It seems that the various Christian Denominations have been having a few issues with Holocaust deniers and other assorted Nazi and Fascist scumbags of late. As I'm a (rather bad) Roman Catholic, I thought I might give you my views on the subject.
As I've mentioned before, one of my first jobs in the 1970's was working with a Jewish stonemason, who'd been with the British Army when Belsen was liberated. He was an incredibly intelligent man who had seen things no one should ever had to see. He was also a friend of my father, who had been an officer in the Royal Australian Air Force during the war and flown 40 missions over enemy territory for bomber command.
One day over a mug or two of industrial strength tea, the question of the holocaust was being discussed. My Father had been raised in the Australian outback, amongst Aboriginal people. Over our cups of tea back in 1976, my father was telling us that somewhere near where he was born, was one of the few places where Aboriginals fought back against white settlers, who were pursuing a policy of genocide against them, in the early part of the last century. My father was explaining about aboriginal culture and that in the traditional Aboriginal way of thinking there were only three numbers one, two and lots.
Our Stonemason friend unexpectedly interjected by saying "That is a good way of looking at the holocaust". He mentioned Stalin's quote that "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". At the time of the conversation, the holocaust denial movement was in it's infancy (too many people with fresh memories to argue with then). Looking at many website's today, I am amazed by how much of what our friend said over a cup of tea in 1976 has come to pass.
He stated that he never ever used the term "6 Million" as no one could ever know how many millions had died. He always used the term "the unknown millions". He went on "how can you assign a number to such a tragedy, once you do, people for their own purposes will start twisting and distorting the figure. They will seek to chip away every single number they can, whilst ignoring all of the evidence around them" He said that they would claim that everyone who died after the liberation "was a victim of the allies" - even though their death was made inevitable by the Nazi's. He said that they would claim everyone who had disappeared off the face of the earth, had moved, not been murdered and burnt. He said that every record the criminal Nazi regime had destroyed would be counted as another life saved.
I asked why would anyone do such a thing? His response - "Imagine the crimes of the Nazi's as a jigsaw with six million pieces. If you take one piece away, you can still see what the picture is. If you take ten away, if you take a hundred away, if you take a thousand away, even if you take ten thousand away. There will however come a time when you take so many pieces away that you can't recognise the picture anymore. At that point they will say - actually the picture looked like this. You can't see the picture, you know they saw the picture before the parts were taken away so you trust them".
If a government's actions kill one person that is a tragedy, if they kill two people it's callous, if they kill lots of people they are a tyranny. The Nazi's killed untold millions. I heard many accounts of things in Belsen from our friend. He stated that the camp guards were the most degenerate and cowardly people he'd ever met. He said that if he'd had the chance he'd have machine gunned all of them. He said that the Nazi's were a warning to the world of what happens when a psychopath and a bunch of criminals get into power. He impressed one point on me and said "Never forget this". The point "The road that starts with a lie being allowed to let pass, ends with babies being fed to guard dogs". I've never forgotten that, I hope I never do.
Which brings us to the "Six Million" - is it accurate? - well it's good enough for me as an illustration of a very big number (more than lots). If anyone ever challenges it, they are not doing it for reasons of historical accuracy, because accuracy is impossible. They are doing it because they want to hoodwink us into believing that a bunch of evil, murderous criminals lead by a psychopath were really a bunch of great blokes. If you think that the world will benefit from racist policies or eugenics you cannot consider yourself a Christian. Jesus didn't gas the disabled, he cured them. Jesus didn't hate Jews, because he was a Jew. When he was crucified and was dying he is reported to have said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Doesn't sound too compatible with the Nazi agenda. Oh and as to his treatment of foreigners (a current rallying cry for our local brand of nutcases) - remember the story of "the Good Samaritan". Samaritans were considered to be undesirable foriegners by his audience. The story was illustrating the fact that there is good and bad in all races. He was saying that these people you despise (like the far right portray asylum seekers today) are no better or worse than you. I'm not a very religious person, certainly not a scholar. I was brought up in a house where you listened long enough to understand that the message was bleeding obvious, no more - some things are clearly right and some are clearly wrong - it's really not that hard. Nothing could be more obvious to me than the fact that if you are a Nazi Numpty you shouldn't be standing in a pulpit telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Hale Tories say London Assembly Member Brian Coleman is a 404
For those of you unfamiliar with Netspeak, a 404 is a mistake, an error, something which doesn't work, something that isn't where it's supposed to be, a path that takes you somewhere other than where you want to go.
Far be it from me to say anything bad about London Assembly Member Brian Coleman (he of the huge taxi bills, huge allowances and huge amounts of free Dinners), but whilst checking out the Hale Conservatives website, I decided to have a look at the link to Councillor Coleman's website. Guess what I got a 404 - it seemed strangley appropriate.
Now having seen Councillor Brian Gordon in action at the Hendon residents forum last week, I decided that he seemed rather sensible for a Tory. Is he sending us a coded message of his opinion of his colleague?
Try it for yourself Click Here - http://www.haleconservatives.co.uk/ - then click News and Links, then Click Cllr Brian Coleman, Greater London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden.
This is where the Link took me :-
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=34181
Have the Tories finally seen the light ???????
Please note: This has been amended. It is Councillor Brian Gordon, not Richard Gordon as originally stated
Far be it from me to say anything bad about London Assembly Member Brian Coleman (he of the huge taxi bills, huge allowances and huge amounts of free Dinners), but whilst checking out the Hale Conservatives website, I decided to have a look at the link to Councillor Coleman's website. Guess what I got a 404 - it seemed strangley appropriate.
Now having seen Councillor Brian Gordon in action at the Hendon residents forum last week, I decided that he seemed rather sensible for a Tory. Is he sending us a coded message of his opinion of his colleague?
Try it for yourself Click Here - http://www.haleconservatives.co.uk/ - then click News and Links, then Click Cllr Brian Coleman, Greater London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden.
This is where the Link took me :-
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=34181
Have the Tories finally seen the light ???????
Please note: This has been amended. It is Councillor Brian Gordon, not Richard Gordon as originally stated
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Don't read this !!!!
Don't click on this link.
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/02/mass-photography-protest---11-am-monday-16th-february-2009-metropolitan-police-h.html
It's very naughty so steer well clear
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/02/mass-photography-protest---11-am-monday-16th-february-2009-metropolitan-police-h.html
It's very naughty so steer well clear
Lets Do Drugs?
I was listening to the radio today and it appears that there is a recommendation that Ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B drug. It appears the government has refused to listen to this advice. What are we to make of this? Well personally I don't really understand the difference between the classifications. Surely something is either illegal or it's not. If you were to ask the majority of parents if their child should go to prison for possessing a small amount of illegal substances, most would say no. If you asked them whether a dealer selling their child an illegal drug should go to prison, you would probably get a different answer. We all know that some drugs are illegal. The question we should be asking is what are we trying to achieve? Why are drugs illegal?
If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.
So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-
a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people
Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.
A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.
As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.
Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.
I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.
If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.
So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-
a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people
Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.
A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.
As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.
Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.
I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.
The Brian Coleman Bus Conundrum
Just a quick post. Can anyone out there please explain why Brian Coleman thinks it's a rubbish idea to extend to extend the 263 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20881
Wheras it's a great idea to extend the 210 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20502
Why is it great for people's access to events at synogogues be made better but a bad idea idea to make it easier for people in Archway and Holloway to visit sick relatives in Barnet hospital?
How come lengthening the 210 won't make the buses late wheras lengthening the 263 will?
Me personally, I'd like to see good access from public transport to synogogues, hospitals and pubs.
Just asking ......
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20881
Wheras it's a great idea to extend the 210 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20502
Why is it great for people's access to events at synogogues be made better but a bad idea idea to make it easier for people in Archway and Holloway to visit sick relatives in Barnet hospital?
How come lengthening the 210 won't make the buses late wheras lengthening the 263 will?
Me personally, I'd like to see good access from public transport to synogogues, hospitals and pubs.
Just asking ......
A decent initiative from Mike Freer and Barnet Council
This is my one hundred and forty second blog on Blogspot. I think it is unique. This blog is proof that if Mike Freer genuinely does something sensible, I will recognise that and support it. I guess it's a shame he's been Council leader since 2006 and it's the first time I've had cause to say this , but well done Mike Freer.
It seems that Barnet Council have a new policy of paying local suppliers within 10 days. As we occasionally do work for Barnet Council, that will make a difference and is a very sensible and helpful initiative. Having argued tirelessly for more support for small businesses, this is what one might consider a green shoot of common sense. If Mike would like to address a few other issues which will make a difference, maybe he could consider these :-
1) Reduce the time taken to process appeals against business rating (my last one took 2.5 years to be heard, whilst Barnet sat on my cash).
2) Address the issues with parking in shopping local shopping centres (he acknowledged this is a problem with his Xmas rebate)
3) Instruct his planning officers to remove pointless restrictions placed on planning consents (Former Councillor Jane Ellison sorted one of these out for me & Mike agreed that the Council were being ridiculous - hasn't stopped other businesses having similar problems though).
4) Have a sensible policy of Town Centre regeneration & sensible policies towards bookies, banks and estate agents taking over shopping centres.
5) Preference for local suppliers in tendering for council contracts. Large multinationals have resources to deal with the bureacracy, local companies don't. This means that there is not a level playing field
6) Support for small businesses to employ disabled/long term unemployed
7) Support for small businesses to train people with educational issues
8) Waive or discount license fees for start up businesses in 1st & 2nd year.
All of these things will have a major impact on the success of small business in Barnet. The Council seem to be singularly unaware of the costs that bureaucracy imposeson small firms.
Click Here - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/press_releases.htm?id=1885 - for details of the new council payment policy.
It seems that Barnet Council have a new policy of paying local suppliers within 10 days. As we occasionally do work for Barnet Council, that will make a difference and is a very sensible and helpful initiative. Having argued tirelessly for more support for small businesses, this is what one might consider a green shoot of common sense. If Mike would like to address a few other issues which will make a difference, maybe he could consider these :-
1) Reduce the time taken to process appeals against business rating (my last one took 2.5 years to be heard, whilst Barnet sat on my cash).
2) Address the issues with parking in shopping local shopping centres (he acknowledged this is a problem with his Xmas rebate)
3) Instruct his planning officers to remove pointless restrictions placed on planning consents (Former Councillor Jane Ellison sorted one of these out for me & Mike agreed that the Council were being ridiculous - hasn't stopped other businesses having similar problems though).
4) Have a sensible policy of Town Centre regeneration & sensible policies towards bookies, banks and estate agents taking over shopping centres.
5) Preference for local suppliers in tendering for council contracts. Large multinationals have resources to deal with the bureacracy, local companies don't. This means that there is not a level playing field
6) Support for small businesses to employ disabled/long term unemployed
7) Support for small businesses to train people with educational issues
8) Waive or discount license fees for start up businesses in 1st & 2nd year.
All of these things will have a major impact on the success of small business in Barnet. The Council seem to be singularly unaware of the costs that bureaucracy imposeson small firms.
Click Here - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/press_releases.htm?id=1885 - for details of the new council payment policy.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Councillor's doing there job properly
On this blog we praise anyone we see doing the right thing and kick anyone in the goolies who we see doing bad things. Isn't that the way it should be? What do I think Councillors should make their no 1 priority? Cutting Taxes, making YouTube video's, attending conferences in the USA, reopening dangerous country lanes to speeding traffic, buying TV's for officers to put on their desks, spending £650,000 on consultants to write blue sky discussion documents about future shape? I suspect you've guessed, I don't think any of those things are a priority. I think that a Councillors No 1 priority should be to protect the most vulnerable members of society. Those that for whatever reason can't look after themselves. Those of you who have followed my blog for a while, will be aware that I've praised Councillor John Hart for intervening with Barnet Council when my now dearly departed mum was having problems with Barnet Council providing her meals on wheels service. When the council outsourced this service many old and vulnerable people suffered immense hardship and hunger as meals didn't arrive. Councillor Hart, being rather more sensible than some of his colleagues, stepped in to help.
It now seems that Barnet Council are yet again putting the boot into the vulnerable and elderly people in Barnet. Councillor Duncan MacDonald (Lib Dem) is leading a campaign against this atrocious policy - http://cllrdmacdonald.blogspot.com/. In short, the Barnet Tory beancounters have realised that it costs more to keep people in sheltered accomodation than a normal property. Their solution, cut the budget for sheltered accomodation by 75%. It seems that a bit of research has shown that Barnet are not unique in trying to cut the budget here - http://www.shelteredhousinguk.com/.
I've known several family and friends who's elderly relatives ended their lives in sheltered accomodation. A warden system allows an elderly person to have both independance and safety. I'd be the first to agree that some budgets in Barnet should be slashed to save money (conferences, tellies, YouTube video's, etc) but I'd fight to my last breath to protect vulnerable and eldelry people to live in dignity.
I trust you feel the same. Well done Councillor MacDonald for raising this matter.
It now seems that Barnet Council are yet again putting the boot into the vulnerable and elderly people in Barnet. Councillor Duncan MacDonald (Lib Dem) is leading a campaign against this atrocious policy - http://cllrdmacdonald.blogspot.com/. In short, the Barnet Tory beancounters have realised that it costs more to keep people in sheltered accomodation than a normal property. Their solution, cut the budget for sheltered accomodation by 75%. It seems that a bit of research has shown that Barnet are not unique in trying to cut the budget here - http://www.shelteredhousinguk.com/.
I've known several family and friends who's elderly relatives ended their lives in sheltered accomodation. A warden system allows an elderly person to have both independance and safety. I'd be the first to agree that some budgets in Barnet should be slashed to save money (conferences, tellies, YouTube video's, etc) but I'd fight to my last breath to protect vulnerable and eldelry people to live in dignity.
I trust you feel the same. Well done Councillor MacDonald for raising this matter.
Barnet in pictures
Statler and Waldorf wish Mike Freer bon voyage as he goes off to a conference - "Don't rush back"
Local MEP Sayed Kamall awards the winners of the worst dressed man in Barnet their prizes 
Barnet Council Deputy Leader Matthew Offord discovvers his true Talent
Councillor Brian Coleman having a light lunch for once
Monday, 9 February 2009
Exclusive: Mike Freer has a good idea !!!!!!
Mike and his FriendsIt had to happen sooner or later. As with a chimpanzee with a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, sooner or later something sensible must emerge. I'm not sure whether Mike has realised what a good idea he's had, that's where I come into it - ever keen to help our illustrious Council Leader do his job. Now as regular readers of my blog know, Mike Freer has his very own blog. In some ways it's a bit like this blog, in as much as it has rather badly written pieces of rambling prose, written by someone who is a bit thick. In some ways it's not - Mike doesn't allow comments he doesn't like, he doesn't update it very often and he doesn't really use it to comment on what the latest things going on in Barnet are.
Let me give you a couple of examples. The second last blog Mike posted was on the 5th February. What was this hot story all about - it was Mike detailing a Leader listens meeting he held on - wait for it - the 18th November - 2 1/2 months ago - Here's the whole, highly exciting story, which I'm sure you've been dying to read - http://leaderlistens.com/2009/02/05/leader-listens-woodhouse-18-november-2008/
Mike has now surpassed himself with his latest entry, posted today. This one is from his meeting on, wait for it, come on, wait for it - The 23rd of September 2008 - Yup nearly five months ago - http://leaderlistens.com/2009/02/09/leader-listens-golders-23-september-2008/ - riviting stuff.
Now one may think that that as Mike has got the local Council taxpayer to fund the sorry venture, he'd put himself out a bit more. Clearly he really isn't cut out for this blogging lark so he needs some inspiration. He needs some way to refresh and renew the Leaderlistens initiative and engage the local residents of Barnet in the decision making process. Well it seems that he has come up with a great idea, rather inadvertantly, here on this very blog.
Now those of you who follow the blog will have noticed there is a group of people, known to us regulars as "The Friends of Freer". We can't be sure exactly who they are, but they only post on blogs about Mike. They regularly make the same mistakes with spelling and grammar as Mike makes. They take the exact same point of view as Mike takes. They have the same urbane, witty way with words as Mike has. Now we have no way of actually knowing whether they are Mike, but lets for a moment take a wild guess and suppose that there is a possibility. The very best one of these is "Amanda". "Amanda" is the only follower of the highly witty, very well written and extremely informative blog "The Friends of Freer". Now far be it from me to suggest that Mike Freer has no friends and that he's his only follower, but my good friend Inspector Dick of Scotland Yard is currently investigating. Anyway if we make the assumption that "Amanda" is either Mike or a very close confidant of Mike, then we should be getting very excited about "Amanda's" latest suggestion on a comment here on this very blog. "Amanda" says :-
Blogger Amanda said...
Ooh lets have a debate about who is better than... Alison Moore or Jack Cohen - that'll get the pulses racing!
09 February 2009 01:20
I say - what a great idea Amanda/Mike. Lets have a debate. Alison Moore is the leader of the Labour Group. Jack Cohen is the Leader of the Lib Dem group. You already have a LeaderListens blog - paid for by the Taxpayer - and a leader listens series of meetings - paid for by the taxpayer. All you need to do is ask Alison and Jack along and then you can have three leaders for the price of one. Rather than the rather sterile droning of one point of view, we could have a bit of debate. The public could then decide who really is better Alison, Jack or Mike. You could post messages to the blog and each of them could have their say. If Mike doesn't want to then fine, I'm sure we'd be intrigued to see what Jack and Alison think.
We could then decide which leader really is best as Amanda/Mike suggested. The voters of Barnet could make an informed decision. Now from Amanda/Mike's comment, he seems a tad dismissive of Alison and Jack. He clearly thinks that they are no match for his superior wit and intelligence. Well don't hide your light under a bushell Mike, let it shine. I can give you three great reasons for doing it.
1) I'd have to shut up about Leader Listens being a waste of Council Taxpayers Money
2) I'd have to stop calling you a coward for not allowing any opposing views
3) With your wit, intelligence, charm and charisma you could destroy the Barnet Labour and Lib-Dems for a generation - you'd become a Tory legend
How about it Mike? Not a tad chicken are we. It would be such a shame to waste your first ever good idea as leader.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Mike Freer's Tories - Down and dirty in the gutter.
A quote from the Leader of Barnet Council, Mr Mike Freer at the time of the last Council elections.
Barnet Council Leader Mike Freer said: “It is a democracy, however unpalatable their views are, the BNP will continue to put them out. We have to make sure the electorate comes out and defeats the BNP resoundingly.”
Fine words indeed. I don't suppose that there will be too many people in Barnet who disagree (the BNP thought getting about 4% of the vote was a good result, so they aren't exactly popular around here). The question is this? How does Mike Freer seek to engage the people of Barnet in the political process? How does he encourage them to become involved in the democratic process? What is he doing to convince them that their vote counts and that the Conservative Party in Barnet are truly committed to upholding democracy and free speech?
Well Mike started his leader listens blog to "allow residents direct access to the leader of Barnet council and get involved in a direct exchange of views" - The trouble is that when residents post messages Mike doesn't like, he doesn't put them up. Even though the website is paid for by the local taxpayers, Mike controls it and only displays favourable comments. This has lead to his Leader Listens program being widely discredited, despite the thousands of pounds spent promoting it and videoing it. Freer says that 25 residents attended his last session. There were more people at our last dog training class.
Despite the snow and bad weather, rather more people attended the Hendon Residents Forum on Thursday. One of Mike's Toadies, Councillor Richard Weider came along. When a local resident started, to speak he demanded that the chair of the Forum, Councillor Brian Gordon, silence her on the spurious grounds that "He thought she worked for the Council". Fortunately the eminently more sensible senior member in the chair, dismissed his objection - at which point Weider stormed out with the hump.
One of the Barnet Conservative Parties keenest advocate of free speech, David Miller, author of the Barnet Council Watch blog and the man who submitted more Freedom of Information than any other Barnet residents, has also upset the leaders of Barnets Conservatives. Has he done this by advocating Trotskyism or the policies of Gordon Brown? No he's just campaigned for the Barnet Tories to follow the policies of the National Party. He's also had the gall to expose waste and bad governance in Barnet. What happens to loyal Conservatives who cross the power hungry cabal at the Centre of the Barnet Tory Party? Well David gets anonymous nasty messages left on his blog. When these failed to shut him up, the subject of these messages became David's mother. Despite his differences with the local leadership, David is still actively involved in the Chipping Barnet Association and his mother is still a loyal major fundraiser. He still advocates Tory policies. For how long I wonder, if these attacks persist?
Another local Tory who has fallen out with the Leadership is Ex Councillor Daniel Hope. Now I've traded comments and insults with Dan Hope for a number of years. In the pages of the Edgware Times electronic comments, I christened him "Bonkers Dan" for his support of various Tory policies with which I disagreed. Now our disagreements were based on the fact that we sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum and we don't agree about policies. We both think that the others policies would be detrimental to the economy. I always figured that Dan is a big boy and capable of dealing with the rough and tumble. He never complained about being on the sharp edge of a few barbs as he knew they weren't directed as a personal assualt.
It seems that sources close to the Tory leadership of Barnet, take a dim view of Dan Hope as well. Unlike me, this isn't because they dislike his politics, just because they have a personal grudge. Check these comments left on various blogs -
Nice stuff isn't it? You'll notice that (unlike my jousts with Dan) they never bother to actually debate what he's had to say.
My greatest fear is that the behaviour we are seeing within the Barnet Tories will so disgust the local population that they will stay at home at future elections. If, like David Miller, his Mother and Daniel Hope, you are committed Conservatives, but you cannot abide this lot what will you do? If you are lucky enough to have a sensible Councillor such as Brian Gordon, who clearly has no truck with this sort of behaviour, I guess you would still turn out. I truly believe that the reason Richard Barnbrook now sits for the BNP in the GLA, having received 130,000 votes across London and crossing the 5% threshold needed for a seat, wasn't because the BNP had 5% support of all Londoners. I believe it was because many Labour and Tory voters were so sick of various shenanigans that they stayed at home. I've spoken to several local Tories who won't vote Conservative until Freer goes. If Freer and the Barnet Tories really care about stopping the BNP, then they must start behaving properly. Stop the dirty war against your internal opposition. Clean up your act. I'd love to see Labour retake Barnet, but if that is at the expense of the BNP riding in, it would be too high a price to pay. There's not much point in me advising the Tories what they should do, I'm the last person they'd be likely to listen to. Having said that, it is crystal clear what needs to be done. If they don't do it then the fine words, such as Mike Freer's at the start of this blog are a meaningless smokescreen.
Barnet Council Leader Mike Freer said: “It is a democracy, however unpalatable their views are, the BNP will continue to put them out. We have to make sure the electorate comes out and defeats the BNP resoundingly.”
Fine words indeed. I don't suppose that there will be too many people in Barnet who disagree (the BNP thought getting about 4% of the vote was a good result, so they aren't exactly popular around here). The question is this? How does Mike Freer seek to engage the people of Barnet in the political process? How does he encourage them to become involved in the democratic process? What is he doing to convince them that their vote counts and that the Conservative Party in Barnet are truly committed to upholding democracy and free speech?
Well Mike started his leader listens blog to "allow residents direct access to the leader of Barnet council and get involved in a direct exchange of views" - The trouble is that when residents post messages Mike doesn't like, he doesn't put them up. Even though the website is paid for by the local taxpayers, Mike controls it and only displays favourable comments. This has lead to his Leader Listens program being widely discredited, despite the thousands of pounds spent promoting it and videoing it. Freer says that 25 residents attended his last session. There were more people at our last dog training class.
Despite the snow and bad weather, rather more people attended the Hendon Residents Forum on Thursday. One of Mike's Toadies, Councillor Richard Weider came along. When a local resident started, to speak he demanded that the chair of the Forum, Councillor Brian Gordon, silence her on the spurious grounds that "He thought she worked for the Council". Fortunately the eminently more sensible senior member in the chair, dismissed his objection - at which point Weider stormed out with the hump.
One of the Barnet Conservative Parties keenest advocate of free speech, David Miller, author of the Barnet Council Watch blog and the man who submitted more Freedom of Information than any other Barnet residents, has also upset the leaders of Barnets Conservatives. Has he done this by advocating Trotskyism or the policies of Gordon Brown? No he's just campaigned for the Barnet Tories to follow the policies of the National Party. He's also had the gall to expose waste and bad governance in Barnet. What happens to loyal Conservatives who cross the power hungry cabal at the Centre of the Barnet Tory Party? Well David gets anonymous nasty messages left on his blog. When these failed to shut him up, the subject of these messages became David's mother. Despite his differences with the local leadership, David is still actively involved in the Chipping Barnet Association and his mother is still a loyal major fundraiser. He still advocates Tory policies. For how long I wonder, if these attacks persist?
Another local Tory who has fallen out with the Leadership is Ex Councillor Daniel Hope. Now I've traded comments and insults with Dan Hope for a number of years. In the pages of the Edgware Times electronic comments, I christened him "Bonkers Dan" for his support of various Tory policies with which I disagreed. Now our disagreements were based on the fact that we sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum and we don't agree about policies. We both think that the others policies would be detrimental to the economy. I always figured that Dan is a big boy and capable of dealing with the rough and tumble. He never complained about being on the sharp edge of a few barbs as he knew they weren't directed as a personal assualt.
It seems that sources close to the Tory leadership of Barnet, take a dim view of Dan Hope as well. Unlike me, this isn't because they dislike his politics, just because they have a personal grudge. Check these comments left on various blogs -
Barnet Council Watch Blog
do call me dave said...
You could always get a job ex councillor hope, you know one of those 9am to 5pm things! I might be less annoyed about my taxes being wasted and therefore be a nicer person!
08 February 2009 14:20
Friends of Freer Blog
do call me dave said...
Why does'nt Daniel just do everyone a favour and stick to what he is good at - NOTHING.
As my Ward Councillor he was'nt that affective infact the one time I turned up to see him at a council surgery he was'nt even there! Typical of someone like him that.
Oh and as for the slagging off, of past leaders, I do recall being told that Daniel was'nt actually a fan of the last one nor the one before that. Much like Miller...
26 January 2009 13:20
Nice stuff isn't it? You'll notice that (unlike my jousts with Dan) they never bother to actually debate what he's had to say.
My greatest fear is that the behaviour we are seeing within the Barnet Tories will so disgust the local population that they will stay at home at future elections. If, like David Miller, his Mother and Daniel Hope, you are committed Conservatives, but you cannot abide this lot what will you do? If you are lucky enough to have a sensible Councillor such as Brian Gordon, who clearly has no truck with this sort of behaviour, I guess you would still turn out. I truly believe that the reason Richard Barnbrook now sits for the BNP in the GLA, having received 130,000 votes across London and crossing the 5% threshold needed for a seat, wasn't because the BNP had 5% support of all Londoners. I believe it was because many Labour and Tory voters were so sick of various shenanigans that they stayed at home. I've spoken to several local Tories who won't vote Conservative until Freer goes. If Freer and the Barnet Tories really care about stopping the BNP, then they must start behaving properly. Stop the dirty war against your internal opposition. Clean up your act. I'd love to see Labour retake Barnet, but if that is at the expense of the BNP riding in, it would be too high a price to pay. There's not much point in me advising the Tories what they should do, I'm the last person they'd be likely to listen to. Having said that, it is crystal clear what needs to be done. If they don't do it then the fine words, such as Mike Freer's at the start of this blog are a meaningless smokescreen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)