Saturday, 14 January 2012

Barnet Council - Playing fast and loose with the law on the Church Farmhouse sale?

Yesterday I published a blog detailing the sale of the building which used to house the Barnet Church Farmhouse Museum. I am often astounded by the power of the Barnet blogs, they work in mysterious ways. This morning, I received two emails from eagle eyed and legally savvy Barnet residents. They drew my attention to section 123 (2A) of the Local Government act 1972.

Now I am not a lawyer, but it is pretty clear to me that this means that the Council are possibly not legally in a position to dispose of this land. This morning, I sent the following email to Mr Jeff Lustig, the Borough Lawyer and copied the CEO and all of the Barnet Councillors.

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

Dear Mr Lustig,
This week advertisements have been placed in the local press, advertising the buildings and lands surrounding Church Farmhouse Museum for sale. I have been contacted by several concerned residents, regarding this sale and my attention has been drawn to section 123 (2A) of the Local Government act 1972 (see below)
It is clear that there is the possibility that the act prohibits the sale of this property under the terms of the act. I have no wish to see my money as a Barnet Taxpayer being tied up in expensive legal challenges of the type we have seen in the Partingdale Lane fiasco or expensive reviews such as the Underhill sale. As such I am calling on you as head of the Barnet legal department to call an immediate halt to this sale, pending a full legal review of the legality of the sale.
My attention has also been drawn to other issues concerning the sale of the building and lands which may have legal implications. As I do not want to initiate a campaign and have to raise funds for a legal challenge (which I believe will be well supported), without giving you the opportunity to reconsider the position of Barnet Council regarding the sale, I call on you to immediately suspend the sale.
Please confirm that the sale has been suspended or provide a full legal opinion as to why you believe the sale complies COMPLETELY with the law as described below. If you supply a legal opinion, I ask for a suspension of the process for 4 weeks, to allow me time to receive a legal opinion on your response. As I have stated, I have no wish to cost the Barnet taxpayer a penny in avoidable legal expenses or reviews. As such it is clear to me that this process must be suspended until all of these issues are resolved.
Yours faithfully,
Roger Tichborne
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

123 Disposal of land by principal councils.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a principal council may dispose of land held by them in any manner they wish.

(2)Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.


[F524(2A)A principal council may not dispose under subsection (1) above of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them.

(2B)Where by virtue of subsection (2A) above a council dispose of land which is held—

(a)for the purpose of section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds); or

(b)in accordance with section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds), the land shall by virtue of the disposal be freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with the said
section 164 or, as the case may be, the said section 10.]

F525(3)—(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F526(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(7)For the purposes of this section a disposal of land is a disposal by way of a short tenancy if it consists—

(a)of the grant of a term not exceeding seven years, or

(b)of the assignment of a term which at the date of the assignment has not more than seven years to run, and in this section “public trust land” has the meaning assigned to it by section 122(6) above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I call on all Barnet Councillors to fully acquaint themselves with the details of the sale and the legality of it. The role of Councillors is to oversee the executive and their actions. This is a good example where councillors should get involved to prevent the executive of Barnet Council making a tragic decision which would destroy forever a much loved Barnet landmark. 
--- email ends ---

I will of course publish Mr Lustigs response to this email as and when it arrives and the results of any legal opinion we recieve. In the event that Mr Lustigs response is unsatisfactory, I will be seeking funds to assist with the legal challenge.

Friday, 13 January 2012

Barnet are flogging off Church Farmhouse Museum

Barnet Council are inviting offers for the Church Farmhouse Museum.  From this statement in the brochure, it seems like they are quite happy to let the beautiful gardens and the house be turned into a residential development. It says :-

Any new development should demonstrate compliance with Unitary Development Plan policies and guidance and have regard to the emerging policy context in relation to the Local Development Framework. Development should in particular respect adjoining residential boundaries and uses and ensure adequate access  arrangements in addition to securing any necessary planning obligations.

Residential densities should reflect the character of the surrounding area and provide for a range of accommodation types.

The full details are on the Barnet Council website here -
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/2012-1-11-church-farm-house-particulars-1.pdf

The philistines who run the council clearly don't give a stuff about the local heritage of Barnet. All they care about is filling their coffers with cash. If they destroy all the good things in Barnet in the process, they couldn't care less.

This building was is the oldest building in Barnet, the Gardens were a much loved facility providing a peaceful backdrop to one of the Boroughs Jewels. Sadly the administration which runs Barnet know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Here is the video I made to mark the closure of the Museum last year.


This is what the people running Barnet think is worthless. I am just glad that I was lucky enough to appreciate the museum when it was around. At the opening of the Harry Beck exhibition, various Tory dignitaries, including Hendon MP Matthew Offord and Mill Hill Councillor John Hart attended, to scoff the free food and drink the free wine. Not one of them lifted a finger to save the museum and none care that the site is being sold in this way. A plague on them all.


The Friday Joke - 13/1/2012 (A guest joke from Alan Dickinson)


A NEW WORD FOR OUR VOCABULARY

I knew someone would find a name for the GLA election process for this year.


Electile Dysfunction
: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices put forth by any political party in the 2012 GLA elections. It strikes me that whoever wins will be because they are not the other person.

The next leader of Barnet Council?

Cafe Buzz in North Finchley, hit by Barnet Parking charges
What qualities would you look for in a leader? Here's a few I'd go for. Charismatic, eloquent, passionate, caring and intelligent. What about for a local political leader? I'd go for someone who understands the area, is familiar with the local issues and someone who has backbone to stand up to council officials. Now here's the tricky bit. What about if they have to lead the Barnet Conservatives? This is a very damaged brand at the moment. The parking policies championed by Brian Coleman have alienated huge swathes of people who are natural Conservatives. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that their vote will go into meltdown before the next council election. The first big test of this will be the GLA elections where Brian Coleman is trying to hang on to his £50,000 a year job scrutinising the Mayor (yes, he gets £50K a year for a part time job, suggesting ways Boris could be a better mayor). So what sort of person could save them? Well if they had all of the qualities above, it would be a good start. However we are talking about leading a right of centre group. The natural domain of local government Conservatives is local business. Get someone with experience of running a local business. Get someone who understands the average High Street in Barnet and the people who use it. Get someone who understands that a strong small business sector is the only way to maintain a pleasant Borough. Most of all, get someone who will not stand by as local businesses are thrown to the wolves to plug the holes in the budget caused by management incompetence. A person with these skills, would no doubt also have the wherewithall to actually address the waste and incompetence within the council that this blog has spent nearly 4 years exposing.

On Tuesday morning, I attended a Business Breakfast, hosted by the current Leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius. As detailed here, I thought it was a great meeting, not because anything actually happened, but there was at least a glimmer of a sign that Barnet have woken up to the fact that local business must listened to. The meeting was sold out. These people, who I guess were mostly natural conservatives, were incensed. The parking issue is killing many of their businesses and the council has no strategy whatsoever to address it. A speaker suggested that Barnet allow 1/2 hour free parking to boost the High Streets. The Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius said "We can't do that, we'd lose £2 million in revenue". In effect, this was an admission that Barnet Council is unlawfully using parking as a cash cow.You see councils are not allowed to structure parking policy to raise funds, the purpose is to efficiently regulate traffic. As the High Street is a place where some people come to buy a pint of milk or buy a sandwich and a cup of tea (which takes 10 minutes and the spend is 50p - £3), whilst others come for a haircut or meal (or both - spending £50 -£300) and stay 3 or 4 hours, the policy is hugely discriminatory against a certain sector of retailers.When Richard Cornelius took over as Leader of the Council, I had assumed that as a small businessman (he runs a jewelry business), he'd understand. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that half the shops in the High Street are not dealing in a market where the average spend is several hundred pounds. Wheras a Jeweller like Richard can afford to give his customers a £2 parking voucher, because they are spending £2,000 on a diamond tiara, a cafe selling someone a cup of tea for 80p, would be losing £2 on the transaction. In answer to Richards comment about losing £2 million in revenue, the has wasted twenty times that amount on botched projects, bad investments and inept decisions over the last few years. They have lost up to £27.4 million in botched Icelandic investments (who knows what the real figure is, with lost interest etc), they overspent £11 million on the £12 million Aerodrome Road bridge replacement project. They have had to pay Catalyst Ltd £8 million because they have outsourced care homes with a badly drawn up contract. They have spent £26 million on their SAP procurement project, which former Leader Mike Freer said would cost £6 million. They have spent at least £5 million on consultants for the One Barnet project, over 4 years, to deliver savings, but all they have delivered is reports, suggesting more consultants reports. This week the Barnet Eye detailed how they were spending £374,000 to buy play equipment, which they are then going to put into storage for £10,000 a year. The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

There is no lack of money for pet projects that benefit no one, but a parking policy which would regenerate the High Streets, breath life into local shops and provide employment for local people (taking them off the dole and delivering tax income) would lead to a huge improvement in the economy of the Borough. Sadly, the leadership of the council just do not seem to get it. The parking charges are a stealth tax, full stop. As Conservatives, the Barnet Tories should recognise the fact that such taxes hurt businesses and jobs. They don't. It is time that the current crop of Conservatives admit that they are not up to the job. They should resign their seats and ask for local business people who do understand the local economy to replace them.

Going back to the meeting on Tuesday, one particular speaker stood out. Helen Michaels, who runs cafe Buzz stood up and wiped the floor with the parking policies of Barnet Council. Not only that, but when someone intervened to try and shut her up, virtually every member of the audience backed her. What was she arguing for? Sensible, business friendly policies.  She used the examples of old ladies, mums with kids and one off shoppers in a hurry to illustrate her point. It was unarguable. She ticked all of the boxes I listed at the head of this article. In a sane world (or at least a sane Borough), the Leader of the Council would be off to Cafe Buzz today, to sign her up as a Conservative candidate. If I was Richard, I'd parachute her into a safe seat and give her Brian Colemans cabinet job. Many people tell me Colemans one redeeming feature is that he's not afraid to speak his mind. Neither is Helen. The difference is she has business experience and cares about the locality. I doubt anything would make me personally vote Conservative, but if she replaced Coleman in the cabinet and scrapped his awful policies, I'm sure a lot of natural Tories who wouldn't currently touch them with a bargepole would swarm back. She is an example of someone who clearly would make a decent council leader, for all the reasons listed above.

I've no idea whether she'd even want to get involved, but she's the kind of person we need in Barnet politics. I spoke to her briefly yesterday, nothing to do with this. She told me that if she can't get the parking problems sorted out, it will kill our local high streets. She's right. The sad truth is that whilst Barnet Council needs a Leader like Helen Michaels, the chance of us ever getting one is probably more remote than me becoming the next Pope.

PS. I urge everyone who reads this blog to support their local High Street. Please use the local shops, cafe's and pubs. With petrol at it's current prices, a short walk to the local shop may actually be cheaper, if you add in the transport costs.

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Faulty Breast Implants

The big story in London today is the fact that a private company, which fitted faulty breast implants, is refusing to rectify them. The issue could not be more black and white. If you buy something, which is not fit for purpose, the company that sold you the product or service should rectify the problem, for no extra costs. A responsible company should have insurance to cover such issues, especially if they operate in the area of health.

The government should regulate and close down any clinics operating without full insurance and who do not guarantee their work. I would urge everyone to avoid such clinics like the plague until such time as we can all be sure that they are fitting safe products and if there is a problem they will fix it.

If you buy a car and it has a design fault, the manufacturer remedies it. There is no excuse for the same rules not applying in healthcare. If the clinics fitting these have a beef they can sue the manufacturer. I suspect that the big issue is that the greedy surgeons don't want to interrupt the cash flow by fixing the shoddy work they have performed. The whole issue makes me sick. Sue the bastards if they won't fix your boobs. They don't give a shit about you, so have their house !

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

Barnet Business Breakfast - Arts Depot - 11th Jan 2012

This morning I attended a Barnet Council Business breakfast with the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius, CEO Nick Walkley and a couple of guest speakers. Before I start, let me say that I applaud this initiative. These events were held regularly under Mike Freer, one of the few initiatives I wholeheartedly supported. Lynne Hillan couldn't be bothered, so it is a good sign to see Richard Cornelius resurrecting the process.

I arrived at 7.46 and got a  cup of tea. The conference started and I had a brief chat with CEO Nick Walkley. We share an interest in a certain type of music and Nick was rather interested to hear that the Damned had rehearsed for their last tour at the studios I run. He also explained how when he became CEO he'd expected to have to make cuts of 20% to the budget, but with the economic situation this could be as high as 46%. That isn't a task which can be pleasant or easy.

Next up a brief chat with the Leader over our respective Xmas breaks. Despite what I often write here about how they run the council, on a personal level both Richard and Nick are among the people involved with the council who are ok to have a chat with and are quite pleasant.

Then the meeting started. We had a fairly lengthy preamble from the Leader. He told us that engagement between Barnet Council and local small business wasn't good. He stated that an ongoing dialog was necessary and for many businesses, the council was a mysterious organisation. He explained that the council has employees to run the operations. We have councillors to represent the wards, a cabinet to make decisions and the general councillors scrutinse them. The council runs services such as street cleaning,schools, refuse collection etc. Much work is done battling with central government for money. The government has cut 26% from the budget, and these cuts will get worse. 77% of savings have come from "doing things smarter". 67% of services are high performing and low cost.

He explained that the Council was "right of centre" but committed to preserving good adult and childrens services. He listed things people were satisfied with (refuse collection, schools). He then explained the regeneration program. Many 1960's estates were not well designed and were badly put together. These are being tarted up with proceeds of land sales. He explained that Barnet was a bigger authority than Newcastle or Edinburgh.

He then told why small business was important. There are 20,000 registered businesses in Barnet. He said it is "difficult for the council to understand them". He said that as there are 1,700 people under 24 seeking work in Barnet, they had a role to play in solving the problem. He said that the council often got it wrong, such as opposing the "restaurant culture" in Whetstone. He admitted this now kept the High St alive. He said business would struggle during the Olympics. He explained how the council had put bids in for the High Street refurbishment for Edgware, Cricklewood and Finchley.

Next up was CEO Nick Walkley. He explained how Barnet was Londons largest borough with 360,000 residents. It is diverse with 146 langauges spoken in schools. He explained how Barnet was a green borough. He said that the Council was investigating how they could "better use" these assetts (I sincerely hope this doesn't mean charging for using green space). He explained how lots of new business start in Barnet every year. Barnet has a high employment rate and the local economy is £6 billion a year. He explained how people lived longer and this was stretching council budgets on elderly care. There is also a baby boom, with 4,000 more nursery places required.

He outlined the details of regeneration projects in the west of Barnet. He suggested that Stonegrove was a great opportunity to see regeneration in action. He explained how the sales force marketing Beaufort Park sell it on it's easy commute into London and the nightlife opportunities locally.  He explained how the projects were making the area younger and more diverse.

He then went on to discuss the budget. He said more cuts are likely, with the emphasis on protecting childrens and adult services. He said that tough decisions had to be taken. Closing two libraries and losing staff, along with pooling services with other boroughs.

He also announced a scheme called "Your Choice Barnet" (is this the new name for the unmentioned "One Barnet" scheme?). He said this scheme would transform Barnet. The good news was that the council were meeting the targets for savings. He posed the question of how this affect the councils relationship with Business. I'm not sure he gave us an answer.

Then we had Gail Laser, from Chipping Barnet retail forum. Gail explained we we should, as business people, be positive and plan for the future. She explained efforts to revitalise High Barnet High Street, based on a scheme used in Crouch End. She thanked "Hem" - "a brilliant Barnet employee, who helped pull the scheme together". She said that the plan had been to give Barnet a stronger identity. She identified the main issues with the High Street "Lack of choice, Parking issues..." (a murmer of agreement went around). She explained how a local lottery and a grant of £400,000 form Boris had helped. This scheme included improvements to the green behind the church and "some tarting up of shopfronts". She urged the council to encourage "pop up shops". She suggested that from 2013, business rates would come back to Barnet and could be used to encourage local business. She criticised Barnet Council for its attitude to Barnet FC, The Bull arts centre and Barnet Museum.

Gail then talked about the bid for Edgware and how the diverse ethnic communities (Asian to the west and Jewish to the east) influenced the make up of the town centre. She commented that it was run down and in need of a spruce up. She commented that councils have a duty to help high streets. She said that although she thought cashless parking was the future (boos and hisses from the crowd), the implementation had been botched. Sh lamented the failure of Barnet to be represented at the Urban Design London conference.  She rounded off by saying that Councils can influence the state of the High Street and cited the parking charges as a good example.

Richard Cornelius briefly responded to a couple of points raised. He said that he wanted Barnet FC to remain at Underhill, he said he genuinely didn't know what the problem was and thought Barnet FC were unreasonable. He said that part of the deal to open the arts depot was to close the Bull Theatre. This may be true, but the Bull was a part of the High Street in a way the Arts Depot most certainly isn't. For what its worth, I think there is a place for both. He stated that the threat of closure had been lifted from Barnet Museum and it was now being run by volunteers.

Next up we had Peter Murphy, from C&G properties. He bemoaned the fact that it had taken him over two years to get planning consent for a development his company were undertaking. He stated that most of his tenants were on 6 month licenses as they were start up businesses and they wanted flexibility in a recession. He then made an outrageous statement. He described his experience with an Irish bank, and stated "never bank with the Irish, they are a bunch of cheats". After  a diatribe about Irish bankers, he then excused it by saying he was a Murphy. He gave some advice about running a business in a recession. He advised to "get rid of staff with a negative attitude as they damage the business". He then said "and we never fire anyone". He commented that a recession makes staff available who in a boom would not work for you, so you should take advantage of the opportunity. He then made another outrageous statement. He said that the council was "run by a bunch of wallies who hadn't got a clue about business". Richard Cornelius pointed out that he was a small businessman. Nick Walkley then interjected that his teacher used to call him a wally at school, supposedly because he had trouble spelling his name. Apparently Mr Murphy is the landlord for 1% of all business owners in Barnet. The mind boggles.

Then we had public questions.

Jeremy Link - estate agent pointed out that land prices and rents in Barnet were not in recession and had held up well (contradicting a point made by Nick Walkley earlier). He said lettings were up by 25%.

Another estate agent, Saul Gerrard from Martin Gerrard said that the Council were far too inflexible on change of use requests and this was causing properties to lie empty.

Mike Moriazou (??) from Print Express explained that businesses were in a pincer movement of falling sales and rising costs. He explained that small firms lacked the expertise to complete Pre Qualification Questionairres that Barnet require, before awarding contracts and so were being discriminated against.

Then we had the star of the show. Helen Michaels spoke. Helen has been a resident of Barnet for 20 years and run a local business for 5 years. She lambasted the council for its botched cashless parking implementation. She berated them for the fact that they completely fail to understand the fact that many elderly people cannot, for a variety of reasons, use the mobile phone parking scheme. She pointed out that it took a 20 minute call to register and there was an unjustifiable 20p surcharge. MAny people have to pay £2 to park for five minutes. She said that no one understood the paypoint scheme and that many people had been fined whilst trying to find the place to pay. In mid flow, a man from from Energise Barnet suggested that she'd gone on too long and other people had issues they want to raise, and suggested she made her point. As she was eloquently putting across the issue many had wished to raise, the audience backed her and said "let her speak, this is the issue". She explained how the local car parks had become football pitches as no one wanted to park anymore. The leader of the council suggested that she could buy parking vouchers and give them to her customers if the charges were too expensive. She shot back "If someone comes in for an 80p cup of tea, how can I afford to give them a £2 parking voucher". Richard Cornelius suggested "maybe they'd buy a meal then". Ms Michaels shot back "not if they only want a cup of tea they won't".  Richard Cornelius said that the pat as you go had been phased out because all of the parking meteres kept breaking down. Many people were skeptical, I suspect rightly so, given that they used them every day. A fishmonger (didn't catch his name) and a fish and chip shop owner made several similar points.

There was a short break for a chat. I got a cup of tea and started chatting to a rather nice lady, who it transpired was Richard Cornelius sister and also a small business owner. Rather sadly she claimed she wasn't a reader of the Barnet Eye. She runs a company that arranges events.

After the break I got to ask a double pronged question. Part 1, I commended the leader of the council on asking business to attend the forum. I suggested that mishaps like the parking fiasco could have been avoided had he consulted the people in the room properly before it was implemented. I suggested that a proper forum be set up and suggested that he may like to include people such as Helen Michaels in it. He agreed. Then I asked if the leader and the CEO would be prepared to speak in a documentary film, which I am helping a young film maker put together about Barnet. The leader thought for a second and then agreed. Nick Walkley, thought for a few seconds longer and said "only if I can see the questions beforehand and only answer the ones I want to". I responded that this would be more than acceptable. He replied that under these circumstances, he would be happy to appear.

I suspect that they both left the meeting worrying as to what they had agreed to. They needn't. I had been asked by a young film maker to assist him in making a documentary about life in Barnet in 2012 and the challenges which face the residents. I think Richard and Nick have a story to tell and it will make a more interesting film. Council leaders and CEO's should be open and accessible and they are to be commended for making themselves available. I thought it was a shame that this meeting wasn't filmed. Although generally I tend to video council meetings, I had specifically gone along with the intention of having a positive attitude to the process, as I agree with the concept of this type of meeting. There are many challenges in Barnet and we have to work together to address them. I hope that this meeting today was not just a one off and that we get regular forums for the benefit of all citizens. I will conclude by repeating the fact that I was pleased the meeting was held. I suspect most of the people who came, were mainly interested in the parking issues. I doubt many of them were too pleased with the response from the council. It is important that we get the opportunity to make these points to the leader and the CEO. I suspect it is even more important that they listen to us and take some action. They may wish to consider the fact that I parked in Avondale Avenue and walked to the meeting, because I refuse to register for the parking scheme. If they'd kept the ticket machines, they'd probably have got a £1 from me in the empty car park. That really is the bottom line.

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

Is the Jewish Community getting fed up with Brian Coleman?

A friend drew my attention to the excellent www.frumpro.co.uk site yesterday. This is an online information website for the orthodox Jewish community. It provides an easy way to find out all manner of information relevant to the Orthodox Jewish community. Whether you need a Kosher butcher, a band for your sons Barmitzvah a Kosher hotel or a cheap flight to Israel, this is a pretty good place to start. I've looked at many sites and this has one of the easiest to use directory search layouts of any site. Although it is primarily designed for the Orthodox Jewish community, it is pretty easy to find out just about any sort of service you may need in Barnet via its pages.

It also has important community information and a pretty decent news service. What was rather interesting was the following article about parking charges in Barnet. For many years Brian Coleman has received staunch support from the local Jewish community. It certainly appears that his parking charges policy have badly affected many small businesses and residents. The only conclusion I can draw from the article is that all sectors of the local community are heartily sick of Brian Coleman, his stealth taxes and his attacks on local businesses. Here's a link to the article on the site :-

http://www.frumpro.co.uk/Jewish/article_event/26/Events/Current%20Affairs/Official!%20Hendon%20Brent%20St%20more%20expensive%20than%20St%20Johns%20Wood%20High%20Street

I have reproduced the article in full here because it is relevant to everyone in Barnet. Mr Chaim shows that it is cheaper to park in the streets of central London than under Brian Colemans regime. I couldn't agree more with his conclusions. Politicians are elected to serve the local community, not to rob us.

Note : Brian Coleman receives a £50,000 taxpayer funded salary for his role on the GLA, which is a part time job. He is up for re-election to the post in May at the same time as the London Mayor elections. If you disagree with these outrageous parking chances, this election in May is your opportunity to send him and the council a clear message where it hurts.

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

Official! Hendon Brent St more expensive than St Johns Wood High Street

Shocking realisation that its cheaper in Westminster

by Mr M Chaim

Written on 12/Dec/2011



Cheap Westminster Parking at £1.30 an hour
Cheap Westminster Parking at £1.30 an hour


Expensive Hendon Parking at £2 an hour
Expensive Hendon Parking at £2 an hour
Its a long, dark, cold winter, especially in Hendon. A quick drive to the local shops will now set you back £2 for 1 hour parking and payment by the time consuming Pay By Phone system. I thought all of London was like this but its not. Hendon is now more expensive than St Johns Wood High Street who charge £1.30 for the same amount of time.
Are you kidding me??? This is madness. A madness which has been rammed through the local Tory controlled council by some of the councillors. 
We know the council needs money but surely not to charge more than Westminster.
We all know that the country needs money but taking even more from the already struggling car owners is going too far. £55 for a 50% reduced parking ticket now. Traffic Wardens everywhere. If parking was the issue you would have a 15/30/60 min grace period free whilst you pop into the shops like in Radlett. This is about money and taking it from those who need it most. 
A quick google brings up numerous articles on the now infamous Tory Councillor Brian Coleman such as this one below which talks about how he has aboolished the pay and display parking and pushed up prices. 
Brian Coleman abolishes pay and display
When I next go to the polls, I will ask myself the following questions:
1. Have things got better or worse
2. To what extent was this because of the local politicians.

Monday, 9 January 2012

Barnet Eye Special - Coppers with Choppers !

The theme for today is policing in Barnet. I try not to criticise the police too much, because they have a tough job. Last year I had a chat with the chief of police and he agreed that Barnet was probably the safest and most pleasant Borough to be in charge of. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have its challenges and issues. In fact Barnet has challenges because it is probably the most economically diverse Borough in the country. The issues for policing the leafy mansions of Totteridge, where gated mansions and private security firms aim to deter burlgars are completely different to issues facing those living in Grahame Park. I was having a chat with a less esteemed member of the constabulary over a pint and he said a very interesting thing. If a millionaire in Totteridge gets burgled and his house gets ransacked, he expects the chief of police to personally conduct the investigation. If a single mum in Grahame park gets burgled and her house gets ransacked, often she's amazed if anyone actually shows up. Even more interesting was his view that criminality pervades every level of society, it's just that those at the bottom of the pile are not as proficient at it and get caught.

He made the point that the crack addict who robs his local off license has a high chance of getting caught sooner or later and will probably end up in prison. The company director engaging in corporate fraud will most likely never get caught. It isn't just such financial crimes where the expectation of justice is so different. When it comes to issues of spousal abuse and wider sexual crimes, this isn't just the domain of the poor in the borough. The difference is that women in the higher levels of society also feel "shamed" and so are less likely to report. The likely remedy is likely to be financial in the form of a divorce settlement or some cash to "shut up and go away".

Then there is the issue of drugs. Is substance abuse less or more common in the towers of Totteridge or the crack dens of Colindale? As a percentage of the population, it is probably pretty similar. Again, there is probably a disconnect between what justice one could expect if caught. A working class person caught with drugs, will probably just accept the punishment, whatever that may be. For the more well heeled members of society, a bevvy of lawyers and implausable excuses will be deployed. The more well heeled, the more it costs the police to persue even the most trivial of issue.

We have a bit of a schizophrenic attitude to the police. Half the time (when we get a speeding ticket) we moan that "they haven't got anything better to do, but if a speeding driver runs over our child we say "why don't they do something". I discussed the seeming obsession with traffic offenses with the police and they pointed out that you are far more likely to get injured or killed by a speeding driver than be murdered or maimed by a maniac.

We all feel safer when we see bobbies on the beat. They add a general feeling of security to us. Last night, as I played football at Powerleague in Pursley Road, we had a Police helicopter hovering nearby for about 10 minutes. I've no idea what they were up to, maybe monitoring traffic on the M1 or A1 after and incident? To me Coppers in choppers always make me feel a tad uneasy. When I watch Police, Camera, Action ! type documentaries and they show helicopters stalking villains with night vision, it reminds me that the big brother society is moving ever closer. Helicopters are expensive toys, which I've never been entirely convinced deliver value for money.

One of my friends who is a policeman (with old school attitudes to crime) tells me that the big problem is not the police at all. It is the fact that criminals are not locked up quickly enough, for long enough or regularly enough. He tells me that in Barnet, most burglaries are caused by no more than a dozen people. To lock each one up costs a fortune and then they are released, with the police knowing full well that there will be a spike in burglary cases, almost immediately. Of all the crimes, burglary is the one which people feel the justice system is most out of kilter on (with the exception of paedophiles). The police tell me they take the issue seriously and can, with justification, claim that it is not their fault if the courts don't lock people up for long enough.

Last year we had the sad spectacle of a murder in a brothel in Burnt Oak. For many Barnet residents, this seemed like a window to another world. I doubt that many of our local politicans have ever ventured out into Burnt Oak for a night out. The delights of a  pint at the Bald Faced Stag on a Saturday night is a pleasure I cannot imagine Brian Coleman savouring. Sadly it is something I believe all of our politicians should do. Last year on the campaign trail in Mill Hill, I had a friendly chat with Tory Councillor John Hart. The subject of Burnt Oak and his colleagues came up. It may surprise you to hear me say it, but I think John is one of the very few Tories who recognise the value of Burnt Oak and its citizens. John told me he always buys his fruit and veg in Burnt Oak. He told me that the Tories should be courting the small traders who run the shops, the hard working Asian community and everyone else working to earn a crust. He told me that if Matthew Offord won in Hendon, it would be because he'd got out and about in Burnt Oak (at Johns suggestion apparently) and that the 2-300 votes he'd gained as a result of talking to people there may be the difference. As it turned out, Offord won by 106 votes. John was right and it "woz Burnt Oak which won it for Souperman".

It is interesting that in the midst of the riots last year, unlike many working class areas, Burnt Oak didn't see large scale rioting. I suspect that this is because there is a sense of community there. I believe that this is a lesson for the Metropolitan Police in all of this. It is easy to retreat to our bunkers when cash is tight. There is a tendency to return to the squad cars and the choppers to police the Borough. This would be a mistake. I believe that the opposite should be the policy. More engagement with the community and more efforts to get people to work with the police. As Matthew Offord won his seat in Burnt Oak, I'd like to see him start to champion the area and put himself at the forefront of efforts to build bridges between the community and the police. There is no easy solution to keeping Barnet safe. The most important thing is for the Police to ensure that ALL SECTIONS of society see the Police as part of the solution and not part of the problem. Last year I was talking to another friend who is a Met Police officer. We were discussing drug dealers. She said that she'd had to go and tell the mother of a 19 year old drug dealer that he'd been murdered. The mother was devastated, she felt it was her own fault for letting her son ever get involved in gangs and drugs. She said she wished she'd turned him in to the police, the first time she'd found him with drugs. Would you? Would I?


I hope to god it's a decision I never have to make and I never have to regret.

Sunday, 8 January 2012

Monday Morning - Thought for the day

I am in a reflective mood right now. Generally I find "thoughts for the day" irritating, pompous and twatterish, but I feel the need to share this. As regular readers will know, I've got a few challenges right now, so please allow me this indulgence.

We shouldn't let how easy or difficult a task may be form the basis of whether we do it. We should decide based on how important it is that the task is done.

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

They say that those the Gods wish to destroy, first they make mad. When I look at the actions of certain Barnet Councillors, it is pretty clear to me that the Gods clearly have had enough of them.

You may wonder what prompted this little bit of homespun chicken soup. Well I was contacted by a fellow blogger in Kensington and Chelsea who drew my attention to this little diatribe from our very own charmster, Brian Coleman -

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com/2011/05/toad-of-city-hall-coleman-abuses-hornet.html

He's rings on his fingers and bells on his toes, he will make friends wherever he goes

Have a good week !


Rog T Cancer blog - A message for all facebook users

They should make a Barbie with no hair, so that every little girl that is fighting cancer feels beautiful!! 

Put her in pink with a head scarf, and name her HOPE. Give the proceeds from the sales to cancer research. Post this on your facebook account if you agree. I bet you 99% of you won't!