Rape or "Rape Lite"?

There seems to be a rather odd debate going on in the press at the moment, stirred by two rather different events. The first was George Galloway's rather odd "podcast", claiming that Julian Assange was merely guilty of "sexual bad manners", in having sex with a woman without her consent. The second was the Republican Senator and best friend of Republican Vice President - Todd Akin, who claimed that women who experience "proper rape" don't get pregnant as the body shuts down the reproductive system.

The main issue Galloway seems to have is that Julian Assange was "set up". He seems to think that Sweden are a US client country and that Asssange has merely been arrested so the Swedes can deport him. This is a truly bizarre conclusion to draw. Sweden has a long and proud history of giving shelter to victims of political repression. It is also nominally neutral. Ask Gary MacKinnon where he'd rather be. The idea that the Swedes are more likely to deport Assange than us is quite franky bonkers. Unlike many people, I've lived in Sweden and I know for a fact that they take womens rights seriously. If Assange is in trouble, it is because he is accussed with a serious offence. The story that Galloway has trouble getting his head around is this. Assange had consensual sex with a woman using a condom. The next morning he had sex again, without a condom. She says that the consent was only granted to Assange as he was using a condom, therefore there was no consent. That makes it rape. When I consider such issues, I tend to draw on my own experiences. Back in the early 1980's I found myself in a position that was in some ways similar. I had split with my partner and met a female friend who was having problems with her relationship. We got drunk and ended up in bed. The next morning we woke up and after some heavy petting, were about to engage sex, when she said "sorry, I don't feel right about this". I was rather disappointed, but as far as I was concerned, that was her decision and the end of the matter. We are still friends, having made an agreement to forget about what happened. We only spoke about it once, a year after the event. She asked me "were you angry with me for saying "no". I was shocked by this. Her chief concern had been that I may have been insulted. She also said she was surprised that I'd stopped and accepted her decision without any argument. I said that as she was first and foremost a friend, I respected her decision.

I thought society had moved on a bit since the mid 1980's, where a woman would be more worried about how she was perceived than whether she should make decisions about her body and expect them to be respected. In the cold light of day, for various reasons, she had made the right decision then. Do men have a right to say "well, she was gagging for it, women always say no when they mean yes?" Of course not. I'm not perfect by any means, but it is pretty clear to me that if someone says "no" then you respect that.

Galloways argument seems to be that a violent rape by a stranger is more traumatic than a rape where consent was withdrawn. This clearly shows that Galloway doesn't understand human nature. A woman who is violently and traumatically raped by a stranger will clearly have a lot of issues to deal with. There is no way we can play this down. The issue is that a woman who withdraws consent and is then raped, whilst not having the same degree of shock, will perhaps have more issues with trust. In the long term, this could be just as damaging. Just imagine if a woman has trust issues following an event. This could colour every future relationship? The question will always be "can I really trust him". In effect, the question is along the lines of would you prefer to get cancer of have a heart attack. The two are different, but horrible in their own ways.

As to our friend, senator Akin. This is a far easier question to deal with. Presumably, Mr Akin has the scientific evidence to back up his claims, unlikely as they are? let him put his "evidence" of the reproductive evidence "shutting down" before the world. If it stacks up, whilst we may totally disagree with his view, at least he will be able to say "look, I wasn't spouting complete bollocks there is evidence". If as I suspect, there is no credible evidence whatsoever, then the voters should say "on your bike".

The bottom line with all of this is that whilst we have apologists for such behaviour, some people will see it as a green light to persist. Sadly many babies born as a consequence of rape are cases of  incestuous "in family" rapes. The statement by Senator Akin will convince some ill educated people, that rape does not produce babies. This is one green light that will have terrible consequences. We really should expect more from our civic leaders. Before they spout nonsense, they should think of what may actually happen.

In short, there is no such thing as a "friendly rape" or a "rape lite". It is all rape. It is down to the courts to decide what sentence is appropriate. I'd suggest that a heavy one is the safest outcome for all concerned. If Mr Assange has a credible defence, he will be OK. If he hasn't then he will get what he deserves

Barnet goes to the Edinburgh Festival

Roger Tichborne and Charles Honderick promoting
A Tale of Two Barnets on the Royal Mile

You may have noticed that there was no blog on this site yesterday. The reason was because the Barnet Eye was off enjoying ourselves in Edinburgh at the Edinburgh Festival. The film was being shown at the Edinburgh Unison offices in the training suite, a large room fully equipped for showing videos. All were invited and Unison rather kindly laid on a buffet and refreshments. Prior to the event Unison had sold 60 tickets and a smattering of members of the public turned up as well, some from Barnet.

Edinburgh Unison offices at Douglass House, where the film was screened

After the showing, there was a question and answer session. Myself, Charles Honderick, Ruth Kutner (a Barnet resident featured in the film) and Barnet Unison rep, John Burgess comprised the panel. Unison had allowed 30 mins for the Q&A. I wondered how the film would translate to an audience in Scotland. The political situation is completely different, with the SNP being the main power currently. Edinburgh Council recently abandonded plans for a One Barnet style outsourcing. They had compared the costings to an in house service and found the In House service was clearly cheaper. Sadly in Barnet, the council won't even allow this comparison to be made.

A visitor from Glasgow told us that their council was a Labour Council and had plumped for the "Joint Venture model" which is now flavour of the month in Barnet. Many of the audience were flabbergasted to hear of the harrassment of Helen Michael by SO15. One visitor later told Charles that he was a former member of Special Branch and was amazed that they would get involved in such shenanigans.

There were questions about how the production was made. The thing which was most interesting to the delegates was the way such a low budget, homespun film could be so powerful. Many delegates recognised patterns within the film. Comments were made as to the arrogance in general of CEO's and also to the inadequate nature of democratic control by councillors. Another common theme raised was bullying.

After the formal debate, most members of the audience stayed for an informal debate. Charles Honderick got chatting to a local film maker, who was intrigued by the film and the support it has received. I chatted to reps from Glasgow about their Labour council. He rather chillingly said"Here Labour is the complacent incumbent power, we don't even consider the Conservatives".

After the debate, many of us adjourned to the pub. As Everton beat Manchester United, this rounded off a great night for me.

Many thanks to the people of Edinburgh for such a warm welcome. I wondered whether a film specifically about Barnet could say something to a wider audience. The answer was a resounding yes. Sadly in 2012, we are not alone and all of the problems affecting us are being repeated across the country. Not for the first time, a member of the audience said "Why isn't Ken Loach Prime Minister", having watched his introduction. Sadly we have a Prime Minister and Chancellor who seem to have no answers at all as the Economy slides further into debt and recession

http://ataleoftwobarnets.yolasite.com/

The new One Barnet Joint Venture: a joint statement by the Barnet bloggers, and an open letter to leader Richard Cornelius.

Dear Councillor Cornelius

At the end of last week, an email was sent by Pam Wharfe, Interim Director of Environment, Planning and Regeneration to employees of Barnet Council in which it was casually revealed that one of the two One Barnet outsourcing projects, the outsourcing of c.£275 million worth of council services, is now to be redesigned as a "joint venture" in a new company comprising the bidder and the local authority.

This remarkable development raises several hugely important questions.

In the email, Ms Wharfe makes the rather disingenuous statement that the new organisation 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..."

The loss of democratic accountability to the community in the provision of services that would result from the outsourcing of the One Barnet programme is an issue we and other critics have raised repeatedly, yet is an accusation the council has continually rejected.

Whilst we are pleased to see that the authority has now accepted that our concerns are valid, we fail to understand how the creation of a new commercial venture will improve the ability of the council to retain proper controls and transparency in regard to the services outsourced in this way.

The new arrangement also raises the real risk of conflicts of interest regarding the management of the new venture and those who will be involved in the decision making processes of the organisation. Bearing in mind the failure of the council to mitigate the potential risks posed by any senior officers with links to private companies involved in the bidding process, what safeguards will be in place in relation to the membership of the new board?

Most significantly, perhaps, the new venture would appear to move the burden of significant risk from the private sector partner to the taxpayers who will be expected to fund the new company, whilst any profits that may ensue will not return to residents, but will be shared with the commercial partner. If the venture fails, residents will bear the cost of failure, and the need to re establish all in house services – if possible.

In short, the joint venture might fairly be described as nothing less than the outsourcing of profit, and a desperate, last minute agreement to carry the full risk of catastrophic failure in order to sustain, in the face of mounting disquiet from all quarters, the One Barnet outsourcing programme.

We ask why the Conservative administration has decided on this sudden course of action, at such a late stage in the dialogue process, and remind you, Mr Cornelius, that when the original case for outsourcing was made, your own consultants' report stated:

"The costs and risks associated with a JV model are judged at this stage to be higher than for a Strategic Partnership."

As we have so often pointed out, the undoubtedly high risks of entering into a Strategic Partnership have never been subjected to any independent assessment, or indeed any form of real scrutiny, yet here you are now, committing the financial security of our borough to what has been clearly identified as an even riskier and more costly strategy.

We might also speculate to what extent this radical departure, at this advanced stage in the dialogue, has exposed the council to risk from legal challenge by companies who have been excluded from the dialogue at an earlier point in the proceedings.

In respect of the need for democratic accountability, we would also question on what basis, and on whose authority the council has taken this decision: was the change in policy debated within the Tory group, or the Cabinet, or is this another development driven by the senior management team?

The mass privatisation of One Barnet will have a devastating impact on the daily lives of Barnet residents, as the need to make profit inevitably comes into conflict with the provision of public services, that is to say the support on which depend so many of the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of our community. All studies have demonstrated that the savings you imagine will transpire as a result of privatisation simply will not materialise, and indeed the whole enterprise is more likely to cause more cost to the local taxpayer, as well as a sharp decline in the standard of service.

By the time the full extent of the damage to the well being of this borough becomes evident, it will be too late to wrest back control of services without enormous difficulty and an intolerable burden of further cost. The senior officers who have driven the outsourcing agenda will no doubt be far away from Barnet and it is equally likely that you and your Tory colleagues will be voted out of office at the very first opportunity.

As residents of this borough we ask you to come to your senses and call an immediate halt to the One Barnet programme. Stop listening to the self serving advice of the private sector companies and the senior officers who are promoting this agenda, and take a look at the answer right in front of you – the in-house solution. With the support of the staff you employ you can work together to achieve the efficiencies you need and avoid the dangerous gamble of One Barnet: now is the time to act, before it is too late.

Yours sincerely

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Competition for Young film makers in Barnet with £250 prize

Mill Hill Music Complex is pleased to announce the launch of a competition for young filmmakers in the London Borough of Barnet. They have initiated a competition for local film makers to make a short five minute film.  There will be a £250 prize for the best film. The only constraint is that it must be no longer than five minutes and it must be about some aspect of life in Barnet. Film makers must be in full or part time education.

The winning film will be screened on 22nd October at the Phoenix Cinema as part of the program for the Premier of the as yet untitled follow up to the critically acclaimed film "A Tale of Two Barnets", produced by the Mill Hill recording Company. The winners will be presented with their prize at the screening. 

Mill Hill Music Complex recently opened a purpose built photographic and multimedia studio in Bunns Lane Mill Hill, with hard infinity cove and green screen facilities. We have already had three bands shooting videos on site, most notably Boz Boorer with Happy Martyr, filming their Xmas single video. 

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO EMAIL FOR MORE DETAILS OF THE COMPETITION

To find out more about Mill Hill Music Complex click here :-
www.millhillmusiccomplex.co.uk

Stabbing in Mill Hill Broadway

Update Weds 16:57- It appears that the incident was not a stabbing but a punch. Given the blood everywhere, the victim must have taken a hefty blow to the head.

**********************************************************

Last night there was a serious stabbing in Mill Hill Broadway. The police sealed off the area from the Marks and Spencers to the entrance of Best One Supermarket. It appears that the stabbing may have been the result of an argument between patrons of the Bridge Tavern, the pub next door to Marks and Spencers.

Police were interviewing witnesses and collecting forensic evidence. The victim was lying in a pool of blood being comforted by friends until the emergency services arrived. The Barnet Eye visited the scene at about 9.30 pm. One of the staff from the pub was overheard saying that the victim was in a serious state. Police were taking statements from witnesses and encouraging people to disperse.

The Barnet Eye is most alarmed to hear of a stabbing at my local pub. The Bridge is generally a rather quiet establishment, not known for raucous behaviour. Many locals pop in for a swift half on their way home. Rumour has it that Marks and Spencers have previously tried to buy the establishment, as they are not keen on their customers walking through the clouds of smoke of the drinkers having a ciggie. As it is the only pub in Mill Hill, it would be a shame if this incident adversely affected it.

The Saturday List #11 - Ten tell tale signs of a failed Local Authority

1. Habitual lateness in answering FoI requests.

2. Habitual ignoring of results of consultations.

3.  Habitual use of tax avoidance ruses by senior staff employed nominally as contractors.

4. Habitual rubber stamping of decisions in cabinet, with no proper debate at all.

5. Failure to take action against councillors who habitually insult members of the public.

6. Council Leaders who claim they are powerless to change anything.

7. Chief Executives who refuse to attend seminars on improving efficiency, run by nantionally recognised experts in the field.

8. Senior Councillors who habitually tell lies about their actions and intentions with regards to council policy.

9. Chief Executives who send around weekly memo's to all staff, which contain messages which are designed to motivate staff, but have the opposite effect, because staff know it's nonsense.

10. Councils which have no effective system of controlling or monitoring suppliers.

Sadly, every single one of these is an absolute hallmark of the way business is conducted at Barnet Council. Everyone associated with Barnet Council, knows that under Nick Walkley's leadership as CEO, all of the above are the norm, not the exception. I wonder what it says on Nick walkley's CV? Do you suppose much mention is made of any of this? As to Leader Richard Cornelius, he claims he has no power to change anything, there is one thing he could change rather easily. He could resign and let someone who was prepared to make the tough decisions needed to sort this mess out.

Exposed - The conspiracy to rob the people of Barnet

I was forwarded an email being circulated by the senior management of Barnet Council regarding the One Barnet outsourcing program. What it contains is truly staggering. Until now, I've been totally unable to work out exactly why anyone would want to persue such a policy. As the old adage goes, follow the money. This email makes it 100% clear what is going on. Here is the email :-

_____________________________
Dear colleagues

Dialogue update

As with the last message, there is no specific news to report on dialogue other than it is continuing to progress well. This week’s meetings have included legal/commercial and technical sessions covering the bidders’ financial models, their emerging commercial development plans which provide details of new investment and income streams, insurance matters and our approach to resolving conflicts of interest in relation to service delivery. We have also been discussing the bidders’ Service Improvement Plans which set out how the services will be delivered and enhanced over the course of the contract.

In addition to enhancing service delivery we also believe that the DRS project has great potential to generate new commercial opportunities, both in Barnet and further afield.  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’

Staff Group

The latest DRS staff group took place on Thursday 9 August and was attended by representatives from all your services. Make sure you speak to your rep if you want more detailed feedback or to raise any questions at the next staff group meeting. Martin Cowie has also been continuing to visit teams across the DRS service cluster to speak about the project and answer questions. If you haven’t yet had a briefing with Martin, let me know and we’ll make sure a suitable time is organised.

Also at the group meeting, a series of further questions were asked about various aspects of the project. The answers to these will be shared on the intranet over the next week.

Data cleanse

As you know, over the summer all DRS in-scope staff are having to take part in a data cleanse of their HR information; the data that will be transferred to the new provider after contract award. Environmental health and strategy and regeneration staff have completed their data cleanses, and next up is staff in Highways, Planning, Development and Building Control. Your line managers will take you through the process. They are being provided with the relevant forms on Monday 3 September and they must be returned by Friday 21 September.

Workshops

We still have places available at the TUPE workshops for staff and managers, as well as the Change and Me sessions. These workshops will run up until November and have already been on for more than a year. They are set to continue until November, by which time we will be approaching mobilisation.  During mobilisation we will begin to talk to you about how the transfer will affect you personally, but it would be a very good idea to have attended one of these sessions before that time.

The times and dates of the workshops are as follows:

Managers’ TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 2 – 2-5pm
• 2 October – Training Room 4 – 9.30am-12.30pm
• 14 November – Training Room 2 – 9am-12noon

Staff TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 4 October – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 1 November – Training Room 5 – 12noon-1pm

Change and Me workshops

• 24 September – Training Room 3 – 2-3pm
• 17 October – Training Room 3 – 10.30-11.30am

To book a place on any of these sessions, email onebarnet@barnet.gov.uk.

Use that same email address if you have any further questions between now and the next newsletter, about the DRS project. Have a great weekend.

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

www.barnet.gov.uk

_____________________________

The key statement, which lays bare what is going on is "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. "

This means that a new company is being set up, which is jointly owned by the Council and the "successful bidder". We have already seen Barnet Council setting up such companies. The first thing that happens is that a board of directors is formed. Past experience of the council doing this has shown that senior council executives are appoined to the board. Now you may think that there is a conflict of interest (I certainly do). The same council executives who are making the decisions to form these companies are also appointed to the board, presumably on huge salaries and with juicy share options. It beggars belief that people can set themselves up as directors of a company with a turnover of a hundred million pounds a year at the expense of the Barnet taxpayer.

There is an even more dangerous side to all of this. The companies are presumably going to be limited liability enterprises. This means that Capita Symonds or BT have no exposure to failure. They own shares in the company, so if it all goes swimmingly, they make the profits, but if it fails and goes bust, they have no exposure  whatsoever. In a normal outsourcing exercise, the successful bidder takes a degree of risk. Multi national companies such as BT are unlikely to go bust, so there is a degree of protection for the taxpayer. With this model, the only thing which is being outsourced is the profits. It also means that if and when it all goes wrong, BT or Capita Symonds can say "Not us guv, we were only shareholders in the company".

We can sum up the whole One Barnet program with two questions.

Q: Who stands to gain from this arrangement?
A: The directors of the new company (many of whom are involved in setting up the company, whilst working for Barnet Council) and the shareholders of the "successful bidder".

Q: Who is left with the risk?
A: The Barnet Taxpayer, who if the "joint venture" fails, will have to pick up the tab.

I don't know about you, but the whole thing sounds to me like a conspiracy. This "joint venture" is riddled with "conflicts of interest". The fact that the bidders are unwilling to accept any risk at all, but are more than happy to accept the profits is truly staggering. Is there no one within Barnet Council who is prepared to speak out and call a halt to this attempt to rob the taxpayer?

Ms Wharfe talks about transparency. As this "joint venture" will be a private company, it will be exempt from FoI legislation, so there will be no transparency at all. 

I call on the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius to call a halt to the whole debacle immediately.

UnbeF*ck*nglievable - Disabled people discriminated against by Paralympic ticketing arrangements !

I don't normally just post links to other sites with no commentary or anything. I'll make an exception this time, because this is totally unbelieveable. Is the country really run by complete twats? So it seems. Given all the good will generated by the Olympics, this is shocking !

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/international-paralympic-committee-london2012-review-ticketing-policy-for-wheelchair-users

The Friday Joke - 17/8/2012

This week, we feature  guest jokes -  This is from Helen Michael, owner of Cafe Buzz in Finchley

----------------------------------
 
A woman was playing golf when she took a big swing and fell.

The party waiting behind her was a group from Barnet Council which included Leader Richard Cornelius, who quickly stepped forward and helped her to her feet.

She thanked him and started to leave, when he said; "I'm Richard Cornelius, leader of Barnet Council, and I hope you'll vote for me at the next council elections."

She laughed and quickly said; "I fell on my backside, not my head!"
------------------------------------

And This is from "Old John"

I was visiting my son last night when I asked if I could borrow a newspaper.

'This is the 21st  century,’ he said. 'I don't waste money on newspapers. Here, you can borrow my iPad.'

I can tell you this, that damn fly never knew what hit him.

(Old John assures me there are plenty more where that one came from, if ever I get low on jokes)

Breaking news : Brian Coleman appeal against censure for rude emails rejected

Hat Tip to the Barnet Bugle, for posting on Twitter

Brian Coleman has lost his appeal against censure by Barnet Council Standards Sub Committee, for sending rude emails to Barnet residents in his official capacity as a member of the Council and the North West London Waste Authority. See below for details. The Barnet Eye is sorry to report that as he's lost, Coleman will have to pick up the legal fees. Apparently he has 28 days to appeal. If he loses, it will cost him even more !!!!!!

LGS 0582 Tribunal Decision