead bidder?

From looking at the document it appears Capita are the clear favourites and unless there is some pretty major turnaround it is clear Capita are going to win this contract.

Although Jacobs have come out bottom who is to say that their bid is the more realistic?

* This is an assumption made only on what is in this document. The document refers to more detailed information contained somewhere else.

Barnet Pay by Phone - How many Barnet residents have registered?

2012-01-19T13:50:00.000Z

At a council meeting in December, Barnet Council announced the success of the Barnet Pay by Phone scheme. They announced that 115,000 people had registered. The implication was that this was because the scheme was popular. I wondered if this was the full story.

According to the Leader of the Council, there are 350,000 residents of Barnet. So the implication is that less than 1/3rd have registered. Not quite as successful then, is it? Then I thought some more. At the recent meeting the Leader also stated that there are 20,000 registered businesses in Barnet. I wondered how many of the employees of these companies are residents of other Boroughs, who have to drive to work and are lumbered with parking. The more regularly you have to park, the better pay by phone is. So I asked an FoI question

The Council Leader recently said that 115,000 people had registered to pay by phone.Please can you tell me how this figure was arrived at and what constitutes registering. Are all of these people Barnet residents?

Today I got the answer (late again.The council said

This number was the number of unique users who have registered on the system by any method to open an account, and have used this account to undertake a parking transaction in the London Borough of Barnet. By this definition they are registered Barnet customers.

We do not have any details of their residence as this is not something that is needed for a phone parking account.

So we have absolutely no idea of how many Barnet residents are using the scheme. It is clear that the biggest beneficiaries are people like trade reps, who visit lots of shops in Barnet and wouldn't want to carry pockets full of change. I'm not against pay by phone, so long as there are credible alternatives and it is economically priced. Neither of these criteria are met by the current scheme.

Westminster has listened, why can't Barnet? Updated

2012-01-19T08:03:00.000Z


Boris listens to Barnet residents deride Brian Colemans parking	scheme

The news on BBC London this morning is that Westmintser Council has "listened to the views of residents and business" and scrapped its outrageous plans for punitive parking charges at Evenings and Weekends, designed solely to fleece people and fill the councils coffers. The local businesses of Westminster knew this would be bell of doom for them. Local Churches also complained, asking why parishioners should be penalised. Residents were livid. Crafty old Boris, the Mayor of London, spotted the opportunity to garner a few votes and brush up his image and pressurised the Council to listen. Not only did they listen, they crumbled.

In Barnet we have a slightly different situation. The man who introduced the charges is Boris's trusted wing man, Brian Coleman. Whilst the Westminster Tories who snuck in the charges were at arms length, Coleman is a key member of the Boris Team. Sadly for Boris, everyone in Barnet knows that Brian isn't a team player. At Tuesdays BorisBash, Brian Coleman did everything in his power to prevent local residents raising the issue of parking. It appears from conversations that this policy came unstuck. At the end of the meeting, Boris had a chat with the "Save Barnets High Streets" protestors.They gave him a t-shirt. Boris isn't stupid, so he will have realised that the protestors were largely core Conservatives. These are the people who fill the party coffers, do the donkey work campaigning and turn up without fail to vote. If there is anyone Boris should represent it is them.

Now he has a dilemma. Does he turn his ire on Barnet and risk undermining Brian Colemans GLA campaign, or does he back his wingman and say "Barnet is a special case, they need the cash, Westminster doesn't". I suspect that Boris is shrewd enough to know that whatever he does, he haas to do it now. If the parking mess can be sorted out now, then Coleman has three months to rebuild his reputation and re-engage with local business.

What Boris (and Brian) must realise is that however much the local business owners may be natural Conservatives, if local business decide that local Conservatives don't support them, they will vote with their feet. Westminster Conservatives have woken up to this fact, the only question in Barnet is whether the local Conservatives will wake up now, or will it be when Brian Coleman loses in the GLA elections in May? One way or another, they will.

Update : 15/11/2012 -
It seems that the W. anchor effect of Brian Coleman is starting to weigh down on the Boris Campaign. Time to dump him - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-24029304-ken-takes-lead-over-boris-in-race-for-mayor.do - Ken Livingstone has unexpectedly overtaken Boris in the polls

Local Business protests against Barnet Parking policy at the Boris bash

2012-01-18T22:33:00.001Z

Here are some pictures of local business owners protesting about excessive parking charges and the abolition of Pay and Display at the Boris Campaign meeting at the Peel Centre in Colindale Yesterday.

As ever. I'm proud of Barnet residents for turning up to show that they won't be pushed around ! Lets hope, for the sake of everyone in Barnet, that Boris gets it and can get through to the numbskulls running the council that if its bad for Barnet it's bad for business

Guest Blog - Boris at the Peel Centre, a personal view

2012-01-18T10:43:00.000Z

By Helen Michael,

I did not get to ask my question, despite having my hand up for an hour and standing up for another half hour with my hand up. I was asked to sit down by security and I refused. I thought I was going to be manhandled when I refused again but fortunately the security guard had the sense to back off (maybe not, it would have made a good story)

The were 10 of us wearing t shirts in a row, so we were very conspicuous. Coleman's face visibly dropped when he walked into the venue. Brian Coleman made a big mistake ignoring us/me, it was almost embarrassing for him. He bypassed me throughout and even when all 10 of us had our hands up he pretended not see us. In the end the Mayor indicated to us and said that the white t shirts had something important to say, and even despite the mayor drawing attention to us on two occasions after that Coleman still ignored us, thereby drawing even more attention to us all. Boris said that he thought our issue was parking and that he would look at it. We didn't even need to make the point.

Fortunately another lady made most of the relevant comments, and Boris made ours for us. It was brilliant! Gail Laser also came across strong and made several relevant points re parking.

There was shouting from all angles for Coleman to let me speak, he ignored them all.

I gave Boris a t shirt which he was happy to accept.

In all 14 t shirts around the room. 10 in a row! Effective.

Councillor Cornelius made the same speech as last Tuesday at the Barnet business breakfast meeting. Gail Lazer did as well, except she didn't use notes, so much better. And in closing she made the relevant comments regarding parking. She was great.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Michael is a local resident, has run Cafe Buzz in Finchley High St for the last 5 years and is actively campaigning for fair parking charges in Barnets High Streets. Guest blogs are always welcome, see the information in the top right hand corner of the blog

Boris at the Peel Centre - The fall out

2012-01-18T10:09:00.000Z

Due to other commitments, the Barnet Eye was unable to attend the event. Fortunately we have a good network of spies, who kept us informed with Tweets, emails and phonecalls. As I suspected, the "chair" of the meeting, Brian Coleman refused to let the de-facto leader of the business campaign against parking charges - Helen Michaels speak. It seems that even Boris was a little irked by this. Helen had a group of fellow business owners decked out in rather fetching T-Shirts, decrying the death of the local High street due to the bonkers parking policies of Barnet Council and Brian Coleman. In some ways Coleman was clever not letting Helen speak, he knows she'd have wiped the floor with him.

Sadly for Brian, I suspect that his actions were simply those of a fool poking a dozing tigeress with a small stick. I suspect that on the 6th May, when the votes are counted for the GLA election, Brian will wish he'd let her. Instead he's simply goaded her into organising an even more high profile campaign against him and his scheme. Helen is a fan of Boris, in normal circumstances she'd be a cheerleader for him and his local GLA rep. If I wanted to get elected in that neck of the woods, I'd rather have her organising my campaign than anyone. Sadly for Brian, she is now the leader of the dump Brian Coleman party.

It is quite clear to me that the local Tories have a stark choice. Dump Coleman completely or get humiliated in the GLA election. However much many locals like Boris, his warm glow cannot save Coleman. In fact, all the rally did was to demonstrate the difference between a Tory with a bit of wit and charm and one who is a pompous, arrogant crashing boor. There is an old saying that when a Tory gets a ballot paper, they know where to put the cross. Coleman will test this loyalty to the extreme.

If I was a Tory strategist, the following issues are the ones I'd consider with regard to the GLA and Boris.

How many extra local voters for Boris will Brian Coleman add?
How many extra local voters for Boris will Brian Coleman lose?
How many extra local voters for Andrew Dismore (The Labour Candidate) will Brian Coleman add?
How many Andrew Dismore voters will Brian Coleman get for the Conservatives?

I have a friend who works in the IT department of a large polling organisation. I asked him how close the Mayoral race would have to be, before a 20% boycott of the local Tories could affect the Mayoral election. The answer? If the candidates are within 3% of each other or less, then Coleman could be the man to torpedo Boris.

Coleman has made a career out of upsetting people. He is usually pretty shrewd who he upsets - people like me, who would never vote for him anyway. With the parking he's crossed the line and unleashed his shotgun on his own supporters. I suspect he'll need a miracle now to save himself.

The Federation of Small Businesses calls for a Programme to Nurture London’s Real Life Entrepreneurs

2012-01-18T10:07:00.003Z

The FSB today launched its Manifesto for London entitled “Six to Fix: A Programme to Nurture London’s Real Life Entrepreneurs”.

The FSB hosted a series of speed briefings with London Assembly members to outline the key initiatives that will benefit the work of the Real Life Entrepreneurs and boost enterprise.

The FSB has identified six areas in which action could make a significant difference to small businesses. These are:

1. Procurement: All GLA, London Council and private sector contracts and projects should be placed on the ‘already established’ CompeteFor procurement portal.

2. Transport: There should be no increase in the level of the congestion charge (and a Moratorium on the Low Emission Zone) for the next Mayoral term. Furthermore, income from the Roadworks Permit Scheme (RPS) should be used to support affected businesses by means of reductions in business rates and other compensatory measures.

3. Business Crime: There must be a major drive to ensure greater reporting of business crime which costs its victims an average of £2,900 a year.. The new Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the business community should work together to increase the reporting rate for crime. And an Assistant Commissioner should be given specific responsibility for business crime.

4. Skills and Employability: An approach to apprenticeships that minimises employers’ paperwork. The ‘administratively-lite’ London Apprenticeship Company model should be adopted by all agencies. Furthermore, an extensive internship programme both for graduates and school-leavers should be introduced.

5. Promoting London and its businesses: It is vital that London and Partners properly promote Micro-Business clubs during and after the 2012 Games so as to take full advantage of the inward investment and export potential. As a survey last week showed that only 12 per cent of small businesses in London believe the Games will have a positive impact on their business overall

6. Business Support: The FSB calls for a sustainable business support model built on the advice and information service currently delivered via the Business and IP Department at the British Library

Sue Terpilowski, London Policy Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“Confidence amongst small businesses in London is at a low point and it is vital that the Mayoral candidates and prospective London Assembly candidates understand the importance of the small business sector. They make up over 99 per cent of all businesses in London and cannot be ignored.

“We are launching our Manifesto to show how sensible, affordable policies can make a real difference to those real life entrepreneurs that are the genuine wealth creators in society. It is vital that an incoming Government for London creates the conditions for growth and greater employment.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a press release from the Federation of Small Business. The Barnet Eye are supporters of the FSB and fully endorse this statement

Boris Johnson declares Brent Cross regeneration scheme "dead in the water"

2012-01-17T16:23:00.001Z

The Evening Standard is reporting that Boris has torpedoed the Brent Cross regeneration scheme, declaring it "dead in the water".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24028395-pound-45bn-brent-cross-revamp-is-set-to-shrink.do

Is this a cynical ploy to boost Brian Coleman's popularity ahead of the GLA elections? It is telling that the shopping centre expansion is still set to go ahead. As I think it was a rotten scheme which would have destroyed the character of a large part of the Borough of Barnet, I am quite pleased. I predicted all along that the scheme would never actually see the light of day and that the shopping centre element would be the only element retained. When Brian Coleman came out against the scheme a couple of years ago it was clear this was the only likely outcome.

So should we thank Coleman for all his "behind the scenes" lobbying of Boris? Not on your nelly, what he's done is tried to drive another nail into the coffin of local small traders. Where will all the customers for the new improved Brent Cross come from? From the local High Streets, currently being ravaged by the Councils car parking policies. The traders I met yesterday, along with all their families and friends will see straight through this.
I hadn't realised just how hated Brian Coleman was by the local small business community until yesterday. Hearing natural Conservatives describing Coleman in the terms I heard, just reinforces the fact that he has lost the dressing room (in football terms). I wonder how many people will ask Boris why he supports the small traders in Westminster against the Tory Council, but in Barnet he indulges Coleman. I suspect both Boris and Brian will find there is a price to pay in May.

Barnet Traders Special - North Finchley Business owners speak

2012-01-17T09:53:00.001Z

A week ago I was at the Arts Depot, attending a Barnet Council organised forum for small businesses. Yesterday, I attended my own little mini forum of small business owners in North Finchley. At the council meeting I'd been highly impressed withthe way Helen Michaels, the owner of Cafe Buzz had spoken. Even more impressive was the way she seemed to have complete backing of virtually the entire meeting. At the meeting I gave Helen my card, told her about the blog (she'd never heard of it before) and suggested we do an interview. She agreed, so I made my way up to her business, Cafe Buzz in North Finchley yesterday afternoon, to see her. She advised me to arrive hungry, as she'd be providing lunch. I was a bit taken aback when I arrived. I had expected a quite chat, but the shop was full of the owners of small businesses, all wanting a chat as well. It became clear why Helen had the support of the hall, she is a natural organiser.

Before we got going, she kept her side of the bargain and provided me with lunch, which I must say was excellent. Without wishing to get too sidetracked, I am on an anti cancer diet right now which involves being virtually vegan, eating plenty of antoxidants and drinking a minimum of five cups of green tea a day. In the vast majority of cafe's in London, this means that you are generally limited to fried tomatoes and mushrooms, and if you are lucky a slice of wholemeal toast without butter. Helen provided a very tasty snack of lentils and roast vegetables, with a fine cup of green tea to boot. And don't be mistaken, all of the other stuff I'd have eaten had I not been on the diet were there, tastily beaming out at me.I suspect I'll be back again

So who did we have? We had a hairdresser, the owner of a health shop, the owner of a discount store, the butcher to name but a few. Now normally I'm a copious note taker, but for some reason I'd left the notepad in the car, and I'd parked a half a mile away to avoid having to pay to park ( I can't be bothered to register and I don't want to give Coleman a penny in parking charges). If you don't mind a schlep and you are visiting in North Finchley, you can park for free in Avondale Avenue except between 2 and 3pm.

As I tucked into my lunch, perhaps the most interesting part of the chat occurred. We all discussed the issues and challenges of running a small business in these times. Helen summed it up when she said "I am personally responsible for the lease, I can't walk away from it, even if I wanted to". She explained how a few years ago "someone from Barnet council asked me why I want to run a business here and suggested I'd do better if I moved to Brent Cross". She explained how Councillor Brian Coleman had marched into one of her neighbouring stores and demanded that the owner moved some street furniture, which he'd taken a dislike to "Get your property off my street". That was her first encounter with Coleman. She said "what right does he have to call it "my street", we pay rates". All of the business owners told the same story. There turnover was down. Some by 15% some by 30%. Why? The same answers time and again. "People can't be bothered with the hassle of paying to park". I asked about the 115,000 people that the council have claimed to have registered? "That is less than 1/3rd of the population. That is probably people who have to because they park in Council car parks for work." The hairdressers have said that it is the hassle factor rather than the cost which is putting her customers off. "People are just baffled by the system. Who has twenty minutes to register for the system, for a quick trim?" The owner of the discount store was far more blunt "They're killing our business and they don't care".

We discussed politics. Most of the assembled group agreed that the small business community is pretty staunchly Conservative. How has the changes affected this "We won't be voting for them agin until they start listening". One of the group said "I love Boris and what he's doing, I can't believe he's tied up with Coleman, that will hurt him round here". Helen has had a bunch of t-shirts made up. She's getting a group of small business owners together to protest at the Boris and Brian show at the Talk London event tonight at the Peel Centre in Colindale.

We discussed the cost of making the parking regime more business friendly. We discussed the claim by Richard Cornelius that it would cost £2 million to introduce free parking for 1/2 an hour. I dispute this claim. You may ask why? Because it is clear to me that no one really has a clue how much it would cost. There are two types of shoppers. Those that want to spend 5 minutes buying a paper, milk, get cash out of an ATM etc. Then there are those that are having a meal, getting their hair done or other lengthy appointment. To me the answer is simple. Have a designated section of parking in each High Street, maybe 20% of spaces, where there is free parking for 1/2 hour. In these bays, if you park longer than 1/2 hour without a ticket, treble the fine. If the space is available, you can still pay and display for longer, but you have to pay. This would ensure a turnover of car parking spaces. It would mean that people just nipping out for a sandwich at lunchtime would be spared the effects of the stealth parking tax.

Richard Cornelius asked how the council could plug the gaps in their finances. Here's one suggestion. Last year, Barnet Blogger Mr Reasonable suggested on the Council Pledgebank, that he would donate his time free of charge, to the Council if he could look at the books and identify savings. The council never got back to him. I would suggest that Barnet Council, take Mr Reasobable up on his offer. I'd suggest that they also invite myself and Helen Michaels to take part. Any savings we identify, could be offset against the supposed £2 million required to fund the parking changes.

It may not surprise you to know that I think we could save a minimum of five times that amount (£10 million). How can I make such a claim? Well quite by accident bloggers discovered that Barnet Council had paid Metpro Security over £1.4 million for security services. There was no tender for this work and no proper contract. As a result of our enquiries, the agreement was cancelled and the work retendered to companies which charged far less. Even worse, much of the work was deemed "unnecessary". At the audit meeting, where this was discussed, it was revealed that of the 9,700 suppliers Barnet use, only the top 187 are actually properly audited. I would suggest that between myself, Mr Reasonable and Helen Michaels, it is inconceivable that we wouldn't find at least a couple of dozen other such expensive and wasteful practices and examples of unnecessary services. I'd be happy to give the rest of Barnet the £8million savings, once we'd got the funding for our free parking initiative. What is more, I doubt it would take people, who are used to eking out savings running their own businesses very long to achieve. Here is my challenge to Barnet Council. Call the bluff of the Barnet Eye. Take up this challenge. You really cannot lose. You'll either get a stack of savings or you can discredit me for once and all. All I ask is unlimited access to the books. I will happily sign a non disclosure agreement if that is what is necessary, to protect any sensitive data.

Of course, if Barnet refuse to take up this offer, what does that tell you? I await the call.

Boris support for Brian Coleman is starting to bite back

2012-01-16T09:29:00.002Z

Has Boris made a big tactical blunder by agreeing to appear with Brian Coleman at an election rally tomorrow night. I spoke to a friend last night and he gave me a stark illustration of how Brian Coleman is seriously affecting the core Conservative vote in Barnet.The pay and display changes have been universally rejected by the local business community. Yesterday I bumped into a friend who is a staunch Conservative. He runs a small business with his wife and is a member of the local business community, having run a successful business with his wife for 25 years. He's also an active member of the local Jewish community. He attended Orange Hill Senior High School with me many years ago and has never been afraid to speak his mind. He told me -

This parking business is a direct attack on the local business community. Coleman has behaved in a disgusting manner and clearly doesn't give a shit about small businesses. The local business community have been the backbone of the local Conservatives for many years. Whether it be fundraising or delivering leaflet, we've always supported the party. Now we find that this counts for nothing. We have been attacked and no one in the local party seems to care. I've never voted anything other than Conservative. I could never vote Lib Dem or Labour and I hate Ken Livingstone, but as Boris has chosen to stand on a platform with Coleman, I will be staying at home this time. Even if the parking changes were reversed tomorrow, it would change nothing. As soon as the election is out of the way, they'll put them back. I can't trust Coleman and until he is gone, the Conservative party will have to do without my vote. I'm not the only one. The whole community is up in arms.

If any local Conservative MP's, Councillors or other party activists are reading this, I suggest that they take themselves down to any of our High Streets and have a word with local shopkeepers. The above statement has been edited. There were plenty of words starting with F's and C's that I took out. If the local Conservatives think that they can impose policies which cut peoples incomes, in challenging eeconomic times, without there being a price to pay, then they really are even more useless than we thought.

In May, if Boris Johnson finds he has lost the Mayoralty in a tight race, I wonder if he will look back on the day he took a platform with Brian Coleman in the London Borough of Barnet as the day he lost it?

Guest Blog - Opposition to huge rent rise growing

2012-01-16T08:54:00.001Z

By Defend Council Housing,

Anger at 8 to ten per cent council rent rises is growing. Cambridge Council is demanding Government action as in 2009, to cut the formula increase for 2012/3. See Cambridge Council letter.
Camden tenants rejected a £10 average weekly rise in rent, heating and other charges. See report here.
Harlow tenants opposed the rise at a consultation meeting last week.
The £30 bn debt settlement and inflation-busting rent formula Government are imposing on Councils, are driving huge rent rises. Tenants, trade unions and councillors rejecting the rent rises, are calling for:

* re-opening of negotiation on the debt settlement
* changes to the rent rise formula
* joint deputations to demand promised £7 bn capital funding backlog.

If Government can continue to write off Housing HRA debt for stock transfer, we should insist on a similar write-off of debt which has been paid many times over in rent and receipts siphoned off by government.Campaigns are proving we can succeed in resisting the mounting attacks on council housing.Swindon council tenants rejected transfer by 6,073 No votes (72.3%) to 2,329 Yes votes (27.7%). see report. The government is promoting a new wave of stock transfer of council homes, subsidised with more public subsidy. Where tenants choose to stay with the council they are demanding the same debt write off.
Wandsworth Council is retreating on a threat to evict a tenant, in face of a growing and determined campaign against political post-riot evictions. See report.Public meetings
Meetings around the country will challenge rent rises and government attacks on tenancies, rents and benefits:
LONDON 21 Feb 6.30 House of Commons committee room 14
LEEDS 24 Feb details to follow
CAMBRIDGE 15 March 7pm Arbury Community Centre, Campkin Rd
HARLOW29 March details to follow.
Organise a local meeting - contact DCH for speakers and leaflets.Other action
Welfare Reform Bill - Vigil & Lobby: 1pm-3pm, opposite House of Lords, Tues 17 Jan; sign petition here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Use the email link in the side bar.

Note : Although Defend Council Housing is a national campaign, many Barnet residents are affected by these issues.

Guest Blog - Nuclear Power in the UK

2012-01-15T21:57:00.001Z

Guest Blog By Radfax

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/have-your-say/

Urgent responses needed

The Deadline for this objection is the 23 January 2012

The IPC (Infrastructure Planning Commission) is government funded and is meant to be independent.
However they are limited to engaging local communities tothe few villages and cities around Hinkley Point.
but we ca.n all register our concerns as it is after all a national infrastructure project.

"Your representation" maximum 500 words the following info exceed 500 words. The website for registration as an interested party is at the end of this document.

If you have time please use your own words, it will show a stronger and more determined opposition. Keep them busy!

IT'S IMPORTANT YOU COVER THE FOLLOWING POINT FOCUSING ON THE LOCAL IMPACT

1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals)
- Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic.
- Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF.
- Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF.
- 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village.
- These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution
- Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property..
-should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process.

2.Contamination of land

-EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!)
http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf

3. Land Status
- designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA)
- a Site of Community Importance (SCI)
- the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance
- a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex)
- Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges.
-New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant.

4.Health
-Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children.
-Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health.
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm

http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf

Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks.

5. Local Jobs
-EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery.
http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913&section=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y

6. Democracy
-EDF consultations not widely publicised.
-There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima
-The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear.
Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC)
-Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC.
-Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression
- The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk )
http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point

7. Power lines
- new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width )

8. How local is locality?
-Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope.
-This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations.

Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders.

(We can also ask them to help us through the process)
Tel: 0303 444 5000 E-mail: ipcenquiries@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/have-your-say/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radfax is a Barnet Eye reader. Guest blogs are always welcome. Submit via link in the sidebar.

Note : The Barnet Eye focusess on local issues. I happen to agree with Radfax that nuclear power and the implications of accidents will affect the residents of Barnet.

Is intelligent design fact or fiction?

2012-01-15T11:02:00.002Z

I read in the Observer that Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist society are claiming a great victory, because the government have announced that free schools teaching intelligent design as fact may have their funding removed. They have stated that this is a victory for reason and common sense. I am not so sure. I think they've actually picked the wrong battle. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that intelligent design is science. It isn't, it's a belief. It is not scientifically verifiable. You may or may not believe it to be true, but you will never be able to "proove" God created Adam and Eve.

My issue is not whether such schools teach about intelligent design. It is that they surely should teach the theory of evolution and why it accepted as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. They should have to teach what makes something accepted in this way and why science is based on evidence. If the school, having taught the fundamentals of scientific principles, then say "and we believe this to be science and we believe intelligent design to be scientific" I don't have a problem with this, so long as the pupils have been given the information needed to make an informed decision as to what they choose to believe.

I studied biology to A level. We were taught about the theory of evolution and the competing theory of Lamarkism (which in the 1800's was accepted by many faith groups as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution). The reason a discredited theory such as Lamarkism was mentioned was because it was used to show how flawed theories are superceded by ones with sound evidence. The problem with intelligent design and science is that it is completely unscientific. People who subscribe to the theory, subscribe to belief in God. If you accept that God exists, then you have to accept that God is not bound by the normal rules of science. This in effect means that if you roll a six sided dice, you can get a seven. People such as Dawkins take this as proof that God doesn't exist. People of faith take it as proof that with God anything is possible.

Whatever your belief, you should want your children to have the best possible education. Teaching them things which are not scientific in science lessons, can only be acceptable, if they are taught the science properly and the other bits are taught as belief. If the school wishes to include this in the science curriculum I don't have a problem, so long as everything else is fully covered.

For many years, I struggled with the fact that faith and science are seemingly incompatible. I then realised that I was making a mistake trying to compare apples with pears. The early books such as Genesis in the bible, to me, are early man's efforts to try and understand order in the world. As they didn't have the advantages of science, the book had to describe things in understandable terms. One of the things which many people such as Dawkins use to debunk the bible is the fact that early characters such as Noah lived to the age of 950 year. I happen to believe the reason for this is because until the Jewish people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they used a lunar calendar and had no concept of the solar year. Therefore Noah lived for 950 transitions of the moon. When the people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were forced to use the solar calendar, but they refused to amend the holy texts. Can I prove this? No of course I can't but it makes a degree of sense. What about the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? I believe that this merely refers to the awakening of spirituality in Adam and the recognition of God as a single entity. It is quite clear that humanity existed long before Adam and Eve and it is also that many civilisations existed with no links to Adam, Eve and the Jewish people. It really doesn't matter. The purpose of religion, as far as I'm concerned, is to help us to live a life where we are committed to building a better world and looking after those less fortunate than ourselves.

In short, faith should be about improving ourselves as people. Not in a competetive "my faith is better than your faith" mould, but as a tool for us to challenge our own behaviour and to make ourselves better citizens. These Free Schools that Dawkins & Co are getting so animated about, should concern themselves less with trying to turn the world of science on it's head, argue that white is black and start turning out well educated students who are a credit to their school and their faith and recognised as such by all people regardless of whether they believe or not. At the end of the day, if I need to see an oncologist to get my cancer fixed, I want to see someone who understands the dynamics of cancerous cell mutation and the chemicals which prevent it. I don't want them to send me home and tell me that if I say ten Hail Marys it will all be alright because you have faith. Sadly the world is littered with the graves of people who don't recognise the old truism, God helps those who help themselves, and fall for all manner of non scientific nonsense when faced with life threatening illness. And that is the purpose of education, to teach us to make good decisions. Give the children the tools they need to face the challenges of life. Anything less is completely irresponsible and such schools should not be allowed to teach children, let alone be state funded.

Have a pleasant Sunday

The Saturday Joke - 14/1/2012

2012-01-14T18:47:00.001Z

1. Law of Mechanical Repair - After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you'll need a pee.2. Law of Gravity - Any tool, nut, bolt, screw, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.
3. Law of Probability - The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.
4. Law of Random Numbers -If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal and someone always answers.

5.Supermarket Law - As soon as you get in the smallest line, the cashier will have to call for help.

6. Lane Variation Law - If you change traffic lanes, the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (every time).

7. Law of the Bath - As soon as the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.
8. Law of Close Encounters - The probability of meeting someone you know increases dramatically when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with.

9. Law of the Result - When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will.
10. Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
11.. Law of the Theatre & Hockey Arena - At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle, always arrive last. They are the ones who will leave their seats several times to go for food, beer, or the toilet and who leave early before the end of the performance or the game is over. The folks in the aisle seats come early, never move once, have long gangly legs or big bellies and stay to the bitter end of the performance. The aisle people also are very surly folk.
12. The Coffee Law - As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.
13. Murphy's Law of Lockers - If there are only 2 people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.
14. Law of Physical Surfaces - The chances of an open-faced jam sandwich landing face down on a floor, are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet or rug.
15. Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
16. Brown's Law of Physical Appearance - If the clothes fit, they're ugly.
17. Oliver's Law of Public Speaking - A closed mouth gathers no feet.
18. Wilson's Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy - As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it.
19. Doctors' Law - If you don't feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you'll feel better.. But don't make an appointment, and you'll stay sick.

20. Bloggers Law - Don't move to Barnet or you'll become completely feckin obsessed with the incompetent numptys who run the show and you will spend your life writing blogs in a permanent foul mood.

Have a lovely Saturday Night. I'm off to Camino's in Kings Cross to drink lots of yummy wine, eat lots of lovely Spanish food and to try and take my mind off the fact that Barnet Council seem intent on ruining all of the good things about the Borough.

Is Brian Coleman putting the whole of London at risk?

2012-01-14T11:42:00.001Z

I read with horror a comment in the blog by GLA Tory Roger Evans. Mr Evans is the GLA rep for Havering and Redbridge and was until last year the leader of the Tory Group. Mr Evans is highly respected and a very decent sort of chap. Unlike his colleague, Brian Coleman in Barnet, he keeps his voters informed of progress at the GLA via his interesting and informative blog.

Whilst reading this blog (for those of us with a rather lazy rep such as Coleman, it is the only way to keep up to date with shenanigans at the GLA) I read that Brian Coleman, who was given the job of running the London Fire and Emergency planning authority, has cut the reserves for dealing with disasters to £24 million - the comment is in the is blog on Mr Evans site http://city-hall.blogspot.com/2012/01/budget-round-opening-skirmishes.html . The reserves have been whittled down to virtually nothing, to help freeze council tax and to prop up the Met Police budget.

Let us consider what they have to look after.According to wikipedia, there are nearly 8 million people in greater London. The Fire brigade are responsible for safety on the London Underground and Overground networks. Millions of people commute on a daily basis through the city. Trains, Buses and Tubes all carry millions. We have a dozen major railway terminals, and we also have two airports, one of which is the worlds busiest international airport. All of these hubs are under constant threat from numerous and diverse terror groups and all have a history of attacks.

Then there is the River Thames. This has a history of flooding, which the Thames Barrier was constructed to prevent. Whilst this has been used several times in the last two decades to prevent major floods, there is a possibility that this could fail and inundate London. Who would cover this emergency? The LFEPA. Does anyone seriously believe that £24 million would cover the costs of responding to such an emergency?

And then there is the timing. We have the Olympics this year. Although I hope to God it runs smoothly and have a high degree of faith in our security services and Police, it is clear to all that every nutcase in the world would like to cause havoc in London at this time. What has Coleman done? He's cut the reserves in the year in our history when they are most likely to be needed.

Not only that but he's thinned down the organisation. Does the man not realise that the less resources you have, the more reserves you need. Roger Evans says this in his blog :-

Fire Brigade

Under Brian Coleman, LFEPA has made considerable savings and has even helped to bail out the police budget this year. Reserves have been cut to £24 million which we were assured is sufficient to cover unexpected costs. Training is being contracted out and this is expected to deliver further cost reductions.

He may well be reassured by Brian Coleman that this is enough. I am far from convinced. Sadly only a terrible tragedy would prove me right and I hope to God that doesn't happen. I cannot help but feel scared by this man and his disregard for his fellow citizens. He is up for election in May. Need I say more. He gets £50K a year for his part time GLA job and £25K a year from Boris to run LFEPA. It is time we got someone who understood London.

Barnet Council - Playing fast and loose with the law on the Church Farmhouse sale?

2012-01-14T09:24:00.001Z

Yesterday I published a blog detailing the sale of the building which used to house the Barnet Church Farmhouse Museum. I am often astounded by the power of the Barnet blogs, they work in mysterious ways. This morning, I received two emails from eagle eyed and legally savvy Barnet residents. They drew my attention to section 123 (2A) of the Local Government act 1972.

Now I am not a lawyer, but it is pretty clear to me that this means that the Council are possibly not legally in a position to dispose of this land. This morning, I sent the following email to Mr Jeff Lustig, the Borough Lawyer and copied the CEO and all of the Barnet Councillors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Lustig,

This week advertisements have been placed in the local press, advertising the buildings and lands surrounding Church Farmhouse Museum for sale. I have been contacted by several concerned residents, regarding this sale and my attention has been drawn to section 123 (2A) of the Local Government act 1972 (see below)

It is clear that there is the possibility that the act prohibits the sale of this property under the terms of the act. I have no wish to see my money as a Barnet Taxpayer being tied up in expensive legal challenges of the type we have seen in the Partingdale Lane fiasco or expensive reviews such as the Underhill sale. As such I am calling on you as head of the Barnet legal department to call an immediate halt to this sale, pending a full legal review of the legality of the sale.

My attention has also been drawn to other issues concerning the sale of the building and lands which may have legal implications. As I do not want to initiate a campaign and have to raise funds for a legal challenge (which I believe will be well supported), without giving you the opportunity to reconsider the position of Barnet Council regarding the sale, I call on you to immediately suspend the sale.

Please confirm that the sale has been suspended or provide a full legal opinion as to why you believe the sale complies COMPLETELY with the law as described below. If you supply a legal opinion, I ask for a suspension of the process for 4 weeks, to allow me time to receive a legal opinion on your response. As I have stated, I have no wish to cost the Barnet taxpayer a penny in avoidable legal expenses or reviews. As such it is clear to me that this process must be suspended until all of these issues are resolved.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Tichborne

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

123 Disposal of land by principal councils.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a principal council may dispose of land held by them in any manner they wish.

(2)Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.

[F524(2A)A principal council may not dispose under subsection (1) above of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them.

(2B)Where by virtue of subsection (2A) above a council dispose of land which is held—

(a)for the purpose of section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds); or

(b)in accordance with section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds), the land shall by virtue of the disposal be freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with the said
section 164 or, as the case may be, the said section 10.]

F525(3)—(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F526(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(7)For the purposes of this section a disposal of land is a disposal by way of a short tenancy if it consists—

(a)of the grant of a term not exceeding seven years, or

(b)of the assignment of a term which at the date of the assignment has not more than seven years to run, and in this section “public trust land” has the meaning assigned to it by section 122(6) above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I call on all Barnet Councillors to fully acquaint themselves with the details of the sale and the legality of it. The role of Councillors is to oversee the executive and their actions. This is a good example where councillors should get involved to prevent the executive of Barnet Council making a tragic decision which would destroy forever a much loved Barnet landmark.

--- email ends ---

I will of course publish Mr Lustigs response to this email as and when it arrives and the results of any legal opinion we recieve. In the event that Mr Lustigs response is unsatisfactory, I will be seeking funds to assist with the legal challenge.

Barnet are flogging off Church Farmhouse Museum

2012-01-13T18:28:00.001Z

Barnet Council are inviting offers for the Church Farmhouse Museum. From this statement in the brochure, it seems like they are quite happy to let the beautiful gardens and the house be turned into a residential development. It says :-

Any new development should demonstrate compliance with Unitary Development Plan policies and guidance and have regard to the emerging policy context in relation to the Local Development Framework. Development should in particular respect adjoining residential boundaries and uses and ensure adequate access arrangements in addition to securing any necessary planning obligations.

Residential densities should reflect the character of the surrounding area and provide for a range of accommodation types.

The full details are on the Barnet Council website here -
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/2012-1-11-church-farm-house-particulars-1.pdf

The philistines who run the council clearly don't give a stuff about the local heritage of Barnet. All they care about is filling their coffers with cash. If they destroy all the good things in Barnet in the process, they couldn't care less.

This building was is the oldest building in Barnet, the Gardens were a much loved facility providing a peaceful backdrop to one of the Boroughs Jewels. Sadly the administration which runs Barnet know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Here is the video I made to mark the closure of the Museum last year.

This is what the people running Barnet think is worthless. I am just glad that I was lucky enough to appreciate the museum when it was around. At the opening of the Harry Beck exhibition, various Tory dignitaries, including Hendon MP Matthew Offord and Mill Hill Councillor John Hart attended, to scoff the free food and drink the free wine. Not one of them lifted a finger to save the museum and none care that the site is being sold in this way. A plague on them all.

The Friday Joke - 13/1/2012 (A guest joke from Alan Dickinson)

2012-01-13T14:07:00.002Z

A NEW WORD FOR OUR VOCABULARY

I knew someone would find a name for the GLA election process for this year.

Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices put forth by any political party in the 2012 GLA elections. It strikes me that whoever wins will be because they are not the other person.

The next leader of Barnet Council?

2012-01-13T10:02:00.000Z

Cafe Buzz in North Finchley, hit by Barnet Parking charges

What qualities would you look for in a leader? Here's a few I'd go for. Charismatic, eloquent, passionate, caring and intelligent. What about for a local political leader? I'd go for someone who understands the area, is familiar with the local issues and someone who has backbone to stand up to council officials. Now here's the tricky bit. What about if they have to lead the Barnet Conservatives? This is a very damaged brand at the moment. The parking policies championed by Brian Coleman have alienated huge swathes of people who are natural Conservatives. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that their vote will go into meltdown before the next council election. The first big test of this will be the GLA elections where Brian Coleman is trying to hang on to his £50,000 a year job scrutinising the Mayor (yes, he gets £50K a year for a part time job, suggesting ways Boris could be a better mayor). So what sort of person could save them? Well if they had all of the qualities above, it would be a good start. However we are talking about leading a right of centre group. The natural domain of local government Conservatives is local business. Get someone with experience of running a local business. Get someone who understands the average High Street in Barnet and the people who use it. Get someone who understands that a strong small business sector is the only way to maintain a pleasant Borough. Most of all, get someone who will not stand by as local businesses are thrown to the wolves to plug the holes in the budget caused by management incompetence. A person with these skills, would no doubt also have the wherewithall to actually address the waste and incompetence within the council that this blog has spent nearly 4 years exposing.

On Tuesday morning, I attended a Business Breakfast, hosted by the current Leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius. As detailed here, I thought it was a great meeting, not because anything actually happened, but there was at least a glimmer of a sign that Barnet have woken up to the fact that local business must listened to. The meeting was sold out. These people, who I guess were mostly natural conservatives, were incensed. The parking issue is killing many of their businesses and the council has no strategy whatsoever to address it. A speaker suggested that Barnet allow 1/2 hour free parking to boost the High Streets. The Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius said "We can't do that, we'd lose £2 million in revenue". In effect, this was an admission that Barnet Council is unlawfully using parking as a cash cow.You see councils are not allowed to structure parking policy to raise funds, the purpose is to efficiently regulate traffic. As the High Street is a place where some people come to buy a pint of milk or buy a sandwich and a cup of tea (which takes 10 minutes and the spend is 50p - £3), whilst others come for a haircut or meal (or both - spending £50 -£300) and stay 3 or 4 hours, the policy is hugely discriminatory against a certain sector of retailers.When Richard Cornelius took over as Leader of the Council, I had assumed that as a small businessman (he runs a jewelry business), he'd understand. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that half the shops in the High Street are not dealing in a market where the average spend is several hundred pounds. Wheras a Jeweller like Richard can afford to give his customers a £2 parking voucher, because they are spending £2,000 on a diamond tiara, a cafe selling someone a cup of tea for 80p, would be losing £2 on the transaction. In answer to Richards comment about losing £2 million in revenue, the has wasted twenty times that amount on botched projects, bad investments and inept decisions over the last few years. They have lost up to £27.4 million in botched Icelandic investments (who knows what the real figure is, with lost interest etc), they overspent £11 million on the £12 million Aerodrome Road bridge replacement project. They have had to pay Catalyst Ltd £8 million because they have outsourced care homes with a badly drawn up contract. They have spent £26 million on their SAP procurement project, which former Leader Mike Freer said would cost £6 million. They have spent at least £5 million on consultants for the One Barnet project, over 4 years, to deliver savings, but all they have delivered is reports, suggesting more consultants reports. This week the Barnet Eye detailed how they were spending £374,000 to buy play equipment, which they are then going to put into storage for £10,000 a year. The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

There is no lack of money for pet projects that benefit no one, but a parking policy which would regenerate the High Streets, breath life into local shops and provide employment for local people (taking them off the dole and delivering tax income) would lead to a huge improvement in the economy of the Borough. Sadly, the leadership of the council just do not seem to get it. The parking charges are a stealth tax, full stop. As Conservatives, the Barnet Tories should recognise the fact that such taxes hurt businesses and jobs. They don't. It is time that the current crop of Conservatives admit that they are not up to the job. They should resign their seats and ask for local business people who do understand the local economy to replace them.

Going back to the meeting on Tuesday, one particular speaker stood out. Helen Michaels, who runs cafe Buzz stood up and wiped the floor with the parking policies of Barnet Council. Not only that, but when someone intervened to try and shut her up, virtually every member of the audience backed her. What was she arguing for? Sensible, business friendly policies. She used the examples of old ladies, mums with kids and one off shoppers in a hurry to illustrate her point. It was unarguable. She ticked all of the boxes I listed at the head of this article. In a sane world (or at least a sane Borough), the Leader of the Council would be off to Cafe Buzz today, to sign her up as a Conservative candidate. If I was Richard, I'd parachute her into a safe seat and give her Brian Colemans cabinet job. Many people tell me Colemans one redeeming feature is that he's not afraid to speak his mind. Neither is Helen. The difference is she has business experience and cares about the locality. I doubt anything would make me personally vote Conservative, but if she replaced Coleman in the cabinet and scrapped his awful policies, I'm sure a lot of natural Tories who wouldn't currently touch them with a bargepole would swarm back. She is an example of someone who clearly would make a decent council leader, for all the reasons listed above.

I've no idea whether she'd even want to get involved, but she's the kind of person we need in Barnet politics. I spoke to her briefly yesterday, nothing to do with this. She told me that if she can't get the parking problems sorted out, it will kill our local high streets. She's right. The sad truth is that whilst Barnet Council needs a Leader like Helen Michaels, the chance of us ever getting one is probably more remote than me becoming the next Pope.

PS. I urge everyone who reads this blog to support their local High Street. Please use the local shops, cafe's and pubs. With petrol at it's current prices, a short walk to the local shop may actually be cheaper, if you add in the transport costs.

Faulty Breast Implants

2012-01-12T11:58:00.001Z

The big story in London today is the fact that a private company, which fitted faulty breast implants, is refusing to rectify them. The issue could not be more black and white. If you buy something, which is not fit for purpose, the company that sold you the product or service should rectify the problem, for no extra costs. A responsible company should have insurance to cover such issues, especially if they operate in the area of health.

The government should regulate and close down any clinics operating without full insurance and who do not guarantee their work. I would urge everyone to avoid such clinics like the plague until such time as we can all be sure that they are fitting safe products and if there is a problem they will fix it.

If you buy a car and it has a design fault, the manufacturer remedies it. There is no excuse for the same rules not applying in healthcare. If the clinics fitting these have a beef they can sue the manufacturer. I suspect that the big issue is that the greedy surgeons don't want to interrupt the cash flow by fixing the shoddy work they have performed. The whole issue makes me sick. Sue the bastards if they won't fix your boobs. They don't give a shit about you, so have their house !

Barnet Business Breakfast - Arts Depot - 11th Jan 2012

2012-01-11T18:32:00.001Z

This morning I attended a Barnet Council Business breakfast with the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius, CEO Nick Walkley and a couple of guest speakers. Before I start, let me say that I applaud this initiative. These events were held regularly under Mike Freer, one of the few initiatives I wholeheartedly supported. Lynne Hillan couldn't be bothered, so it is a good sign to see Richard Cornelius resurrecting the process.

I arrived at 7.46 and got a cup of tea. The conference started and I had a brief chat with CEO Nick Walkley. We share an interest in a certain type of music and Nick was rather interested to hear that the Damned had rehearsed for their last tour at the studios I run. He also explained how when he became CEO he'd expected to have to make cuts of 20% to the budget, but with the economic situation this could be as high as 46%. That isn't a task which can be pleasant or easy.

Next up a brief chat with the Leader over our respective Xmas breaks. Despite what I often write here about how they run the council, on a personal level both Richard and Nick are among the people involved with the council who are ok to have a chat with and are quite pleasant.

Then the meeting started. We had a fairly lengthy preamble from the Leader. He told us that engagement between Barnet Council and local small business wasn't good. He stated that an ongoing dialog was necessary and for many businesses, the council was a mysterious organisation. He explained that the council has employees to run the operations. We have councillors to represent the wards, a cabinet to make decisions and the general councillors scrutinse them. The council runs services such as street cleaning,schools, refuse collection etc. Much work is done battling with central government for money. The government has cut 26% from the budget, and these cuts will get worse. 77% of savings have come from "doing things smarter". 67% of services are high performing and low cost.

He explained that the Council was "right of centre" but committed to preserving good adult and childrens services. He listed things people were satisfied with (refuse collection, schools). He then explained the regeneration program. Many 1960's estates were not well designed and were badly put together. These are being tarted up with proceeds of land sales. He explained that Barnet was a bigger authority than Newcastle or Edinburgh.

He then told why small business was important. There are 20,000 registered businesses in Barnet. He said it is "difficult for the council to understand them". He said that as there are 1,700 people under 24 seeking work in Barnet, they had a role to play in solving the problem. He said that the council often got it wrong, such as opposing the "restaurant culture" in Whetstone. He admitted this now kept the High St alive. He said business would struggle during the Olympics. He explained how the council had put bids in for the High Street refurbishment for Edgware, Cricklewood and Finchley.

Next up was CEO Nick Walkley. He explained how Barnet was Londons largest borough with 360,000 residents. It is diverse with 146 langauges spoken in schools. He explained how Barnet was a green borough. He said that the Council was investigating how they could "better use" these assetts (I sincerely hope this doesn't mean charging for using green space). He explained how lots of new business start in Barnet every year. Barnet has a high employment rate and the local economy is £6 billion a year. He explained how people lived longer and this was stretching council budgets on elderly care. There is also a baby boom, with 4,000 more nursery places required.

He outlined the details of regeneration projects in the west of Barnet. He suggested that Stonegrove was a great opportunity to see regeneration in action. He explained how the sales force marketing Beaufort Park sell it on it's easy commute into London and the nightlife opportunities locally. He explained how the projects were making the area younger and more diverse.

He then went on to discuss the budget. He said more cuts are likely, with the emphasis on protecting childrens and adult services. He said that tough decisions had to be taken. Closing two libraries and losing staff, along with pooling services with other boroughs.

He also announced a scheme called "Your Choice Barnet" (is this the new name for the unmentioned "One Barnet" scheme?). He said this scheme would transform Barnet. The good news was that the council were meeting the targets for savings. He posed the question of how this affect the councils relationship with Business. I'm not sure he gave us an answer.

Then we had Gail Laser, from Chipping Barnet retail forum. Gail explained we we should, as business people, be positive and plan for the future. She explained efforts to revitalise High Barnet High Street, based on a scheme used in Crouch End. She thanked "Hem" - "a brilliant Barnet employee, who helped pull the scheme together". She said that the plan had been to give Barnet a stronger identity. She identified the main issues with the High Street "Lack of choice, Parking issues..." (a murmer of agreement went around). She explained how a local lottery and a grant of £400,000 form Boris had helped. This scheme included improvements to the green behind the church and "some tarting up of shopfronts". She urged the council to encourage "pop up shops". She suggested that from 2013, business rates would come back to Barnet and could be used to encourage local business. She criticised Barnet Council for its attitude to Barnet FC, The Bull arts centre and Barnet Museum.

Gail then talked about the bid for Edgware and how the diverse ethnic communities (Asian to the west and Jewish to the east) influenced the make up of the town centre. She commented that it was run down and in need of a spruce up. She commented that councils have a duty to help high streets. She said that although she thought cashless parking was the future (boos and hisses from the crowd), the implementation had been botched. Sh lamented the failure of Barnet to be represented at the Urban Design London conference. She rounded off by saying that Councils can influence the state of the High Street and cited the parking charges as a good example.

Richard Cornelius briefly responded to a couple of points raised. He said that he wanted Barnet FC to remain at Underhill, he said he genuinely didn't know what the problem was and thought Barnet FC were unreasonable. He said that part of the deal to open the arts depot was to close the Bull Theatre. This may be true, but the Bull was a part of the High Street in a way the Arts Depot most certainly isn't. For what its worth, I think there is a place for both. He stated that the threat of closure had been lifted from Barnet Museum and it was now being run by volunteers.

Next up we had Peter Murphy, from C&G properties. He bemoaned the fact that it had taken him over two years to get planning consent for a development his company were undertaking. He stated that most of his tenants were on 6 month licenses as they were start up businesses and they wanted flexibility in a recession. He then made an outrageous statement. He described his experience with an Irish bank, and stated "never bank with the Irish, they are a bunch of cheats". After a diatribe about Irish bankers, he then excused it by saying he was a Murphy. He gave some advice about running a business in a recession. He advised to "get rid of staff with a negative attitude as they damage the business". He then said "and we never fire anyone". He commented that a recession makes staff available who in a boom would not work for you, so you should take advantage of the opportunity. He then made another outrageous statement. He said that the council was "run by a bunch of wallies who hadn't got a clue about business". Richard Cornelius pointed out that he was a small businessman. Nick Walkley then interjected that his teacher used to call him a wally at school, supposedly because he had trouble spelling his name. Apparently Mr Murphy is the landlord for 1% of all business owners in Barnet. The mind boggles.

Then we had public questions.

Jeremy Link - estate agent pointed out that land prices and rents in Barnet were not in recession and had held up well (contradicting a point made by Nick Walkley earlier). He said lettings were up by 25%.

Another estate agent, Saul Gerrard from Martin Gerrard said that the Council were far too inflexible on change of use requests and this was causing properties to lie empty.

Mike Moriazou (??) from Print Express explained that businesses were in a pincer movement of falling sales and rising costs. He explained that small firms lacked the expertise to complete Pre Qualification Questionairres that Barnet require, before awarding contracts and so were being discriminated against.

Then we had the star of the show. Helen Michaels spoke. Helen has been a resident of Barnet for 20 years and run a local business for 5 years. She lambasted the council for its botched cashless parking implementation. She berated them for the fact that they completely fail to understand the fact that many elderly people cannot, for a variety of reasons, use the mobile phone parking scheme. She pointed out that it took a 20 minute call to register and there was an unjustifiable 20p surcharge. MAny people have to pay £2 to park for five minutes. She said that no one understood the paypoint scheme and that many people had been fined whilst trying to find the place to pay. In mid flow, a man from from Energise Barnet suggested that she'd gone on too long and other people had issues they want to raise, and suggested she made her point. As she was eloquently putting across the issue many had wished to raise, the audience backed her and said "let her speak, this is the issue". She explained how the local car parks had become football pitches as no one wanted to park anymore. The leader of the council suggested that she could buy parking vouchers and give them to her customers if the charges were too expensive. She shot back "If someone comes in for an 80p cup of tea, how can I afford to give them a £2 parking voucher". Richard Cornelius suggested "maybe they'd buy a meal then". Ms Michaels shot back "not if they only want a cup of tea they won't". Richard Cornelius said that the pat as you go had been phased out because all of the parking meteres kept breaking down. Many people were skeptical, I suspect rightly so, given that they used them every day. A fishmonger (didn't catch his name) and a fish and chip shop owner made several similar points.

There was a short break for a chat. I got a cup of tea and started chatting to a rather nice lady, who it transpired was Richard Cornelius sister and also a small business owner. Rather sadly she claimed she wasn't a reader of the Barnet Eye. She runs a company that arranges events.

After the break I got to ask a double pronged question. Part 1, I commended the leader of the council on asking business to attend the forum. I suggested that mishaps like the parking fiasco could have been avoided had he consulted the people in the room properly before it was implemented. I suggested that a proper forum be set up and suggested that he may like to include people such as Helen Michaels in it. He agreed. Then I asked if the leader and the CEO would be prepared to speak in a documentary film, which I am helping a young film maker put together about Barnet. The leader thought for a second and then agreed. Nick Walkley, thought for a few seconds longer and said "only if I can see the questions beforehand and only answer the ones I want to". I responded that this would be more than acceptable. He replied that under these circumstances, he would be happy to appear.

I suspect that they both left the meeting worrying as to what they had agreed to. They needn't. I had been asked by a young film maker to assist him in making a documentary about life in Barnet in 2012 and the challenges which face the residents. I think Richard and Nick have a story to tell and it will make a more interesting film. Council leaders and CEO's should be open and accessible and they are to be commended for making themselves available. I thought it was a shame that this meeting wasn't filmed. Although generally I tend to video council meetings, I had specifically gone along with the intention of having a positive attitude to the process, as I agree with the concept of this type of meeting. There are many challenges in Barnet and we have to work together to address them. I hope that this meeting today was not just a one off and that we get regular forums for the benefit of all citizens. I will conclude by repeating the fact that I was pleased the meeting was held. I suspect most of the people who came, were mainly interested in the parking issues. I doubt many of them were too pleased with the response from the council. It is important that we get the opportunity to make these points to the leader and the CEO. I suspect it is even more important that they listen to us and take some action. They may wish to consider the fact that I parked in Avondale Avenue and walked to the meeting, because I refuse to register for the parking scheme. If they'd kept the ticket machines, they'd probably have got a £1 from me in the empty car park. That really is the bottom line.

Is the Jewish Community getting fed up with Brian Coleman?

2012-01-10T09:12:00.001Z

A friend drew my attention to the excellent www.frumpro.co.uk site yesterday. This is an online information website for the orthodox Jewish community. It provides an easy way to find out all manner of information relevant to the Orthodox Jewish community. Whether you need a Kosher butcher, a band for your sons Barmitzvah a Kosher hotel or a cheap flight to Israel, this is a pretty good place to start. I've looked at many sites and this has one of the easiest to use directory search layouts of any site. Although it is primarily designed for the Orthodox Jewish community, it is pretty easy to find out just about any sort of service you may need in Barnet via its pages.

It also has important community information and a pretty decent news service. What was rather interesting was the following article about parking charges in Barnet. For many years Brian Coleman has received staunch support from the local Jewish community. It certainly appears that his parking charges policy have badly affected many small businesses and residents. The only conclusion I can draw from the article is that all sectors of the local community are heartily sick of Brian Coleman, his stealth taxes and his attacks on local businesses. Here's a link to the article on the site :-

http://www.frumpro.co.uk/Jewish/article_event/26/Events/Current%20Affairs/Official!%20Hendon%20Brent%20St%20more%20expensive%20than%20St%20Johns%20Wood%20High%20Street

I have reproduced the article in full here because it is relevant to everyone in Barnet. Mr Chaim shows that it is cheaper to park in the streets of central London than under Brian Colemans regime. I couldn't agree more with his conclusions. Politicians are elected to serve the local community, not to rob us.

Note : Brian Coleman receives a £50,000 taxpayer funded salary for his role on the GLA, which is a part time job. He is up for re-election to the post in May at the same time as the London Mayor elections. If you disagree with these outrageous parking chances, this election in May is your opportunity to send him and the council a clear message where it hurts.

-------------------------------------------------------

Official! Hendon Brent St more expensive than St Johns Wood High Street

Shocking realisation that its cheaper in Westminster

by Mr M Chaim

Written on 12/Dec/2011

Cheap Westminster Parking at £1.30 an hour

Expensive Hendon Parking at £2 an hour

Its a long, dark, cold winter, especially in Hendon. A quick drive to the local shops will now set you back £2 for 1 hour parking and payment by the time consuming Pay By Phone system. I thought all of London was like this but its not. Hendon is now more expensive than St Johns Wood High Street who charge £1.30 for the same amount of time.

Are you kidding me??? This is madness. A madness which has been rammed through the local Tory controlled council by some of the councillors.

We know the council needs money but surely not to charge more than Westminster.

We all know that the country needs money but taking even more from the already struggling car owners is going too far. £55 for a 50% reduced parking ticket now. Traffic Wardens everywhere. If parking was the issue you would have a 15/30/60 min grace period free whilst you pop into the shops like in Radlett. This is about money and taking it from those who need it most.

A quick google brings up numerous articles on the now infamous Tory Councillor Brian Coleman such as this one below which talks about how he has aboolished the pay and display parking and pushed up prices.

Brian Coleman abolishes pay and display

When I next go to the polls, I will ask myself the following questions:

1. Have things got better or worse

2. To what extent was this because of the local politicians.

Barnet Eye Special - Coppers with Choppers !

2012-01-09T10:13:00.001Z

The theme for today is policing in Barnet. I try not to criticise the police too much, because they have a tough job. Last year I had a chat with the chief of police and he agreed that Barnet was probably the safest and most pleasant Borough to be in charge of. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have its challenges and issues. In fact Barnet has challenges because it is probably the most economically diverse Borough in the country. The issues for policing the leafy mansions of Totteridge, where gated mansions and private security firms aim to deter burlgars are completely different to issues facing those living in Grahame Park. I was having a chat with a less esteemed member of the constabulary over a pint and he said a very interesting thing. If a millionaire in Totteridge gets burgled and his house gets ransacked, he expects the chief of police to personally conduct the investigation. If a single mum in Grahame park gets burgled and her house gets ransacked, often she's amazed if anyone actually shows up. Even more interesting was his view that criminality pervades every level of society, it's just that those at the bottom of the pile are not as proficient at it and get caught.

He made the point that the crack addict who robs his local off license has a high chance of getting caught sooner or later and will probably end up in prison. The company director engaging in corporate fraud will most likely never get caught. It isn't just such financial crimes where the expectation of justice is so different. When it comes to issues of spousal abuse and wider sexual crimes, this isn't just the domain of the poor in the borough. The difference is that women in the higher levels of society also feel "shamed" and so are less likely to report. The likely remedy is likely to be financial in the form of a divorce settlement or some cash to "shut up and go away".

Then there is the issue of drugs. Is substance abuse less or more common in the towers of Totteridge or the crack dens of Colindale? As a percentage of the population, it is probably pretty similar. Again, there is probably a disconnect between what justice one could expect if caught. A working class person caught with drugs, will probably just accept the punishment, whatever that may be. For the more well heeled members of society, a bevvy of lawyers and implausable excuses will be deployed. The more well heeled, the more it costs the police to persue even the most trivial of issue.

We have a bit of a schizophrenic attitude to the police. Half the time (when we get a speeding ticket) we moan that "they haven't got anything better to do, but if a speeding driver runs over our child we say "why don't they do something". I discussed the seeming obsession with traffic offenses with the police and they pointed out that you are far more likely to get injured or killed by a speeding driver than be murdered or maimed by a maniac.

We all feel safer when we see bobbies on the beat. They add a general feeling of security to us. Last night, as I played football at Powerleague in Pursley Road, we had a Police helicopter hovering nearby for about 10 minutes. I've no idea what they were up to, maybe monitoring traffic on the M1 or A1 after and incident? To me Coppers in choppers always make me feel a tad uneasy. When I watch Police, Camera, Action ! type documentaries and they show helicopters stalking villains with night vision, it reminds me that the big brother society is moving ever closer. Helicopters are expensive toys, which I've never been entirely convinced deliver value for money.

One of my friends who is a policeman (with old school attitudes to crime) tells me that the big problem is not the police at all. It is the fact that criminals are not locked up quickly enough, for long enough or regularly enough. He tells me that in Barnet, most burglaries are caused by no more than a dozen people. To lock each one up costs a fortune and then they are released, with the police knowing full well that there will be a spike in burglary cases, almost immediately. Of all the crimes, burglary is the one which people feel the justice system is most out of kilter on (with the exception of paedophiles). The police tell me they take the issue seriously and can, with justification, claim that it is not their fault if the courts don't lock people up for long enough.

Last year we had the sad spectacle of a murder in a brothel in Burnt Oak. For many Barnet residents, this seemed like a window to another world. I doubt that many of our local politicans have ever ventured out into Burnt Oak for a night out. The delights of a pint at the Bald Faced Stag on a Saturday night is a pleasure I cannot imagine Brian Coleman savouring. Sadly it is something I believe all of our politicians should do. Last year on the campaign trail in Mill Hill, I had a friendly chat with Tory Councillor John Hart. The subject of Burnt Oak and his colleagues came up. It may surprise you to hear me say it, but I think John is one of the very few Tories who recognise the value of Burnt Oak and its citizens. John told me he always buys his fruit and veg in Burnt Oak. He told me that the Tories should be courting the small traders who run the shops, the hard working Asian community and everyone else working to earn a crust. He told me that if Matthew Offord won in Hendon, it would be because he'd got out and about in Burnt Oak (at Johns suggestion apparently) and that the 2-300 votes he'd gained as a result of talking to people there may be the difference. As it turned out, Offord won by 106 votes. John was right and it "woz Burnt Oak which won it for Souperman".

It is interesting that in the midst of the riots last year, unlike many working class areas, Burnt Oak didn't see large scale rioting. I suspect that this is because there is a sense of community there. I believe that this is a lesson for the Metropolitan Police in all of this. It is easy to retreat to our bunkers when cash is tight. There is a tendency to return to the squad cars and the choppers to police the Borough. This would be a mistake. I believe that the opposite should be the policy. More engagement with the community and more efforts to get people to work with the police. As Matthew Offord won his seat in Burnt Oak, I'd like to see him start to champion the area and put himself at the forefront of efforts to build bridges between the community and the police. There is no easy solution to keeping Barnet safe. The most important thing is for the Police to ensure that ALL SECTIONS of society see the Police as part of the solution and not part of the problem. Last year I was talking to another friend who is a Met Police officer. We were discussing drug dealers. She said that she'd had to go and tell the mother of a 19 year old drug dealer that he'd been murdered. The mother was devastated, she felt it was her own fault for letting her son ever get involved in gangs and drugs. She said she wished she'd turned him in to the police, the first time she'd found him with drugs. Would you? Would I?

I hope to god it's a decision I never have to make and I never have to regret.

Monday Morning - Thought for the day

2012-01-08T22:37:00.000Z

I am in a reflective mood right now. Generally I find "thoughts for the day" irritating, pompous and twatterish, but I feel the need to share this. As regular readers will know, I've got a few challenges right now, so please allow me this indulgence.

We shouldn't let how easy or difficult a task may be form the basis of whether we do it. We should decide based on how important it is that the task is done.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They say that those the Gods wish to destroy, first they make mad. When I look at the actions of certain Barnet Councillors, it is pretty clear to me that the Gods clearly have had enough of them.

You may wonder what prompted this little bit of homespun chicken soup. Well I was contacted by a fellow blogger in Kensington and Chelsea who drew my attention to this little diatribe from our very own charmster, Brian Coleman -

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com/2011/05/toad-of-city-hall-coleman-abuses-hornet.html

He's rings on his fingers and bells on his toes, he will make friends wherever he goes

Have a good week !

Rog T Cancer blog - A message for all facebook users

2012-01-08T09:29:00.000Z

They should make a Barbie with no hair, so that every little girl that is fighting cancer feels beautiful!!

Put her in pink with a head scarf, and name her HOPE. Give the proceeds from the sales to cancer research. Post this on your facebook account if you agree. I bet you 99% of you won't!

The king of rock and roll is 77 today

2012-01-08T09:25:00.001Z

Today is Elvis Presley's 77th birthday. Elvis is the iconic performer of the 20th century. He redefined what a singer was and what performance was. As a rock and roll guitarist and a keen rock and roll historian, I could write a million words about what he was, what he achieved and how good he was. However, there is no need. Just check this video out

I thought long and hard about what clip to post here. I chose this one, because the band is stripped down, the footage is grainy and the sound ain't great. Despite all of that, you still get the feeling you are watching something special. Happy Birthday Elvis. I hope it's a great party up in the sky for you tonight !

What exactly are Barnet spending this £374,000 on?

2012-01-07T10:59:00.000Z

Barnet Council are at it again. They are planning to spend £374,000 of our money, to buy a load of gear for a play scheme to put into storage. Once they've bought it, they will spend another £10,000 per annum on storing it. You can read the full sorry story on the council website here - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10913 -

I've loaded it up onto Scribd and here it is in it's full glory.
Youth Spending

You may wonder how Barnet Council can be so profligately wasting our money in this time of cuts. The answer is simple. They are so disorganised that they have been unable to organise a proper use of the money, that if they don't spend it by March they'll lose it. The tragedy of this is that there are all sorts of
local youth groups which would hugely benefit from some of this cash.

My son belongs to a local scouts group, which did a bagpacking exercise at Waitrose in Mill Hill before Xmas. They raised £2,000 towards replacing the troop's camping gear, much of which was over 30 years old, smelly and falling apart. Why on earth didn't the council contact such groups and ask if they needed some equipment. There are all manner of youth groups.

As it is, they are going to buy over 1/3rd of a million quids worth of equipment and store it. This is absolutely criminal.

The financial tale of woe is in section 5. It says :-

5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Staffing
The proposal set out in this DPR will not have any impact on staffing levels within
the Youth Support Service. Oversight of the equipment will be maintained by the
Youth Support Service.
5.2 Finance
The Playbuilder’s funding has been allocated to LA’s to develop and provide
activities for children and their families. We propose to use the £374,000 capital
funding to purchase equipment which will support community groups in delivering
Positive Activities. This funding must be spent by 31st March 2011
5.3 Property
Equipment will be the property of LBB and stored at existing Youth Support Service
or provider/partner property.
5.4 Sustainability
Purchasing this pool of equipment will support a more sustainable approach to
Positive Activities. By Barnet supplying high quality equipment and relevant
training, the cost to the third sector in establishing engaging and innovative
programmes will greatly reduce. Any hiring charges made to groups will support
ongoing maintenance costs. Ongoing running costs (c£10k) will be met out of the
Positive Activities Budget.

They give the game away in section 8.

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
8.1 The service has developed the ability to reach large numbers of young people
through a range of engagement methods including positive activities. However, the
Youth Support Service currently has very few resources that can be loaned out to
groups within Barnet. By making available a central pool of resources it will enable
the service to target needs within the community and to quality assure the activities,
ensuring agreed standards are met.
8.2 The Local Authority has been working with third sector partners to identify
appropriate equipment that will best enable them to meet the needs of children and
young people. This includes equipment that will support the delivery of activities
such as tools, sports and media resources to reduce economic disadvantage by
increasing young people’s knowledge, skills and increasing employability.
8.3 Equipment will be allocated and agreed by the Positive Activities Steering Group.
The Positive Activities steering group brings together a range of partners such as
the police, schools and the voluntary sector to share information and data to ensure
that we focus the resources at targeted groups.
8.4 The Youth Support Service is committed to supporting capacity building within the
third sector. As well as making available a central pool of equipment it will deliver a
training programme to support the use of the equipment, facilitate the Positive
Activities steering group, and identify, train and support a group of young people to
become ambassadors for Positive Activities across the borough. This group have
already supported in identifying relevant equipment to be purchased.

I've highlighted section 8.3 in red. The reason? Well it is clear they are buying all of this equipment before they actually know what people need. In other words, they are trying to second guess what all of the diverse groups in Barnet may actually need. They will buy the gear and store it. We could have the ridiculous situation where Barnet Council have spent £374,000 on such equipment. They could then contact a group like Edgware Scouts and say "We've got £374,000 worth of equipment for young people, can we help you?" The Scouts would then say "Yes, we need tents for 20 boys for our camps" and Barnet would say "Oh sorry, we didn't buy any of them".

What is most bizarre is that Barnet is a Tory regime. One of the big criticisms the West always aimed at the "planned economies" of the Soviet Bloc is that a bureaucrat would draw up a "masterplan" for producing items for the economy without taking into account what the economy actually needed. This resulted in tractors being built and allocated for areas where there were no farms and beach chairs being built for areas that there were no beaches in. This blog has charged Barnet Council with being Stalinist on a few occasions. We hadn't realised that the Stalinism had spread to procurement in this way.

The tragedy is that there are so many groups who could have spent the cash on something really useful, yet the stuff will all be put in storage. Even worse, they will have to employ a team of bureaucrats to decide how it will eventually be allocated. Needless to say that the "positive action steering group" mentioned in section 8.4 will all be on nice fat salaries, which you my friend will be paying.

Sadly this £374,000 seems to be more about jobs for the boys than toys for the children. Needless to say, all of this was in a delegated powers report, that you'd never have seen if it hadn't been for the bloggers of Barnet.

Barnet Parking Wardens - The shape of things to come

2012-01-06T10:19:00.000Z

Barnet is outsourcing Parking to a company called NSL.What sort of company are they? I've no idea, I'm not an expert eye on parking enforcement companies. What I do know is that one of their former employees in Westminster described them as "Ali Baba And The 40 Thieves". I am endebted to todays Daily Express - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/293808/Warden-sacked-for-being-fair - for exposing exactly what we can expect. Here is another quote from the article:-

Mr Berkani, who worked in west London for Kensington and Chelsea Council’s parking firm NSL, says bosses cited one colleague as an “excellent example” for issuing 35 tickets, known as Penalty Charge Notices, in a single shift, and a manager said it was “good revenue for the council and that everyone should generate the same revenue as him”.

At a recent council meeting, Barnet Traffic supremo and Tory GLA candidate hailed this outsourcing as a core Conservative policy. Here is a video clip of Coleman explaining how marvellous such enforcement will be for Barnet motorists and taxpayers.

In the next clip, you have the head of parking, John McArdle describing how the contract will work.

Now you may agree with Councillor Coleman that having a company such as NSL issuing parking tickets in such a manner is a great idea. When I read the following quote from Mr Berkani in the Daily Express, I took a rather different view.

Mr Berkani, 45, told a London Employment Tribunal: “It soon became clear that it was commonly accepted amongst my work colleagues that the whole operation of civil parking enforcement was dishonest and mainly designed to extract as much cash as possible, via both fair means or foul, from the motoring public.

“I have seen during the course of my employment… things which I would never imagined could exist in a country like England, which I have always understood and believed upheld and applied the law in a fair, open and even-handed manner.”

Targets for the number of tickets to issue per shift were “impossible to achieve in an entirely legal and honest manner,” he said.

I trust that when it comes to May and you get the chance to pass your verdict on Brian Coleman's bid for re-election to his £50,000 a year part time job at the GLA, you remember what you are voting for and what Mr Coleman considers core Conservative policies to be.

Guest Blog – Safeguarding Overview & Scrutiny Committee

2012-01-05T11:16:00.000Z

By Julia Hines

Barnet Council kick off the New Year with a meeting of theSafeguarding Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The papers are here:

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?meetingid=6826

And they start the meeting withthe news that Barnet’s Children’s Safeguarding Service has been recognised withan award. Congratulations are due; Barnet should feel really proud of this.

I remain critical of the factthat there was no safeguarding investigation into events at Barbara LangstoneHouse when MetPro/ Evolution were running security there, given that thecompany was committing a criminal offence by operating without a licence, andthat crime reports fell after they were replaced, but that does not mean thatother good work should not be recognised.

Moving on.

Looking down the meeting agendayou will see an item on the Fairer Contributions Policy. The Council receivesabout 17% of its income from Council Tax, about 16% from fines and charges andthe rest essentially from central government. The amount received from centralgovernment is, as everyone knows, being cut. Barnet has a policy of keepingCouncil Tax unchanged and increasing the income from fines & charges –including parking charges, planning application charges, rental for councilbuildings like scout huts, and charges for social care. This is partly becauseof central government policy, which rewards them for this, but it does lead towhat are effectively stealth taxes.

Barnet Adult Social Services isbeing cut by 26% over 4 years. They aredealing with this in two ways. Firstly they are cutting their contracts to thevoluntary sector, who deliver a significant part of their frontline services,by 33% in two years, despite the Best Value Statutory Guidance from centralgovernment which mandates that cuts should not be passed on disproportionatelyto the voluntary sector. They are making some cuts in-house. And they areincreasing their income from fines and charges. This is the FairerContributions Policy.

Older people and those withdisabilities have always been subject to a financial assessment and, if theyhave savings, been expected to pay for, or contribute to, their own care. Peoplewith mild or moderate needs have not received direct financial support from theCouncil for some time, although there are some services for them provided orsubsidised by contract funding with Barnet.

The report to the Safeguarding O& S Committee states that, whereas under the old assessment 33% made afinancial contribution to their care, under the new assessment 59% do. Of those44% receive no financial support at all for their care now.

Suddenly the “Fairer” bit of theFairer Contributions Policy sounds like Orwellian double-speak.

Barnet is not the only localauthority acting this way

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/28/care-elderly-crisis-charity-warns

There is evidence of olderpeople reducing their attendance at day care services for dementia since thepolicy was introduced. Day care is charged at £38 a day excluding transport costs,so this is not surprising to me. Homecare costs about £15 ph if you need helpwith personal care like washing, dressing, cooking or shopping.

Barnet’s stated view is that ifpeople are not prepared to pay for their care, they obviously do not need it. Marketforces at work. I do not think this is an accurate analysis, or one that issophisticated enough. It seems to me that it is the equivalent of saying thatthe 800 older people who die each winter from hypothermia just did not want tobe warm.

The estimated average cost ofcare needed by the Council’s own assessment, for people who get no financialsupport, is £84/ week and for those who have to make a contribution it is abouthalf that. How many of us could affordthat? How many of us expect to be able to afford that when we are pensioners. Letus not forget that this is an average; many people will need to spend much morethan this to get the minimum care the Council’s own assessment says they need.

Clearly there do need to be cutsto Barnet spending. But scandals like MetPro & RM Countryside show thatthere may well be “low-hanging” fruit in terms of savings to be made beforepushing the cuts onto the most vulnerable people in Barnet. Older and disabledpeople may not have the voice to speak out in the way that Barnet CPZ Actiondo, or the local traders terrified about losing their businesses because ofcashless parking. That does not mean they do not have a case.

In the end, does this approachsave taxpayers’ money?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079593/Number-elderly-taken-A-E-soars-1-2m-figures-reveal.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

If older people need care butcannot afford it they will probably get ill. And that will probably beexpensive. For taxpayers.

Social care is important andexpensive. In the longer term the Government will need to address the thornyissues of the Dilnot report. To listen to a sensible opinion on this from JohnRedwood, amongst others, listen here

http://boos.audioboo.fm/attachments/1993386/social-care-policy-cannot-go-on-like-this.mp3?audio_clip_id=610011

Perhaps residents need toconsider whether they are comfortable with the fairness of keeping Council Taxunchanged, spending vast amounts on consultants, and indirectly taxing peoplewho need care most.

I am a local resident and chair of Age UK Barnet. This is avoluntary position. This blog represents my personal view.

Age UK Barnet receives contract funding from the Council. You canread about Age UK Barnet here:

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/barnet/

PS There is a donate button in the top right corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julia Hines is a Barnet Eye reader. Guest blogs are always welcome. Please submit using the email link in the side bar.