Three things,
The Daily Mirror this morning is claiming that to date ATOS have judged that 158,000 sick people fit for work and the DWP have reversed the decisions (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/atos-wrongly-assessed-thousands-sick-3159343 ).
This is on top of the. Estimated 100,000 that have had their ATOS assessment overturned on appeal.
Apparently Barnet General Hospital A&E has been closed to admissions twice more last week.
Every single one of the 258,000 people affected by an ATOS decision is a human being. They have feelings. They have to make ends meet. Every single one of them has been put through emotional stress by the process. What sort of a government inflicts such trauma on a quarter of a million disabled people?
As to the situation at Barnet General. As the old lottery advert said "It could be you" having a heart attack and being turned away from A&E. When that happens, will you still think that a 1p a week tax cut was really a sensible policy?
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Thieves close Friern Barnet Library
 |
| sadly, we have had tiles and flashing stolen from the roof and now have to close the library until at least Thursday due to flooding and damage to electrics. So no classes, no library.
We will have to pay for the damages upfront and seek to be reimbursed by the London Borough of Barnet but we may also have to consider donations for a flood fund from you to help cover the costs.
Many thanks in advance for your patience and understanding. Once things are back to normal, we will update you with the opening times and any information such as the need for fundraising.
Thank you FBCL team Library Closed until possibly Thursday http://www.friernbarnetlibrary.org/ |
The above message was received by the Barnet Eye from the trustees of Friern Barnet Community Library. We urge anyone who may know of who perpetrated this crime to report it to the Police. This is a theft from our community. The anti social elements who damage public property should not be excused. In effect anyone turning a blind eye to such behaviour is as culpable ad the thieves who performed the crime.
This theft has closed a much loved community asset, causing damage way beyond the amount the thieves will receive for the scrap value. Every day travellers around the UK are inconvenienced by similar anti social thefts from the rail network. I happen to believe that anyone involved in the crime should be made jointly and equally liable for all the costs associated with their vandalism.
Monday, 17 February 2014
UKIP or the Conservatives? The choice for Hendon Tories
If you live in Barnet and you are inclined towards the right rather than the left, you may well want to consider whether you would prefer to vote for the Conservatives or UKIP. Now as regular readers will know, the Barnet Eye is not a right leaning blog. We do however admire honesty and integrity across the political spectrum. In Barnet, the local UKIP candidate is Adrian Murray Leonard. Prior to 2010, I'd never heard of Mr Murray Leonard. He was chairman of the West Hendon Conservative Association. Long time readers of this blog will recall that when local Tory Council bigwigs awarded themselves a payrise, Mr Murray Leonard went public with his disgust. This story in the Hendon Times was our first encounter with Mr Murray Leonard
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8297992.Conservative_association_member_brands_party_colleagues__greedy_vultures__over_allowance_hike/
Given that Mr Murray Leonard was one of the few Barnet Conservatives to display any integrity over this matter, we kept a watchful eye on his career.
He next cropped up in 2011, after a public fallout with local Tory MP Matthew Offord. Mr Murray Leonard took Mr Offord to task for being a bit lazy and not serving his constituents. Mr Murray Leonard described himself as a "true Tory" and a Thatcherite. He described Mr Offord as like the Scarlett Pimpernell.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8800651.MP_criticised_by_Tory_defector/
It was clear from this report that Mr Murray Leonard was not keen on people who get jobs at the taxpayers expense and then give nothing back.
Mr Offord hit back, using parliamentary priviledge to accuse Mr Murray Leonard of Anti Semitism
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8808912.Tory_defector__shocked__by_anti_Semitism_accusations_by_MP/
Mr Offord made the accusations from the floor of the House of Commons, where libel laws do not apply. Mr Offord, rather bizarrely stated "However, this individual started making anti-Semitic comments. Once I was elected, I would have no truck with any such individuals."
The statement made it quite clear that he was prepared to work with Mr Murray Leonard to get elected, but once he got the job, he was happy to dispense with his services. Mr Murray Leonard has always denied the charges and countered by saying that Offord simply didn't like Mr Murray Leonard asking him to do some work for his constituents. At the time of the accusations, the Barnet Eye spoke to friendly Hendon based Tory Councillors who stated that they were totally unaware of any whiff of Anti Semitism from Mr Murray Leonard and would have not worked with them, had their been any substance to such rumours.
Mr Offord has positioned himself to the right of the Tory Party. He has been very critical of the more Liberal parts of David Camerons agenda, such as Gay marriage. To my mind, the only difference between Offord and Murray Leonard is the issue of integrity, not political policies (although I am not aware of Mr Murray Leonards views on Gay Marriage. I will leave you to guess which one I think has more of it. When you cast your vote, it is something you may wish to consider.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8297992.Conservative_association_member_brands_party_colleagues__greedy_vultures__over_allowance_hike/
Given that Mr Murray Leonard was one of the few Barnet Conservatives to display any integrity over this matter, we kept a watchful eye on his career.
He next cropped up in 2011, after a public fallout with local Tory MP Matthew Offord. Mr Murray Leonard took Mr Offord to task for being a bit lazy and not serving his constituents. Mr Murray Leonard described himself as a "true Tory" and a Thatcherite. He described Mr Offord as like the Scarlett Pimpernell.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8800651.MP_criticised_by_Tory_defector/
It was clear from this report that Mr Murray Leonard was not keen on people who get jobs at the taxpayers expense and then give nothing back.
Mr Offord hit back, using parliamentary priviledge to accuse Mr Murray Leonard of Anti Semitism
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8808912.Tory_defector__shocked__by_anti_Semitism_accusations_by_MP/
Mr Offord made the accusations from the floor of the House of Commons, where libel laws do not apply. Mr Offord, rather bizarrely stated "However, this individual started making anti-Semitic comments. Once I was elected, I would have no truck with any such individuals."
The statement made it quite clear that he was prepared to work with Mr Murray Leonard to get elected, but once he got the job, he was happy to dispense with his services. Mr Murray Leonard has always denied the charges and countered by saying that Offord simply didn't like Mr Murray Leonard asking him to do some work for his constituents. At the time of the accusations, the Barnet Eye spoke to friendly Hendon based Tory Councillors who stated that they were totally unaware of any whiff of Anti Semitism from Mr Murray Leonard and would have not worked with them, had their been any substance to such rumours.
Mr Offord has positioned himself to the right of the Tory Party. He has been very critical of the more Liberal parts of David Camerons agenda, such as Gay marriage. To my mind, the only difference between Offord and Murray Leonard is the issue of integrity, not political policies (although I am not aware of Mr Murray Leonards views on Gay Marriage. I will leave you to guess which one I think has more of it. When you cast your vote, it is something you may wish to consider.
Sunday, 16 February 2014
Barnet Housing Strategy report reveals failure of Council economic policy
A report on the Barnet Council website reveals some rather interesting facts about the housing situation in Barnet (http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12279/Housing%20Strategy.pdf)
There are a few interesting points to consider. Firstly the revealation that the population of Barnet will incease by 101,000 peope between 2001 and 2022. Not only that, but most of those people have already moved to Barnet. It is no surprise in these circumstances, that the report notes the number of private homes for rent has shrunk, homeless applications have increased and private sector rents have increased. This is called "the law of supply and demand" if you have more people using the same resources, then things get more expensive. The long term effect this has on the boroughs economy is to drive out young people who were raised in the borough as they seek cheaper accomodation elsewhere. This causes the breakdown of social support networks, and increases the social care costs. I saw an example of this in my own family. My mother had a stroke in 2001 and needed constant care. Much of this was provided by myself and my siblings. My sister was living in Edgware and would visit my mother every day (as would I). When my mother passed away in 2008, the first thing my sister did was make a long planned move to Essex, for a larger, cheaper property. Had she moved in before 2001, then my mother would have needed to rely on the council for the social care we provided to a far greater extent. This is one of the social costs of council policy that the bean counters cannot quantify. Large Council estates such as Burnt Oak, used to supply homes for generations of working families at affordable rents. As a result of Thatchers policy of Council house sales, with no replenishment of the social housing stock, the younger generations were forced out. Now the council is picking up the costs of this divorce of parents and children. Contrary to many right wing commentators, no one wants to become dependent on the council for care. Families would much rather look after their own, but it is not practical or feasable from long distance.
Another interesting comment is on the failure of the governments economic policy is also revealed. It states that "median incomes fell in 2012". For those who don't understand statisics, the median refers to those in the earning tree. The implication is that Barnets super rich did alright, at the expense of the majority of the rest of us, who work hard and pay our taxes, whilst trying to raise our children. The Coalition governments decision to cut top tax rates from 50% to 45% for the super rich has meant that the burden clearly has not been fairly shared.
Another interesting fact is that the number of empty properties has risen. This is the one fact that I have struggled to understand, given that there is clear need. It can only mean that the govenrment and the council have defective policies towards housing stock. Margaret Thatcher abolished the old system of rates. Now we have the community charge, which has no socially progressive element to encourage landlords to rent homes. In seeking to understand what is going on, I discussed the issue with an estate agent. They informed me that property developers are buying up empty homes and seeking to build huge blocks of flats. This can result in the acquired homes lying empty for periods of years whilst they try and buy neighbouring properties and argue with the council about planning requests. It is standard practice for developers to submit schemes that are far too ambitious, just to see what they can get away with. All of this leads to delays, resulting in housing stock sitting empty. I personally would like to see two things done. Firstly an empty house charge to be applied to any property sitting empty for more than one year. The second thing I'd like to see is two new bands on the community charge, so that the largest home owners pay their fair share. Billionaires in Bishops avenue pay the same charge as relatively modest suburban detached houses. I have calculated that for many of these mansions, billionaires are paying a rate of as little as a 10th or a 20th of the value compared with normal Barnet residents. The Leader of the Council spoke in a recent newspaper column about the fact that it is "unfair" to target owners of mansions to pay their fair share of community tax. I disagree and I believe that the vast majority of Barnet residents would disagree if they realised that billionaires were paying a 20th the rate of tax they were on their homes.
The last phrase in the report chills me to the bone. It states that Barnet has a "higher capacity for new homes than other London Boroughs". This can only refer to an attck on the green belt and conservation areas.
So you may ask what the councils strategy is? This is described in section 9.1
That was passed in 2010. Has the council succeeded on these lofty aims, set out in 2010. Their own report clearly spells out the failure of the strategy. Their own document clearly states there are less homes, showing that they've failed on point 1. Given that housing is now more expensive and incomes have dropped, they have also failed on point 4. As to point 5, by forcing people to move away from parents, they have increased, not decreased reliance on Council services. I suppose that we can say that on point three, they have to a certain degree succeeded. There has been huge net immigration into the Borough and the character of many neighbourhoods has changed significantly, even over the last four years.I must confess I hadn't realised that the council had a clear policy of moving long standing local communities out and replacing them with immigrant communities. My own personal view is that the Council not be seeking to "move on" existing residents, many of whom have paid tax all their life to Barnet Council. It may surprise many, given the perception that the Tories are "anti immigration" that the council has such a policy. It doesn't surprise me at all. What they are really talking about is trying to move out people such as the elderly and the disabled, and replace them with fit young immigrants who are less of a burden on the Barnet Taxpayer. That is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the Tories. They pretend to be anti immigrant, but actually encourage immigration when it suits their greedy tax cutting agenda. I am not in the least anti immigratant, but I strongly believe that groups such as the elderly and the disabled should not be discriminated against, to facilitate a goal no higher than tax cuts for the super rich.
As with all council reports, the devil is in the detail. I doubt many Barnet Councillors bothered to read this report and even fewer (especially on the Tory benches) understand what it is saying. But the truth is there spelled out in black and white. Barnet Council has a proven track record of failure on housing. It has a clear policy of discrimination against existing residents and a clear policy of bending over backwards to wealthy private Landlords. There is a council election in May. If you vote Conservative, you are voting to continue this record of discrimination and failure.
There are a few interesting points to consider. Firstly the revealation that the population of Barnet will incease by 101,000 peope between 2001 and 2022. Not only that, but most of those people have already moved to Barnet. It is no surprise in these circumstances, that the report notes the number of private homes for rent has shrunk, homeless applications have increased and private sector rents have increased. This is called "the law of supply and demand" if you have more people using the same resources, then things get more expensive. The long term effect this has on the boroughs economy is to drive out young people who were raised in the borough as they seek cheaper accomodation elsewhere. This causes the breakdown of social support networks, and increases the social care costs. I saw an example of this in my own family. My mother had a stroke in 2001 and needed constant care. Much of this was provided by myself and my siblings. My sister was living in Edgware and would visit my mother every day (as would I). When my mother passed away in 2008, the first thing my sister did was make a long planned move to Essex, for a larger, cheaper property. Had she moved in before 2001, then my mother would have needed to rely on the council for the social care we provided to a far greater extent. This is one of the social costs of council policy that the bean counters cannot quantify. Large Council estates such as Burnt Oak, used to supply homes for generations of working families at affordable rents. As a result of Thatchers policy of Council house sales, with no replenishment of the social housing stock, the younger generations were forced out. Now the council is picking up the costs of this divorce of parents and children. Contrary to many right wing commentators, no one wants to become dependent on the council for care. Families would much rather look after their own, but it is not practical or feasable from long distance.
Another interesting comment is on the failure of the governments economic policy is also revealed. It states that "median incomes fell in 2012". For those who don't understand statisics, the median refers to those in the earning tree. The implication is that Barnets super rich did alright, at the expense of the majority of the rest of us, who work hard and pay our taxes, whilst trying to raise our children. The Coalition governments decision to cut top tax rates from 50% to 45% for the super rich has meant that the burden clearly has not been fairly shared.
Another interesting fact is that the number of empty properties has risen. This is the one fact that I have struggled to understand, given that there is clear need. It can only mean that the govenrment and the council have defective policies towards housing stock. Margaret Thatcher abolished the old system of rates. Now we have the community charge, which has no socially progressive element to encourage landlords to rent homes. In seeking to understand what is going on, I discussed the issue with an estate agent. They informed me that property developers are buying up empty homes and seeking to build huge blocks of flats. This can result in the acquired homes lying empty for periods of years whilst they try and buy neighbouring properties and argue with the council about planning requests. It is standard practice for developers to submit schemes that are far too ambitious, just to see what they can get away with. All of this leads to delays, resulting in housing stock sitting empty. I personally would like to see two things done. Firstly an empty house charge to be applied to any property sitting empty for more than one year. The second thing I'd like to see is two new bands on the community charge, so that the largest home owners pay their fair share. Billionaires in Bishops avenue pay the same charge as relatively modest suburban detached houses. I have calculated that for many of these mansions, billionaires are paying a rate of as little as a 10th or a 20th of the value compared with normal Barnet residents. The Leader of the Council spoke in a recent newspaper column about the fact that it is "unfair" to target owners of mansions to pay their fair share of community tax. I disagree and I believe that the vast majority of Barnet residents would disagree if they realised that billionaires were paying a 20th the rate of tax they were on their homes.
The last phrase in the report chills me to the bone. It states that Barnet has a "higher capacity for new homes than other London Boroughs". This can only refer to an attck on the green belt and conservation areas.
So you may ask what the councils strategy is? This is described in section 9.1
9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Existing housing strategy 9.1 The council’s existing housing strategy was agreed by Cabinet in April 2010 with the following key housing objectives: o Increasing housing supply to improve the range of housing choices and opportunities available to residents o Improving the condition and sustainability of the existing housing stock o Promoting mixed communities o Maximising opportunities available for those wishing to own their home o Providing housing related support options that maximise the independence of residents o Providing excellent value services that exceed residents’ expectations.
That was passed in 2010. Has the council succeeded on these lofty aims, set out in 2010. Their own report clearly spells out the failure of the strategy. Their own document clearly states there are less homes, showing that they've failed on point 1. Given that housing is now more expensive and incomes have dropped, they have also failed on point 4. As to point 5, by forcing people to move away from parents, they have increased, not decreased reliance on Council services. I suppose that we can say that on point three, they have to a certain degree succeeded. There has been huge net immigration into the Borough and the character of many neighbourhoods has changed significantly, even over the last four years.I must confess I hadn't realised that the council had a clear policy of moving long standing local communities out and replacing them with immigrant communities. My own personal view is that the Council not be seeking to "move on" existing residents, many of whom have paid tax all their life to Barnet Council. It may surprise many, given the perception that the Tories are "anti immigration" that the council has such a policy. It doesn't surprise me at all. What they are really talking about is trying to move out people such as the elderly and the disabled, and replace them with fit young immigrants who are less of a burden on the Barnet Taxpayer. That is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the Tories. They pretend to be anti immigrant, but actually encourage immigration when it suits their greedy tax cutting agenda. I am not in the least anti immigratant, but I strongly believe that groups such as the elderly and the disabled should not be discriminated against, to facilitate a goal no higher than tax cuts for the super rich.
As with all council reports, the devil is in the detail. I doubt many Barnet Councillors bothered to read this report and even fewer (especially on the Tory benches) understand what it is saying. But the truth is there spelled out in black and white. Barnet Council has a proven track record of failure on housing. It has a clear policy of discrimination against existing residents and a clear policy of bending over backwards to wealthy private Landlords. There is a council election in May. If you vote Conservative, you are voting to continue this record of discrimination and failure.
Saturday, 15 February 2014
The NHS in Barnet is in total meltdown - cancer patients sent home on day of life saving operations
 |
| NHS bosses discuss Johns treatment with his Dr |
After years of misdiagnosis, last year, doctors finally identified the cause of Johns illness. He had an extensive series of tests and given the worsening prognosis, he was given a treatment plan. This involved monthly injections to shrink the tumour and a date was set for an operation. The surgeon informed John that there were two possible outcomes. If the tumour was not attached to significant organs, it would be removed. If it was, it would be left in, but detatched so that it did not cause the bowel to twist and spasm. This would alleviate the pain. The tumour would then be addressed with chemotherapy. Both options involve major surgery, with risks, but both would offer John a decent quality of life, in the short term at least. There would be no more rolling around screaming on the floor of ASDA when an attack struck. When the medical team became aware of the frequency and acuteness of Johns attacks, he was designated a clinical emergency.
On Wednesday, John was admitted for his operation. He needed to be admitted 24 hours early, as he had to be put on an intravenous drip of medicines designed to subdue the tumour. The doctors were aware that the surgery may cause the tumour to flare up, therefore it needed to be "pacified" (excuse my lack of medical detail, I have not been party to Johns treatment or seen his notes). Once the tumour had been pacified, John was scheduled to be taken for surgery at 11am on Thursday. He was booked into the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead for the operation.
At 10am, I sent John a text wishing him well for the operation and telling him my thoughts and prayers were with him. I sat back and said a quiet prayer for John. I've never discussed religion with him, but if nothing else it made me feel better. At 18:14pm, over seven hours after the scheduled start time for his operation, I received a text from John. It was terse. "They have just cancelled the operation no intensive care beds available". I sent back a text. The next text I received was at 19.05. It simply said "on the tube now".
Eventually I spoke to John. The story he told was heartbreaking and totally disgusting. Basically he'd been kept waiting all day (with a drip in his arm) and at 6pm, the consultant had come down to personally apologise to him. He said "John, I don't know what to say, other than how deeply sorry I am. There are no intensive care beds available in the hospital today. Myself and three other consultants have had to cancel our operations. We can't do them if we don't have a bed".
Which leads me to the question "How can a large hospital in London, treating acute cancer cases, not have enough beds?" Well as far as I am concerned, the answer is obvious. The Government recently shut the A&E department at Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield. On Tuesday, I wrote this blog http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/when-first-person-dies-due-to-queues-at.html detailing how ambulances were being turned away from Barnet General. These emergency cases were being sent to other hospitals. Where do emergency cases end up? In Intensive Care beds. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that John Sullivans inhuman treatment by the NHS is the direct result of David Cameron and his government shutting Chase Farm A&E department.
Now I ask everyone to think this through logically. John Sullivan is not special. David Cameron did not ring up the bosses at The Royal Free and say "I don't like John Sullivan, send him home to die". David Cameron and his government have simply said "We won't fund the NHS properly". What this means is that it isn't just John Sullivan. It is everyone in Barnet, perhaps London, perhaps the whole UK, who could find themselves in John Sullivans situation. And if there are no intensive care beds at the Royal Free, if ambulances are being turned away from Barnet General, where will you be taken if you get run over, have a heart attack or any other form of emergency treatment. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious that when you are in need of critical care, the sooner you get to hospital and the sooner you are treated, the higher the chances that you will live. If the ambulance you are in is being turned away from all the hospitals in the locality, what are your chances of survival.
Budget cuts don't discriminate. It doesn't matter whether you are Tory, Labour or Monster Raving looney, if there are no beds, you will die. David Cameron and his government supported by local Tory MP's Theresa Villiers, Matthew Offord and Mike Freer, have allowed this situation to develop. John Sullivan has no date for his rescheduled operation. His consultant could offer no guarantee that when he is asked back, the same thing will not happen. The NHS in Barnet is in Meltdown. I was talking to John yesterday and he made a stark observation "The only successful thing the Tories have launched in the last 20 years was the national lottery. With that you have a 14 million to one chance of winning. It was so successful that they've decided to give you a 14 million to one chance of getting a hospital bed if you have cancer".
There is an even more chilling postscript to this tale. I asked John to write up his experience as a guest blog. He refused. He said "I am going to get pissed, because I have had enough. If it wasn't for Susan I'd have thrown myself under the tube last night when I was kicked out of the hospital". I got a phonecall from John at the pub last night. He'd clearly had a few and he said "listen to this" and passed the phone to one of his friends. The friend told me that he worked at Barnet General hospital and that apparently sixteen nurses had handed their resignation in, as a protest against the conditions under which they were working. Now I have no idea whether this was accurate or true, but I have no reason to doubt the honesty of the Johns friend. It strikes me that the NHS is falling apart.
Perhaps the saddest part of the tale was what John said happened when he arrived home Thursday Evening. His daughter Susan bounded up to him and said "Have they taken the cancer out of your tummy chief, I knew it would be alright"
Friday, 14 February 2014
The Friday Joke 14/2/2014 -
Last night I attended my son's school parents evening. They tell me he is mathematically gifted. So when we got home, I gave him the benefit of my years of studying applied mathematics. Here is what I told him
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?
We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O- R-K
8+1+18+4+23+ 15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E
11+14+15+23+ 12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%
But,
A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E
1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H- I-T
2+21+12+12+19+ 8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+ 19+19+9+14+ 7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?
We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O- R-K
8+1+18+4+23+ 15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E
11+14+15+23+ 12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%
But,
A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E
1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H- I-T
2+21+12+12+19+ 8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+ 19+19+9+14+ 7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.
Thursday, 13 February 2014
Mill Hill Music Complex is 35 years old tomorrow !
You may well ask why we opened on Valentines day? Well the answer is quite funny really. We'd been rehearsing as a band in my bedroom. Having a whole bunch of teenage punk rockers blaring out music was starting to drive my parents mad. My father had some spare space in the derelict caretakers cottage at the site of his business in Bunns Lane. He said "Why don't you rehearse there". I thought this was a great idea. It meant I had the keys to somewhere which was to become the centre of the Mill Hill Rock and Roll Scene. We struck a deal. He said that if I gave him £5 a week in cash, I could use it for band rehearsals and if I rented it out to my mates, keep the profit if I made any. So I set out begging and borrowing some equipment. The Malone brothers up the road had a band and some gear, so a deal was done. They could rehearse once a week for free and we'd let them keep their gear there. We could rent it out to anyone else. Once we had a basic sound system, I hit on a master plan. I said to my Dad that I was having a launch party. I asked for a donation to get some booze. In fact this was a ploy to ask some of the girls I fancied down to the premesis for a tour of the sites. I thought Valentines night was a great night to kick off. I was still at school then, so having access to such a place was a massive coup for me. My Dad duly coughed up £25 and said "Get a good variety". I decided to get as much cheap cider as possible. I made a list and invited all of the fit girls I could think of down for the party. I also asked a few mates in other bands. As it happened, I was at school with Boz Boorer and Phil Bloomberg from the Polecats. They asked Alan Warner, highly respected guitarist of the Foundations down for a mozey. As it turned out, we had a great party. Despite my wicked intentions, the studio immediately had bookings every night, as there was nowhere to play at all in the area.
For the next two years of A levels, the studio paid my bar bills. The Polecats got a record deal and were soon on top of the pops. In 1981, my own band went on tour of Scandinavia. Back in those days, a night out cost £3-4 so I was doing very well getting £5 a session six or seven times a week. The success didn't go unnoticed and another local musician, John Basil approached my Dad and rented a workshop off him to use as a rehearsal room. He actually spent a few quid on doing it up and took away the better customers I was getting, but I had enough to get by. In 1984, John Basil and STN studios moved out to Colindale.We moved out of the caretakers cottage and into the studio they'd been using (now Studio 2). By this time, friends of mine were renting the caretakers cottage and so were sick of the nightly rehearsals.
Most readers of this blog will know me purely as a blogger. In actual fact, the blogging was purely accidental. I consider myself a musician first. I am immensely proud of the business I've built up and the great work I've done promoting Mill Hill and the London Borough of Barnet through the studios. Two years ago we opened a purpose built new studio complex costing over £1 million to put together. It has been a phenominal success locally. As someone who has struggled with dyslexia, I urge anyone with dyslexic friends and family members to consider what you can do with help and support. At every stage of the way, my friends and family have given me rock solid support. Thanks guys.
If you've never heard of us but are interested in music, please check out our website. I generally don't use this blog to promote my business, but I am sure you won't forgive me on this special occasion. I would have posted this blog tomorrow, but I wanted to spend the evening indulging my beloved, who does all the hard work running the studios, allowing me to do all the silly things I spend my life doing
You can visit our website here
http://www.millhillmusiccomplex.co.uk/
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
Chicken Coleman loses his bottle
I was asked by Keith Martin to appear in a "Question Time" style debate at Friern Barnet Library with Brian Coleman and Helen Michael last week. Given the pivotal role of Brian Coleman in helping Mike Freer MP, architect of One Barnet, to power, I felt that this was an excellent opportunity to try and get Mr Coleman to tell us the truth about the many fiascos he helped bring to pass.
The event was to raise money for the library, which is a registered charity. The good news is that I will be getting a free full English Breakfast at Cafe Buzz. I bet Helen Michael that Coleman would lose his bottle when he found out I'd agreed. Despite Coleman portraying himself as a political bruiser, I know for a fact that he is scared of engaing in a political debate with me, as he's always ended up looking foolish in the past. I locked horns with Coleman many times asking questions at Council meetings and invariably Coleman blew it. Despite all his bluster, he is a complete coward and lacks the intellect to defend his political views.
So it was no surprise today to be forwarded the following email. The only conclusion we can draw is that Brian Coleman is a complete coward.
The event was to raise money for the library, which is a registered charity. The good news is that I will be getting a free full English Breakfast at Cafe Buzz. I bet Helen Michael that Coleman would lose his bottle when he found out I'd agreed. Despite Coleman portraying himself as a political bruiser, I know for a fact that he is scared of engaing in a political debate with me, as he's always ended up looking foolish in the past. I locked horns with Coleman many times asking questions at Council meetings and invariably Coleman blew it. Despite all his bluster, he is a complete coward and lacks the intellect to defend his political views.
So it was no surprise today to be forwarded the following email. The only conclusion we can draw is that Brian Coleman is a complete coward.
From: Coleman, Cllr Brian [mailto:Cllr.B.Coleman@barnet.gov.uk]
Sent: 12 February 2014 10:43
To: keith martin
Subject: Re: ANY QUESTIONS
Sent: 12 February 2014 10:43
To: keith martin
Subject: Re: ANY QUESTIONS
Can I make it quite
clear that until I receive a letter from Ms Michael's lawyers I will not be
appearing on any platform with her
I have no intention of appearing with Mr Tichbourne
I have no intention of appearing with Mr Tichbourne
Although I am disappointed that Coleman will not be exposed, I am not sorry that I have missed the chance to spend an evening in his company. I didn't fancy the idea of having a bath in domestos, which I felt would be necessary to cleanse myself after spending time in his company.
Oddly Mr Coleman tweeted that he'd rather gouge his own eyes out than spend time in my company. This isn't true. In the past few months I've spent time at a charity lunch and private party with Mr Coleman. In both cases, there was a sumptuous dinner provided. It seems that Mr Coleman hangs his principles up with his coat when there is a tasty dinner to be scoffed.
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
When the first person dies due to A&E queues at Barnet General, every Conservative should hold their head in shame
Back in 1996, I was at the forefront of the campaign to save the A&E department at Edgware General Hospital. The then Tory Government closed the hospital and paid the price at the General election in 1997, losing both Hendon and Finchley constituencies. I predicted that there would be problems at the A&E at Barnet as it would be stretched to breaking point. Sadly I was proven right. Back in 2007, an ambulance took my mother in as an emergency and she was kept waiting on an ambulance trolley for eight hours. That meant that the ambulance couldn't go back out to attend other calls. The staff told me that the A& E was chronically overworked and you should avoid being admitted on a Friday or Monday if possible, as it was always the same.
Sadly my mum passed away in 2008 and I've not had reason to go back. Friends have told me horror stories of long waits. So how has the current Conservative lead government responded to this appalling situation? They have closed Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, putting even more stresson Barnet General. One of the regular contributors to this blog was attending A&E recently with his daughter and nurses told him a tale of woe. I have been researching the problems and collating evidence. It seems I've been scooped by the Hendon Times for once, who have found that the departmentis in meltdown and one evening recently declared a state of emergency. Nineteen ambulances were unable to unload patients for admission of emergencies.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/11001761.Packed_A_E_department_forced_to_turn_ambulances_away_during__internal_emergency_/
The story contains the most bizarre comment from an NHS spokesperson I've ever heard
I find this to be quite offensive. If you are in an ambulance requiring emergency treatment and you are stuck in paim do you really want a "manager" to tell the press that "there was a full range of services available for patients". It is crystal clear that there wasn't.
This is clearly down to the closure of the A&E at Chase Farm and the abject failure of our local Tory MP's Matthew Offord, Mike Freer and Theresa Villiers to fight the corner for Barnet residents. If you voted for any of these MP's at the last election, you should hang your head in shame at this news and if you are considering voting for them at the next election, you quite clearly have a screw lose. Whilst there are many cuts to budgets that will not affect the rich Tories whio bankroll the party locally, anyone can get hit by a car, have a heart attack, have a stroke or fall and break their leg. It could happen to your mother or your children. Given the demographics of the Borough, of those nineteen people stranded in Ambulances, nine were statistically likely to be Tory voters. I just hope that they had the wit and intelligence to realise that they are reaping the whirlwind they have sown.
Sadly my mum passed away in 2008 and I've not had reason to go back. Friends have told me horror stories of long waits. So how has the current Conservative lead government responded to this appalling situation? They have closed Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, putting even more stresson Barnet General. One of the regular contributors to this blog was attending A&E recently with his daughter and nurses told him a tale of woe. I have been researching the problems and collating evidence. It seems I've been scooped by the Hendon Times for once, who have found that the departmentis in meltdown and one evening recently declared a state of emergency. Nineteen ambulances were unable to unload patients for admission of emergencies.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/11001761.Packed_A_E_department_forced_to_turn_ambulances_away_during__internal_emergency_/
The story contains the most bizarre comment from an NHS spokesperson I've ever heard
A spokesman from Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust said: “Barnet and Chase Farm Trust experienced high numbers of attendances and ambulance arrivals to A&E on January 31.
“As a consequence of this, and in line with the NHS England (London) policy, Barnet Hospital declared an internal emergency and received support from local hospitals and non-urgent ambulances were diverted.
“Quality of care and safety of our patients is paramount. Consultants and senior managers were on site throughout to ensure the trust responded to this increase in activity.
“There was a full range of services available for patients with additional staff on duty"
This is clearly down to the closure of the A&E at Chase Farm and the abject failure of our local Tory MP's Matthew Offord, Mike Freer and Theresa Villiers to fight the corner for Barnet residents. If you voted for any of these MP's at the last election, you should hang your head in shame at this news and if you are considering voting for them at the next election, you quite clearly have a screw lose. Whilst there are many cuts to budgets that will not affect the rich Tories whio bankroll the party locally, anyone can get hit by a car, have a heart attack, have a stroke or fall and break their leg. It could happen to your mother or your children. Given the demographics of the Borough, of those nineteen people stranded in Ambulances, nine were statistically likely to be Tory voters. I just hope that they had the wit and intelligence to realise that they are reaping the whirlwind they have sown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)