Hat Tip to the Barnet Bugle, for posting on Twitter
Brian Coleman has lost his appeal against censure by Barnet Council Standards Sub Committee, for sending rude emails to Barnet residents in his official capacity as a member of the Council and the North West London Waste Authority. See below for details. The Barnet Eye is sorry to report that as he's lost, Coleman will have to pick up the legal fees. Apparently he has 28 days to appeal. If he loses, it will cost him even more !!!!!!
LGS 0582 Tribunal Decision
Showing posts with label standards complaints. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards complaints. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
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.
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.
Friday, 18 November 2011
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.
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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?
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Time to see if Barnet really cares about "Bullying and Intimidation" - Councillor Tambourides up before Standards Board
Next Tuesday, there really is the most incredible Standards case ever in the history of Barnet Council. A Barnet Conservative Councillor, Kate Salinger has reported another Barnet Conservative Councillor, Andreas Tambourides to the Standards committee. What is even more interesting is that the report produced by the independent investigator has found that Tambourides breached the code on TWO counts. It is now the job of the committee to decide whether to accept the findings of the investigator and whether to impose a sanction on Tambourides.
Yesterday the Barnet Eye reported that Barnet Council had secretly issued a press release stating that
This case is an important test of this principle. Tambourides is a high ranking Conservative cabinet member, who deliberately circulated an email seeking to denigrate a colleague. Why? Because Kate Salinger had taken a principled stand against awarding herself a payrise. She was publicly humiliated and stripped of all responsibility within the council. She then suffered the indignity of a colleague circulating a humiliating and inaccurate blog about her to all her colleagues. The blog was forced to apologise, but Tambourides did not bother to circulate the correction.
Long standing readers of this blog will know I took Councillor Brian Coleman to the standards committee. He was found guilty of breaching the code, but no sanction was imposed. Having been through the process and had the indignity of having a highly paid lawyer spend two hours besmirching my character - spouting innaccuracy after innaccuracy, I will be most interested to follow these procedings. Certain members of the Barnet Conservatives cannot behave themselves. They will only learn to behave when they are brought to book. The time is long overdue. Kate Salinger has shown herself to be the bravest, most highly principled and the nicest of all Tory Councillors. She is an example of good manners. She exemplifies the qualities that all good local councillors should aspire to have. It is incredible that Tambourides was not instantly relieved of all duties when he circulated the offending email. It shows just how rotten to the core the clique at the heart of Barnet Council really is. I applaud Councillor Salinger for standing up to this bully and holding him to account.
Here are the papers for your perusal.
Agenda and Reports Pack[1]
Yesterday the Barnet Eye reported that Barnet Council had secretly issued a press release stating that
The council does not tolerate the abuse or bullying of any of its staff.
This case is an important test of this principle. Tambourides is a high ranking Conservative cabinet member, who deliberately circulated an email seeking to denigrate a colleague. Why? Because Kate Salinger had taken a principled stand against awarding herself a payrise. She was publicly humiliated and stripped of all responsibility within the council. She then suffered the indignity of a colleague circulating a humiliating and inaccurate blog about her to all her colleagues. The blog was forced to apologise, but Tambourides did not bother to circulate the correction.
Long standing readers of this blog will know I took Councillor Brian Coleman to the standards committee. He was found guilty of breaching the code, but no sanction was imposed. Having been through the process and had the indignity of having a highly paid lawyer spend two hours besmirching my character - spouting innaccuracy after innaccuracy, I will be most interested to follow these procedings. Certain members of the Barnet Conservatives cannot behave themselves. They will only learn to behave when they are brought to book. The time is long overdue. Kate Salinger has shown herself to be the bravest, most highly principled and the nicest of all Tory Councillors. She is an example of good manners. She exemplifies the qualities that all good local councillors should aspire to have. It is incredible that Tambourides was not instantly relieved of all duties when he circulated the offending email. It shows just how rotten to the core the clique at the heart of Barnet Council really is. I applaud Councillor Salinger for standing up to this bully and holding him to account.
Here are the papers for your perusal.
Agenda and Reports Pack[1]
Monday, 17 October 2011
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 :-
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 :-
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
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
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
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
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*****
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*****
> 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** ***
> 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****
> 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****
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Barnet Council - He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy
Sadly, there's quite a few very naughty boys at Barnet Council. They are even complaining about each other.
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/documents/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=92760
Sadly in open and transparent Barnet they don't name and shame
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/documents/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=92760
Sadly in open and transparent Barnet they don't name and shame
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Brian Coleman - Latest Standards Complaint letter
Friday, 18 March 2011
Brian Coleman guilty again - now he must go
I have just received an email from a regular reader who received an abusive email from Councillor Brian Coleman. Mr Cohen, an Israeli citizen, reported Brian Coleman to the standards committee for making a disparaging remark about his Israeli citizenship. Mr Cohen tells me
hiAs this is the second time Coleman has breached this section of the code, it is time for the Council to take firm action and stop him bringing the council into disrepute. Coleman should be suspended for a period to reflect on his actions. The man is a disgrace and it is time he was brought to book.
received a letter from the standards committee yesterday regarding the complaint.they uphold section 3.1 - you must respect etc, but rejected section 5 - bringing your office to
disrepute. IMHO, it seems like a white wash, since section 3.1 is a minor one, but 5 is the more serious. considering that he used his office equipment and did it on his official role.
ron
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Brian Coleman and the Barnet Eye - One year on
To beat the charge, Coleman had lied through his teeth to Standards Investigator, a point not even considered by the committee, odd given that I'd shown this was beyond doubt. I was later told that the committee had limited the punishment as they knew Coleman would most likely appeal had a harsher sanction been applied. This would have incurred more costs for Barnet, which was a consideration.
I was interested to reflect, a year on from the origin of the spat, on how Mr Coleman had progressed. It is without doubt true to say that Mr Colemans influence has been diminished. Even his former allies have taken to winding him up via their Twitter feeds
what happened to toad of toad hall? 12:06 AM Mar 3rd via mobile web
His attempts to oppose the rise to power of Lynne Hillan failed and yet again, he was marginalised. His intervention in the Brent Cross planning decision further pushed him from the centre of power within the Tory party. He has been shut out from the centre of power, subsequently making a fool of himself on the Paul Ross radio show on BBC London 94.9,announcing that "Barnet was full of Grit" shortly before Tory Cabinet member Councillor Daniel Thomas announced that it had run out.
He seems to have been silenced by the Tory hierarchy. His GLA website shows that he's not made a press release since the 11th December (this for a rent a quote like Mr Coleman, is tantamount to joining a trappist order). His recent radio turns have become pantomime affairs, turning up to defend disgraced Tory lackies such as suspended Brent Councillor and Boris ally, Bertha Joseph, who took hundreds of pounds of charitable donations to spend on ballgowns.
What about the Barnet Eye blog. I'll let you into a little secret. Shortly before I got the email from Coleman, I'd actually decided to end the blog. I had become completely dissillusioned with the Labour Party, which I'd been a member of for many years. I couldn't see any way that Labour could win in Barnet, even though Tory Barnet Council was a complete basket case, and I was starting to feel like a dog howling at the moon. We had a trip abroad scheduled for Easter and I'd decided that this would be the date when my blogging days ended. Then Coleman sent his email and I thought "hang on, this guy is a bully, he's not fit for public office. If I back down now, he'll think he's won". I felt duty bound to carry on, even though my heart wasn't on the job. I made the decision to carry on the blog, until the case had been decided and then when I won (which I always new I would), wrap it up with a "Job Done" story.
What I didn't expect was for Coleman to lie through his teeth about me. He made up porkies such as claiming I'd stood for Council before to the Investigator, that I'd insulted his mother (he said this on Radio to Vanessa Feltz, who then backtracked and vindicated me when she saw my comments), he claimed I was "anti-semitic" which given that his lawyers had pored over every inch of the blog and knew that the opposite was true, was a horrible slur. There are many other porkies and deliberate innacuracies in his testimony. On the day of the hearing, I sat and listened, with no right of reply, as his lawyer, one of Londons top lawyers, spent two hours attacking my character.I had no opportunity to refute any of this to the committee. Despite all of this, despite the unfairness of the process, I won.
I was enraged. I reversed my decision to end the blog. I thought to myself "If Coleman is going to lie and say that I'd stood for council before, I'll give him his wish". A chance encounter with Jack Cohen, leader of the Barnet Lib Dems, persuaded me that I should go down this route. I decided though, that if I stood, it wouldn't be on a "Brian Coleman" dictated platform. It would be on the values that I believe in and for the principles I believe. I believe in respect, honest open government and value for money. I believe that public service is an honour and that the people of Barnet have been let down. Brian Coleman is a dinosaur in Barnet, he will be around for a while, but he is merely a symbol of all that is wrong with Barnet's Tories.
It has been interesting to talk to people whilst canvassing. Many people have raised the Coleman issue with me. I have heard all sorts of stories about our beloved Mayor. He has been called the "Marmite Mayor" as people love him or hate him. Whilst I've seen plenty of evidence of the latter, I've yet to have the dogs turned on me by a "Colemanlover". One old boy who lives up the road told me "I've voted Conservative all of my life, but Brian Coleman is a bloody disgrace. I cannot possibly vote for the Conservatives in the Council Elections whilst he is Mayor". Over the years I've had much humourous banter with this particular old boy. He used to borrow my drain rods, when his bogs got blocked, sadly now I have to do it for him. He's not the only Tory in Barnet who needs his turds removed !
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Brian Coleman and his sleazy crew, hellbent on ruining the Fire Service
There are 17 members of this panel. To push through the measures, Coleman needs a majority. There are currently 9 Tories on it. That means he has just enough. The only problem is that two of those members are currently serving bans from office as Councillors. Normally this would preclude their membership of such a panel, but we all know what Coleman thinks of the rules. It is truly amazing that Boris Johnson has picked a panel of Tories, who three out of 9 have been found guilty of breaches of the the stanndards code in the last couple of months. What does this tell you about the Clean Administration" Boris wanted to run.
It even appears that one of this motley crew tendered her resignation in shame, only for Brian Coleman to refuse it, because he needs her. Brian Coleman thinks the rules don't apply to him. He thinks the rules don't apply to his Tory mates on the committee. As to the rest of us? Well it appears that he thinks they apply to other Barnet Councillors, as he's the only Councillor to report a Councillor from another party.
Click here to read the FULL STORY in the Evening Standard :-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23758989-boris-banks-on-axed-councillors-in-bid-to-control-fire-authority.do
Sunday, 4 October 2009
I wouldn't wipe my bum on the Daily Telegraph if I was caught short in a field of Thistles
The picture on the right is lifted from this blog. Barnbrook is promoting his anti knife campaign. Whilst no sane Londoner would think knives are anything other than terrible, I'd also guess that most people would be horrified to learn that Barnbrook MADE UP a pile of porkies for a video he made to promote his campaing. The Telegrapgh calls him Councillor Richard Barnbrook, but this is actually not strictly true at the moment as he was suspended for this despicable behaviour.
You may be intrigued by this blog entry - an apology to Dagenham and Barking Council and the GLA. Now personally, if I was Barnbrook, I'd have called it an apology to the people who placed their faith in me with their vote. What is it with people like Barnbrook. They are caught out, but they just can't say they are wrong.
Elsewhere in his blog he says the following :-
I, Richard Barnbrook am going to be Barking’s next MP! I’m the candidate for the British National Party, which is the only Party that has the guts to tell it like it is.
This is a bit rich coming from a man just suspended for telling porkies. His explanation for being one of London's greatest Porkiemeisters?
There were about 4 consecutive takes of this recording and what with my dyslexia and ambient background noise, I became confused. The video was posted on my blog by one of my aides on the same day. It was therefore equivalent to a live recording because it was not edited. Unfortunately, it wasn’t taken down by my aides when it should have been, once it was realised that it contained inaccuracies.Like Richard Barnbrook, I'm dyslexic. It's quite simple. If you are doing something important, something in the public domain, you check your facts. If you are a representative of a Political party, you have assistants, paid for by the public purse. Is he so stupid that, knowing he was dyslexic, knowing he "got confused", that he allowed "an aide" to post it? As I've said before and I'll doubtless say again. Richard Barnbrook and the BNP claim that they are different and honest. The facts show them to be otherwise.
As to the Daily Telegraph hosting this man's blog. Do they believe that it is the job of respected papers to host the blatherings of such a dishonest and clearly stupid man? What purpose is served by a giving a platform to a man who cannot tell the truth and promotes racial tensions? I wouldn't buy the Daily Telegraph. I wouldn't even wipe my bum on it if I was caught short in a field of Thistles.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Would you prefer to suffer from wind or stage 4 bowel cancer
If you read my previous blog, you'd realise that I have come to the conclusion that the standards complaint process in Barnet is a complete charade designed purely to protect councillors. There is no element of natural justice involved and I believe the sub committee went far beyond their brief in their (I believe) unfounded criticism of this blog.
However having said all that, no one died, no one got injured and we'll all live to fight another day.
Far more worrying is the report on the Tory Troll website.
http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-barnbrook-suspended-for-murder.html
This details how BNP GLA member Richard Barnbrook has received the following punishment for lying about claims of murders.
Greater London Authority
1. Formal Censure
2. Requirement to apologise on the GLA website and on his personal blog
3. submit to training on ethics and standards in public life
Barking and Dagenham Council
1. Suspension for one calendar month without pay
2. Requirement to apologise
3. Failure to apologise leading to indefinite suspension
Compared to what Barnbrook did, Coleman's offences were trivial. Whatever I think of Coleman, Barnbrook has shown himself to be in a totally different league. However toothless Barnet may seem, however biased I may think the process was, pales into insignificance compared to how lame the censure of Barnbrook is. The process prevented the panel in Barnet from hearing my side of the story, so I couldn't put my case. I'll forgive them on the basis that I believe they were mislead. It was clear as day that Barnbrook had behaved atrociously and willfully mislead people in matters likely to cause public affray.
Whatever I think of Brian Coleman and however much I may dislike aspects of his behaviour, his actions result in little more than the furring up of his arteries and me possibly paying a penny a year more tax. If Barnbrook's mob were in the position Coleman's lot are, lord help us all. In my humble opinion in terms of their character, their policies and their standards hearings it is like comparing a mild case of wind with stage 4 bowel cancer.
Sometimes it helps to get things in perspective and see the bigger picture.
However having said all that, no one died, no one got injured and we'll all live to fight another day.
Far more worrying is the report on the Tory Troll website.
http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-barnbrook-suspended-for-murder.html
This details how BNP GLA member Richard Barnbrook has received the following punishment for lying about claims of murders.
Greater London Authority
1. Formal Censure
2. Requirement to apologise on the GLA website and on his personal blog
3. submit to training on ethics and standards in public life
Barking and Dagenham Council
1. Suspension for one calendar month without pay
2. Requirement to apologise
3. Failure to apologise leading to indefinite suspension
Compared to what Barnbrook did, Coleman's offences were trivial. Whatever I think of Coleman, Barnbrook has shown himself to be in a totally different league. However toothless Barnet may seem, however biased I may think the process was, pales into insignificance compared to how lame the censure of Barnbrook is. The process prevented the panel in Barnet from hearing my side of the story, so I couldn't put my case. I'll forgive them on the basis that I believe they were mislead. It was clear as day that Barnbrook had behaved atrociously and willfully mislead people in matters likely to cause public affray.
Whatever I think of Brian Coleman and however much I may dislike aspects of his behaviour, his actions result in little more than the furring up of his arteries and me possibly paying a penny a year more tax. If Barnbrook's mob were in the position Coleman's lot are, lord help us all. In my humble opinion in terms of their character, their policies and their standards hearings it is like comparing a mild case of wind with stage 4 bowel cancer.
Sometimes it helps to get things in perspective and see the bigger picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)