Friday, 24 August 2012

Pam Wharfe's latest update on the One Barnet fiasco

From: Law, Lucy On Behalf Of Wharfe, Pam
Sent: 24 August 2012 16:37
DRS Joint Venture proposal – Staff Update

Following my DRS fortnightly email last week I have set out further details on the joint venture below:-

What is the decision making process around the joint venture?

The joint venture has been an option considered by the project Board over the last 2 years and has featured in the options appraisal and business case.  Although initially our preference was for a Strategic Partnership, the JV has developed as a progressively more attractive option following detailed discussions with bidders.  As a result the project Board recommended to Corporate Directors Group that this be formally advanced in discussions with bidders and indeed is currently our preferred option.  Following evaluation the final option, along with the preferred bidder, will be presented as a recommendation to Cabinet in the New Year. Cabinet will then take the final decision on whether to award the contract, the preferred bidder and the joint venture approach.

What does the joint venture approach mean in practice?

A new organisation would be formed by the Council and the successful bidder.  The Council would have a minority interest in this organisation and would appoint a small number of individuals to the senior management team of the new organisation.  This organisation would then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.

Does this reduce any of my TUPE rights?

No.  In scope staff would TUPE into the joint venture organisation, and this would be on the same conditions as have been previously set out.  The obligations of the joint venture organisation would be backed up by the successful bidder’s parent company.

Who would my employer be?

The joint venture organisation.

Bidders have made reference to potential career opportunities in their organisations, does the joint venture limit these?

No.  The joint venture organisation would operate in many ways like any other organisation in the successful bidder’s group of companies.  There is no reason why the use of a joint venture company would limit the opportunities this could provide to staff.

Why use a joint venture approach for DRS?

As a result of being a part owner of the joint venture organisation and through having representation within the senior management team the Council would have more say in the organisation.  In addition the joint venture would allow us to share more easily in any commercial success the organisation has.  This is important to us as the DRS bidders and ourselves are confident that there are significant commercial opportunities in the delivery of DRS services both within Barnet and outside of the Borough.

What if the joint venture organisation is unsuccessful and becomes insolvent?

The joint venture organisation will have a contract with the Council for the provision of DRS services, and, as with a non joint venture approach this contract will be backed up by a ‘parent company guarantee’ which provides a legally binding obligation on the commercial parent company to fulfil the performance of the DRS contract.  It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract.  Such a situation could reduce the value of any investment by the Council in the joint venture company however the Council is only intending to invest a nominal sum (which could just be £1) and it is not obliged to provide any further assistance in the event of failure, unlike the commercial parent company which would be obliged to deliver the DRS contract.

Kind regards,

Pam Wharfe
Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration
London Borough of Barnet
2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
0208 359 7988
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Barnet Eye must conclude that the people within the Council are rather naive.  The statement "It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract." demonstrates the level of this delusion. The reason the joint venture company would become insolvent is because the parent company would see it is not making any money. Why on earth would the shareholders of the parent company sanction throwing good money after bad. That is not how private companies work. 

It is also interesting to see that the council intends to only have a minority stake and not make a financial investment in the company. This is a very important question as the shareholding of the company will demonstrate control and where the dividends from the JV go. It appears that the bidders are keen simply to use the JV as a vehicle to escape from liability and association with a risky venture. There is also the implication that the bidder can further dilute the councils control and shareholding of recapitalisation is required. 

It is interesting that the Council officers seem to believe it is there job to tell the councillors what to do. It also appears that the timetable has changed yet again. 

One wonders what the unsuccessful bidders make of all this. It seems that were excluded and then the ground rules were changed. A genuine joint venture would have shared control and shared investment. This particular scheme and the rushed announcements, made via emails late  on a Friday afternoon stink of panic. 

As it seems that the mantle of opposition is falling to the bloggers, this rather suits us. It gives us time over the weekend, to consider our strategy and response. What seems like a cunning ruse by the Council Officers, does indeed play to all the strengths of bloggers, allowing us to organise at times convenient to us. 

And organise we will. The Officers of Barnet Council do not seem to recognise the fact that the reason that the bloggers of Barnet are so committed is because we are long term residents who love Barnet and the surrounding area. We do not see  it as a convenient place to boost our CV's. We blog because we live here and we have a stake in the Borough. Our friends live here. We see the effects of the Council's stupidity on our friends and families.

This week two of my daughters were sitting GCSE's at local schools. Both got outstanding results. It was also my 50th Birthday. I was born at Edgware General hospital as were two of my children. The third was born at Barnet General. My parents are buried at Hendon Cemetary. My business is in Barnet and I employ ten people. These are the reasons I write this blog. Most of my close friends run their own business. My parents started the family business in 1948 in Bunns Lane and it is still running. I also have a cousin my age who lives in the care of Barnet Council, as she has Downes Syndrome. These are my motivations. I cannot fathom the motivations of the people within the council who get paid by us, the taxpayer and are using our money to divest profits and control from council services, to multi national companies, who have no interest in the Borough beyond making money for shareholders. If anyone believes BT and Capita Symonds are interested in anything other than making as much money as possible from you and I and our taxes, then you really don't understand what private companies are all about. 

Earlier today I posted a blog joking about how the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius will be remembered. Sadly, I suspect that it will be as a man who was completely out of his depth and who lead a very inept regime which made some extremely bad decisions. I hope I am wrong.

Electoral Issues - Barnet FoI response to Barnet Eye FoI Request





24 August 2012

 Our ref: 179556


Thank you for your request received on 4 August 2012, for the following information:

For the purpose of clarity, please can you provide documentary verification that all of the items recommended have been implemented and regularly reviewed.

This request relates to your email of 25 July 2012 below:

…Please can you confirm that all recommended actions in the report have been completed and produce documentary evidence to support this.

Specifically,
---------
 
1.    There should be an elections book to pick up lessons learned from one election to the next, and which can be picked up to inform any member of a future elections team what needs to be done.

2.    Consider future recruitment of an elections manager

3.    Put in place a more detailed project plan for next election, with clearer contingency arrangements. This should use the Electoral Commission template that has been produced , supplemented as necessary to take account of Barnet specific circumstances and the findings of this report.

4.    Review polling districts and the location of poll stations within them to ensure an appropriate number of electors are within each district

5.    Write to the appropriate body to support The Electoral Commission findings in respect of the timetable for Parliamentary elections and the arrangements to enable overseas voters and service personnel to vote

6.    Communications campaign to encourage voters to vote early.

7.    Procurement arrangements for next election should all use central arrangements (incl written contracts with clear levels of service)

8.    A review of STRAND should be conducted

9.    Others:
Staffing arrangements HR to handle recruitment of count staff for large elections in future
Role of DROs 
Precise arrangements for agents briefing meeting

----------

Given that two years have elapsed since the problems occurred and we have a coalition government, would it be reasonable to expect that all of these actions have been completed?

Given that we recently had the GLA elections, it is interesting to note that I was unaware of any effort to encourage voters to vote early as recommended. Maybe you could provide details of such a campaign?

I would expect all of these recommendations to have been completed prior to the Mayoral/GLA elections.


Response

Much of the information you are requesting is held by the Returning Officer (RO) and Electoral Returning officer (ERO).   EROs and ROs are separate legal entities from the council; they are not listed as public authorities in Schedule 1 of FOIA and are therefore not obliged to respond FOIA requests. The council can only provide information that it holds under FOIA however information held on behalf of the RO and ERO is not held by the council and therefore not covered by FOIA.  

The RO has already confirmed to you that the recommendations made following the Elections review have all been implemented as part of an action plan.  I can by way of advice and assistance provide the information:

  • The ‘elections book’ has taken the form of the lessons learned and captured from the 2010 elections  and subsequently the review documents from both the 2011 UKPVS Referendum and the 2012 London Mayoral and GLA Assembly Member elections, which have been captured and reviewed in order to inform and assist  future election events.
  • Following secondment onto the projects managing both the Referendum and GLA elections, an Election Projects Manager was permanently appointed in May 2012.
  • The Elections Project Manager utilised detailed project and contingency planning for both the Referendum and GLA elections, which in both instances was based upon initial work completed using the Electoral Commission planning template.
  • A review of polling districts and stations was carried out by the Elections Manager throughout autumn 2011 and considered at the General Functions Committee in January 2012 and implemented for the GLA elections.
  •  The communications campaign for the GLA elections was managed across London by the team at London Elect, however Barnet specifically issued (and posted on its website) a press release on 30 April; a message dedicated purely to encouraging early voting on 3 May (GLA polling day). Please see  the following link  on the council’s website: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/news/article/67/get_there_early_on_3_may

  • Central arrangements were adhered to for the required procurements (most specifically for election printing services) for both the referendum and GLA elections and contracts were put in place via Delegated Powers Reports (DPRs). The DPRs can be viewed by clicking on the links below:



  • A review of STRAND was conducted by IS staff who worked on the 2010 elections and hardware changes were implemented ahead of the referendum.
  • Others:
-       for both the referendum and the GLA elections, an officer from HR was drafted into the elections project team to manage staff recruitment for both polling and count duties
-       both the role of DROs and arrangements for agents meetings were contained within the project plans for the election events.


Your Rights

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review within the next 20 working days by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If, having exhausted our review procedure, you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you will have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 0303 123 1113; website www.ico.gov.uk).  There is no charge for making an appeal.

Barnet Council latest - Lets bash the disabled in secret !

Barnet Council just gets worse and worse, when it comes to treatment of the disabled. I did my weekly scour of DPR's and saw one entitled "1780 - Disabled Parking Bay_Exempt". What is it all about?

Well the council website says - http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4276
-----------------
Purpose:
This report details objections to the proposals to provide disabled parking bays. 
-----------------
And what are these objections? Well sadly the council has decided to keep these objections secret. So we are not allowed to know why the council has objections to disabled parking bays.

The reasons for keeping it secret

  • By Virtue of Paragraph 1
    Information relating to any individual.
    Condition:
    Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
    Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).
  • By Virtue of Paragraph 2
    Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.
    Condition:
    Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
    Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).

So lets get this clear. Someone has objected to the creation of disabled parking bays. We are not allowed to know why they have objected. The reason is because it might reveal the identity of the person of the person objecting.

Now I was under the impression that Barnet Council had a policy of inclusion. If someone wants to object to disabled parking bays, fine. If they have a good reason to object. If the justifications are valid and the public interest is served by not creating disabled bays, then that is all well and good. 

The implication of this is that the objections were extremely specific and localised. The identity of the person was likely to be exposed by their complaining. Of course the council should not expose the identity of individuals, but should we have no idea at all of the nature of the issues? 

Presumably the disabled people affected by these objections are also kept in the dark. This means that they will not be able to state their case and work towards a compromised solution. My suspicion is that the objections are either one of two things

a) A next door neighbour has complained because their own parking rights are being compromised. Whilst this may be a valid concern, presumably a decent person would realise that a less mobile person has a need to park close to their house.

b) There is a political objection on ideological grounds to the creation of the spaces on the grounds that the complainant feels the disabled should not be given special access. 

Clearly in both of these cases, the complainant would not want anyone to know of their mean spiritedness.

In both cases, I personally would like to see their lack of community mindedness and lack of support for the less well abled members of society exposed. Unlike Prince Harry in the nod, I believe that this is in the public interest to be exposed. But then, there is no chance of that is there.

I will however be sending an FoI to ask for the location of these spaces, that may shed some light, mightent it?



Leave Prince Harry alone

I'm not a monarchist or a royalist. If I had my way, her majesty would be pensioned off to enjoy a well deserved retirement and we'd have an elected head of state with a role rather like the Irish President. As it happens, I think the Queen has done a good job and I fully accept that unless she actually wanted to retire, my suggestion would not be popular nationally. Having said that, I cannot possibly agree that a hereditary head of state is anything other than an anachronism in the year 2012. If there is to be a debate, the time for it will be when there is a vacancy for the job. I would like to see, at the very minimum, a referendum on Prince Charles taking over.

Many people say the monarchy are good for tourism. Sadly there are many things which are good for tourism, which would be better off not existing. There are tourist trips to the Battlefields of the Somme and many even far more grisely sites. Would anyone claim the first and second world war were good things because they created lots of tourist sites? Of course her majesty isn't a disaster in the way that the First and second world wars were. Only a fool would claim that. But it is crystal clear to anyone who studied history that the same cannot be said for her predecessors. If we look at the religious repression launched by monarchs such as Henry VIII, we can see the dangers of picking a leader by genetic lottery. Ultimately we've been lucky with Liz. Would we be so lucky again?

This brings us to what will happen when her Maj finally leaves the throne. Given her mum's gene's this could well be in 20 or even 30 years, given that she's shown no desire to retire. The next in line is Prince Charles. he is likely to be an old man by the time he steps forward. Then? Well at the moment it is Prince William in the hotseat. I am sure that Princess Kate is doing her best to provide a heir as we speak. But should something happen to Wills (which I hope to God it doesn't), then we could have King Harry.

What sort of King would King Henry IX be? Well if the current press coverage in the Sun is correct, like his namesake King Henry VIII, he has a bit of an eye for the ladies. What else do we know about him? Well he seems to have done a good job in his military career. He's certainly not shirked out of being in harms way. He seems like a jovial sort who generally brings mirth and merriment along with him (rather worryingly young Henry VIII had a similar public persona). He looks like he may actually be reasonably down to earth for a man raised with his background.

Which brings us to the current set of pictures in The Sun. I'm sure most of us have watched films about high jinx in Las Vegas. Those of us who enjoyed the film "The Hangover" are familiar with the plot. You go to Las Vegas, you get sloshed, you meet some pretty girls (who may or may not have the highest ethical standards) and all hell breaks loose. So what is the problem? Harry is a single man. Whatever happened, there was clearly no coercion and it seems like everyone had a marvellous time. Good for them all. Do I give a FF. Nope.

Last night before I went to bed we had  the sight of the slapped arse faced editor of The Sun, claiming that they had published pictures of Harry in the buff to defend free speech and out of public interest. This is complete and utter hogwash. They published them for one reason. To flog loads of papers. I hope it backfires spectacularly. I hope that The Sun looses all of it's readership. I don't want to see the Crown Jewels over my bowl of porridge. If they really want to stand up for press freedom, then publish the truth about their own practices in the phone hacking scandal. Who wants to see the pictures? I doubt anyone does and if they do, it is only for the yuck factor. If you go into any newsagent, you will see a whole stack of magazines on the top shelf full of naked women. How many do you see with naked men in? I don't think I've ever spoken to a women who would bother to look at pictures of naked blokes sitting on haystacks, given the choice between that and something a bit more interesting. That is not to say they don't enjoy erotic stimulation, they just don't get it in that way. Of course there is also they gay porn market. My gay friends take a different view to looking at the male form, but their tastes are, shall we say, a little bit more "active" in the porn photo shot market.

When it comes down to it, the hypocricy of The Sun sickens me. Who has forgotten that it was the direct actions of the papparrazi which killed Harry's mother. The poor sod has already had his life hugely damaged by the tabloid press. Now they won't leave the poor sod alone. The desks at News International are doubtlessly stuffed full of young men who'd love to fly over to Las Vegas, get pissed, pull a bevvy of beautiful women and have a party in the buff. 

Why can't they just lay off him. He may not be perfect, but he deserves a bit of privacy.

The Friday Joke - 24/8/2012

Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of Barnet Council, travels to the outer reaches of Nepal to visit the worlds greatest guru. He is troubled that all his hard work as Leader will not be appreciated by the great unwashed masses of voters in Barnet.

He is told that he gets to ask one question and he gets one answer. He is told to listen carefully as the guru is never wrong.

Richard neals before the guru and says "Oh great master, what can I do to be remembered as a great leader of Barnet Council?".

The guru looks Richard firmly in the eyes and says "You have travelled a long way, I have never turned away anyone yet without giving them an honest answer and a solution to their problems and though your conundrum is a difficult one, there is a solution. Try mass hypnosis".


Thursday, 23 August 2012

Believe nothing you read about Barnet Council in the Barnet Blogs !

Today the horrible truth dawned on me that I've wasted the last four and a half years of my life writing this stupid blog. Over the past week, it has become patently clear that no one in Barnet Council really has a clue what is going on. The senior officers says one thing, the Leader says another and the Deputy Leader says something different again. The Barnet Eye has our own little cabal of employees and councillors who tell us the odd snippet of information, and we get envelopes stuffed full of interesting papers through the post occaasionally.

The point is that if the organisation itself hasn't got a clue what is going on, what on earth is the point writing a blog about it? I rather feel that it is like the football pundits in the Sun. If Manchester United play Manchester City, one will predict United to win, One wuill predict City and one will predict a draw. That way, the Sun can always say "It woz the Sun that got it right" and print highlights from the article.

So is Pam Wharfe right that One Barnet is now going to be a joint venture? Is Richard Cornelius right when he says that No decision has been taken and it would need a pretty convincing case to change tack? Is Dan Thomas right that a Joint Venture is safer?

Search me. Here is my best guess though ** Pleae read this with caution ** I believe that the bidders are getting cold feet. They are worried about the reputational damage. they know that the Barnet bloggers have the ear of Eric Pickles and they know that Barnet is a media hotbed. Why on earth would Capita and BT want to run the risk of destroying their reputations? They have been religiously checking this blog on a daily basis several times, re reading old blogs etc. They can see the future, even if Barnet can't. They know that a joint venture guarantees profit and minimises risk. As there is no risk at all, they can experiment with no fear of losses. Who are the bidders actually in dialog with? Not Richard Cornelius, he's been on holiday and he only works one day a week at NLBP. Not Dan Thomas, why on earth should they bother with him? Nope, they've been talking to Pam Wharfe. So who would you trust to know their intentions and desires?

That is why I believe that even though Ruichard Cornelius doesn't know it yet, that is what Nick Walkley will tell him to sign off on. And I believe that is what will happen unless something rather unexpected happens, like a certain well known councillor, wiith a reputation to build, stabs dear old Richard in the back and nicks his job. And of that happens, anything could happen. So don't believe a word you read here.

Barnet Council : Has anyone got a clue what is happening in the One Barnet program

Ok, the story so far. On Friday, the Council officer responsible for the One Barnet project, Ms Pam Wharfe announced that the project was not going to be fully outsourced, but instead a joint vehicle company (JV) would be set up by the council and the winning bidder to exploit commercial opportunities. This was announced via an email to selected staff. As this could affect up to £1,000,000,000 of Barnet Taxpayers money, the Barnet bloggers, alarmed by such an important policy seemingly being made on the hoof, sent an open email to the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius. Mr Cornelius emailed back to say
No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such a case. The decisions will be made by elected members in due course
This seemingly completely contradicted the officer in charge. In todays Barnet Press, Mr Cornelius deputy Councillor Daniel Thomas has stepped in to further muddy the waters. He says

So it seems that there is open war between the Leader and Deputy as to the status of the company. Whilst  the Barnet Eye welcomes the "need to be cautious", the Barnet Eye notes that even Mr Thomas recognises that this is a "new model for outsourcing". This means that Barnet Council is taking a massive gamble, trying a completely new method of outsourcing on the part of the council which collects all of our cash.

In Edinburgh on Monday, it was explained to me that the council there also looked at mass outsourcing. They then compared this with what would happen if they made the savings and kept control in house. The council found they would save millions of pounds with no risk at all. Barnet hasn't even bothered to try and see if this is an option.

The Barnet Eye would like to ask the question as to why such a sensible move hasn't been undertaken here. The problem is, we don't have a clue who to ask, because no one actually seems to know who is in charge.

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

601,947 big thank you's to all my readers

What a wondeful birthday present for me, from my readers, my 600,000 hit ! Regular readers of this blog will have read that I was away in Edinburgh for a few days, promoting A Tale of Two Barnets showing during the festival. During the time I was away, this blog had it's 600,000'th hit. For a blog mostly concerned with local politics in Barnet, that is an enormous amount of hits. May 2012 was the busiest month ever with 39,441 hits.

The need for this blog and the other Barnet blogs was yet again shown this week, with the publication of a joint blog detailing a sudden and completely unexpected and unexplained shift in Council policy with regards to the One Barnet project. Although this is a massive change in Council policy and will affect up to £1 billion of our money, as yet there has been no comment at all on the traditional Barnet press websites.

So far this year we've posted 477 blogs, many of which have been guest blogs written by ordinary residents living in Barnet. In fact the second most popular blog of all time on this blog is a guest blog - http://www.barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/blog-post.html - and I am proud that other members of the community choose to ask this blog to post their work.

Blogging is not about egos and personalities. It is about bringing issues before the public, so that we can have a real, honest and open debate. I am proud of the work done here and by the other Barnet bloggers. As of 18:47 we'd had 61,947 hits. We only passed the 500,000 hits on 15th May - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/half-million-hits-million-thanks.html - Here's some of the Corporate Url's who've visited us today :-

Greater London Authority (213.86.122.5) [Label IP Address]    32 returning visits
Central Broadcasting Nottingham (193.35.11.125) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Nottingham City Council (194.61.210.25) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Scansafe Lon (80.254.147.220) [Label IP Address]    56 returning visits (Barnet Council)
British Broadcasting Corporation (132.185.160.97) [Label IP Address]    13 returning visits
The Jnt Association (194.66.198.99) [Label IP Address]    1 returning visit
The International Transport Workers Federation (194.128.66.22) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
London Borough Of Camden (195.191.66.230) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Haymarket Publishing (212.124.225.66) [Label IP Address]    1 returning visit
Staffordshire County Council (193.25.117.34) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Hogan Lovells International Llp (193.104.164.123) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Institute Of Neurology, London University (193.62.67.100) [Label IP Address]    16 returning visits
Essex County Council (94.101.168.68) [Label IP Address]    1 returning visit
Barclays Capital (141.228.106.147) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
Teachers Technology Solutions Ltd (82.69.213.238) [Label IP Address]    118 returning visits7

To these readers and all of our readers thank you very much. I think that at this rate, we should hit 700,000 before Xmas and a million before next Xmas.

Thank you all for your support. It helps me through the stress of reaching the half century !

Barnet council is out of control - what the hell is going on?

On Friday Pam wharfe, a senior executive of Barnet council circulated an email to staff saying the following about One Barnet.
"as a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.  The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner.  We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement"
Today the Leader, Richard Cornelius emailed local blogger Mr Mustard saying about Ms Wharfe's email
No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such a case. The decisions will be made by elected members in due course
In short, either one of them is telling Porkies or there is something highly suspicious going on, with officers making policy and not telling the Leader of the council.

What is going on? Who is running the council? Officers or the political leadership?
Richard Cornelius has been completekly undermined by Ms Wharfe's email. There is only one course of action which we expect him to take. We expect him to get a Gin and Tonic and go to the golf club, pretending everything is fine, like he's done with all of the other problems that have happened on his watch.

We expect Pam Wharfe and Nick Walkley to also do what they always do when such embarrassing situations arise. Piss themselves laughing.


2012 - The year of the Bully

I was sickened and disgusted to read a post by one of my blogging friends Scarlett the Heavenly Healer- http://heavenlyhealer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-year-of-bully.html - She muses on whether 2012 is the year of the bully. Maybe she has a point.

We've seen a fair bit of this in Barnet

* Helen Michael investigated by Scotland Yard's SO15 Anti  Terrorist officers for putting up an election poster without her name on.

* Elderly residents of Barnet deprived of toilet facilities during a sit in at Friern barnet Library

* Shop keepers in High Barnet visited by Councillor Brian Coleman threatening to call the police over posters complaining about his parking policy

* Councillor Brian Coleman insulted the disabled members of the community duringa council debate describing them as "these people" and saying he didn't believe they should be provided with transport by the council.

* Barnet blogger Mr Mustard abused by a Brian Coleman yesterday for no better reason than Coleman cc'd him into a polite email to the leader of the council.

These are just a few of the examples of bnullying in Barnet.The Barnet Eye believes that it is necessary to stand up to bullies and to support your friends and those who can't stand up for themselves. If you are a victim of bullying, don't take it. Do something about it. Bullies only ever pick on the weak, when they think they can get away with it.  Councillor Brian Coleman has been a bully for years. This year the electorate of Barnet and Camden wised up to his behaviour and sacked him. His 20,000 GLA majority became a 20,000 majority for the Labour candidate. Why? because people like Helen Michael refused to be bullied and stood up to be counted. A lesson for us all.

Let's make 2012, the year of standing up to bullies. As a community joined together.