Showing posts with label Barnet Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barnet Council. Show all posts

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Guest Blog - Exposing the Your Choice Barnet myths, lies and distortions by John Sullivan



By John Sullivan, 
 
Hi it's me again on the same topic I have been writing guest blogs on for so long, the  "Campaign Against Destruction of Disability Services " in Barnet " Caddss"  for short, and the need to return adult services back in-house and rescue  the disabled people of Barnet from the incompetence of the Local Authority Trading Company called Your Choice Barnet ( YCB ), who in conjunction with our local councillor Rajput and 150k per annum LBB officer Kate Kennally, are in a race to the bottom in the quality of care and therefore quality of life of disabled people and those with a disability in Barnet.

On March 1st of this year YCB launched a new way forward that leads to the bottom of the gutter in quality of care for disabled people, the directors and Kate Kennally the 150 k plus officer that is supposed to care for disabled people support this race to the bottom as does, I presume, the forever silent councillor Rajput.  This way forward is borne not of a desire to improve the quality of life of service users, but to get out of debt, debt that they have accumulated over just one year of trading, based on a business plan that was an accident waiting to happen. Now there rescue plan launched on March 1st has about as much chance of success as the first failed car crash of a business plan, yet they press on regardless. Over more than 40 years in-house services never got into debt never had to replace skilled staff  with any unskilled Tom Dick or Harriet agency workers, so why after promising they would bring service back in house if the business plan failed are they refusing to do so, and launching a plan B instead without  meaningful consultation with interested parties, no doubt with their fingers and toes firmly crossed.

I along with two other families instructed solicitors to challenge the implementation of this March 1st document because we parents carers and service users had not been consulted and there was no intention to consult with us. In order to stop the legal action proceeding to judicial review YCB undertook to consult with parents carers and service users, sadly they have now reneged on that promise and are refusing to consult on the main issue which is the restructuring of Staff, because the quality of the care is determined by the quality and skills of the staff and nothing else. Our concerns were demonstrated at information meetings arranged by YCB that they have now conveniently re-named consultations. We are concerned with the demolition of staff morale, staff working conditions, the removal of skilled workers  being replaced by unskilled agency workers , and the reduction in staff numbers, yet they refuse to consult with us about changes to the staffing restructure. We are supposed to take no interest in what Tom Dick or Harriet looks after our children and wards, we are told that replacing long term skilled staff with part time unskilled agency workers will have no impact on services, a claim that is already being seen to have no foundation in fact.
I am a founder member of CADDSS and as a consequence I approached my fellow CADDSS members and suggested that we consider instructing a professional person to review this March 1st disaster waiting to happen, in order that we could get a balanced and professional overview of YCB from its launch  to today. As a consequence we instructed Professor Dexter Whitfield a specialist in this field to review the March 1st proposals, and as he had undertaken a review of the original business model and condemned it and has been proven absolutely correct, we felt he was the right man for the job.

That review has now been completed and I attach it in the hope you will take the time to read it, and when you read it try to put yourself in the shoes of the parents and family carers of the service users and ask yourself a couple of questions. 1, How can the replacement of skilled staff with unskilled agency workers not have an impact on the quality of the service and therefore quality of life of service users, ( let me remind you Winterbourne View occurred because they went down the rush to the bottom standard of care and quality with unskilled staff to provide services on the cheap ) . 2, How can that impact on service users not have anything to do with the family carers or the service users, how can that possibly be none of our business. We have a bunch of failed directors who have made a complete car crash of the first business model, demanding that they know best and plan B the  March 1st document is the answer which  I hasten to add it is not . 3, If it were your loved one or family member would you place your faith or trust in these known failed directors without being afforded the opportunity to question them in an open and transparent forum. 4, If you were a parent or a family carer and your family member was involved , would you expect to be consulted on staff changes , because at the risk of repeating myself, the reality is and there is no question about it, the quality of care for these vulnerable folk is dependent solely on the quality and skills of the staff and nothing else.
I have many other questions I could go on forever but let me ask you this simple question, If what is proposed and is currently being implemented by YCB/LBB is in the interests as they claim of service users , parents and family carers, why are they refusing to meaningfully consult with us in an open and transparent way, which leads to me to the question what are they trying to hide.
Please read the CADDSS review by Professor Whitfield http://barnetalliance.org/2013/07/21/the-way-out-of-financial-crisis

I ask you to do this before the LBB lie machine goes into overdrive and condemns every person  supporting bringing adult services back in-house to ensure the safety and quality of life of service users parents and carers, who they will brand  left wing loonies that are just trying to stir up trouble with no justification which is completely untrue.

This balanced report by Professor Whitfield nips that lie machine in the bud, it provides a myriad of reasons why YCB has failed and will continue to fail, and affords substantial reasoning for bringing adult services back in-house both financial and moral reasons. When you have read it and if you agree we have genuine cause for concern, then please offer us your support by contacting CADDSS and telling us what you think and feel. cadds1@gmail.com

My final question is , if you were in my place with a nearly fifty year old daughter with Down's Syndrome and the  Grim Reaper hanging his axe over your head, would you like me be concerned to know " what will happen to her when I die ", that is all I am asking " what will happen to her when I die ", and apparently according to YCB/LBB that is none of my business, and I have no right to be meaningfully consulted in an open forum where all interested parties are invited, I repeat  what worries me the most is why will they not meaningfully consult, what is it they are hiding from us.

What is happening now whist I am alive to protect my daughter is bad enough in this democracy free zone more commonly known as Broken Barnet, that avoids meaningful consultation as if it were a strain of leprosy. But the question remains  nagging in my brain twisting my mind destroying my peace of mind " what will happen to her when I die ", not I would suggest an unreasonable question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye.

Sunday, 27 May 2012

A quick lesson in what is wrong with Barnet Council

If you want to know why Barnet Council is such an inefficient organisation, you really do not need to look very far at all. Simply go to the page where you can look at the DPR's ( decisions made by Council officials without debate in the council chamber and pick any one you like. The page is here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?bcr=1
I thought I'd pick the most boring sounding one as possible to prove the point. The second last one is entitled "Green sweeping sacks". Can any council decision about such a mundane task really give any clue as to how inefficient Barnet Council really is? Here is the link to the document :-
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s4128/1683%20-%20Green%20Sweeping%20Sacks.pdf

And here is what is contained, followed by my analysis.
1683 - Green Sweeping Sacks

Page one is a list of senior council officials who signed off the contract.
They are
1.Jeremy Williams
2.Paul Frost
3. Jayne Fitzgerald
4. Lesley Meeks
5. Stephen Stewart
6. Andrew Nathan
7. Declan Hoare
The report was prepared by Dave Ward, street cleansing manager and signed off by Declan Hoare, who earns £86,823 as assistant Director of Environment, regeneration and planning. In effect, one person wrote a report that said that a company called BPI produced Green recyling sacks for 3.895p each and "company B" wanted to charge 4.3p per bag. The council will be spending £55,000 per annum. That is approximately 1.45 million green bags a year. Now you may think that a contract costing £55,000 probably needs a bit of scrutiny. I wouldn't argue. I would however argue that a contract to buy bin bags does not need "clearance" from an equalities and diversity officer. There are situations where this is right and proper, but buying bin bags? Does it need clearance from the "policies and partnerships" team and the "strategic procurement" clearance from a different person? Surely they need a procurement team who have a set of equalities guidelines, understand the policies and partnerships and know the policy on "strategic procurement". It is clear that there is a whole layer of bureaucracy in Barnet all doing the same thing.

So seven people have read the report, including an assistant director. These Bin bags must have gone through a rigorous process of scrutiny to be bought, you would think? Well actually, no. The legal department said
6.1 This is one of a number of Contracts within EPR, and certain other Directorates,where, for whatever reason, formal contract documentation was not finalised as it should have been. Based on what is shown in this Report, the Procurement Process has been competitive and a VFM test will be satisfied by the way it has been conducted.

6.2 It is perfectly possible to produce and regularise, Terms and Conditions and a Scope leading to an effective, manageable, legally correct Contract and Legal Services are happy to accept such instruction and are resourced to ensure such is put into place as swiftly as practical.
So in other words, seven different people have read the report, but there is no proper contract to spend £55,000. I suppose I wouldn't have been minded to highlight this ineffeciency if they'd actually managed to cobble together a contract, but nope. Even worse, the legal team said they be perfectly happy to be instructed to put one together to protect the taxpayer from the effects of the deal going belly up.

So it appears that the council are quite happy to do business in this way. Have half a dozen officers scrutinise the report, legal point out that no contract exists, say that they can draw one up, but the whole thing gets signed off anyway.One has to ask the question why Barnet Council don't simply have a contract template for all such deals that could have the companies name imprinted and the amounts, with a few specifics amended to reflect the nature of the deal.

Now you may think that all of this is not important. What could possibly go wrong buying a stack of bin bags. There are a long list of scandals, all of which cost the taxpayer a fortune, precisely because Barnet Council either had no contract or a badly drawn up one. Doing the basics is called good practise. It seems that even though they've screwed up time and time again, they haven't learned anything.

I suppose it is worth noting that this falls under the Environment portfolio at Barnet Council. Brian Coleman was recently sacked from this job. I genuinely hope that his replacement, Dean Cohen gets to grips with this issue and tells his staff, in no uncertain terms, that this sort of thing is not good enough. When will Barnet Council wake up to the fact that good practise is in everyones best interests.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Rams gets it wrong (again)

Councillor Robert Rams (AKA Little Bobby Sheepsjacksie) has a very interesting approach to blogging. He is under the impression that his cohorts of admirers are so keen to hang on his every word that when he can't be bothered to actually write a blog, their insatiable lust for his blatherings can be met by simply reprinting Barnet Council press releases. The latest example of this was his May 10th "Blog" -

http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/residents-given-the-chance-to-lend-a-hand/

This details the success of the scheme to allow Barnet residents the opportunity to volunteer in local libraries. The council tell us that 35 people have offered their services and so far 10 have been engaged to help. What Bobby doesn't mention are the hundreds of people who have turned up every week to support Friern Barnet Peoples library and the campaign to reopen the library shut by Rams.

There are many aspects of Rams behaviour I find rather offensive, but the crass hypocrisy of his treatment of the campaigners for the Friern hub tops the lot. Rams strung them along for nearly a year, pretending he was listening to their plans to develop a community hub, with volunteers working with trained librarians to widen the services offered at Friern Library and making the site a cost effective community resource. Imagine the anger these public spirited citizens felt when they were told that Barnet Council and Robert Rams never had any intention of keeping the library running. They had spent months on end working on proposals, only to be told they never had a chance of success.

Rams states in the press release :-
Becoming a library volunteer is a fantastic opportunity for people to make a contribution to the wider community by giving up a little of their time
What would you say to someone who got you to waste months of your life, believing you were being community spirited, only to find that Rams (who gets a generous allowance paid by your tax for his time) has completely mislead you?

When the #SaveFBL campaign was originally set up, it was suggested that it would be better if I did not get involved, despite me starting the campaign to protect Barnet's libraries. The campaign felt a more conciliatory approach towards Robert Rams and the Conservative administration would have a better chance of saving the library. As the library was not on my patch and the campaign was well supported and organised, I was quite happy to step aside. The campaign did some excellent work, producing viable proposals. Last year, one of the campaigners gave me a ticking off, saying "You should try harder to work with the Council, they have been very helpful. Robert Rams is not as unreasonable as you make out". Last week, I asked the same person if they still held that view. Lets just say that their response is unprintable.

The one thing Robert Rams has been completely honest about is what sort of a character he really is. Back in 2009, his old boss at Barnet Council was Mike Freer. Freer described myself and David Miller (AKA Don't Call Me Dave) as One Handed Bloggers in an interview. When asked to explain what the term meant he explained "they write the about me with one hand and you can imagine what they are doing with the other hand". Interestingly Robert Rams recently wrote  a blog entitled "I'm a One Handed Blogger" - http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/im-a-one-handed-blogger/ - a sentiment many in Barnet will agree with. One wonders if there is a subconscious insight into his view of community minded volunteers, who give up their time for free, hidden in the email address for people who want to volunteer - lendahand@barnet.gov.uk .

I am all for volunteering and giving up spare time. I do a shift every week at a drop in centre for the homeless. I hope that the staff at our libraries get plenty of volunteers to assist them and expand services (not replace them). For more information on becoming a library volunteer visit www.barnet.gov.uk/volunteer or call Hannah Richens on 020 8359 7779.

Please don't let Rams put you off.

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Open letter to Richard Cornelius and Barnet councillors: time to get a grip on parking!

Brian Coleman - Parking Stealth tax supemo
The 'Famous Five' bloggers of Barnet yesterday sent a joint letter to the Leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius and all of the other Barnet Councillors. As a signatory we are asking our local Conservative Council and all of our councillors to do what they were elected to do and look after the interests of residents and local businesses. The document detailing the paring mayhem in Barnet, caused by Brian Colemans parking stealth tax has been laid bare. He is clearly not up to the job. It is time for him to be sacked and replaced by someone who is not completely out of touch with reality. 


It beggars belief that a supposedly Conservative Council can be so anti business, anti car driver and anti local resident. Whilst David Cameron speaks of less regulation and business friendly policies, Brian Coleman, the GLA Car tax and regulation rampage, causing irrepairable damage to business, local communities and the environment. 


I spoke to one specialist shopkeeper in Barnet who is now considering relocating to Boreham Wood in Hertfordshire, as most of his customers are not Barnet residents, are not registered to pay by phone and so are refusing to use his business. This is being repeated all over Barnet. It beggars belief that a Conservative administration, which has been made fully aware of the problem, is still burying its head in the sand.


This is a major test of the Leadership of Richard Cornelius. It is clear that Brian Colemans park and tax policies are an abject failure. How will he respond?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Leader and Barnet Councillors,

On 20th March a document was placed upon the Barnet Council website entitled - Bittacy Hill_Introduction_of_Waiting_Restrictions - (
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11110).

This document details the mayhem caused by the abolition of free bays in Controlled Parking Zones as part of Councillor Brian Coleman's parking policies.

This document details how the Barnet Police have had their time wasted, congestion has been caused, buses have been delayed, residents inconvenienced, and people's safety has been endangered. In short, it is the most damning indictment of a Council policy possible.
The background information section of this document says:


8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.1 In June 2011 the Council completed a scheme whereby all ‘Free’ parking bays were converted to permit holder or paid for parking bays in the borough’s Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). As a result of the changes made to the Mill Hill East CPZ, a proportionate level of displaced parking is occurring on both sides of Bittacy Hill on the outskirts of the CPZ boundary.

8.2 The council has been contacted by roads users and local residents, complaining of the congestion being caused as through vehicles are being obstructed by the displaced parking.

8.3 London Buses have reported to the council that the displaced parking is obscuring sightlines and obstructing through traffic, preventing their buses from gaining suitable access through the road, resulting in the delay of their services. They also stated that this situation has caused major congestion in both directions on Bittacy Hill and therefore, have had to temporarily put some of their buses on diversion.

8.4 In addition, the Police have also expressed concerns regarding this location, and have requested for waiting restrictions to be introduced.

8.5 Following investigations including site observations, Officers concluded that major congestion occurs on the hill at this location, and in order to keep traffic moving through the borough considered that the provision of waiting restrictions would be appropriate given the obstructive parking which is taking place.

8.6 Therefore, proposals to introduce lengths of ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions on certain lengths of Bittacy Hill including around its junctions with Bittacy Close and Engle Park, were designed in order to deter obstructive parking and improve traffic flow, sightlines and safety.

8.7 In anticipation of the statutory consultation, Mill Hill Ward Members were consulted on the proposals with all advising of their agreement and support of the measures for the area. In particular, Councillors Khatri and Hart stated that they had also received complaints on this matter or have experienced problems themselves. Councillor Hart did raise the issue that more restrictions may cause more problems to the wider area as did Councillor Schama.

8.8 However, Officers consider that any displaced parking that may occur as a result of the introduction of the restrictions can be absorbed into the local network with minimal impact.

8.9 In mid August it was necessary to introduce emergency temporary waiting restrictions on the eastern side of Bittacy Hill, as nearby Devonshire Road was closed to allow for essential maintenance works to take place, which resulted in an increased traffic flow on Bittacy Hill that exasperated the problems occurring at the location.

8.9 Traffic cones were placed on street to indicate the temporary waiting restrictions, and the location was monitored by Officers. Observations showed that displaced parking was minimal and what did occur had little impact on the area. It was concluded that the removal of the parked vehicles at this location was very effective in relieving the congestion normally experienced.

8.10 Additional supporting evidence underlining the concern via photographs showing buses being obstructed and the congestion experienced were sent to the council and a petition signed by all residents of Bittacy Close was also submitted, asking for waiting restrictions to be implemented at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.

8.14 Councillor Khatri and Councillor Hart have since also reaffirmed their views and support for the proposals. In particular, they advised of their concerns regarding safety being an issue at this location. Councillor Hart also re-iterated his concerns for residents of Bittacy Close, who suffer from obstruction at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.



Councillor Brian Coleman ignored all wise counsel in order to introduce these policies. He ignored all efforts to mitigate the problems caused.As a result, we have a situation where ever more parking restrictions will be required to fix a problem that did not previously exist.
To what end? To inconvenience and overcharge local residents.

It is time for Barnet Council to have an urgent rethink. It is time to reinstate free bays, cut parking charges on Barnet’s high streets, and, most of all, it is time to put someone in charge of parking who is competent.

There is no way that Barnet Council can pretend that Coleman’s parking policies are anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Your own document says so in black and white.

Signed:

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Councillor Robert Rams - "I have built an imaginary library"

A big round of applause for Councillor Robert. He's built a new library for the people of Barnet. Hooray you may say. Where is it, you may ask? Well here's the really amazing thing. It is in his brain !

Wow, I hear you say. Clever little Bobby. He's found the one place in Barnet where there is plenty of empty and unused space. Maybe he could build a couple of new schools there, whilst he's at it. I'd quite like a new pub as well. Now you are probably thinking "What on Earth is the Barnet Eye on about?". Well good old Robert posted a most extraordinary post on Twitter this morning. It said :-


“: Libraries facing 'bleak future' ” Not in Barnet, More spent on books, new libs built, all open longer
https://twitter.com/#!/CllrRobertRams/status/179482209479168000


I'm intrigued to visit all of these new libraries. It's funny because the only news I'm aware of on the Library front is the closure of Friern Barnet Library. Maybe I just lack imagination !

Monday, 30 January 2012

Andrew Dismore give Brian Coleman a parking ticket !

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 28th 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.

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

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

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".

Monday, 2 January 2012

Wishing all of my readers a happy 2012

May I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy 2012. Apologies for the lateness of this greeting. I took the family away to Centreparks for New Year in Sherwood Forest. Sadly for me, the internet on site was not what I expected, so I had an enforced break from blogging. I must say that it was nice to have a break from it and hoped you hadn't missed it too much.

My top 10 predictions for 2012.

1. The OneBarnet project to be rebranded by the end of the year.
2. cBrian Coleman to lose the GLA seat in May (don't know whether to a Tory or Labour Candidate!)
3. Another Tory leadership contest this year in Barnet
4. Barnet Council to feature in a major documentary scandal on national television
5. Ed Milliband to be replaced as Labour Leader
6. 9 Premiership managers to be sacked this year
7. Arsenal to win nothing again
8. Barnet FC to stay in League 2
9. At least 10 shops in Mill Hill Broadway to close/ change hands
10. At least 3 major scandals to hit Barnet Council and make NATIONAL news between now and the end of the year.

Now I'll let you in on a little secret. Some of the above are pure guesses by me, using my psychic powers. Some are flavoured by a little bit of insider knowledge and some are dead certs. At the end of the year, I'll give a round up and we'll see just how close to the mark I was.

I have a pretty good track record of predictions - In this blog in 2009 (when the Tories were streets ahead in the polls and Gordon Brown was clearly a millstone to sink labour) I predicted - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-britain-will-join-euro-within-5.html -

I predicted

Jan 2010 - Britain begins a borrowing lead recovery
May 2010 - Tories would not get a majority
June 2010 - Tories pass vicious austerity budget
September 2010 - Tory cuts start to bite
May 2011 - Boris Johnson distances himself from Cameron
September 2011 - Mass demonstrations as Tory cuts bite deeper. Nurses and teachers pay frozen. The economy stagnates.

Of course I got a few things wrong in there as well, but at the time everyone with half a brain assumed Cameron would romp home to a massive majority. I predicted that George Osborne's incompetence would cause the economy to unravel. What I didn't for one second consider was that the Lib Dems would prop him up and moderate the worst excesses of right wing bonkers thinking.

I suspect that the coalition deal has saved Osborne's bacon (thus far). If he'd made the cuts that he'd liked to have, with a massive Tory majority, I think the economy would already be over the cliff, rather than teetering on the edge. Having some vaguely sane people such as Vince Cable around to point out the more bleeding obvious flaws in Osbornes strategy and ideology has probably spared us a complete calamity. I know that many on the left hate the Lib Dems for propping up the Tories, I am none to pleased myself. As far as I'm concerned, the fault is with Labour for not getting rid of Gordon Brown, when it was clear he was useless and leading them to defeat. The whole party prostituted itself for his vanity and landed us in the calamitous situation we find ourselves in. They have made matters worse by choosing another leader who is totally unable to connect with the general public and who seems more interested in beating up working people defending their livelyhoods than he does taking the fight to the Tories. He should have backed the recent strikes to the hilt and pointed out that the reason the Tory leadership doesn't understand strikers is because they are all posh boy millionaires, who have no concept of what it is like to worry how you will pay the bills, if you are a low income family.

The Labour Party should be engaging with the radical and left leaning members of the Lib Dems to try and split the coalition, rather than seeing the coalition as the chance to polish off an annoying third party that is a pain in the arse. The Labour Party is under a very strange misapprehension that all of the Lib Dem supporters would vote Labour if the Lib Dems disappeared. This is simply not true. I suspect that what would actually happen is that we'd get a slim Tory majority on the split of seats. Labour should make it a 100% priority to ensure that there is non Tory/Lib Dem pact going into the next election.

I happen to believe that the biggest winner from the coalition is David Cameron. His cabinet is of a far higher calibre than it would have been with an outright Tory victory. I think he's what used to be called a "wet" (ie a Liberal Tory). He knew Osborne was a basket case, but didn't have a clue how to control him. The Lib Dems give him that power (to a degree). He also has a few people in the cabinet to calm the more insane members of his team down, when they start spouting nonsense. I've been told (and I don't know if it's true or not), that whenever the more Europhobic Tory cabinet members start going off on one, Vince Cable gives them a long, tedious lecture on the ways in which the EU benefits the UK economy. As they are all as thick as S*** and do not understand economics (Cable is a career economist, having worked for Shell) they have no choice but to back down, in the face of superior intellect.

Sadly, I think that we are all going to suffer the consequences of a shotgun wedding government, with a bipolar economic strategy. Unless Labour can get it's act together, elect an effective leader and get out on the streets campaigning side by side with it's natural supporters, we are faced with the unenviable choice of the coalition or a full blown Tory government, which to me is like a choice between cancer and the flu (which I am lucky enough to have both of right now!).

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

The Barnet Eye writes to all Barnet Councillors asking for a meeting to explain the ongoing Metpro scandal

Every Barnet Councillor was sent this email today concerning the issues related to the onging Metpro Scandal. We will keep you posted as to what response we get.  Quite coincidentally, Mr Mustard reports that Barnet Council have been awarded the title of Legal Bullies of the Year by Private Eye magazine. 
The article mentions the Metpro scandal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Barnet Councillor,
 
Please see FOI response below from Barnet Council. The facts of this could not be clearer. Metpro were operating without a contract, had gone through no procurement process, were charging over the top rates and were providing services which were totally unnecessary. They were paid over £1.4 million.
 
There are many questions still unresolved, more than 9 months after the scandal was first uncovered and following the audit of the "contract".  The recent disclosures about RM Countrysides agreement shows that this was not a one off. In these times of financial difficulty, it is clear that the taxpayer cannot afford to be taken for a ride like this. I call on you all to demand an emergency council meeting ASAP and to get answers to the following questions.
 
1.  How many other "non contracts" such as the Metpro arrangement are still operating within Barnet Council?
 
2. How many services are Barnet Council paying for, which are totally unneccessary?
 
3. Who within Barnet Council is authorised to allow such agreements to exist and what controls are in place to monitor and regulate them?
 
4. Where such arrangements are in place, what evidence is there that Barnet Council are receiving "best value"?
 
5. Who was responsible for agreeing the unnecessary work carried out by Metpro? What other work have they authorised?
 
6. Given that Barnet Council have now admitted that an unlicensed and unregulated company was operating without contract and supplying unnecessary services, surely the Corporate Anti Fraud Team or the Police should be invited to investigate the arrangement, to assess whether there was criminal activity?
 
The job of Councillors is to oversee the executive and ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is crystal clear from the Metpro fiasco that this has not happened in Barnet. The audit report was a first step in this process, but it seems that there are still issues being uncovered. With the recent issue of RM Countryside emerging, it is time for a full council debate on the subject. I would suggest that the CEO Nick Walkley and the Borough Solicitor Jeff Lustig should be asked to account for themselves as both the business process and the legal aspects of the Metpro arrangements were found to be sadly wanting.
 
This issue cannot be ignored.
 
Finally may I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
 
Regards

Roger M Tichborne
 
PS. May I take this opportunity to remind you that it is the last day to respond to the Barnet Eye survey of councillors. For each returned survey, I will be donating £5 to the Mayors Charity. I will be publishing a full report on the survey including the names of all councillors who couldn't be bothered to respond and help the Mayor raise money for charity.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

Adult Social Care in Barnet - A guest blog by Linda Edwards


My adult daughter has a learning disability and autism.  Given the appropriate support and care, she is fun, funny and feisty!  With support that is oppressive, controlling, unstructured and lazy, she becomes withdrawn and unable to cope with her daily life.
Which type of support would you choose for your vulnerable, disabled child?  We all know the response…………..  Or do we? The people who commission service providers and provide support for vulnerable people should have the same good intention that we would have for our vulnerable family member.  Sadly, I will demonstrate here that this has not been the case within the London Borough of Barnet Adult Social Care and Health (adult social services).  From their past performance over many years, it is clear that they not only ignore the needs of vulnerable people, but doggedly refuse to listen to experts such as the National Autistic Society and carers.
In fact, not only has their behaviour been unlawful, but they have been the main contributor to my daughter’s lack of independence, limited emotional development, her repeated anxiety and me having to regularly campaign for my daughter’s needs, often having to bring in her solicitor and the cause of me becoming unwell on many occasions.
They can never give my daughter back the many years they confined her to an institutional regime where she was made to be compliant and regressed or give me back my good health!
My daughter has been a service user of LB Barnet adult social services for many years.  She has been living in a supported living-housing scheme, with support workers during the day and night.  They were supposed to enable her to be part of the community and become more independent.  In 2007, in spite of knowing my daughter needed 24 hour support, the Director of LBB adult social services offered her ‘no choice’ but a one bedroom flat with ‘no choice’ but for the staff to have to sleep in her lounge. 
Disregarding the National Autistic Assessment Recommendations for consistency, reliability and structure, and my pleas not to use agency staff, unreliable and inconsistent agency staff were commissioned for the next 8 months.  My daughter became depressed, frustrated and angry because the staff were unreliable, dismissive of her needs and often late in arriving, regularly leaving her waiting for over an hour and often not arriving to work with her resulting in her distress, me having to telephone the duty social worker and making me late for work, until someone eventually arrived.  For the past 4 years LBB adult social services commissioned a private agency.
Some relevant background about social care…Each government places great emphasis on ‘choice’ and ‘independence’ for and ‘respect’ and ‘dignity’ towards vulnerable people.  LBBarnet adult social services endorse this in their many glossy brochures and verbally.  However, in our experience, very little ‘choice’ has been intended or has been evident and thus they have prevented my daughter from gaining the ‘independence’ or having the ‘choice’ to which she was entitled.
Indeed, our experience has been far worse than LBB adult social services simply commissioning an inappropriate contract to a service provider that bullied, lied and was responsible for their client’s regression!  What is even more despicable is that despite the many, many occasions I alerted the Director of LBB adult social services, the Manager of the Social Work team and the Services Manager for learning disabilities that the service is unacceptable and gave substantial evidence, they continued to disregard all the facts and my pleas and allowed this private company to continue to receive high income for providing nothing more than an adult ‘sitting’ service for four years!
The conclusion from this disregard and what became evident after I made a formal complaint in March 2008 is that the culture and values of LBB Adult Social Care and Health (adult social services) are spiritually and morally corrupt.  This is because the culture demands collusion, is based on conspiracy and generates fear.
Some background about people on the autistic spectrum…“People with autism or Asperger syndrome may appear to behave unusually.  There will generally be a reason for this: it can be an attempt to communicate, or a way of coping with a particular situation.” National Autistic Society.
Sudden changes to the routine of anyone on the autistic spectrum can be detrimental to their emotional well-being, mental and physical health and ability to manage their daily life.  People on the autistic spectrum can make amazing life changes if given the appropriate support and encouragement before and during change.  Change has to be well planned and developed in partnership with everyone who is significant to the autistic person.  Consistency and cooperation is crucial and all decisions need to be made together with the person at the centre and with his/her family.  Anything less will undoubtedly be failure for the vulnerable person, affecting his confidence, mental health and doom them to live a life controlled by others.
Collusion and conspiracy are the ingredients of how abuse festers and becomes part of the malignant culture of the ‘care industry’.  Below is an example of a four month period (June – November 2011) of how this is endemic within LBBarnet adult social services, spiralling down from Director and senior management.
The new service provider refused to provide night sleep-in support for my daughter because it is “not good practice for staff to be sleeping in the lounge in a one bedroom flat!”  Whilst well-respected and reputable service providers consider this bad practice, why did the Director of Adult Social Services allow this practice to begin in 2007 and continue until 2011?
In June 2011, my daughter’s support worker informed me “when the new service provider takes over, LB Barnet adult social services would remove my daughter’s night support.”  My daughter has received this support since she has been living on her own and has never slept without staff support.   Making such a sudden change without preparation would very likely induce anxiety, distress and depression and without consulting the person and her family carer contradicts all the futile words from LBB Adult Social Care and Health about ‘choice’,  ‘independence’, ‘respect’ and ‘dignity’.
At a meeting held on 13th June 2011 at the LBB Day Centre specialising in working with people on the autistic spectrum where my daughter attends, I asked my daughter’s social worker to confirm that night support would not be removed until my daughter had demonstrated that she was ready for this extreme change.  Again, the social worker had no hesitation confirming this and the minutes reiterate her promise.
This should have been the end of the story……………… Sadly, the behaviour of senior LBB managers, now led to yet another saga of victimisation, collusion, intimidation and disregarding the social worker who knows my daughter well and whom my daughter trusts.
  • I passed this disturbing information that (“when the new service provider takes over, LBB adult social services would remove my daughter’s night support”) to my daughter’s solicitor, and following her intervention, on 11th July (whilst she was abroad), my daughter’s social worker sent the following email to the solicitor: “I can confirm that only when (my daughter) is ready to be without support at night, will this be withdrawn and there is not any timed deadline on this.  The plan will indeed be to work pro-actively with (my daughter) to enable her to gain the skills to be safe in her flat…” So far so good until………..
  • On Wednesday 3rd August I was informed that my daughter had refused to leave her flat to attend the day centre that day and the previous day.  Throughout that week she continued to refuse to leave her hot flat and lay on the couch all day.  This was completely out of character for my fun-loving and very sociable daughter, who thrives when she is actively involved in her day centre’s routine of swimming, gym and being with people she knows.
  • On the Friday afternoon of that week (5th August), we visited her elderly grandparents (Grandpa 93 and Grandma 86).  They were disturbed to see how their beloved granddaughter’s behaviour was unusually disruptive, argumentative and rigid.  These are all symptoms of major sudden changes having been made to someone on the autistic spectrum.  For anyone who knows my daughter these are certainly clear indications that someone has mistreated her. At this stage, I had no idea what had caused my daughter to make her feel so irritable and be so argumentative.
However, on Monday 8th August at 6pm, at a meeting with the manager of the LBB In-House supported living service, whose line manager is the LBB Services Manager, I was to find out what had caused my daughter so much distress:
·         He informed me that my daughter’s “night support service had been withdrawn the previous week beginning 1st August” (at the precise time that my daughter refused to leave her flat!)  He also said that his manager (LBB Services Manager for learning disabilities) had not intended to authorise night support once the previous private agency had left.
·         I left this meeting in a state of shock!  Whilst the social worker had promised both my daughter’s solicitor and me that the night support would remain in place, my daughter had been traumatised the previous week because they had already removed the night support without the crucial preparation!
·         I returned home and telephoned my daughter’s solicitor.  Linking my daughter’s disturbed behaviour the previous week with the sudden withdrawal of night support and knowing the contempt of adult social services management towards me, I decided I would no longer play the game on their terms, as being reasonable had allowed LBB adult social services to ignore my daughter’s distress so many times in the past.  Without a difference in behaviour from me, they would continue to ignore her needs in the future!
·         I returned to the block of flats where my daughter lives and explained to her that I now understand why she had been so upset.  I told her that I spoke with her solicitor and that I would be sleeping downstairs in the common lounge/kitchen on the two seater settee.
·         I informed the LBB In-House Supported Living manager that I would be sleeping there EVERY night until they resumed my daughter’s night support.  I asked him to inform LBB adult social services management “If I have to continue sleeping there, I will invite my family and friends to spend the evening with me and will bring in my own meals.  I will also be inviting the local paper to see how LBB do not keep their promises to vulnerable clients (with such disregard and disrespect) and how they treat their family carers (with such disrespect and contempt).”
On Tuesday 9th August, after an uncomfortable night’s sleep, I attended a meeting with the new service provider to discuss goals and aims for my daughter, only to learn when I arrived, that a new social worker had been sent by LBB adult social services management.  My ‘support friend’ and I were surprised that a social worker who had never met my daughter or me should be instructed to attend this meeting with the new service provider.  This clearly meant that the agenda for the meeting for my daughter had changed too but no one bothered to inform or consult with me beforehand!
What then happened was that the collusion and collaboration of the two LBB social services day centre manager and social worker unfolded in front of my eyes:
·         The social worker informed me that we are here to discuss the night support and informed me that my daughter didn’t need night support any more.  I replied that this meeting is with the new service provider and the agenda is to discuss my daughter’s goals.  I showed everyone at the meeting, including the LBB day centre manager the previous minutes and email from my daughter’s social worker confirming that LBB adult social services would continue to provide night support service to my daughter.  She and the day centre manager dismissed this as “that was then and this is now.”  I responded that the minutes of13th June 2011 and the email sent to my daughter’s solicitor dated 11th July 2011 stated that my daughter’s night support would not be withdrawn.  Also, that my daughter has not gained the skills she needs to feel confident and safe in less than three weeks since the commitment from her social worker, especially with staff who don’t understand her needs.
·         I then asked the social worker how she had come to this decision without discussing anything with me.  The LBB day service manager responded “We had an assessment.”  The social worker then added, “It was a re-assessment.” I wasn’t sure who was pressing whose buttons but it was clear they were both colluding with the LBB senior manager who had withdrawn this service.
·         I then asked who was a part of the re-assessment and the day centre manager replied that everyone had been involved in it including herself.  I replied that they could not have a re-assessment without me and without my daughter’s social worker.  The day centre manager replied, “it was felt it wasn’t necessary to include you” (me).
·         I then asked who had discussed the matter with my daughter and silence fell upon the room!  Discussing or considering the vulnerable person for whom decisions are made, is usually the ingredient that LBB adult social service management mostly disregard.
This LBB social worker had ignored my daughter’s social workers recommendations and agreement, which was based on her knowledge of my daughter.  The LBB autistic day centre manager ignored her four-year knowledge of my daughter and her autistic needs and the senior LBB manager had ignored common sense when she withdrew this service. 
When I suggested to the manager of the day centre that she was betraying my daughter and the people she is working for, she became defensive.  Why did she deny that my daughters’ out of character behaviour of locking herself away in her flat the previous week was due to the sudden withdrawal of night support?  Being an ‘expert’ in working with people on the autistic spectrum, she ignored the evidence so as to collude with her colleague and line manager.
The moral and spiritually corrupt culture that pervades LBB adult social care is fed by collusion and conspiracy cascading down from senior management.
·         After an hour and half of pleading with these two members of the ‘conspiracy club’, I telephoned my daughter’s solicitor.  She calmly informed the social worker that “LBB have behaved unlawfully in making a unilateral decision to change the service without a reassessment that included the family carer.”  The social workers response was “that’s your opinion.”  My ‘support friend’ and I looked at each other in disbelief and I commented to him “Since when does a social worker know more about the law than a specialist solicitor!”
·         The solicitor replied that unless (my daughter’s) night support was resumed immediately, she would not waste time on the usual complaints protocol but would be immediately preparing for an urgent Judicial Review!
·         The social worker left the room to discuss this with the manager who had withdrawn the night support service and in a short while she returned confirming that the LBB Services Manager for learning disabilities agreed that this service would be resumed immediately!
After many years of broken promises and evidence that LBB adult social services don’t care about the appropriate service for my daughter, they have demonstrated they cannot be trusted.  Over the next few weeks, I checked on them regularly by visiting my daughter’s flat at night to ensure the staff were indeed sleeping in her flat.
·         Observing my daughter carefully to see how she might heal from the damage they had caused, she continually asked for the previous support worker who slept in her flat for four nights in the week prior to the hand over.  My daughter was communicating clearly that whilst she needed the night support in her flat, she wanted to have the same support worker rather than a stranger in her flat each night.  She begun to share with a few people she trusted that she needed more continuity.  Together we enabled her to send a letter to her social worker.
At a meeting on Friday 9th September with my daughter’s solicitor, the new Head of Learning Disabilities integrated Services apologised on behalf of LBB that this had happened. Thank you!
On Wednesday 12th October, my daughter’s social worker met and asked her about the night support she felt she needed.  When asked if she would like to sleep on her own at night, my daughter responded “No, in case of emergencies.”  She also made it very clear to her social worker that she wanted her own staff (as before this ‘conspiracy’) and didn’t want strangers sleeping in her flat.
On Monday 14th November 2011, my daughter’s social worker confirmed that LBB have now approved Direct Payments so that my daughter can recruit her own night support staff.  Thank you.
The behaviour of LBB adult social care management towards my daughter in this and in many previous situations has been vindictive, nasty and lacking in consistency and common-sense.
This ‘corrupt and collusive conspiracy’ should raise serious questions as to the suitability of senior management of London Borough of Barnet Adult Social Care and Health who are continually making major decisions on behalf of vulnerable people that destroy and damage theirs and their families lives.   Often these decisions are emotional irreversible and become costly  both financially and emotionally and to outside service such as GP’s.
What I would like to know from the London Borough of Barnet is:
1.       Why are so many vulnerable and disabled people disregarded, devalued, disrespected and treated with contempt by LBB Adult Social Care and Health management?
2.      Why are the commitments verbally and in writing to respect and value people, including carers, disregarded in practice by LBB Adult Social Care and Health management?
3.      How are family carers supposed to cope and manage in their caring role without a caring and expert solicitor; a caring and committed social worker and without the knowledge, tenacity and outside support that I have had to find?
4.      Why is there a charade of consultations when what is happening in reality is an autocratic and dictatorial regime?
5.      It seems that being forced to collude with the corrupt culture that the LBB Director and Services Manager instigate and preside over contaminates so many decent LBB staff.  Who is going to ensure these Directors and senior LBB managers are made to be accountable to the disabled and disadvantaged residents of LBB, their family carers, YOU, the rate payer of Barnet who contribute towards their salaries and the government whose legislation and good practice guidelines LBB Social Care and Health senior management blatantly disregard?
6.      Why is the current LBB adult social service culture and internal relationship between workers based on fear rather than respect, transparency, partnership and integrity?
7.      In service to the community, humility is one of the most essential values.  It needs to be introduced to the LB Barnet Adult Social Care and Health management.  Are they going to genuinely listen to carers and learn from them with humility in the new initiative, named “Experts by Experience?”  (For details 020 8359 4366 email: caroline.powls@barnet.gov.uk. Or, are they going to continue to pretend?
8.      The culture of Adult Social Care and Health demonstrates contempt, disregard and disrespect for the vulnerable people they are paid to work for. This must change so that the Directors and Senior Managers communicate truthfully, explore with integrity and act in partnership with vulnerable families.   When is LBB Council going to make them accountable instead of continuing to promote the very people who instigate this corrupt culture, based on fear which encourages senior managers to continue with their victimisation of anyone who challenges and confronts their ever changing rules?
Linda Edwards
December 2011.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Edwards is a carer in the London Borough of Barnet. Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Send any articles via the email link in the sidebar