Brian Coleman standards case - the aftermath and the cunning plan conspiracies

I was intrigued to see the deputy leader of the Zionist Federation, Jonathan Hoffman post an article on the Jewish Chronicle yesterday, following the Brian Coleman standards hearing. You can read this here :

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/brian-coleman-acquitted-disrepute-charge

I guess the question I have to ask myself is this. How exactly has Brian Coleman helped the causes which Mr Hoffman espouses, by failing to treat Barnet residents with respect? I have read the committee papers in full (I even posted them on this website a couple of months ago). I fully understand that Mr Hoffman does not like the case Dr Jago and Mr Cohen were making. I also understand that if they had made their comments to Mr Hoffman, he would have responded in far harsher tones. The point is that he is a private individual and has not signed up to the standards code of Barnet Council.

When we discussed the matter, Mr Hoffman suggested that the complainants were "baiting Brian Coleman" and seeking exactly the response they received. If this is the case, wasn't it an extraordinarily naive response from an experienced politician? Mr Hoffman suggested that there had been a concerted effort put into provoking Mr Coleman, purely to elicit such a response. Given that Mr Cohen and Dr Jago have won their case and managed to get Brian Colemans face plastered on all the papers for breaking the rules, surely this will only act as encouragement to similar campaigns in future? I daresay that I am the last person that Brian Coleman would ever listen to, but surely a few of his friends should take the time to explain the fact that when he behaves in this manner, he damages all of the causes he claims he supports?

Mr Hoffman asked me whether I thought Brian Coleman should stand idly by and let people send him emails which he found to be repulsive? That is actually a rather simple question to answer. He had a choice. he could have deleted them. This would have been the most effective course of action. If you get no response at all, then you'd soon conclude that it was pointless emailing someone. The point of view of the people winding him up would never have seen the light of day. If he really felt so strongly that he had to respond, he could have sent a perfectly polite response, detailing why he considered the people who were emailing him to be wrong headed. Surely as someone who is well acquainted with the background to the case (otherwise why get so upset) and a seasoned politician, knocking up a few sentences (which could be cut and pasted into numerous replies) would have sufficed. Had he said "Thank you for your email. I am sorry to say that I fundamentally disagree with you and have nothing more to say on the subject" would have sufficed. What would have happened then? Well for one thing, the arguments of those people he disagreed with, would not have received widespread coverage. If, as Coleman alleges, the emails were part of a campaign to elicit a response, the campaign would have failed. Just suppose Mr Cohen and Dr Jago had sat around cooking up a cunning plan to discredit Brian Coleman and his support for Israel, just what would they have done?

Cohen : "I have a cunning plan, lets send an email to Brian Coleman asking him to blacklist a company that does work in Israel, he'll get really cross and send a rude a reply and we can report him to the standards committee"

Jago : "Wow, that's a really cunning plan, he won't see that coming, I'll get all my mates to email him as well, then we can all report him"

Cohen : "Just think, he'll be all over the local papers an look really stupid"

Jago : "Ha Ha Ha, aren't we evil geniuses"

That seems to be the proposition Brian Coleman has come up with. Mr Hoffman explained that Brian Coleman had only sent his angry response after he'd received a hundred or so similar emails.  I've no idea what the truth of all of this is, but it seems that Coleman, Mr Hoffman and friends are all signed up to the cunning plan conspiracy theory. The sad thing is that none of them seem to accept that Brian Coleman was a tad silly falling for it.

Lets just hope that this time, Brian Coleman actually bothers to take up the training to stop him being tripped up by cunning plan conspiritors. I've no idea how much his boorish behaviour has cost the taxpayer, but please Brian, learn to behave.

Of course, maybe Brian Coleman had a cunning plan of his own? How would this go?

Brian Coleman : "I have a cunning plan, I'll send some rude email responses. Last time that got me on telly. They say all publicity is good publicity and God knows I need some at the moment with all of the parking cock ups I've made in Barnet"

Perish the thought. How much has it all cost the taxpayer?

Brian Coleman standards case - The friends of Brian State their case

Video Courtesy of the Barnet Bugle

Barnet's Standard's Committee conducts hearing into allegations Brian Coleman broke code of conduct from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.



Today the Standards sub committee of Barnet Council decided that yet again Councillor Brian Coleman has breached the standards code by sending offensive emails to residents. Yet again, it has applied no proper sanction for the breach. Yet again, the whole standards process was exposed as a charade and a complete waste of time. Colemans punishment this time? He has been censured and told to apologise to the two people he insulted. How much has this cost Barnet taxpayers? It doesn't seem to occur to Councillor Brian Coleman that his lack of manners and his vanity have, over the years, cost the taxpayer of Barnet enough to employ a teaching assistant for a child with special needs for a year. All of the experts and investigators have to be paid. Why? Because "poor old Brian" suffers from a form of email Tourettes, which causes him to respond abusively to any email, where he doesn't like the opinion of the sender.

I arrived to here Colemans lawyer, Stephen Hocking, yet again trying to defend the indefensible. This is the third standards case in a row he's lost. Andreas Villas Boas had a better record at Chelsea and  yet his services were dispensed with. Perhaps it is time to ask whether the Barnet Tories should find a new lawyer, or is he the only one who is prepared to be associated with them? I have to admit that he didn't have a good hand to play, having had to defend Coleman twice for doing inexplicably stupid things and defend Andreas Tambourides for abusing a fellow Tory Councillor. My advice to Brian? Next time you get an email from someone you don't like, hit delete. Spare your own blood pressure and our taxes the cost of your hurt pride. You are a big boy, so get over yourself.

At the interval, I found myself in conversation with Jonathan Hoffman, joint vice chair of the Zionist Federation. Mr Hoffman and a couple of friends had come down to lend support to Councillor Coleman, as the cause of his email outbursts were emails about Israel. Now I have to confess a lack of knowledge about the Zionist Federation. I'm always keen to hear what people have to say and so we struck up a conversation. Just to set things in perspective, not being Jewish and having no family ties to Israel, I view these matters as Mr Hoffman probably views Irish Nationalist politics. In both cases there are deep historical contexts and views set in stone. I can associate with his passion for his cause on this basis, but I guess I think I can perhaps take a more detatched and objective view of the arguments, rather like Mr Hoffman may, if the subject of the Rev Iain Paisley was raised by me (of course I may have horribly misjudged Mr Hoffmans view of Ireland, if I have I apologise unreservedly - I am merely seeking to illustrate the way we both approach the issue). So anyway, I was keen to find out what exactly motivated Mr Hoffman and friends to give up a Monday to support Mr Coleman, for what I felt was a totally avoidable faux pas.

Mr Hoffman explained that he believed that the people who Mr Coleman insulted deserved no protection from the Standards Code and that Mr Coleman should be free to dismiss their views in any terms he saw fit. He explained that, in his opinion anti Zionism and anti Semitism are exactly the same thing. In this context, he felt that it was necessary to be there supporting Brian Coleman. The problem for me with Mr Hoffmans explanation was that he was having the wrong argument in the wrong place. The committee wasn't there to debate the rights and wrongs of the policies of Israel, or even whether the people Mr Coleman emailed were the spawn of the devil. The committee were there to discuss whether Mr Coleman had broken the rules, which are pretty clear, in responding in the manner he did. Mr Hoffman stated that he agreed with Mr Coleman, that the people he emailed should be "exposed" for their views. He stated that they should be questioned as to their motives for sending Councillor Coleman the email. On this subject, I agreed with Mr Hoffman. I went through the same argument when I took Brian Coleman to the Standards Committee in 2009. Although Councillor Coleman and his brief (Mr Hocking) were allowed to spend two hours denigrating my character, I had no opportunity to address the committee (for the record Israel and anti semitism were not discussed in my case). I would have quite happily locked horns with Mr Hocking about his claims. A system where people can make complaints and then not be given the opportunity to respond is clearly unfair. Mr Hoffman felt that if the complainants had been questioned by Mr Hocking, their arguments would have been "exposed for what they were". I can't speak for the complainants, but I believe I was denied natural justice, being unable to state my case.

What was more interesting was the way the conversation developed. I soon ascertained that the people who had come to support Brian Coleman were not fans of his parking polices. They also acknowledged that Andrew Dismore would make a decent GLA rep (even though one lady was none too keen on Socialists). Even odder was the conversation with Brian Colemans election agent from Camden. He announced that he'd got Brian Coleman elected in 2000 when everyone thought that was impossible. I suggested that he go to North Finchley and have a chat with local traders. He looked at me as if I'd asked him to clean the drains. I explained that these people were natural Conservatives who Brian Coleman had lost with his parking policies. He explained that he didn't care because he was from Camden. I asked if he'd care if Coleman lost, because Barnet constituted a far bigger percentage of his vote than Camden. he confessed he would. He then told me that he didn't really care about parking issues, because he was a cyclist. Given the views of Brian Coleman on cycle lanes in Barnet, I started to wonder exactly what was going on.

We returned to the subject of Colemans email. One of his supporters claimed that the complainants had only emailed Coleman because they were trying to stitch him up. I responded by asking whether this meant he was a bit silly to respond in the way he did and he'd be better binning the email and denying them publicity. I got a rather glum "I suppose so" as a response. I suggested that if Coleman simply responded "Thank you for your email. I fundamentally disagree with your point of view, regards Brian Coleman" then surely that would have been a reasonable response, which would not have breached the standards code.

I then suggested that Brian Coleman had not really done their cause any good by getting them to come along. I suggested that if he was found guilty of breaching the code, then it would not portray their cause in a good light. I suspect that they hadn't given thought to this aspect of the case. The Barnet Council Standards Sub Committee are a quite reasonable bunch of people. Any verdict or sanction they may take is measured (too measured on many occasion). To try and portray them (as Stephen Hocking had done) as in some way interfering with Brian Colemans human rights, is quite frankly absurd. To try and defend rudeness on the part of a councillor is also clearly backing a losing horse.

It appeared to me that the penny dropped with the supporters. The case was about whether Coleman had broken a code of conduct. Does anyone, anywhere want politicians who think rules don't apply to them? Does anyone want politicians who incur unnecessary costs to the taxpayer? Even if we agree with their views, we want them to display the highest standards of behaviour in public office. Brian Coleman hadn't and he'd got people to turn up to support him, without properly explaining what they were supporting.

The supporters departed long before the guilty verdict was announced. I am sure they still see Brian Coleman as a valued supporter of the Zionist Federation and I'm sure they still appreciate the fact that he doesn't have any truck with people who criticise the policies of the Government of Israel. What I'm not so sure about is whether, when they reflect on what he did, they will think he behaved sensibly. By his actions, he's presented an avoidable keynote victory to people they fundamentally disagree with. Not only that, but he's dragged them along so they are associated with this defeat. If I were in their shoes I'd be less than chuffed with this. Perhaps the worst aspect is that it was clear to anyone who'd read the report that Coleman was going to lose.

That's the trouble with Brian Coleman. He's a loose canon. The trouble with loose canons is that they are as likely to blow up the people who are on their side as they are to damage their enemies. I left feeling rather sorry for the pro Coleman lobby. Not because I agree (or disagree) with their agenda, I don't really even understand it. I feel sorry for them, because I think they were dragged down under false pretences. I think they came expecting to have to stand up for Israel. In the event, they found themselves standing up for someone who doesn't understand how a public servant should behave when emailing someone he is paid to represent.

Note : This email has been edited. Mr Hoffman contacted me and felt I hadn't accurately represented his comments regarding his support for Israel. He assures me that he is perfectly happy to accept fair criticism of Israel and it's government. He felt my summary of his comments made him appear extreme, which was not my intention. In the context of our conversation, I am happy to correct the article. Mr Hoffman also informed me he left the meeting to go to work and for no other reason.

Brian Coleman is up before the beak again

Yet again Councillor Brian Coleman is up before the Standards Committee. Coleman's excuse this time? He thinks that because people hold a different point of view to him, he can be as rude as he likes. Colemans pomposity knows no bounds. This time, he feels it's OK to call Mr Ron Cohen, an Israeli, disloyal because he disagrees with the policies of the Israeli government. Am I disloyal because I disagreed with the policies that lead to the Invaasion of Iraq? As far as I'm aware, Mr Cohen has not called for the destruction of the state of Israel, which clearly would be an act of disloyalty. He has simply called for the Israeli government to take a different course in it's dealings with the Palestinian people.

I fully understand why many Jewish people in Barnet feel a great sense of loyalty to Israel. After decades of terrorism, I fully understand their antipathy for elements of the Palestinian community. I certainly understand their attitude towards Hamas. I can understand why some of them may feel rather cross with Mr Cohen, for his comments. The point is that Brian Coleman isn't Jewish and he isn't an Israeli. I regularly get correspondence from all manner of people imploring me to write about the situation in Israel. I choose not to get involved, because the last thing the situation needs is ignorant outsiders poking their noses in and inflaming the situation.

My father worked in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, he was a commercial pilot between 1946 and 1951 and was based in the middle east. He returned to the state of Israel in 1969 on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. My father had British friends killed by members of the Stern gang, during the Israeli struggle for independence. When he returned from the trip, he completely changed his opinion of Israel and said it was a fantastic country. Whilst I have little knowledge of the country and the political situation, I would always bow to my fathers knowledge of the area, he spoke Arabic and was familiar with the region and customs of the people. He stated that if the Arab people could put the past behind them, embrace Israel as a dynamic part of the Middle Eastern community and work with them to develop the region, every community would benefit. If all of the money spent on tanks, weapons and security measures, was spent to the benefit of the people of the region, Muslims, Jews and Christians, it would be the most fantastic place on the planet.

I asked him, shortly before he died in 1987, whether he thought this was achieveable? His view? As soon as outsiders stop interfering, pumping in weapons and using the region as a geopolitical chess game, it is inevitable. His view was that eventually their would be a global economic crisis, where the superpowers would not have the cash to splash fighting proxy wars. At that point, sanity would have to prevail. Maybe now is that time.

In the meantime, maybe the likes of Coleman would do well to shut their mouths and stop stirring the pot, purely for a few votes in the GLA elections. If anyone thinks Colemans intervention helps anyone, they really need to wake up and smell the coffee. It really is time Coleman learned some manners.

Brian Coleman - Barnet Council Standards Sub Committee hearing date

News reaches the Barnet Eye that Barnet Council have announced the date for hearing the complaint against Brian Coleman, for abusing members of the public.

5th March 10am - Hendon Town Hall

The meeting will be open to members of the public.

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?MeetingID=7206

We will update this when report pack becomes available

Barnet Council - Where racism is OK if someone annoys you

I thought I'd seen everything from Barnet Council. Sadly I was wrong. Earlier this year, Councillor John Hart behaved in a reprehensible way towards a member of the public at a meeting of the Hendon and District residents forum, of which he was the chairman. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute were that a member of the local Sri Lankan community (who is also a long standing Barnet resident and teacher at one of Barnets best schools) asked Mr Hart a question. He responded by repeating her comment in a "comedic" Indian accent. The lady felt affronted and asked if Mr Hart was being racist, to which he replied that she should take it up with the "race relations council". As there were 30 people present at the meeting, there was not exactly a shortage of witnesses. It was widely expected that Hart would be ostracised and thrown out of the Tory group.

The lady raised a standards complaint against Mr Hart and he was removed as chairman of the committee. Whilst I was shocked that Tory group didn't suspend Mr Hart, I was assured that this was merely because they wanted to hear the outcome of the Standards committee. Sadly this has just been released and it seems that they have taken leave of their senses and produced a complete whitewash. Hart has been exhonourated and it seems that it is all the fault of the lady herself for not sitting quietly during the meeting.

Here is the verdict.

(a) that the facts found and accompanying details are not sufficient to warrant a finding that paragraph 3(1) of the Code (You must treat other with respect), has been breached.  There is no doubt that Councillor John Hart was unwise to repeat the complainant’s words whilst imitating her voice (section 4.7.3(b) of the Investigator’s report) and that this is a reprehensible occurrence which he should never repeat.  However, the Sub-Committee do not consider that the circumstances surrounding it warrant a conclusion that what Councillor John Hart did was sufficiently abusive, offensive or direct to come within the criteria set out by the decided cases.  The Sub-Committee makes the same point regarding Councillor John Hart saying to the complainant that she could take up any complaint with the Race Relations Council.  Councillor John Hart’s remarks were unpleasant and unnecessary but that in itself is not sufficient to justify a finding of failure to show respect given the standard set by judges in the High Court and the statutory tribunals.  This conclusion is further endorsed by the requirement set by the courts and tribunals to take into account the accompanying circumstances.  In this instance, the finding that the complainant and a regular number of other persons at, and prior to, this meeting had made the chairing of the meetings difficult at times by virtue of their conduct (section 4.7.3(e) of the Investigator’s report), significantly weakens any justification there might have been for finding a breach of paragraph 3(1);

The committee went on to reject the complaint.

Doesn't it occur to the committee that the complainant wasn't on trial? She hadn't signed up to a code of conduct like Hart and she didn't receive a huge allowance like Hart for chairing the committee. All such committee's have people attending who can be difficult. This ruling states that racial abuse is acceptable if members of the public regularly attend and annoy the chairman of the committee.

As far as I'm concerned, this judgement is a complete disgrace and a new low point for Barnet Council. I am truly disgusted.

Andreas Tambourides guilty of breaching Barnet Council Standards code

Yesterday Barnet Councillor Andreas Tambourides was found guilty of breaching the Standards code of Barnet Council. His punishment? He has to go on a training course and write an apology to Councillor Kate Salinger, who he circulated scurrillous lies about.

The Barnet Eye ha one question. Is it appropriate that this man, who clearly hasn't got a clue how to conduct himself, is fit to remain as a member of the Standards Committee, where he has to judge others?

Apologies to the Barnet Council Standards sub Committee

Sometimes we all make mistakes. It is human nature. What matters is how we rectify them. I was contacted by a friendly voice today  regarding a blog concerning a Barnet Council Standards Sub Committee meeting on Tuesday. I had assumed that the meeting was to determine what action to take regarding a standards issue before the committee. I was today advised that this is not actually the case. The meeting is a consideration meeting. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), the purpose of this meeting is to ensure that the investigation phase of the process is completed and that all required submissions etc have been gathered. The committee will set the timetable for a full hearing.

It was suggested to me that the blog posted here yesterday was helpful to no one in this process. I was assured that all appropriate paperwork would be published at the appropriate time (as has been done for the complaint against Councillor Tambourides) and that the committee have no intention of treating the matter with anything other than full attention it deserves. The Barnet Eye is happy to fully accept these assurances. It was suggested that for this purposes of this purely procedural meeting, removing the misleading blog and apologising to the standards sub committee was the appropriate response. The Barnet Eye of course agrees that anything which makes the job of the Standards Committee is unacceptable.

As such, The Barnet Eye unreservedly apologises to the Barnet Council Sub Committee for any inconvenience caused. We look forward to learning of the results of the consideration meeting in due course and seeing the full set of paperwork reviewed at the appropriate time. The Barnet Eye further wishes readers to know that the relevant blogs were not removed following any communications with Barnet Council, or anyone else acting on behalf of Barnet Council. We were purely acting on the advice of a good friend of this blog.

Roger Tichborne
The Barnet Eye

Message to Leader of Barnet Council Richard Cornelius - Time to end the culture of bullying and intimidation

Dear Richard,

This week, Barnet Council issued a press release to the Guardian claiming that it would not tolerate the bullying and intimidation of staff. The Barnet Eye fully supports this statement, but it is quite clear that it does not address the main issue of bullying within Barnet Council. It has been brought to the attention of the Barnet Eye that there are numerous cases of bullying and intimidation being perpetrated by senior councillors within Barnet Council. One such incident will be heard by the standards sub committee on Thursday. This is the quite extraordinary case of Councillor Andreas Tambourides abusing coolleage Councillor Kate Salinger. Another case, which the Barnet Eye has full details of, concerns Councillor Brian Coleman and a Mill Hill Conservative colleague. The Barnet Eye is disappointed that the Mill Hill Councillor received less than fulsome support from the leadership and senior colleagues, for what was clearly an outrageous and unjustified attack on his character.  We also have the case before the standards committee on Tuesday, where Councillor Coleman is again before the committee for sending rude an intimidating emails to members of the public.

On Friday I published an article detailing how Barnet Council refused to answer the following question :-

C)                Is your administration committed to maintaining the highest Standards in public office and rigorously upholding its own code of conduct?

No response because this is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOIA.

There is an unprecedented level of media interest in Barnet Council. We have the extraordinary situation where a member of the Standards Sub Committee, Councillor Andreas Tambourides, is under investigation by the committee. He is even listed as a substitute committee member on his own case. Surely he should have been removed from the committee as soon as the complaint was filed?  I have spoken to several representatives of national media organisations regarding the forthcoming cases. It is quite clear to all concerned that Barnet Council is about to become a complete laughing stock. As a long term resident of the London Borough of Barnet I'm appalled by the situation. I happen to believe that the vast majority of Conservative Councillors are honest and decent people. Several have told me of their complete disgust at the situation and their wish to disassociate themselves from the boorish behaviour of a small number of senior councillors.

The time has come to draw a line under all of this. As you approach the milestone of six months in the job in December, the time has come to draw a line under all of this. A urgent cabinet reshuffle is necessary. There are many talented backbench members of the Barnet Conservatives who deserve a chance to repair the damage. A clear statement that rudeness, bullying and bad behaviour will not be tolerated is necessary. It is an honour to be elected to serve the people of Barnet, but a few people seem to see it as an excuse to behave in a boorish manner with regard only for themselves. Whilst it is clear to me from the various emails I've seen that certain senior Conservatives are rather scared of certain overbearing individuals, these individuals have used up their stock of goodwill withing the party and are a millstone around the parties neck rather than an asset. This is clear from the reaction to parking changes in Mill Hill & elsewhere in the Borough.

With the GLA election next year, a spotlight will be focused on the local candidate. It is clear that this will do enormous harm to the Barnet Conservatives. I suspect it may also cause huge damage to the re-election campaign of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. As leader of the Barnet Conservatives, if a doomsday scenario blows up as a result of the antics of the Conservative Candidate, ultimately you will be the person blamed by all and sundry.

The Conservative Councillors I've spoken to recently (and there are a fair few) are thoroughly sick to death of all of this. They want to see a change and they want the Leadership of the party to know that unless there is a recognition of these concerns, their support may not be automatically taken for granted. What is the most disturbing thing for them is the fact that all they want to see is an administration where senior members treat their colleagues, staff and members of the public with a degree of respect and decency, and for those that can't to make way for people who can.

Is that really too much to ask?

Councillor Brian Coleman - under investigation and not doing his job

As this blog exclusively revealed yesterday, Councillor Brian Coleman is up before the standards sub committee yet again on Tuesday. Yet again, he has insulted local residents and yet again an investigator has found that he's breached the code. What is rather odd is that whilst the case against Coleman was heard publicly when I took a standards case out against him in 2009, this time the committee are meeting in private to consider the report. Unlike my case, the reports have not been publicly posted. Having read the report, it is clear that there is little material difference. Why the secrecy? Rather interestingly, there is a public hearing against Councillor Andreas Tambourides on Thursday for another standards breach. Has Barnet Council chosen to use the Tambourides case as a sacrificial lamb to save Coleman before the GLA elections? The whole thing stinks to high heavens.

Which brings us to the question. What does Brian Coleman say to residents of Barnet in emails when he's not insulting them? As well as being councillor for Totteridge, he's the cabinet member responsible for parking, although he prefers the title of "Borough Parking Officer". Residents of the Borough of Barnet are enraged at the changes to parking payment arrangements. As well as hiking up the CPZ charges, Coleman has abolished Pay and Display in the high street. Many elderly residents (and many not so elderly) have been caught out by this. People are enraged. One local trader wrote to Coleman, in his role as Cabinet member, which he gets a huge allowance for, and got the following automatic email reply.

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

Thank you for your e mail . As I receive a significant number of e mails only Council Officers and residents of Totteridge Ward will receive a reply

I will deal with your e mail if you are a Totteridge resident and have included your full address. If you a constituent and wish to contact me on London Assembly Buisness please e mail my office at City Hall on brian.coleman@london.gov.uk again including your full address.

Thank you

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

So although Coleman receives a generous allowance, he won't do the work associated. I've long said that Brian Coleman doesn't understand the principles of business. It seems from his response, that he can't even spell it. Has there ever been a more disasterous Councillor in the history of Barnet Council?

Barnet Council FoI response - Barnet Council & Standards (This is NOT the Friday Joke)

So here is yet another late FoI response containing yet another apology. This one is rather important to me as it directly concerns the Standards case which I took out against Councillor Brian Coleman in 2009. One of the recommendations was that to avoid further such incidents, Barnet Council should arrange suitable training for Councillors. Rather remarkably, despite his expensive and embarrassing mishap, it appears that Coleman arrogantly chose not to attend any of this. Surely having exposed the Council to the risk of having to pay £10,000 for a lawyer, Coleman should have been compelled by the then Leader of the Council (Mike Freer) to attend.

Perhaps the strangest answer of the lot is to question C.

C)                Is your administration committed to maintaining the highest Standards in public office and rigorously upholding its own code of conduct?

No response because this is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOIA.

Have you got that. Barnet Council will not say whether they are committed to maintaining the highest standards in public office, because they don't have to under the FoI act. I think the non answer says it all, don't you.

Interestingly it took over 1 year for the training in Social Media and Code of Conduct to be arranged (the Coleman case recommended it in September 2009).  Maybe if they'd arranged it in a timely fashion, then Councillor Andreas Tambourides may have realised that it wasn't a good idea to send the derogatory email about Councillor Catherine Salinger to all his colleagues. I am surprised that he didn't use the lack of recommended training as his excuse.

Here's the full text. It is simply unbelieveable as far as I am concerned. Oh and one last thing. Do they always send these on a Friday because they believe the storm will blow over by the time they are back in work on Monday. Strange?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Tichborne

I am writing regarding your request, received by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) on 17 October 2011 for access to the following information:

  

“A)       Following the September 2009 ruling [by the Standards Committee], has Councillor Brian Coleman received the recommended training from Barnet Council?

B)        Which other Barnet Councillors have received the recommended training from Barnet Council?

C)        Is your administration committed to maintaining the highest Standards in public office and rigorously upholding its own code of conduct?

D)        How many complaints (upheld, not upheld and under review) has Barnet Council received concerning email responses from Councillor Coleman

E)        How many complaints (upheld, not upheld and under review) has Barnet Council received concerning email responses from yourself (Councillor Richard Cornelius).”

We are processing your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA).  Under the FOIA you are entitled to receive a response within 20 working days from the date of receipt of your request.  Please accept my apology on behalf of the council for failing to meet this deadline.  My response to your request is below.

Response

 A)       Following the September 2009 ruling, has Councillor Brian Coleman received the recommended training from Barnet Council?

On Monday 5 July 2010 the council ran a Member Development session on the Code of Conduct. Attendance was not taken but Cllr Coleman was not on the list of councillors due to attend.  On Wednesday 20 October 2010 the council ran a Member Development session on Social Media and the Code of Conduct. Cllr Coleman did not attend this session. On Wednesday 13 July 2011 the council ran a Member Development session on Planning Probity and the Code of Conduct. Cllr Coleman did not attend this session.

B)        Which other Barnet Councillors have received the recommended training from Barnet Council?

We do not hold information on which councillors attended the session on 5 July 2010.

The following councillors attended:

20 October 2010 – Social Media & Code of Conduct

Cllr J Cohen

Cllr A Cornelius

Cllr R Cornelius

Cllr J Hart

Cllr J Marshall

Cllr A McNeil

Cllr A Schneiderman

Cllr M Shooter

Cllr A Sodha

Cllr A Tambourides

Cllr J Tierney

13 July 2011 – Planning Probity & Code of Conduct

Cllr A Cornelius

Cllr A Hutton

Cllr G Johnson

Cllr J Johnson

Cllr A McNeil

Cllr A Moore

Cllr G Old

Cllr B Perry

Cllr B Rawlings

Cllr C Rogers

Cllr G Sargeant

Cllr B Schama

Cllr A Schneiderman

Cllr A Slocombe

Cllr S Sowerby

Cllr S Strongolou

Cllr A Tambourides

Cllr J Tambourides

Cllr R Thompstone

C)                Is your administration committed to maintaining the highest Standards in public office and rigorously upholding its own code of conduct?

No response because this is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOIA.

D)                How many complaints (upheld, not upheld and under review) has Barnet Council received concerning email responses from Councillor Coleman.

At the present time there has been one finding of a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Coleman in relation to an e-mail response. 

The other information you have requested will not be disclosed unless and until such time as a matter proceeds to a full hearing determined by a standards sub-committee, prior disclosure of such information would potentially be prejudicial to due process.     

E)                 How many complaints (upheld, not upheld and under review) has Barnet Council received concerning email responses from yourself (Councillor Richard Cornelius).

At the present time there have been no findings of a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Richard Cornelius in relation to e-mail responses. 

The other information you have requested will not be disclosed unless and until such time as a matter proceeds to a full hearing determined by a standards sub-committee, prior disclosure of such information would potentially be prejudicial to due process.   

Your Rights

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

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website: www.ico.gov.uk).

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

M***** *********

Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7***
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

Which Barnet Tory is on the naughty step this week

Updated 23:24 *************************
Just to remind certain well known Ex Barnet Tory Councillors
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8813282.Veteran_councillor_faces_standards_hearing_over_racism_claims/
************************************** ends

Oh dear, time for yet another Tory Councillor to be hauled before the Standards sub committee. As is the way with Barnet Council, they like to do these things in secret. Here's the link to all the paperwork, but sadly because it's in secret, there is no paperwork other than a message to say "It's not open to the public"


http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?meetingid=7008

So who's been a naughty boy? Well it could be Councillor John Hart, who is up before the beak for making "allegedly" racist comments to a local resident at the Hendon & District local residents forum (the alleged comment was made in front of 30 people, sadly they won't get to hear the verdict of the panel if it's him). The Barnet Eye has learned from friends of Councillor Hart that his defence is as follows.

"Being a multi lungualist and retired professor of language at Middlesex University, I have found that the best way to strike up a rapport with our friends from the colonies is to put on a stupid accent and take the piss out of them in front of a crowded room. They love it when I do this, as it reminds of the days of the raj, when the British were the much loved rulers of the subcontinent. The only reason this woman complained is because, like all Labour supporters, she's had her sense of humour surgically removed"


Of course, the Barnet Eye has not been privy to the good councillors defence, so I'm not 100% sure that this is the exact wording used, but this is more or less what he's told his friends that his defence is. I'm no sure if being completely out of touch with reality is really a valid defence in a court of law, but then he's not before a court of law, he's before the Barnet Council Standards sub committee, isn't he.

Of course it could always be that it's not Councillor Hart. It could be that it's Councillor Brian Coleman. The Barnet Eye is not sure exactly how many people Councillor Coleman has sent rude emails to recently or how many have reported him to the Standards Committee, or even how far the process has got, but we have had reports that a member of the Standards Sub Committee (one of the independent members, not a councillor) was reported as saying "not all this again" in response to Colemans latest faux pas.

My advice to the committee is to impose the maximum punishment possible. Then Barnet Councillors may start behaving themselves and the committee will have far less work to do. In the long run, it will be better for everyone, not least our Tory Councillors, who might actually start doing their job properly. This will only make them more, not  less popular.

When will Councillor Brian Coleman stop insulting residents who write to him

Today I was sent the email (see below) by a resident of Barnet Council who contacted their local Councillors in Totteridge for help with a housing issue ( read the last email first for the full sequence). Unfortunately for this resident, one of their local Councillors is Brian Coleman. I found his response to be heartless, crass and offensive. Apart from the rudeness of the reply, it is clear to me that it is Mr Coleman clearly should be more considered in his response given his own housing arrangements.

Given that Councillor Coleman earns over £114,000 per annum at the taxpayers expense, yet gets a flat with a subsidised rent from the Methodist Church (a flat supposedly for people in hardship), surely he could have advised the resident on various third sector organisations who may have been able to assist (or does he believe that charity is only for the rich and powerful?).

Coleman says :-

I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the Country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting "the system" to sort their lives out

Well Councillor Coleman, the country is well off enough to pay you over £114,000 a year for a series of non jobs. It is well off enough to provide you with an expense account to charge taxi's to and leave the meter running - http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Brian_Coleman_2010_2011.asp - and it is rich enough that charities can afford to provide subsidised housing to bachelors on over £100K per annum.

I doubt that it would occur to Coleman to vacate his subsidised property and let someone in genuine need live there? Coleman also says :-

I wish you well as you seek to return to employment, however I suggest you will have to turn to the private sector for housing as there no way there will ever be enough Council Houses available

Councillor Brian Coleman is a member of the cabinet of Barnet Council. The reason that there is a shortage of Council housing in Barnet is due to a complete lack of political will to address the issue. It is yet another symptom of the abject political failure of the Brian Coleman school of politics that a genuine plea for help from a resident is met with such a response. There are days when I find writing this blog rather difficult. When I received this email today was one such moment. I am flattered that a complete stranger should trust me enough to share this with me, purely because they have read my blog. I am however completely disheartened by my complete inadequacy and impotence in being able to do anything more than offer some moral support.

I redacted the details of the Totteridge resident in respect for their privacy. I believe other news organisations are taking an interest in this story. I hope so. I hope it costs Councillor Brian Coleman dearly in the GLA elections next May ( if the Tories haven't dumped him by then - watch this space for why).

I have one further question on this subject. I will be sending an FoI shortly to Barnet Council. When the Barnet Council Standards Committee found that Brian Coleman had sent me an offensive email, they recommended that Councillors were given training in how to respond politely to emails. Did Councillor Brian Coleman or any other Councillor ever receive this training?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Councillor Brian Coleman's offensive email
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Letter from your constituent S****** O*****
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:24:30 +0100
From: Cllr.B.Coleman@barnet.gov.uk
To: d******@hotmail.com
CC: Cllr.R.Cornelius@barnet.gov.uk

Lack of empathy ??????

Councillors simply cannot conjure housing out of thin air and the private sector is your only option . That is a fact .

I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the Country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting "the system" to sort their lives out

This correspondence is now closed

---

From: S****** O*****
To: Coleman, Cllr Brian Conservative
Sent: Thu Oct 13 12:13:29 2011
Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent Sharada Osman

Dear Mr Coleman,

I am in complete shock by your lack of empathy and regard for my situation.

I have asked you for your help and you have palmed me off with a thoughtless reply.

It may interest you to know that I am presently in contact with Radio 4, my local paper and my school (who are giving me tremendous support) and I have passed on your email as a classic example of how the system is failing me and my child.

S****** O*****

> Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent S****** O****
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:53:19 +0100
> From: Cllr.B.Coleman@barnet.gov.uk
> To: d******@hotmail.com
>
> Thank you for your e mail
>
> I wish you well as you seek to return to employment, however I suggest
> you will have to turn to the private sector for housing as there no way
> there will ever be enough Council Houses available
>
> Kind regards
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S****** O****
> Sent: 04 October 2011 18:34
> To: Coleman, Cllr Brian Conservative
> Subject: Letter from your constituent S****** O****
>
>
>
> This message was also sent to: Cllr Alison Cornelius, Cllr Richard
> Cornelius
>
>
> S****** O*****

> * C******* C****
> W******* P*** R***
> London
> N** ***

>
> Phone: 0**** 3******
>
> Email: d******@hotmail.com
>
> Tuesday 4 October 2011
>
> Dear Richard Cornelius, Brian Coleman and Alison Cornelius,
>
> I am writing to you out of desperation and in hope that someone can
> offer some help and guidance. I would be so grateful if you could read
> my email in it's entirety, I will try to be as concise as I can without
> overloading you too much with details at this point.
>
> I am a single parent and currently in receipt of housing benefit. I
> don't receive any child maintenance (which is never taken into account
> for anything). I am a part time student and have been talking to my lone
> parent advisor about coming off income support and working part time -
> 16 hours a week - which I was hoping to begin very soon.
>
> My landlord is wanting to put the rent up by a significant amount and I
> will not be able to afford the shortfall.
>
> I am under the old housing benefit rules The new system - Local Housing
> Allowance - which would be a higher amount (still leaving a shortfall,
> but just about manageable) could only apply to me if I break my contract
> for a week. This would mean I would have to pay a weeks rent out of my
> own pocket (which I cannot afford). I may then be able to apply for
> discretionary housing award to help top up my housing benefit
> - however this can not be guaranteed and is awarded on a temporary
> basis. I was also told at the housing benefit office today that if I
> start working part time this would also jeopardise my claim for
> discretionary housing benefit (even though working part time would mean
> I was no more better off).
>
> Moving out would be difficult since I have no deposit money or money for
> removal vans etc. I also have a back problem which means that too much
> lifting (unavoidable when moving house) will be a problem for me.
> Also landlords are reluctant to accept tenants on benefits, and pets (I
> have a cat, bought for my son after he suffered trauma, so can not be
> got rid of). I currently have a network support of neighbours which I
> need as a single parent.
>
> The other option is to apply for council housing, which as I'm sure you
> know, is an uncertain and stressful path. I would fall behind with the
> rent, the landlord would eventually evict me, I would then be rehoused
> temporarily, which would 'probably be a B & B, and not necessarily in
> your area' as quoted by housing benefit. This may jeopardise my college
> studies and my son's schooling where he is getting extra educational
> support and have been fantastically supportive of him. And that's if I
> can prove I haven't made myself 'intentionally homeless', which seems to
> be ambiguous.
>
> I really hope that you don't see me as a self pitying case that expects
> something for nothing. I am currently in receipt of sickness benefit as
> I have a history of depression. I want to come off income
> support/sickness benefit, work part time and I have started an access
> course at college (with a view to going to uni) in an attempt to rebuild
> my life for myself and my son.
>
> I have tried getting advice from Shelter and CAB, but they act as
> nothing more than information givers, and seeing as I am quite competent
> on google, is of no use to me. I went to the housing benefit offices
> today, they acknowledged I was in a predicament, but basically shrugged
> their shoulders.
>
> I don't know how I will ever solve my housing problem as a single
> parent. But I am making baby steps towards being independent and
> contributing to society. I hope you can appreciate this. I am not
> expecting everyone to fall over backwards to support me, but I do need
> some help in securing my first basic need - a home.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> S****** O****

Brian Coleman Verdict : The full report

So here it is, the full verdict of Barnet's standards sub committee. It may surprise you to learn that Barnet Council didn't let me see this before they published it. I had emailed the Borough's chief legal representative to raise several points regarding comments Mr Coleman and his legal representative made during the hearing which I was unable to challenge, shortly after the hearing. I felt these may have had a bearing on the decision to impose no further sanction. Having read the report, it is crystal clear to me that my fears were justified.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/complaints-councillors-decisions

Mr Coleman and his legal representative repeatedly stated that a) I'd abused Mr Coleman's mother in this blog and b) That I'd made anti semitic comments in this blog. It is a matter of public record that I've never said anything derogatory about Mrs Coleman. Vanessa Feltz accepted this once she read my comments, following her rather hostile conversation on her phone in. She later admitted, several times, that my comments were quite the opposite. Mr Coleman made that charge to the whole of London 35 minutes before appearing before the panel. Vanessa Feltz showed it to be untrue, but it was not challenged in the hearing.

This is the blog which Coleman refers to regarding his mother. Read it - it in no way says anything about Mrs Coleman other than mentioning she had the same name as my own dear mum. I posted this the day it was announced that Coleman would become mayor and his mother would be his consort.


http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/06/gladys-my-heart-to-see-you.html

I was not allowed to speak or make my case. As to me being an anti semite. This is the blog Coleman refers to. It is the second blog I posted on Blogspot. As anyone will see, it is quite the opposite. I berate Barnet Council for their incompetence in allowing such sentiments to appear on their website.

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2008/10/barnet-councils-incompetance-puts-nazi.html

Just consider for a second the make up of the panel. One of the three members was Rabbi Dr Jeremy Collick. How would he view comments made by an anti semite who abused the elderly mother of the Mayor. I'd expect him to find the "reprehensible and provocative". I'd expect him to have every sympathy with Councillor Coleman. The mere fact that Councillor Coleman mislead the committee by saying these things cannot be disputed. Here is what the committee had to say in there report.

----------
2. Whilst the Sub-Committee did not accept that Councillor Coleman’s actions were justified, it recognised that he had been subjected to a sustained level of reprehensible and provocative personal attacks and abuse by Mr Tichborne in his blogs over a period of several months and that, whilst higher standards are expected of Members in their dealings with the public, the Sub-Committee also recognised, but did not condone, that Councillor Coleman’s e-mail to Mr Tichborne was a response in kind to what had been said about him in the blogs.
-----------

I ask you this, what would they have said, had I been able to tell them that Mr Coleman had mislead them. The blog is there for all to see. He never even mentioned the imaginary insults to his mother in his witness statement. As to the accusation of anti semitism, this was made, but I refuted this by referring the investigator to the statement Mr Coleman made and how he had misrepresented completely what I said in the blog listed above.

I raised a complaint against a leading Barnet Councillor. The system has allowed me no opportunity to defend myself. I've had no opportunity to correct things which are demonstrably untrue. I was given no sight of the report, before any one else.

My blog has been described as containing "reprehensible and provocative personal attacks". They are all here. Judge for yourself. I consider telling porkies to the committee about me being an anti semite and abusing Mrs Coleman to be a "reprehensible and provocative personal attack". I emailed the Council to say this shortly after the case finished. They said "We can't comment until the report has been issued".

I've emailed the Council to tell them all this. I asked them to withdraw the report until the borough's legal department had been able to discuss this with me. They emailed me at 16:50, presumably so I'd have no opportunity to get back to them before knocking off time.

That is why I've posted this. I don't give a stuff about Barnet Council's process. It is unfair and biased towards those with power. It offends natural justice to deny the complainant the right to make their case. It allows people who break the rules to get off scott free whilst besmirching those who have the nerve to try and hold them to account.

I find the whole thing shameful. I've posted this so that anyone who is interested can get a bit of balance. I'm not perfect, I've said nasty things about Brian Coleman, I admit it. They are all related to his performance as a Councillor or as a response to his public utterings (and those of the people he put in power such as Mike Freer). None of it is personal. I've never criticised his private life or what he says or does outside of his public office. I won't, even though people have sent me stacks of stuff.

I had never considered getting involved with politics, beyond writing this blog, which is meant to be a satirical commentary for people interested in Barnet. I'm afraid to say that having seen how rotten the whole system is has made me reconsider this. They can reap the whirlwind.

P.S Sorry the links aren't working. Blogger is doing something rather strange today.

Councillor Matthew Offord makes my day !

This will be the very last reference to the Brian Coleman case (unless something new and exciting happens) and this particular reference is actually just a bit of salacious gossip I thought I'd share with you as it's rather funny and it will give those of you that didn't attend the hearing a taste of what it was like. This isn't about the actual case at all, it's just about how interesting an experience it was.

I arrived late to the meeting and it had kicked off. There was a square of tables at the front for the committee and the legal reps and a few rows of chairs facing for the audience. These had copies of the papers on. At the side was the press table. The Hendon times and the Ham & High were represented. As I entered the Town Hall, I knew Coleman was their because the Mayoral Limo was parked outside the main door. I guess if I'd been Mayor and I'd been hauled before the Standards committe, I'd have probably arrived in a less ostentatious manner, but hey ho, I'm not Brian Coleman.

At the front was Brians mum, Lynne Hillan and another Tory Councillor (I think Robert Rams). I went and sat in the second row initially, next to Councillor Andreas Tambourides. I did this for a specific reason. He's on the Standards Committe and I wanted to see if he had any notes etc. This made him rather uncomfortable. In the row behind me was Councillor Julie Johnson and another Labour member. At the back was Tim Dononvan from the BBC. Ex Councillor Dan Hope and a few other people were also along for the ride.

As the proceedings kicked off, it became clear there was a problem. No one was reading from the same page. I really don't know how it happened, but when someone said turn to page 13, they all looked at different pages and got totally confused. It was rather funny.

After about an hour there was a break for tea. As I got a drink, I looked over. I happened to make eye contact with Brian Coleman's lawyer. At this point Coleman had gone off with his Council buddies and his lawyer (who I thought was excellent) was alone with his thoughts. I'm really not sure what he was thinking, but I can honestly say I've never seen a more forlorn, sad look on anyone's face. I must have stared at him for a minute before he realised I was wathcing him. As we made eye contact, he went into his "Top city lawyer" look again, calm confident. He's probably read every blog I've written, so he clearly would know I enjoy observing people. I'd like to think he was thinking "All that education, all that hard work, just to end up here, doing this". For all I know though, he was probably thinking "Doris said she's cooking lasagne for dinner and I hate lasagne". Either way, he just looked really, really miserable.

After the second break, I had to depart for a while. When I returned, I'd missed the verdict. I was shocked to find that they'd found Brian Coleman in breach of the code of conduct, but we had to wait for the punishment. As the committee came back, we all sat down. I sat at the back (near Tim Donovan, the BBC man) so I could see what everyone was up to. The committee announced there findings and then I spoke to the Times & the Ham & High. Brian Coleman by this time had departed, as had Hillan. Tambourides was still there and the rather charming Matthew Offord had joined the party.

Now some opposition members would have you believe that Matthew is a rather odd character. I think that this is grossly unfair. Unlike all of his other Tory colleagues, he came and sat as close to me as he possibly could and actually cracked a rather funny joke to me. I'm not sure if everyone else always gets his sense of humour, but anyone taking the mickey out of Brian Coleman is OK by me. When he came and sat down I said "Matthew....." he cut me off mid sentence and in his best widow twanky voice said "Mr Tichborne, show me some respect, call me Councillor Offord" and he winked at me (at least I assume it was a wink and not a nervous tick). At which I replied in my best widow Twanky voice "Councillor Offord, don't be so childish". Given that the committee were just about to make their statement, it was hard not to have a fit of hysterics. Matthew then realised that Tim Donovan, a colleague of his from the BBC was sitting down and had heard his little joke and turned bright purple.

Yeah, I know it doesn't sound that funny, I guess you had to be there. I've no idea whether Matthew doesn't get on with Brian Coleman or he was just having a bit of fun because I've been plugging his blog on the Times. Councillor Andreas Tambourides looked around at that point. I'm not sure what he made of it. Given that he's a dead ringer for Sid James, of Carry On fame, I was hoping he'd crack a joke as well, but I suppose that as he's on the Standards Committee, he had to keep up a modicum of decorum.

Adebayor Vs Brian Coleman : Barnet could learn something from the FA

Now as a Manchester City FC fan this pains me but there are some extraordinary parallels between the Adebayor. There is also a few stark differences.

The similarities.

They both play for the Blue Team.

They both feel that they've suffered unjustified abuse

They both get paid far more money than they are really worth

They both claim they snapped under undue provocation

They both ended up before a committee for their misbehaviour
The Differences

Adebayor is a marvellous footballer

Adebayor said sorry for his reaction to the abuse

Adebayor's mother was abused, Coleman's wasn't (however much he may claim otherwise)

Adeybayor is a young man high on adrenalin from scoring a goal

ADEBAYOR will get punished severely for his moment of madness to send a message to other players

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

I've got no beef with the FA for throwing the book at Adebayor, even though he plays for the team I support. His actions are a terrible example. I do however think he's a young man with far less experience of life than Brian Coleman. Brian Coleman has received no sanction, which sends totally the wrong message out. Do you think Adebayor will be out on the town celebrating when he gets his sentence for a far more understandable and excusable reaction?

Brian Coleman really isn't the problem in Barnet

There are many things wrong with the local political scene in Barnet. I've written hundreds of blogs on the subject. It may surprise you to know that the vast majority of these don't mention our beloved Mayor Brian Coleman. Whilst I may have rather strong views on him, I can honestly say that I don't think he's the problem, he's just a symptom.

Having reflected on the background of my standards complaint and having seen the standards process in action, I think it demonstrates all that is wrong with Barnet Council. Let me explain to you why I say this. I believe that the root cause of the problem is that senior Councillors and Council officers have lost sight of why they are there. They should be their to ensure that local services run as smoothly as possible and that the weak and vulnerable in Barnet are well looked after. They should try and make the environment in Barnet as pleasant as is possible for the residents. They should be respectful of the people who pay their wages (the taxpayer) and be prepared to engage and discuss issues with these people, no matter how difficult the individual may be.

Given that the catalyst that started the whole process was Council Leader Mike Freer, describing his critics as "nutters" and "one handed bloggers", it is clear straight away that the leader has no respect for anyone that disagrees with him. When I wrote a polite email to the ruling group of Councillors, a senior member, Mayor Coleman thought the appropriate response was to reply to all recipients in an offensive manner. Did the group think "This guy has just abused a member of the public, he's out of control". No they did not, they elected him as Mayor, despite being under no illusion whatsoever, that he thought abusing the public was fine and dandy. Surely a few of them must have realised that this was a clear breach of the Standards code. Both Lib Dem leader Jack Cohen and Labour leader Alison Moore realised this immediately. The next sorry step on the trail was when Mayor Coleman asked Council Leader Mike Freer for a £10,000 indemnity to fight the case. I've spoken to lawyers and trade Union officials about this. They've all told me that the sensible thing to do would be to have apologised and drawn a line under it. That would have been the end of the matter. Now Mike Freer had seen the email exchange. Did he think "This is directly related to me, I cannot make an objective and transparent decision here". As Mr Coleman rounded off his email to me by saying "The Leader is totally right" and as it is crystal clear that Freer saw this, he was compromised. If he believed that Mayor Coleman had a good case, why didn't he let Council CEO Nick Walkley make the decision? He approved the decision to give Coleman an indemnity using delegated powers, meaning it was totally up to him. Barnet Council had an insurance policy that covered standards complaints. Coleman could have used this at no cost to the taxpayer. He chose not to and thought the taxpayer should foot the bill.

At no time in Mayor Coleman's defence did he say that his email didn't breach the code. He knew it did. His defence was that he was provoked and that the fact that he couldn't tell me to bog off without being disrespectful was a breach of his human rights. From all the paperwork, he actually admitted the breach all along, just claimed mitigating circumstances.

So we have a case being fought for vanity. A leader who instigated the sorry matter. Whilst the council cut thousands of pounds in grants from hard working volunteers, the Leader happily sanctions the spending of £10,000 on a case that was doomed to fail from day one. Not only that, but one which could have been avoided by an apology. The cost could have been avoided by using the insurance policy. Why didn't Freer send Mayor Coleman down this route? Because Brian Coleman was actually defending Mike Freer, in the only way he knew how, when he got himself into trouble.

Finally this takes us on to the actual hearing. The way this works is there is an impartial investigator who prepares the report. They present their findings. The defendant's legal representative then gets their say. I asked for the right to address the committee, as I felt that there were points which needed to be brought to the committee's attention. I was denied this right. I was told that only the defence could speak to the committee. To me this goes against natural justice. In any normal hearing, there is a prosecution as well as a defence. Normally these standards hearings are held in private. It seems to me as if they are there to serve the purposes of councillors, far more than the public.

Which brings me to my perception of the problem in Barnet. Sheltered wardens are cut, whilst Councillors allowances go up. Parents of dead babies see funeral charges rise, whilst councillors and council officials go on jollies to the USA and Cannes for "conferences". We have a Council leader who holds the public in contempt, but no cost is too much for defending his political allies. In short, the council is being run for the benefit of the senior ruling councillors and the senior officials.

Goodnight Brian

I think that we'll give Brian Coleman a rest for a few days. Having had to sit behind him for a few hours, listening to his £10,000 lawyer trash my reputation has given me my fill of his company for the time being, so this will be the last Coleman blog for a while. I thought it was quite touching how Councillor Tambourides, Hillan and Offord came to give him moral support. Whatever I think of Mr Coleman, he still has his friends. I personally was pleased to see Labour Councillor Julie Johnson there. In my opinion Julie Johnson exemplifies what a Councillor should be. She's honest, hard working and doing it for the people she represents. I had a little discussion with Julie & ex Tory Councillor Dan Hope. Dan and Julie are at opposite sections of the political spectrum, but are decent, civilised people who you can have a decent chat with. Before I first met Dan, I exchanged many insults with him via the comments in the Barnet Times. His barbs didn't offend me and I found that he didn't mind mine. He understood that it was political banter. I've said many times that he's wrong about many things, his views on some subjects are completely bonkers and other such things. He's retaliated by calling me a "swivel eyed trot" and saying my ideas and views are equally potty. Why do I mention this? Because ultimately Dan "gets it". He knows that when I call him bonkers, I'm robustly referring to his opinion on a political issue. He takes it on the chin. When I first got to meet him, did he blank me. Did he puff himself up and take umbridge. No, we had a bit of banter.

Yesterday as we waited for the decision at the hearing, we adjourned to a side room. What did we discuss? Road humps. This was the subject we've been sparring about for years on end. I doubt we'll ever agree, but despite the banter, we respect each others views. Whatever you think of Dan, I think he has the one thing above all others you need as a politician. He has a sense of humour.

What has been great has been the number of people who have rung me up to congratulate me on the victory. Old friends have sent emails and left facebook messages. People I hardly know have rung up and congratulated me. Neighbours have stopped me in the street and said "Well done". I've had at least a dozen people tell me stories which made them have a drink on me last night.

As to Mayor Coleman, has he learned? Not if this story and picture accurately represents his views. He doesn't get it. He was found guilty by a unanimous verdict. The investigator clearly stated that provocation would be a reason for not upholding the complaint, but she felt that what I said didn't warrant the dismissal. The standards panel agreed. This is a major stain on Colemans character. Just for the record, what did Coleman say when Ken Livingstone was found guilty of saying terrible things?

"London deserves better. This is a humiliation for Ken Livingstone. He has let down every Londoner who has ever put their trust in him."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/24/uk.livingstone/index.html
~ Brian Coleman - after Ken Livingstone was found guilty of saying nasty things.

I have called Mayor Coleman a hypocrite on many occasions. Yesterday we saw a prime example of this. His defence was that under section 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, he was entitled to say what he liked about me, even though he'd signed up to the Standards Code of Barnet Council, which expressly forbade him from insulting members of the public. This is the same person who said "Something must be done about bloggers".

Isn't it time that he realised that the same rules apply to everyone. You can't say that minor league politicians should be able to say what they like, but their critics should be silenced.

Two last points. Coleman's supporters have said that "I can dish it out, but I can't take it". They also said "I've wasted public money". I don't mind what people say about me so long as it's true. Brian Coleman said my blog was "full of lies". He had one of the best lawyers in London Town. They read every blog I've done. They couldn't give a single proper example of a lie, let alone justiify the claim that the blog is full of them. Coleman cannot tell the difference between a "difference of opinion" and a lie. Going back to the Dan Hope analogy. Dan and I both believe the other is wrong about road humps, with a passion. Neither of us thinks the other is a liar. By contrast, I said "Brian Coleman is the worst possible candidate for Mayor apart from Mike Freer" now this is clearly an opinion, but Brian Coleman claims it is a lie.

As to the wasting of public money. The standards committe will be beefing up the training scheme in standards for councillors. Presumably they will be told that it's against the rules to use Council emails to send rude emails. If the public of Barnet are treated with a bit more respect in future, then it is money well spent.

Have a nice weekend

Roger Tichborne vs Councillor Brian Coleman - Vindicated

So there we have it. Brian Coleman was found guilty of breaching the standards code. The most interesting part of the summing up was that the Standards committee will beef up the standards training for councillors. I suspect that they recognised that this was deficient and that this was Colemans getout. Am I disappointed that they didn't suspend him? I'm disappointed that they missed a golden opportunity to send a strong message to councillors about treating people with respect. Having said that, if they felt that he wasn't properly trained in dealing with the public, then it is as much a failing of the council as it is of Coleman, so I suppose it was fair.

As to the process, I felt that it was totally weighted against the complainant (ie ME). I was not allowed to address the panel, wheras Coleman's highly expensive solicitor was. His solicitor was also allowed to ask him questions. I had no such opportunity. I had no chance to tell the panel about all the porkies Coleman told in his testimony or even on Vanessa Feltz this morning. I had to listen to my reputation being trashed for an hour, with no right of reply. Can this be fair? Can this be right. I honestly believe that had I been able to make my case, as Coleman could, through his ten grand solicitor, a harsh penalty would have been applied.

I've not been able to comment publicly on the case until now. With this restriction lifted, let me tell you about the lies Brian Coleman told to the investigator in his testimony. These are only the most serious. This is taken from a letter I sent the investigator. You can cross reference this against Colemans statement in the info on the Council website here. I've alredy dealt with the Vanessa Feltz porkerlies, these are ones he told a STANDARDS INVESTIGATOR who was interviewing him back in May. Apparantly, there is no sanction for "economy with the truth".

Page 42, 2nd Para.
BC …. “He turns up I believe at virtually every residents forum in the borough and tries to get up and attack the chairman of those residents’ forums and me and the leader of the council at public meetings, touring the Borough to talk to residents at meetings so he is not restricted to his blog”

I have only ever attended three resident forum meetings. I have detailed these in various blogs. I understand that they are bi monthly in each of the three wards (approx 18 per year in Barnet). Hardly obsessive attendance. I also dispute Mr Colemans description of my input to the meetings. This is usually on subjects such as the condition of Council maintained football pitches etc.

Page 38 Para 2
BC : “I will just tell you, the Leader of the Council has been cleared by the standards board on these remarks. Therefore I understand the Leader has had a similar complaint made from Mr Tichborne and the Standards Committee have said that there is nothing specific about those remarks against individuals so I can’t quite see why”


I have not made a standards complaint against Mr Freer. I have only made one complaint. That is about Mr Coleman. Mr Colemans statement is demonstrably untrue.

Page 34 Last Para
BC: “It is said he is regularly campaigning for Labour candidates. I think he even stood himself in the past for the Council I believe.”

I’ve never stood for Council. This is easily verifiable. I’ve delivered leaflets once in 10 years. That is the sum of my official activity for the Labour Party.

Page 34 Para 7
BC “I think he is pure poison actually, and I have said so. He is pure poison in a democratic process in the London Borough of Barnet and he really is a poisonous individual. I say what he tried to do to Councillor Braun over some minor matter of a shed in a garden. He wrote abuse about her.”

Councillor Braun was the chair of the Hendon Area planning committee. As such, one would expect her to follow the rules when carrying out modifications to her property. The size, scale and position of the structure meant that it required planning permission, which she didn’t apply for, despite objections from neighbours. I expect Councillors to consider themselves bound by the same rules as everyone else. Shortly after this episode was publicised in the press, she lectured the parents of a sick child, who erected a structure without permission, about the fact that the rules apply to everyone, even those with sick children. The Edgware Times published a letter from me highlighting this seeming double standard. If it had been unfair or abusive, the Times would not have published it.

Page 37 Para 9.
BC “He accused the Leader of only doing things for the Jewish community”

In my 2nd blog on Blogspot, I detail how Barnet Council posted a Youtube video, where a “local resident” accuses the Council of “only doing things for the Jewish Community”.
I strongly objected to video being posted by the Council. It was as a result of my criticism of the Council, that I stopped writing for the Hendon Times(they felt my comments were too strident). I also recently criticised the Council Leader for holding a Leader Listens meeting in Golders Green on a Saturday morning, as this excluded observant Jewish voters. Mr Colemans description of me as “straying into areas of anti-semitism” is completely untrue and completely unfair.

BC “We have left all that but the Watling Festival was an occasion where he tried to engage me in conversation and I did not want to have a conversation with him. He kept coming up then he emailed me because I did say this…”

I was organising an under 10 - 5 a side football tournament at the Watling Festival. Mr Coleman was touring the site with the festival organiser, Patti Skeats. I approached Patti, as I needed to collect the trophy at that time. Mr Coleman said “Hello Roger, how are you” before I could say anything. We chatted for approximately 2 minutes about the Darlands Nature reserve, as I had a friend who was interested in getting involved and Mr Coleman is in charge of this. I later emailed Mr Coleman, purely to ask for a quote as to what a good job the festival organisers do for the blog. I assume he read the text, so he knows that. We have only spoken on one other occasion that I can recall. I served him a glass of wine at John Keeble church during the Mill Hill Music Festival I 2007 and he said “Thank you”. The implication that I stalk him in public is most unfair. My daughter is a National swimming champion and I have avoided several Barnet Civic functions where she has been honoured, due to Mr Coleman’s attendance. The opposite is true.

One last thing, Mr Coleman says I can dish it out, but can't take it. The reason I raised the complaint was because I felt that some Tory Councillors held the public in contempt. Colemans email was just a single example. The Standards Sub Committee completely agreed with me about this. That is why they will beef up the training. That is why the process was worthwhile. It has identified yet another area where Barnet doesn't do things properly. Because of my complaint, this will be fixed.

That is a good result. That makes the effort worthwhile.