Today is the day we remember victims of the Nazi holocaust. Barnet has the largest Jewish community in Great Britain, largely as a result of this atrocity and the earlier pogroms and other persecutions of Jewish people in Europe. When I attended Orange Hill Senior High School in the late 1970's , the school had a large number of Jewish pupils, many had parents and grandparents with direct experience of concentration camps. Virtually none had families unaffected by the holocaust. Thirty years later many of those parents and grandparents have passed away and the stories move from being a living memory to a page in a history book. Holocaust memorial day is one way that we can remind ourselves of the risks of regimes who seek to divide our communities by race, creed or ethnicity. If the holocaust was the last time that ethnic cleansing was attempted, maybe people could say we'd learned the lesson. If discimination based on faith, colour or creed was a thing of the past we could treat it as a historical anomaly. Sadly, even in Europe, we've seen ethnic cleansing. Even more sadly we still see evidence of anti semitism even in Barnet. Synogogues and Jewish gravestones are often targets of those who seek to turn the clock back and bring an era of hatred back upon us.
When I was 16 I had the pleasure of working with a stonemason who was Jewish and had been an officer in the British army during the second world war. He had been one the first British officers into the Belsen concentration camp. The experience overwhelmed him and he suffered a nervous breakdown. The British army was completely unprepared for the sight that greeted them and they were unable to save thousands of people who they had liberated. The medical teams simply had no experience of how to treat people suffering acute starvation. The SS officers who were captured at the site immediately claimed protection under the Geneva convention. These cowards sought refuge under international law, having violated every law ever written in their treatment of the people of the camp. One of the most poignant things I was told was that for many of those who died, they simply gave up believing even hell could be no worse than where they were. Today on BBC radio 94.9 Vanessa Feltz played an interview by a father who's daughter was savaged by an out of control dog. In Belsen, brutal guards would routinely give the babies of camp inmates to guard dogs to be torn to bits. Anyone who couldn't work was systematically murdered. It is worth remembering that as well as the Jewish population, the disabled, the gypsy's, Homosexuals, political dissidents, and a host of other groups also suffered persecution and murder.
Over a cup of tea in 1977, I was told one thing which I simply refused to believe. After hearing the story of how my work colleague entered the camp, the stench and the pure horror of what he saw, he said something which seemed completely ridiculous. "Some people are trying to say that none of the things I've told you really happened. In the future as people die off, these lies will be told more regulalry. When the British army occupied the camp, we shot thousands of hours of film, as a record so that the truth of the situation can never be denied, remember this if ever you hear such a rumour".
At the time of the conversation, I was a dyslexic sixteen year old, considering a future working in the building trade (as a back up to my music career). It never occurred to me that anyone could possibly take such lies seriously. It never occurred to me that people would desecrate synogogues and Jewish graves in the London Borough of Barnet. As blogs had not been dreamed of, it never occurred to me that I'd write a blog and anyone would care what I wrote. It never occurred to me that the things I was told over numerous mugs of tea, may be important enough to be retold.
Sadly, the man who spoke those words to me passed away many years ago. With him, the things he saw went. Only the conversations with people like me remain. Those and the thousands of hours of film footage, which serve forever as a reminder of the foul, evil brutality of the regime which perpetrated the crimes. We have holocaust memorial day for one reason and one reason alone. Because we all need to be reminded of the truth of this abomination.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Monday, 23 January 2012
A statement : The Barnet Eye and Barnet Council
There are many things I would like to say today, but it is very necessary to keep my powder dry. I can just advise one thing. Nothing I write on this blog, in relation to Barnet Council is done lightly. I have a large and informal circle of people who have advised, helped and steered me in the right direction from day 1. They are from the right, left and centre of political spectrum. They encompass a whole range of skills, talents and professions. When this blog is attacked, they are also attacked. What is heartening is that this is the message they have been at pains to make sure I understand and appreciate.
A few people have told me they are worried about me, especially following a few comments on the cancer blogs I've written recently. Please don't be. I couldn't feel fitter or more healthy than I do right now. I just perhaps share my darker thoughts a bit too much with you. Let me explain why.
In 1985, I co wrote a song. The chorus went like this
if you don't try,
if you don't try,
if you don't try,
You might as well be dead.
I have sung this song to myself ever since, whenever I've needed to motivate myself, be it to run for a bus, to drag myself out in the rain to a meeting, to get out of bed and go to work, when I've felt like dying (and I mean this mostly in relation to hangovers). It has seen me through good times and bad and helped me meet many challenges. I may be wrong, I may be deluded, but I truly wonder what certain people sing to themselves for motivation?
On Saturday morning I had an MRI at Barnet General. I'd been stressing on it all week. On Sunday morning, I had to take a washing machine to the flat of a friend who is suffering from a far more serious cancer than I have. I have been dreading seeing him. He is one of my best friends, but I was scared to see a window into my own future. Wheras I'll probably die of something else, he's been given a prognosis of 6-12 months. He's 45 years old. When I saw him, it was great. He has the right attitude to life. It isn't money, possessions or power which matter and make us happy. It is knowing we have people who love us. Nothing else matters at all, but you only find out when you are stripped to the bare bones of your existence.
That is why I'm truly afraid of nothing apart from seeing the people I love suffer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many apologies for the self indulgent tone of the second section of this post. I just really don't want anyone who cares about me to worry. If I wasn't feeling strong, I wouldn't write any of this
Boris launches the Brian Coleman charm offensive
This weekend the Barnet Tories launched the Brian Coleman charm offensive. We got a leaflet showing just how hard Brian Coleman has been working on our behalf. Strangely it makes no mention of the way Coleman has hiked up parking charges. Apparently the fact that certain types of crime are down is completely down to all the hard work Boris and Brian have been doing. Strangely, the leaflet doesn't mention that theft of mobile phones is up by 10%. What is the police advice for residents? Don't make lengthy mobile phone calls on the street or have your valuables handy. What does Brian Colemans policy for pay by phone require? Lengthy calls on the street, with your credit card in your hand. Due to the document being bigger than the scanner. I've sent an FOI request to the police to find out exactly how hard Brian Coleman has been working with the Police. Should be interesting
It is nice to see that Boris completely associates himself with Brian Coleman and his policies. Next time you get a parking ticket, or if your business is suffering, ask yourself this. Do I really want Brian Coleman to be rewarded with £50,000 a year for the next four years at the GLA elections in May for these policies? Hear is a rather crappily scanned version of the leaflet.
In response to the taxpayer funded pro Boris rally at the Peel Centre last week, I received this letter from the Labour candidate Andrew Dismore. He clearly is rather upset at the taxpayer funding such a rally. I was under the impression that in the run up to an election, public funds should not be used to exclusively promote one side. I'm not taking sides in this, I don't belong to the Conservative or Labour party. You may think I'm a secret Dismore fan. In actual fact the Labour party expelled me in 2010 (even though I'd quit the party in 2009) and told me I was banned from membership for five years. What amuses me is that Brian Coleman could join the Labour party tomorrow if he wanted to, but I can't. Anyway, here's what Andrew has to say
It is nice to see that Boris completely associates himself with Brian Coleman and his policies. Next time you get a parking ticket, or if your business is suffering, ask yourself this. Do I really want Brian Coleman to be rewarded with £50,000 a year for the next four years at the GLA elections in May for these policies? Hear is a rather crappily scanned version of the leaflet.
In response to the taxpayer funded pro Boris rally at the Peel Centre last week, I received this letter from the Labour candidate Andrew Dismore. He clearly is rather upset at the taxpayer funding such a rally. I was under the impression that in the run up to an election, public funds should not be used to exclusively promote one side. I'm not taking sides in this, I don't belong to the Conservative or Labour party. You may think I'm a secret Dismore fan. In actual fact the Labour party expelled me in 2010 (even though I'd quit the party in 2009) and told me I was banned from membership for five years. What amuses me is that Brian Coleman could join the Labour party tomorrow if he wanted to, but I can't. Anyway, here's what Andrew has to say
Dear Editor,
The Press (19th January) gave extensive coverage
to the London Mayor’s meeting at the Peel Centre. However, chaired by the
Conservative GLA member Brian Coleman, also facing the ballot box in May, one
could be forgiven for thinking it was nothing more than a Conservative election
rally.
Most of the time was taken up by the Mayor extolling his own
virtues, supported by the rest of his “ backing group” panel. Ostensibly to
discuss local economic issues, the GLA member was very careful to avoid calling
any questioners who wished to raise the parking charges issue- the biggest
elephant in the room and for which he is personally responsible - and indeed to
avoid calling anyone likely to ask challenging and difficult questions in the
short time they left for questions. Criticism was confined to outside the
formal meeting.
Of course, if the meeting had been paid for by the
Conservatives, one could hardly object to the holding an election rally: but it
wasn’t. It was paid for by London’s council taxpayers.
Personally, I think the money could and should have been
better spent on ameliorating the Mayor’s police cuts or fares rises, but clearly
the Mayor and GLA member have other things on their mind as the May elections
approach.
Andrew Dismore
Labour London Assembly candidate for Barnet and
Camden
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Exactly who is in charge of Barnet Council?
"The Devils greatest trick is to convince us all that he doesn't exist"
Who is in charge of Barnet Council? Who has the desk with the sign on it saying "The buck stops here"? Is it council leader Richard Cornelius, the man who says "I'm sorry, I can't do anything about that" to residents when they ask why he can't sort out the mess created by the Councils parking policies. Is it "Non Stick" Nick Walkley, the CEO, who's name never seems to be on any embarrassing document? In Barnet we have the massive One Barnet outsourcing project. Who is the sponsor of this project? Who is the top man who thinks it's a good idea and is prepared to say "This is my baby, I think it will save the people of Barnet a fortune and I think it is the future of local government in Barnet". The strangest thing about such a huge, transformational project, which the council is spending billions on, is the fact that no one is prepared to stand up in public and explain it.
On Friday I had approx 400 different hits on this website from people at Barnet Council. More than half of these arrived through google searches for phrases such as "Barnet Eye". Why? I don't know, but I'll take a wild guess and say that it's because they are interested what is happening to the organisation they work for. Let me tell you something I found out on Friday. "Barnet Council strongly disapprove" of me and my blog. Funny that. All 400 of them who read the blog all thought "I strongly disapprove of Roger Tichborne and his blog". Maybe I should emigrate to Australia to be in the land of my ancestors. I must be so unpopular that I should hide my face behind a mask when I walk the streets of Barnet. If you work for Barnet Council, is that how you feel about this blog? The council have spent 3 1/2 years trying to completely ignore this blog. They routinely reply to the most routine and trivial email late. I have emailed the CEO of Barnet Council on numerous issue, I routinely copy him into every communication and yet he never, ever responds.
Does Mr Walkley believe in the One Barnet project? He has spent millions of pounds (of our money) promoting it and on consultants to implement it. Nick is an intelligent guy, quite friendly whenever I've chatted to him. Maybe he thinks I'm a complete moron or a fool. Maybe I am not worthy of a response. He's the CEO, he can talk to who he likes, yet he chooses never to respond to my emails. The leader, councillor Richard Cornelius does sometimes if he thinks it's appropriate. Why doesn't Nick. Is he scared of what I'll say? Many of his employees and many of the councillors email me regularly. If they say "This is in confidence and not for the blog" It stays in confidence and off the blog.
I've offered Nick the opportunity to write a guest blog which would be universally read by his staff, explaining what the whole One Barnet project is all about. I've offered to interview him. He could have persuaded me that it was a good idea. I'm not stupid. I can read a balance sheet or a business case. If the numbers stack up, I'd buy into it if it was good for Barnet. There are many great services in Barnet supplied by other organisations. I'm not implacably opposed to the concept of outsourcing.
Many people may think that I'm opposed to large corporations such as Capita, who are the front runner for the One Barnet contract. Let me let you into a little secret. I'm not. Several years ago I used to own shares in Capita. I bought them as an investment because I thought the company had an interesting business model and would produce a return on my money. I took an interest as they were the company which implemented the Congestion charge for former Mayor Ken Livingstone. I believed that this was a technology they could resell to cities around the world. I made thousands of pounds when I sold them, they had doubled in value. I sold them to invest the money in my own business. If I had any spare cash to invest right now, I'd probably invest some of it in Capita, because I'm sure they will clean up on the Barnet project. Whilst many people locally are implacably opposed to their business model, Capita as a PLC exist solely to produce a return for their shareholders. I can see no circumstances where the One Barnet project will not deliver a handsome return for them. I may not like what this will mean for many of us in Barnet, but as a cash investment, I really don't think you could argue with it.I wonder how many employees of Barnet Council and consultants working on the project are Capita shareholders? Is this something we should be interested in?
I can see what is in the deal for Capita, but I cannot see how it is in the long term interest of the people of Barnet to have this project proceed. I've read hundreds of documents and none support the proposition as being for the benefit of Barnet. Which brings us back to the proposition "Who runs Barnet Council". Why is this important? Because whoever that person is, they must fully understand the project and the benefits. They must step forward and say "I support this project because it will deliver these benefits". Let's have the conversation and move on. What happens in the absence of leadership? Well as I write this blog, there is a large ship lying on its side in the Med, there are families grieving and a cruise line is likely to disappear, due to the reputational damage of the actions of one man. The captain of that ship allowed a disaster to happen, letting his personal whim take precidence over doing his job properly. When it was clear that his mistake had caused a disaster, he legged it, leaving the people who were looking to him for guidance and ledership in the lurch. With no one at the helm, making the important decisions, the boat sank and people died. That is what happens when no one knows who is really in charge and what needs to be done.
At the start of the blog I quoted the old maxim that the devils greatest trick is convincing us that he doesn't exist. I suspect that this is the greatest trick of whoever at Barnet Council is responsible for the One Barnet project.
Have a pleasant Sunday.
Who is in charge of Barnet Council? Who has the desk with the sign on it saying "The buck stops here"? Is it council leader Richard Cornelius, the man who says "I'm sorry, I can't do anything about that" to residents when they ask why he can't sort out the mess created by the Councils parking policies. Is it "Non Stick" Nick Walkley, the CEO, who's name never seems to be on any embarrassing document? In Barnet we have the massive One Barnet outsourcing project. Who is the sponsor of this project? Who is the top man who thinks it's a good idea and is prepared to say "This is my baby, I think it will save the people of Barnet a fortune and I think it is the future of local government in Barnet". The strangest thing about such a huge, transformational project, which the council is spending billions on, is the fact that no one is prepared to stand up in public and explain it.
On Friday I had approx 400 different hits on this website from people at Barnet Council. More than half of these arrived through google searches for phrases such as "Barnet Eye". Why? I don't know, but I'll take a wild guess and say that it's because they are interested what is happening to the organisation they work for. Let me tell you something I found out on Friday. "Barnet Council strongly disapprove" of me and my blog. Funny that. All 400 of them who read the blog all thought "I strongly disapprove of Roger Tichborne and his blog". Maybe I should emigrate to Australia to be in the land of my ancestors. I must be so unpopular that I should hide my face behind a mask when I walk the streets of Barnet. If you work for Barnet Council, is that how you feel about this blog? The council have spent 3 1/2 years trying to completely ignore this blog. They routinely reply to the most routine and trivial email late. I have emailed the CEO of Barnet Council on numerous issue, I routinely copy him into every communication and yet he never, ever responds.
Does Mr Walkley believe in the One Barnet project? He has spent millions of pounds (of our money) promoting it and on consultants to implement it. Nick is an intelligent guy, quite friendly whenever I've chatted to him. Maybe he thinks I'm a complete moron or a fool. Maybe I am not worthy of a response. He's the CEO, he can talk to who he likes, yet he chooses never to respond to my emails. The leader, councillor Richard Cornelius does sometimes if he thinks it's appropriate. Why doesn't Nick. Is he scared of what I'll say? Many of his employees and many of the councillors email me regularly. If they say "This is in confidence and not for the blog" It stays in confidence and off the blog.
I've offered Nick the opportunity to write a guest blog which would be universally read by his staff, explaining what the whole One Barnet project is all about. I've offered to interview him. He could have persuaded me that it was a good idea. I'm not stupid. I can read a balance sheet or a business case. If the numbers stack up, I'd buy into it if it was good for Barnet. There are many great services in Barnet supplied by other organisations. I'm not implacably opposed to the concept of outsourcing.
Many people may think that I'm opposed to large corporations such as Capita, who are the front runner for the One Barnet contract. Let me let you into a little secret. I'm not. Several years ago I used to own shares in Capita. I bought them as an investment because I thought the company had an interesting business model and would produce a return on my money. I took an interest as they were the company which implemented the Congestion charge for former Mayor Ken Livingstone. I believed that this was a technology they could resell to cities around the world. I made thousands of pounds when I sold them, they had doubled in value. I sold them to invest the money in my own business. If I had any spare cash to invest right now, I'd probably invest some of it in Capita, because I'm sure they will clean up on the Barnet project. Whilst many people locally are implacably opposed to their business model, Capita as a PLC exist solely to produce a return for their shareholders. I can see no circumstances where the One Barnet project will not deliver a handsome return for them. I may not like what this will mean for many of us in Barnet, but as a cash investment, I really don't think you could argue with it.I wonder how many employees of Barnet Council and consultants working on the project are Capita shareholders? Is this something we should be interested in?
I can see what is in the deal for Capita, but I cannot see how it is in the long term interest of the people of Barnet to have this project proceed. I've read hundreds of documents and none support the proposition as being for the benefit of Barnet. Which brings us back to the proposition "Who runs Barnet Council". Why is this important? Because whoever that person is, they must fully understand the project and the benefits. They must step forward and say "I support this project because it will deliver these benefits". Let's have the conversation and move on. What happens in the absence of leadership? Well as I write this blog, there is a large ship lying on its side in the Med, there are families grieving and a cruise line is likely to disappear, due to the reputational damage of the actions of one man. The captain of that ship allowed a disaster to happen, letting his personal whim take precidence over doing his job properly. When it was clear that his mistake had caused a disaster, he legged it, leaving the people who were looking to him for guidance and ledership in the lurch. With no one at the helm, making the important decisions, the boat sank and people died. That is what happens when no one knows who is really in charge and what needs to be done.
At the start of the blog I quoted the old maxim that the devils greatest trick is convincing us that he doesn't exist. I suspect that this is the greatest trick of whoever at Barnet Council is responsible for the One Barnet project.
Have a pleasant Sunday.
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Rog T's Cancer Blog - Cancer vs Dyslexia
For those of you who are
regular readers and have read the previous posts, you can skip this
first paragraph.This is the latest installment in my occasional series about how I'm
adjusting to living with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary.
I'm 49 years old and I recently had a prostate biopsy following two
"slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took ten tissue
samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which gives me a
3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active monitoring.
I've no symptoms and sadly for a few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it
won't be from Prostate cancer. Got the picture?
So today was scan day. I remember reading about when the MRI scanner was invented and how it nearly made Thorn EMI bankrupt. I never dreamed I'd be stuck in one finding out exactly how bad my cancer actually is. How ironic that my dyslexia nearly thwarted me having the scan. I like to leave loads of time. The scan was at 11am and I had to drop my son off at a friends while I had the scan. So I left at 10.30, dropped off the boy, drove to Edgware Hospital and then realised I'd forgotton the letter. Still loads of time, so I nipped home, picked up the letter and went back and parked. I looked at the letter to see where the department was and to my horror, discovered that my dyslexic brain had managed to transform Barnet hospital into Edgware. Don't ask how, I don't know. Now I was late. So I jumped in the car and did a fine impersonation of Starsky and Hutch (while sticking to the speed limit officer, honest). I arrived 10 minutes late. Then I couldn't find the MRI centre, I wandered aimlessly around, until my phone rang. It was the lady from the MRI centre. She tried to guide me into the centre "Look for the sign saying...... " she said. At times of stress, my dyslexia seems to get worse, I couldn't read a bloody a thing. The departments seemed to not exist. Her instructions became more confusing and none of the signs pointed in the right direction. Eventually I figured out where it was, by now 25 minutes late. I came in and handed her the letter.
She seemed surprised, it was clear she was not expecting my adonis like figure, having tried to guide a bumbling buffoon all of 100 yards. She clearly couldn't equate the idiot on the phone with the fine figure of manhood before her eyes. I bluffed "The signage around here is a bit dodgy" She explained that the MRI section is a part of another department.
I disrobed and got stuck in the MRI machine. About 10% of people are freaked out by the noise and the claustrophobia. It makes a terrible racket and is a tube only slightly smaller than you are. You are in it for twenty five minutes on average. This was where being a punk rock enthusiast served me well. Years of tiny clubs, with loud discordant rythmic noises made me feel right at home. Sometimes there were two or three of them at once, cutting in and out, Grung, grung, grung, dick, dick, dick, grunge, dick, grung dick the machine went at ear splitting volume. To make it more pleasant you get headphones playing Sibelius. I preferred the Grung, Grung, Grung, dick, dick noises. As it went on I mentally floated away to another place, the land between being awake and asleep. I stirred and almost pressed the panic alarm. At the end the lady asked if I was OK "Yeah, fine". As I got out a teenage girl was going in with her mum. They both looked worried. I tried to be reassuring "It's ok, it isn't too bad apart from the noise". Her mum said "I freaked out in one and I think I've scared her" I hope it went ok for her.
When it was finished, I went for a sauna and jacuzzi to chill out. I meditated in 100 degrees on the irony of my dyslexia interfering with my cancer treatment. I very rarely these days have this complete attack of word blindness, but today was pretty special. I felt like a complete idiot. In truth for a few seconds, I felt completely defeated and like just lying down on the floor crying, as I spoke to the lady and couldn't process her instructions. By the time I found her, I was 100% back to being myself. I have not felt so useless and self conscious for years, but I guess that is the effect stress has. By the time the procedure was over, I was fine. I phoned a couple of people and I doubt they had the slightest clue that I'd nearly lost it completely 45 minutes before.
I don't know if it is a sign of the cuts, but there used to be a front desk where someone sat who told you where to go. There always seemed to be a confused old lady, being helped to find her appointment at it. I guess in Camerons world of cuts, confused old ladies and dyslexic cancer stricken bloggers, just have to look after themselves as best they can.
Have a good Saturday night. I'm off for a couple of beers. I need them
So today was scan day. I remember reading about when the MRI scanner was invented and how it nearly made Thorn EMI bankrupt. I never dreamed I'd be stuck in one finding out exactly how bad my cancer actually is. How ironic that my dyslexia nearly thwarted me having the scan. I like to leave loads of time. The scan was at 11am and I had to drop my son off at a friends while I had the scan. So I left at 10.30, dropped off the boy, drove to Edgware Hospital and then realised I'd forgotton the letter. Still loads of time, so I nipped home, picked up the letter and went back and parked. I looked at the letter to see where the department was and to my horror, discovered that my dyslexic brain had managed to transform Barnet hospital into Edgware. Don't ask how, I don't know. Now I was late. So I jumped in the car and did a fine impersonation of Starsky and Hutch (while sticking to the speed limit officer, honest). I arrived 10 minutes late. Then I couldn't find the MRI centre, I wandered aimlessly around, until my phone rang. It was the lady from the MRI centre. She tried to guide me into the centre "Look for the sign saying...... " she said. At times of stress, my dyslexia seems to get worse, I couldn't read a bloody a thing. The departments seemed to not exist. Her instructions became more confusing and none of the signs pointed in the right direction. Eventually I figured out where it was, by now 25 minutes late. I came in and handed her the letter.
She seemed surprised, it was clear she was not expecting my adonis like figure, having tried to guide a bumbling buffoon all of 100 yards. She clearly couldn't equate the idiot on the phone with the fine figure of manhood before her eyes. I bluffed "The signage around here is a bit dodgy" She explained that the MRI section is a part of another department.
I disrobed and got stuck in the MRI machine. About 10% of people are freaked out by the noise and the claustrophobia. It makes a terrible racket and is a tube only slightly smaller than you are. You are in it for twenty five minutes on average. This was where being a punk rock enthusiast served me well. Years of tiny clubs, with loud discordant rythmic noises made me feel right at home. Sometimes there were two or three of them at once, cutting in and out, Grung, grung, grung, dick, dick, dick, grunge, dick, grung dick the machine went at ear splitting volume. To make it more pleasant you get headphones playing Sibelius. I preferred the Grung, Grung, Grung, dick, dick noises. As it went on I mentally floated away to another place, the land between being awake and asleep. I stirred and almost pressed the panic alarm. At the end the lady asked if I was OK "Yeah, fine". As I got out a teenage girl was going in with her mum. They both looked worried. I tried to be reassuring "It's ok, it isn't too bad apart from the noise". Her mum said "I freaked out in one and I think I've scared her" I hope it went ok for her.
When it was finished, I went for a sauna and jacuzzi to chill out. I meditated in 100 degrees on the irony of my dyslexia interfering with my cancer treatment. I very rarely these days have this complete attack of word blindness, but today was pretty special. I felt like a complete idiot. In truth for a few seconds, I felt completely defeated and like just lying down on the floor crying, as I spoke to the lady and couldn't process her instructions. By the time I found her, I was 100% back to being myself. I have not felt so useless and self conscious for years, but I guess that is the effect stress has. By the time the procedure was over, I was fine. I phoned a couple of people and I doubt they had the slightest clue that I'd nearly lost it completely 45 minutes before.
I don't know if it is a sign of the cuts, but there used to be a front desk where someone sat who told you where to go. There always seemed to be a confused old lady, being helped to find her appointment at it. I guess in Camerons world of cuts, confused old ladies and dyslexic cancer stricken bloggers, just have to look after themselves as best they can.
Have a good Saturday night. I'm off for a couple of beers. I need them
Barnet Council - Private Eye legal bullies 2011 strike again ?
At 19.10 lat night I received a letter from Barnet Council legal team. The letter suggested that as the document I published on Thursday concerning the One Barnet tender process was marked confidential, I was not allowed to publish it and must remove it from my website immediately. They also suggested that I may be liable for any legal costs of claims arising from publishing it. As it the letter arrived at such a late hour on a Friday evening as I was going out, I removed the document from my website pending legal advice. Today I have a CAT scan, so I have other things on my mind, and in the absence of any legal advice, I do not intend to comment further on this particular issue until such time as advice has been sought other than to say that any legal challenges will be vigorously contended. I have put this clarification up merely to explain the removal of the document from this website.
I do however want to remind my readers of some general issues regarding Barnet Council and data security. I received this document from the London Borough of Barnet on 7th July in a freedom of information response. This clearly demonstrates that Barnet Council has been aware of issues surrounding information security since at least April 2011.
Is Action Plan Final Redacted)
On page 4 of this document it outlines the following risks regarding Information and Data management.
* Information is leaked through weakness and ICO impose a fine on the council for not taking all possible steps to prevent loss
* Information can be downloaded to personal home computers via Citrix leavving the council fully exposed to data falling into the wrong hands
* Unable to track source of information leak
So it is clear that there is an acknowledged issue with information security at Barnet Council. Whilst it may be easy or convenient for Barnet Council to kid themselves that this document is the only document to have been leaked regarding the One Barnet process and that I am the only person it may have been leaked to, they clearly haven't got a clue who has seen what or who has sent what to who.
Let us just for one moment consider exactly what is happening at Barnet Council at the moment. There are two contracts being tendered as part of the One Barnet process. One is worth £250 million and one is worth £750 million. Whoever wins those contracts will make a huge amount of money. This is public domain information. The companies who are bidding for these contracts are probably spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds putting together their tenders.
That makes the information used to decide the outcome of the tenders a valuable commodity.It is clear that the security surrounding these tenders has been compromised. If a document was leaked where there was clearly no financial benefit to the recipient and presumably no financial benefit to the person who leaked it, what else could have been leaked and to who? If a person is prepared to take the risk of leaking a document for no financial gain, what on earth could have been leaked if people were offered financial inducements? Many people working on the One Barnet program are consultants with no long term allegiance to Barnet Council. Other staff know their jobs are under threat and may be vulnerable to temptation. Now I am not alleging anything of the sort has happened. All I am saying is that in light of what has happened it clearly COULD of occurred and the Council would clearly be none the wiser.
As with the fact that Metpro were operating without licenses, CRB checks or accreditation, this weakness in process has happened because Barnet have no robust systems in place to detect problems. No one from the CEO of Barnet down can be sure that any information, at any stage of the One Barnet program hasn't been shared inappropriately with any third party. The truth is that the only leaks Barnet become aware of are the ones to bloggers. Whilst these are embarrassing, the ones which have the potential to really damage the council finances are ones to commercial companies that no one ever finds out about. These give companies an unfair competetive advantage to the detriment of the taxpayer.
What never ceases to amaze me in my dealings with Barnet Council is the way that whenever a crisis emerges, they always seek to shoot the messenger. If I was the CEO of Barnet, Mr Nick Walkley I would have been far more concerned with working out what is wrong with my organisation, why such problems occur and how I could restore faith in my administration. If Mr Walkley really believed that the document was damaging, he could have picked up the phone, explained why and asked me to remove it. If I had been unreasonable, he would then have been quite justified in taking whatever actions he deemed necessary. I could have explained exactly why I published it, what my concerns were and why I felt that such a leak showed that the program had been compromised (not by myself or this leaked document).
All of the Barnet bloggers have received leaked documents. I am not alone in this respect. Most are not published because they would put the person who leaked them at risk. Barnet Council have resorted to ever more stringent procedures to prevent leaks, but still the leaks happen. Most important meetings are now held in the offices of expensive city lawyers. Distribution of documents is supposedly strictly controlled, yet I am sure Mr Walkley and his team would be flabbergasted to see what bloggers have received and not published. All of this is unsolicited. I have never once asked a Barnet Council employee to tell me anything or give me any document. This has been going on for three years now, more or less since the blog first appeared. Barnet Council are fully aware of this situation, but seemingly have never asked the question "If staff can leak this to bloggers out of a sense of public duty, what could have been leaked by staff with other motivation?". That is by far the most serious question. Barnet Council are obsessed with leaks to bloggers, but have completely missed the elephant in the room - leaks to commercial companies. Let me give one example. I was given information which proved beyond doubt such information loss had caused Barnet Council financial loss. I could not act on the information (and destroyed the brown envelope) because it would without doubt have exposed my source and they would have lost their job. Who knows what else has occurred, which will never see the light of day? I believe that more than 99% of staff at Barnet are honest decent people who care passionately about the Borough. In every organisation, there is a small element who have a different motivation. The concern is that there is no effective process in place to ensure that such breaches ever come to light. It seems it only ever comes to light by chance or when the person does something extremely stupid.
One final piece of advice for Barnet Council and their legal team ( I am sure they will be avidly reading my blog today). Any document which contains information which you do not want the world to see should contain a legal warning on every page. Here is an example of such a warning :-
A document carrying text such as this leaves no one in any doubt as to the legal status of the document. It is a sensible precaution that costs nothing. I would suggest that Barnet legal put their time to good use today and design a document template which ensures that every Barnet Council document which they believe to be sensitive carries this wording.
Oh and finally I'd like to thank everybody who has contacted me with pledges of support and advice.
I do however want to remind my readers of some general issues regarding Barnet Council and data security. I received this document from the London Borough of Barnet on 7th July in a freedom of information response. This clearly demonstrates that Barnet Council has been aware of issues surrounding information security since at least April 2011.
Is Action Plan Final Redacted)
On page 4 of this document it outlines the following risks regarding Information and Data management.
* Information is leaked through weakness and ICO impose a fine on the council for not taking all possible steps to prevent loss
* Information can be downloaded to personal home computers via Citrix leavving the council fully exposed to data falling into the wrong hands
* Unable to track source of information leak
So it is clear that there is an acknowledged issue with information security at Barnet Council. Whilst it may be easy or convenient for Barnet Council to kid themselves that this document is the only document to have been leaked regarding the One Barnet process and that I am the only person it may have been leaked to, they clearly haven't got a clue who has seen what or who has sent what to who.
Let us just for one moment consider exactly what is happening at Barnet Council at the moment. There are two contracts being tendered as part of the One Barnet process. One is worth £250 million and one is worth £750 million. Whoever wins those contracts will make a huge amount of money. This is public domain information. The companies who are bidding for these contracts are probably spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds putting together their tenders.
That makes the information used to decide the outcome of the tenders a valuable commodity.It is clear that the security surrounding these tenders has been compromised. If a document was leaked where there was clearly no financial benefit to the recipient and presumably no financial benefit to the person who leaked it, what else could have been leaked and to who? If a person is prepared to take the risk of leaking a document for no financial gain, what on earth could have been leaked if people were offered financial inducements? Many people working on the One Barnet program are consultants with no long term allegiance to Barnet Council. Other staff know their jobs are under threat and may be vulnerable to temptation. Now I am not alleging anything of the sort has happened. All I am saying is that in light of what has happened it clearly COULD of occurred and the Council would clearly be none the wiser.
As with the fact that Metpro were operating without licenses, CRB checks or accreditation, this weakness in process has happened because Barnet have no robust systems in place to detect problems. No one from the CEO of Barnet down can be sure that any information, at any stage of the One Barnet program hasn't been shared inappropriately with any third party. The truth is that the only leaks Barnet become aware of are the ones to bloggers. Whilst these are embarrassing, the ones which have the potential to really damage the council finances are ones to commercial companies that no one ever finds out about. These give companies an unfair competetive advantage to the detriment of the taxpayer.
What never ceases to amaze me in my dealings with Barnet Council is the way that whenever a crisis emerges, they always seek to shoot the messenger. If I was the CEO of Barnet, Mr Nick Walkley I would have been far more concerned with working out what is wrong with my organisation, why such problems occur and how I could restore faith in my administration. If Mr Walkley really believed that the document was damaging, he could have picked up the phone, explained why and asked me to remove it. If I had been unreasonable, he would then have been quite justified in taking whatever actions he deemed necessary. I could have explained exactly why I published it, what my concerns were and why I felt that such a leak showed that the program had been compromised (not by myself or this leaked document).
All of the Barnet bloggers have received leaked documents. I am not alone in this respect. Most are not published because they would put the person who leaked them at risk. Barnet Council have resorted to ever more stringent procedures to prevent leaks, but still the leaks happen. Most important meetings are now held in the offices of expensive city lawyers. Distribution of documents is supposedly strictly controlled, yet I am sure Mr Walkley and his team would be flabbergasted to see what bloggers have received and not published. All of this is unsolicited. I have never once asked a Barnet Council employee to tell me anything or give me any document. This has been going on for three years now, more or less since the blog first appeared. Barnet Council are fully aware of this situation, but seemingly have never asked the question "If staff can leak this to bloggers out of a sense of public duty, what could have been leaked by staff with other motivation?". That is by far the most serious question. Barnet Council are obsessed with leaks to bloggers, but have completely missed the elephant in the room - leaks to commercial companies. Let me give one example. I was given information which proved beyond doubt such information loss had caused Barnet Council financial loss. I could not act on the information (and destroyed the brown envelope) because it would without doubt have exposed my source and they would have lost their job. Who knows what else has occurred, which will never see the light of day? I believe that more than 99% of staff at Barnet are honest decent people who care passionately about the Borough. In every organisation, there is a small element who have a different motivation. The concern is that there is no effective process in place to ensure that such breaches ever come to light. It seems it only ever comes to light by chance or when the person does something extremely stupid.
One final piece of advice for Barnet Council and their legal team ( I am sure they will be avidly reading my blog today). Any document which contains information which you do not want the world to see should contain a legal warning on every page. Here is an example of such a warning :-
This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential,
legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
A document carrying text such as this leaves no one in any doubt as to the legal status of the document. It is a sensible precaution that costs nothing. I would suggest that Barnet legal put their time to good use today and design a document template which ensures that every Barnet Council document which they believe to be sensitive carries this wording.
Oh and finally I'd like to thank everybody who has contacted me with pledges of support and advice.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Rog T's Cancer Blog - What is the point?
For those of you who are
regular readers and have read the previous posts, you can skip this
first paragraph.This is the latest installment in my occasional series about how I'm
adjusting to living with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary.
I'm 49 years old and I recently had a prostate biopsy following two
"slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took ten tissue
samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which gives me a
3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active monitoring.
I've no symptoms and sadly for a few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it
won't be from Prostate cancer. Got the picture?
I started writing this blog on Wednesday. The idea was to put it up today (Friday) in the morning and the Friday joke in the afternoon. As regular readers of the blog will realise, events took an unexpected turn and all of my planned blogs went out of the window. Ironically the subject of this blog was going to be stress and the ways to deal with it. Why? Stress is recognised as a major factor in the development and progression of cancers. Rather ironically, I was going to talk about my regime for destressing. Sadly, when you are a blogger and you get sent explosive council documents by whistleblowers any concept of stress management goes out of the window.
In a perfect world, I'd have completely stopped blogging about Barnet Council. It takes up a lot of time and causes me a lot of grief. I'd much rather be writing blogs about music, football and health related issues, but I feel I am obligated to the people of Barnet to do my best. Whilst I recognise that there are four other fantastic bloggers currently beavering away, I do not feel able to step away. The fact that people trust me enough to send me documents and put their jobs at risk, means that I in turn cannot ignore this debt of trust. I am sure every single reader of the blog, if I asked them whether I should put my health first would say yes. Being a blogger means taking chances (if you are any good). At the height of the Metpro scandal, other bloggers confided many fears about where the whole thing was going. My advice was to stick together and win through strength in numbers.
My own issues right now are different. I have a PSA and a CAT scan lined up in the next couple of weeks. I have a business to run and a family to feed. Maybe I should take these responsibilities more seriously? This is a question I ask myself. Then I come back to the old conundrum. If I was to ignore all of the leaks I get sent and stop blogging, what sort of message would that send my kids? They'd say "Dad gives up when life gets hard". I don't want my kids to learn that lesson. What about my business? If Barnet Council destroy the borough with stupid policies that are anti business, then my business will die. What about my cancer? Yes the stress of all this is bad, and surely can't help. But then what is the point being alive if you can't look in the mirror? In some ways my resentment of the people running Barnet Council has deepened, because all the stress caused by running the Barnet Eye is caused by a Council who clearly don't care and seem to not really know what they are doing.
So how do I deal with stress? I play football twice a week. I go to the gym most days and follow my workout with a trip to the sauna and the jacuzzi, followed by a short swim. At the start of the year, I decided to try and limit my blogging to one blog a day (that hasn't gone to plan). I also have been trying (and failing) to spend more time playing guitar and writing songs. Sadly some of the other things I do to destress have not exactly gone to plan recently. Watching Manchester City has returned to being a fraught experience of hair pulling in recent weeks (with the kids invariably getting yelled at in the process). So how successful is the destressing going. Well like most things there are good days and there are bad days. More good than bad though.
I also had a meeting this week with my GP. It confirmed that I really think the medical profession struggle to deal with patients dealing with cancer. I believe that having a positive attitude to everything is the best way to deal with it. I've started a semi vegetarian diet and massively boosted my intake of antoxidants and foods with properties which are known to impede development of cancer. My GP asked me how I was and I told her this, adding I was drinking five cups of green tea a day. Her response "Well I suppose it won't harm you". In truth I wasn't too impressed with this response. Clearly she was of the view that green tea has no proven beneficial effect and that I shouldn't put my trust in such things. What I felt was wrong with her comment is that she clearly didn't recognise that my lifestyle changes are not about thinking that if I drink green tea I'll magically get better. It is about trying to take charge of the process and trying to do anything at all I can to improve my odds. I recognise that doctors are suspicious of alternative remedies that distract people from conventional treatments which are clinically proven. What they seem to miss is the fact that many such things are complimentary to conventional treatments. If nothing else, they give the patient a feeling of doing their bit in the fight. I believe that people who are up for the fight do better. This may or may not be true, but it makes me feel better about myself. I am not going to give in to negative feelings.
And you may ask, how am I feeling. Well right now, pretty good. I am positive about everything.
Stay healthy and have a good weekend (a friday joke may or may not follow, but I've already written one more blog than I was supposed to today).
I started writing this blog on Wednesday. The idea was to put it up today (Friday) in the morning and the Friday joke in the afternoon. As regular readers of the blog will realise, events took an unexpected turn and all of my planned blogs went out of the window. Ironically the subject of this blog was going to be stress and the ways to deal with it. Why? Stress is recognised as a major factor in the development and progression of cancers. Rather ironically, I was going to talk about my regime for destressing. Sadly, when you are a blogger and you get sent explosive council documents by whistleblowers any concept of stress management goes out of the window.
In a perfect world, I'd have completely stopped blogging about Barnet Council. It takes up a lot of time and causes me a lot of grief. I'd much rather be writing blogs about music, football and health related issues, but I feel I am obligated to the people of Barnet to do my best. Whilst I recognise that there are four other fantastic bloggers currently beavering away, I do not feel able to step away. The fact that people trust me enough to send me documents and put their jobs at risk, means that I in turn cannot ignore this debt of trust. I am sure every single reader of the blog, if I asked them whether I should put my health first would say yes. Being a blogger means taking chances (if you are any good). At the height of the Metpro scandal, other bloggers confided many fears about where the whole thing was going. My advice was to stick together and win through strength in numbers.
My own issues right now are different. I have a PSA and a CAT scan lined up in the next couple of weeks. I have a business to run and a family to feed. Maybe I should take these responsibilities more seriously? This is a question I ask myself. Then I come back to the old conundrum. If I was to ignore all of the leaks I get sent and stop blogging, what sort of message would that send my kids? They'd say "Dad gives up when life gets hard". I don't want my kids to learn that lesson. What about my business? If Barnet Council destroy the borough with stupid policies that are anti business, then my business will die. What about my cancer? Yes the stress of all this is bad, and surely can't help. But then what is the point being alive if you can't look in the mirror? In some ways my resentment of the people running Barnet Council has deepened, because all the stress caused by running the Barnet Eye is caused by a Council who clearly don't care and seem to not really know what they are doing.
So how do I deal with stress? I play football twice a week. I go to the gym most days and follow my workout with a trip to the sauna and the jacuzzi, followed by a short swim. At the start of the year, I decided to try and limit my blogging to one blog a day (that hasn't gone to plan). I also have been trying (and failing) to spend more time playing guitar and writing songs. Sadly some of the other things I do to destress have not exactly gone to plan recently. Watching Manchester City has returned to being a fraught experience of hair pulling in recent weeks (with the kids invariably getting yelled at in the process). So how successful is the destressing going. Well like most things there are good days and there are bad days. More good than bad though.
I also had a meeting this week with my GP. It confirmed that I really think the medical profession struggle to deal with patients dealing with cancer. I believe that having a positive attitude to everything is the best way to deal with it. I've started a semi vegetarian diet and massively boosted my intake of antoxidants and foods with properties which are known to impede development of cancer. My GP asked me how I was and I told her this, adding I was drinking five cups of green tea a day. Her response "Well I suppose it won't harm you". In truth I wasn't too impressed with this response. Clearly she was of the view that green tea has no proven beneficial effect and that I shouldn't put my trust in such things. What I felt was wrong with her comment is that she clearly didn't recognise that my lifestyle changes are not about thinking that if I drink green tea I'll magically get better. It is about trying to take charge of the process and trying to do anything at all I can to improve my odds. I recognise that doctors are suspicious of alternative remedies that distract people from conventional treatments which are clinically proven. What they seem to miss is the fact that many such things are complimentary to conventional treatments. If nothing else, they give the patient a feeling of doing their bit in the fight. I believe that people who are up for the fight do better. This may or may not be true, but it makes me feel better about myself. I am not going to give in to negative feelings.
And you may ask, how am I feeling. Well right now, pretty good. I am positive about everything.
Stay healthy and have a good weekend (a friday joke may or may not follow, but I've already written one more blog than I was supposed to today).
Whistleblower puts a spanner in the works of One Barnet project - update
Yesterday this blog published a document which was sent from a Barnet Council office (verified by the postmark) and was a printed copy of the selection process for the multi million pound One Barnet bidders. Before this was published, I had to satisfy myself about two issues. Was it legal to publish the document and was it the right thing to do? Firstly let me address the issues of legality. I had received the document anonymously through the post. It contained no information describing any legal reason why the document should not be published, other than a statement that it was confidential and that if it was leaked it could have financial implications for the council. The view was that the document was only confidential because Barnet Council would find it inconvenient to see it published. As the document didn't even contain a Barnet Council logo, it meant that either someone had carefully doctored the document or the council had deliberately removed any information so they could claim "plausable denyability". Having decided that there was no legal reason why the document shouldn't be published, we come to the question of "whether it was the right thing to do".
So what were the reasons to refrain from publishing it. The reason Barnet give is that it contains information that could have serious financial consequences the Council. I reject this argument. In the USA, which has a far lower tax base than us, all public tenders and such evaluations are published. This ensures transparency. It ensures that bidders know why their tender was rejected, so they can improve them next time they bid. There is no chance of shenanigans, because a fair playing field is guaranteed. I think that it is highly immoral that a company can be rejected by a public authority and not really know the weaknesses of its bid or the strengths of the rivals. Us as taxpayers should want companies to all put the best bids possible and up their games accordingly. I have been accused of many things since I started writing this blog. Perhaps the most stupid and misguided is that I'm a swivel eyed Trotskyite and that I'm implacably opposed to ANY form of private involvement in the public sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never belonged to a Trades Union, I run a small business which has been a supplier to several local authorities (including Barnet), I'm a member of the Federation of Small business and I stood at the last election as a candidate for for the Lib Dems. The reason I oppose the One Barnet process is because I understand business, I understand efficiency and I understand the concept of competetive tendering.
I oppose the One Barnet program for the following reasons :-
* It discriminates against small business and excludes them from the process
* There has been no transparency at all in the process
* The business case has not been made
* Councillors have been excluded from the process, removing democratic oversight
* There has been no consultation with the people of Barnet to ascertain their views
* The process threatens vital services for vulnerable people
* Barnet Council has a record of botched outsourcing projects, costing taxpayers millions
* Barnet Council has not got its procurement process in order. It is not fit for purpose for such a large contract
When I read the report, it became 100% clear to me that yet again Barnet was running the risk of embarking on a huge contract without correctly identifying the full risk associated with all bidders. This paper removed two of the companies who were bidding without resolving the issues of risk associated with the other bidders. Until all companies can accurately describe the costs and risks associated with their bids, it is completely irresponsible to proceed to the next stage. However Barnet Council try and gloss over this, you cannot exclude bidders if you are not comparing all tenders on an equal footing. Barnet council has had to pay a company called Catalyst, that runs its care homes over £8 million because the contract failed to remove the risk of financial loss from the Council. This project is far bigger, but yet again, despite their previous experience, they are proceeding to the next stage of the tender without resolving these issues.
Whether or not you agree with my reasons for opposing One Barnet, you cannot dispute the fact that risk is being ignored, because this is written in black and white in the report. Barnet Council claims that leaking this report would expose the Council to financial loss. What they don't say is that failing to expose it would have allowed the council to proceed with a hugely risky project. I am a Barnet Council taxpayer. I will ultimately fund this process. I expect my council to represent my interests in a professional and transparent manner. I expect to be able to find out the financial basis for the spending decisions they make. If they want to chose Capita Symonds and EC Harris as partners and exclude Mouchel and Jacobs, I expect to be able to see that this has been done on a fair basis that has delivered best value to me as the funder of the project. There is information that the Council has that should not be published. Things such as details of vulnerable people or plans to cope with terrorism. I also agree that evaluation of tenders should be conducted in private. The point is that once the decison has been made, details should then be published to show that the job has been done, properly. This document was published in November 2011. It does not say DRAFT, so we have to suppose it is the final report. The time for secrecy has gone and the time for the world to see why the decision was made is upon us. The fact that Barnet Council do not understand this shows that they are not committed to transparency and as such cannot guarantee "best value" for me the taxpayer.
It has been suggested that I won't be very popular in the corridors of power in Barnet today. They should be thanking me for doing something they should have done themselves. My blog stats yesterday show a huge public interest in the document. The stats show vistors to the blog from all the bidders along with a host of media organisations and other local authorities. I would propose to Barnet Council that no one leaks a document lightly. The mere fact that a senior member of staff has done such a thing demonstrates the fact that the executive have "lost the dressing room" on this.
It was suggested to me that publishing the document might open the council to the risk of legal action by disappointed bidders. This can only be the case if they have been unfairly treated. If this is the case, then it is correct to have leaked the document. It has also been suggested that I have created an impression that the Council cannot be trusted to look after confidential information. This is ridiculous, I did not leak the information or create the culture where it happens. Had I sat on the document, the Council would have been no more secure, but the world wouldn't have known. I could have secretly contacted the bidders and sold them the info. I'm sure they would have been interested. I didn't, all I did was accurately report exactly what happened. The Council could avoid all of this by opening its processes up to scrutiny. That is the way forward in the information age. There is no place for secrecy in local government finances. Anyone who does not recognise this is not fit to be running a council in the year 2012. One Barnet is a toxic brand. It is time this is acknowledged
So what were the reasons to refrain from publishing it. The reason Barnet give is that it contains information that could have serious financial consequences the Council. I reject this argument. In the USA, which has a far lower tax base than us, all public tenders and such evaluations are published. This ensures transparency. It ensures that bidders know why their tender was rejected, so they can improve them next time they bid. There is no chance of shenanigans, because a fair playing field is guaranteed. I think that it is highly immoral that a company can be rejected by a public authority and not really know the weaknesses of its bid or the strengths of the rivals. Us as taxpayers should want companies to all put the best bids possible and up their games accordingly. I have been accused of many things since I started writing this blog. Perhaps the most stupid and misguided is that I'm a swivel eyed Trotskyite and that I'm implacably opposed to ANY form of private involvement in the public sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never belonged to a Trades Union, I run a small business which has been a supplier to several local authorities (including Barnet), I'm a member of the Federation of Small business and I stood at the last election as a candidate for for the Lib Dems. The reason I oppose the One Barnet process is because I understand business, I understand efficiency and I understand the concept of competetive tendering.
I oppose the One Barnet program for the following reasons :-
* It discriminates against small business and excludes them from the process
* There has been no transparency at all in the process
* The business case has not been made
* Councillors have been excluded from the process, removing democratic oversight
* There has been no consultation with the people of Barnet to ascertain their views
* The process threatens vital services for vulnerable people
* Barnet Council has a record of botched outsourcing projects, costing taxpayers millions
* Barnet Council has not got its procurement process in order. It is not fit for purpose for such a large contract
When I read the report, it became 100% clear to me that yet again Barnet was running the risk of embarking on a huge contract without correctly identifying the full risk associated with all bidders. This paper removed two of the companies who were bidding without resolving the issues of risk associated with the other bidders. Until all companies can accurately describe the costs and risks associated with their bids, it is completely irresponsible to proceed to the next stage. However Barnet Council try and gloss over this, you cannot exclude bidders if you are not comparing all tenders on an equal footing. Barnet council has had to pay a company called Catalyst, that runs its care homes over £8 million because the contract failed to remove the risk of financial loss from the Council. This project is far bigger, but yet again, despite their previous experience, they are proceeding to the next stage of the tender without resolving these issues.
Whether or not you agree with my reasons for opposing One Barnet, you cannot dispute the fact that risk is being ignored, because this is written in black and white in the report. Barnet Council claims that leaking this report would expose the Council to financial loss. What they don't say is that failing to expose it would have allowed the council to proceed with a hugely risky project. I am a Barnet Council taxpayer. I will ultimately fund this process. I expect my council to represent my interests in a professional and transparent manner. I expect to be able to find out the financial basis for the spending decisions they make. If they want to chose Capita Symonds and EC Harris as partners and exclude Mouchel and Jacobs, I expect to be able to see that this has been done on a fair basis that has delivered best value to me as the funder of the project. There is information that the Council has that should not be published. Things such as details of vulnerable people or plans to cope with terrorism. I also agree that evaluation of tenders should be conducted in private. The point is that once the decison has been made, details should then be published to show that the job has been done, properly. This document was published in November 2011. It does not say DRAFT, so we have to suppose it is the final report. The time for secrecy has gone and the time for the world to see why the decision was made is upon us. The fact that Barnet Council do not understand this shows that they are not committed to transparency and as such cannot guarantee "best value" for me the taxpayer.
It has been suggested that I won't be very popular in the corridors of power in Barnet today. They should be thanking me for doing something they should have done themselves. My blog stats yesterday show a huge public interest in the document. The stats show vistors to the blog from all the bidders along with a host of media organisations and other local authorities. I would propose to Barnet Council that no one leaks a document lightly. The mere fact that a senior member of staff has done such a thing demonstrates the fact that the executive have "lost the dressing room" on this.
It was suggested to me that publishing the document might open the council to the risk of legal action by disappointed bidders. This can only be the case if they have been unfairly treated. If this is the case, then it is correct to have leaked the document. It has also been suggested that I have created an impression that the Council cannot be trusted to look after confidential information. This is ridiculous, I did not leak the information or create the culture where it happens. Had I sat on the document, the Council would have been no more secure, but the world wouldn't have known. I could have secretly contacted the bidders and sold them the info. I'm sure they would have been interested. I didn't, all I did was accurately report exactly what happened. The Council could avoid all of this by opening its processes up to scrutiny. That is the way forward in the information age. There is no place for secrecy in local government finances. Anyone who does not recognise this is not fit to be running a council in the year 2012. One Barnet is a toxic brand. It is time this is acknowledged
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Exclusive : Barnet Council whistleblower calls time on the One Barnet Project
Firstly a health warning. This document was received by me in a brown envelope with a Barnet Council franked postmark (ie posted through the Councils mail system). I have no idea whether it is a pukka document or a spoof, knocked up to discredit the blog. You will have to read it to decide for yourself. I am basing the commentary on the assumption that it is the real deal, but this is merely conjecture on my part. I sought legal advice prior to publishing this. As there is no disclaimer anywhere on the document to indicate that is privelidged information subject to legal sanction, I assume there is no reason to refrain from publishing it.The front page says "The information contained in this document is confidential as it is highly sensitive commercial information. Any leakage of this information will have very serious financial implications for the council". When I received the document, this concerned me. I did not want to cause expense to the Barnet taxpayer. Having read the document, I believe that the leadership of the council are embarking on a dangerous and risky path and failure to publish this document would expose the taxpayer to avoidable risks. I believe public sector accounts and bids should be open and transparent and companies biddings for work should be able to find out why their bid was rejected. I also see no reason why the taxpayer should not be kept informed.
My thanks go out to the member of Barnet Council who sent this. Whistleblowing carries risks and they should be commended for their actions by everyone in Barnet who believes in open, honest and transparent government. Here is the report. Read it and then read my analysis. I believe that this shows that the whole One Barnet outsourcing project is built on a house of cards of risk, untested assumptions and shoddy process.Firstly, I must say how shocked I was to receive this document. As access to this was stricly controlled, it shows that people at the heart of the Barnet Council must lack faith in the process. They must believe that it is safer to send it to a blogger to expose the process than it is to keep this under wraps. Why?
First lets look at the percieved weaknesses of the two bidders moving to the next stage. Read the risks associated with the EC Harris and Capita Symonds bid. These are huge for a contract worth £290 million. For example on risk the EC Harris bid was weak because "Ownership is not set out for a number of identified risks" or Capita Symonds "More specific commitments required eg regarding the financial implications of change". So they want to sign a huge contract with companies, when they don't know who is responsible for the risks involved. We've seen this before. In the railway industry, National Express took over the East Coast mainline. Then there was an economic downturn, the contractor couldn't make any profit, so they gave it back to the Government. On the financial and commercials, Capita Symonds actually are charging the highest fee. In the financial commentary, EC Harris are the company which offers the best guranteed financial benefit. This is nearly £4 million higher than Capita Symonds. In the final picture, they move to second because Capita Symonds add £5.7 million worth of "confidence adjusted aspirational financial benefit". You may ask WTF? Well in English an aspiration is something we'd like. I aspire to get a better job or live in a better area. It is something I want. So Barnet Council have paid a team of consultants a fortune to decide that Capita Symonds are more likely than EC Harris to want to give us (the taxpayer) a few million quid? Could you make it up? It is clear to me that the wheels are off this project and it is clear to me that the whistleblower also knows this and has decided it is time to end this expensive charade. Whilst I doubt that Barnet CEO Nick Walkley will be overly chuffed to find his organisation has more leaks than Wales on St Davids day, the rest of us should be reassured that people at Barnet Council care enough to take the risk of letting us see how such decisions are made and why we should be calling time on such a flawed process.
*********************** Updated 20/1/2012 at 19:34 ******************************
The link to SCRIBD detailing this document has been removed following a letter received at 19.10 from Barnet Council Legal Department. The Barnet Eye will be taking legal advice on Monday to ascertain any further action.
*****************************************************************************
Here's a brief summary which may help you understand what this is all about and why it's important.
My thanks go out to the member of Barnet Council who sent this. Whistleblowing carries risks and they should be commended for their actions by everyone in Barnet who believes in open, honest and transparent government. Here is the report. Read it and then read my analysis. I believe that this shows that the whole One Barnet outsourcing project is built on a house of cards of risk, untested assumptions and shoddy process.Firstly, I must say how shocked I was to receive this document. As access to this was stricly controlled, it shows that people at the heart of the Barnet Council must lack faith in the process. They must believe that it is safer to send it to a blogger to expose the process than it is to keep this under wraps. Why?
First lets look at the percieved weaknesses of the two bidders moving to the next stage. Read the risks associated with the EC Harris and Capita Symonds bid. These are huge for a contract worth £290 million. For example on risk the EC Harris bid was weak because "Ownership is not set out for a number of identified risks" or Capita Symonds "More specific commitments required eg regarding the financial implications of change". So they want to sign a huge contract with companies, when they don't know who is responsible for the risks involved. We've seen this before. In the railway industry, National Express took over the East Coast mainline. Then there was an economic downturn, the contractor couldn't make any profit, so they gave it back to the Government. On the financial and commercials, Capita Symonds actually are charging the highest fee. In the financial commentary, EC Harris are the company which offers the best guranteed financial benefit. This is nearly £4 million higher than Capita Symonds. In the final picture, they move to second because Capita Symonds add £5.7 million worth of "confidence adjusted aspirational financial benefit". You may ask WTF? Well in English an aspiration is something we'd like. I aspire to get a better job or live in a better area. It is something I want. So Barnet Council have paid a team of consultants a fortune to decide that Capita Symonds are more likely than EC Harris to want to give us (the taxpayer) a few million quid? Could you make it up? It is clear to me that the wheels are off this project and it is clear to me that the whistleblower also knows this and has decided it is time to end this expensive charade. Whilst I doubt that Barnet CEO Nick Walkley will be overly chuffed to find his organisation has more leaks than Wales on St Davids day, the rest of us should be reassured that people at Barnet Council care enough to take the risk of letting us see how such decisions are made and why we should be calling time on such a flawed process.
*********************** Updated 20/1/2012 at 19:34 ******************************
The link to SCRIBD detailing this document has been removed following a letter received at 19.10 from Barnet Council Legal Department. The Barnet Eye will be taking legal advice on Monday to ascertain any further action.
*****************************************************************************
Here's a brief summary which may help you understand what this is all about and why it's important.
What
is this leaked document ?
Barnet
Council is seeking to become the first all commissioning council whereby it no
longer delivers any services. To do this the council have employed consultants
to implement the One Barnet Programme, the total cost to the tax payers for
these consultants to implement this Programme will be over £10 million.
This figure does not include the amount of council officer time and resources
provided to the Programme at a time when services to the most vulnerable and
young people have been cut.
Who
will deliver Council Services?
The
Council have decided that only the big FTSE companies are able to carry out this
task.
“What
is DRS?”
DRS
means Development and Regulatory Services
The
following Council Services have been brought together for
this outsourcing. Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges,
Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental
Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic &
Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning &
Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria;
The
Document appears to be a summary of the evaluation of bids from four big
Companies
· Jacobs Engineering
(US international technical & profesional construction
consultancy)
· EC
Harris & FM Conway (EC Harris is a construction consultancy owned by
Arcadis, a Dutch based international engineering and management consultancy). FM
Conway is highway, building, cleansing and recycling company operating in London
and south east. Clearly, EC Harris leads the
'partnership'.
· Capita
Symonds (subsidiary of Capita Group plc)
· Mouchel
Enterprise (a joint venture between Mouchel Group plc and Enterprise
plc)
The
document provides confidential information about what each bidders are claiming
they can save and what income they can generate.
It
is worth noting that a number of these services are income generating (like
Parking) hence the attraction to the Private Sector e.g. the Cemetery &
Crematorium). This assumption has been done before in
Westminster!
Why
is the report being leaked?
The
local UNISON branch has already conducted a number of high profile strikes and
it is clear that the whistle blowing release of this information indicates there
are serious concerns. When organisations are engaged in competitive dialogue,
confidentiality is a key risk to all parties.
The full
cost of bidding is likely to be between £500,000 - £1m for each company involved
in the full procurement process.
The
One Barnet Programme has been under considerable scrutiny by local bloggers,
residents and UNISON.
The
fact that this document has been leaked suggests there is major disquiet over
what is happening within the Council and its drive to outsource at any cost (cut
following sentence - Someone has taken the very serious risk to alert the public
about what is going on.)
This
is a serious business, according to the OJEU notice this could be worth upwards
of £270m - £290m to the private contractor in a ten-year
contract.
*So
who is the lead bidder?
From
looking at the document it appears Capita are the clear favourites and unless
there is some pretty major turnaround it is clear Capita are going to win this
contract.
Although
Jacobs have come out bottom who is to say that their bid is the more
realistic?
*
This is an assumption made only on what is in this document. The document refers
to more detailed information contained somewhere else.
Barnet Pay by Phone - How many Barnet residents have registered?
At a council meeting in December, Barnet Council announced the success of the Barnet Pay by Phone scheme. They announced that 115,000 people had registered. The implication was that this was because the scheme was popular. I wondered if this was the full story.
According to the Leader of the Council, there are 350,000 residents of Barnet. So the implication is that less than 1/3rd have registered. Not quite as successful then, is it? Then I thought some more. At the recent meeting the Leader also stated that there are 20,000 registered businesses in Barnet. I wondered how many of the employees of these companies are residents of other Boroughs, who have to drive to work and are lumbered with parking. The more regularly you have to park, the better pay by phone is. So I asked an FoI question
Today I got the answer (late again.The council said
According to the Leader of the Council, there are 350,000 residents of Barnet. So the implication is that less than 1/3rd have registered. Not quite as successful then, is it? Then I thought some more. At the recent meeting the Leader also stated that there are 20,000 registered businesses in Barnet. I wondered how many of the employees of these companies are residents of other Boroughs, who have to drive to work and are lumbered with parking. The more regularly you have to park, the better pay by phone is. So I asked an FoI question
The Council Leader recently said that 115,000 people had registered to pay by phone.Please can you tell me how this figure was arrived at and what constitutes registering. Are all of these people Barnet residents?
So we have absolutely no idea of how many Barnet residents are using the scheme. It is clear that the biggest beneficiaries are people like trade reps, who visit lots of shops in Barnet and wouldn't want to carry pockets full of change. I'm not against pay by phone, so long as there are credible alternatives and it is economically priced. Neither of these criteria are met by the current scheme.This number was the number of unique users who have registered on the system by any method to open an account, and have used this account to undertake a parking transaction in the London Borough of Barnet. By this definition they are registered Barnet customers.We do not have any details of their residence as this is not something that is needed for a phone parking account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)