Boris at the Peel Centre - The fall out

Due to other commitments, the Barnet Eye was unable to attend the event. Fortunately we have a good network of spies, who kept us informed with Tweets, emails and phonecalls. As I suspected, the "chair" of the meeting, Brian Coleman refused to let the de-facto leader of the business campaign against parking charges - Helen Michaels speak. It seems that even Boris was a little irked by this. Helen had a group of fellow business owners decked out in rather fetching T-Shirts, decrying the death of the local High street due to the bonkers parking policies of Barnet Council and Brian Coleman. In some ways Coleman was clever not letting Helen speak, he knows she'd have wiped the floor with him.

Sadly for Brian, I suspect that his actions were simply those of a fool poking a dozing tigeress with a small stick. I suspect that on the 6th May, when the votes are counted for the GLA election,  Brian will wish he'd let her. Instead he's simply goaded her into organising an even more high profile campaign against him and his scheme. Helen is a fan of Boris, in normal circumstances she'd be a cheerleader for him and his local GLA rep. If I wanted to get elected in that neck of the woods, I'd rather have her organising my campaign than anyone. Sadly for Brian, she is now the leader of the dump Brian Coleman party.

It is quite clear to me that the local Tories have a stark choice. Dump Coleman completely or get humiliated in the GLA election. However much many locals like Boris, his warm glow cannot save Coleman. In fact, all the rally did was to demonstrate the difference between a Tory with a bit of wit and charm and one who is a pompous, arrogant crashing boor. There is an old saying that when a Tory gets a ballot paper, they know where to put the cross. Coleman will test this loyalty to the extreme.

If I was a Tory strategist, the following issues are the ones I'd consider with regard to the GLA and Boris.

How many extra local voters for Boris will Brian Coleman add?
How many extra local voters for Boris will Brian Coleman lose?
How many extra local voters for Andrew Dismore (The Labour Candidate) will Brian Coleman add?
How many Andrew Dismore voters will Brian Coleman get for the Conservatives?

I have a friend who works in the IT department of a large polling organisation. I asked him how close the Mayoral race would have to be, before a 20% boycott of the local Tories could affect the Mayoral election. The answer? If the candidates are within 3% of each other or less, then Coleman could be the man to torpedo Boris.

Coleman has made a career out of upsetting people. He is usually pretty shrewd who he upsets - people like me, who would never vote for him anyway. With the parking he's crossed the line and unleashed his shotgun on his own supporters. I suspect he'll need a miracle now to save himself.

The Federation of Small Businesses calls for a Programme to Nurture London’s Real Life Entrepreneurs

The FSB today launched its Manifesto for London entitled “Six to Fix: A Programme to Nurture London’s Real Life Entrepreneurs”. 

The FSB hosted a series of speed briefings with London Assembly members to outline the key initiatives that will benefit the work of the Real Life Entrepreneurs and boost enterprise.

The FSB has identified six areas in which action could make a significant difference to small businesses. These are:

1.    Procurement:   All GLA, London Council and private sector contracts and projects should be placed on the ‘already established’ CompeteFor procurement portal. 

2.    Transport:  There should be no increase in the level of the congestion charge (and a Moratorium on the Low Emission Zone) for the next Mayoral term.  Furthermore, income from the Roadworks Permit Scheme (RPS) should be used to support affected businesses by means of reductions in business rates and other compensatory measures.

3.    Business Crime:  There must be a major drive to ensure greater reporting of business crime which costs its victims an average of £2,900 a year..  The new Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the business community should work together to increase the reporting rate for crime. And an Assistant Commissioner should be given specific responsibility for business crime.

4.    Skills and Employability: An approach to apprenticeships that minimises employers’ paperwork.  The ‘administratively-lite’ London Apprenticeship Company model should be adopted by all agencies. Furthermore, an extensive internship programme both for graduates and school-leavers should be introduced.

5.    Promoting London and its businesses:   It is vital that London and Partners properly promote Micro-Business clubs during and after the 2012 Games so as to take full advantage of the inward investment and export potential.  As a survey last week showed that only 12 per cent of small businesses in London believe the Games will have a positive impact on their business overall

6.    Business Support:  The FSB calls for a sustainable business support model built on the advice and information service currently delivered via the Business and IP Department at the British Library

Sue Terpilowski, London Policy Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“Confidence amongst small businesses in London is at a low point and it is vital that the Mayoral candidates and prospective London Assembly candidates understand the importance of the small business sector.  They make up over 99 per cent of all businesses in London and cannot be ignored.

“We are launching our Manifesto to show how sensible, affordable policies can make a real difference to those real life entrepreneurs that are the genuine wealth creators in society.  It is vital that an incoming Government for London creates the conditions for growth and greater employment.” 

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

This is a press release from the Federation of Small Business. The Barnet Eye are supporters of the FSB and fully endorse this statement

Boris Johnson declares Brent Cross regeneration scheme "dead in the water"

The Evening Standard is reporting that Boris has torpedoed the Brent Cross regeneration scheme, declaring it "dead in the water".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24028395-pound-45bn-brent-cross-revamp-is-set-to-shrink.do

Is this a cynical ploy to boost Brian Coleman's popularity ahead of the GLA elections? It is telling that the shopping centre expansion is still set to go ahead. As I think it was a rotten scheme which would have destroyed the character of a large part of the Borough of Barnet, I am quite pleased. I predicted all along that the scheme would never actually see the light of day and that the shopping centre element would be the only element retained. When Brian Coleman came out against the scheme a couple of years ago it was clear this was the only likely outcome.

So should we thank Coleman for all his "behind the scenes" lobbying of Boris? Not on your nelly, what he's done is tried to drive another nail into the coffin of local small traders. Where will all the customers for the new improved Brent Cross come from? From the local High Streets, currently being ravaged by the Councils car parking policies. The traders I met yesterday, along with all their families and friends will see straight through this.
I hadn't realised just how hated Brian Coleman was by the local small business community until yesterday. Hearing natural Conservatives describing Coleman in the terms I heard, just reinforces the fact that he has lost the dressing room (in football terms). I wonder how many people will ask Boris why he supports the small traders in Westminster against the Tory Council, but in Barnet he indulges Coleman. I suspect both Boris and Brian will find there is a price to pay in May.

Barnet Traders Special - North Finchley Business owners speak

A week ago I was at the Arts Depot, attending a Barnet Council organised forum for small businesses. Yesterday, I attended my own little mini forum of small business owners in North Finchley. At the council meeting I'd been highly impressed withthe way Helen Michaels, the owner of Cafe Buzz had spoken. Even more impressive was the way she seemed to have complete backing of virtually the entire meeting. At the meeting I gave Helen my card, told her about the blog (she'd never heard of it before) and suggested we do an interview. She agreed, so I made my way up to her business, Cafe Buzz in North Finchley yesterday afternoon, to see her. She advised me to arrive hungry, as she'd be providing lunch. I was a bit taken aback when I arrived. I had expected a quite chat, but the shop was full of the owners of small businesses, all wanting a chat as well. It became clear why Helen had the support of the hall, she is a natural organiser.

Before we got going, she kept her side of the bargain and provided me with lunch, which I must say was excellent. Without wishing to get too sidetracked, I am on an anti cancer diet right now which involves being virtually vegan, eating plenty of antoxidants and drinking a minimum of five cups of green tea a day. In the vast majority of cafe's in London, this means that you are generally limited to fried tomatoes and mushrooms, and if you are lucky a slice of wholemeal toast without butter. Helen provided a very tasty snack of lentils and roast vegetables, with a fine cup of green tea to boot. And don't be mistaken, all of the other stuff I'd have eaten had I not been on the diet were there, tastily beaming out at me.I suspect I'll be back again

So who did we have? We had a hairdresser, the owner of a health shop, the owner of a discount store, the butcher to name but a few. Now normally I'm a copious note taker, but for some reason I'd left the notepad in the car, and I'd parked a half a  mile away to avoid having to pay to park ( I can't be bothered to register and I don't want to give Coleman a penny in parking charges). If you don't mind a schlep and you are visiting in North Finchley, you can park for free in Avondale Avenue except between 2 and 3pm.

As I tucked into my lunch, perhaps the most interesting part of the chat occurred. We all discussed the issues and challenges of running a small business in these times. Helen summed it up when she said "I am personally responsible for the lease, I can't walk away from it, even if I wanted to". She explained how a few years ago "someone from Barnet council asked me why I want to run a business here and suggested I'd do better if I moved to Brent Cross". She explained how Councillor Brian Coleman had marched into one of her neighbouring stores and demanded that the owner moved some street furniture, which he'd taken a dislike to "Get your property off my street". That was her first encounter with Coleman. She said "what right does he have to call it "my street", we pay rates". All of the business owners told the same story. There turnover was down. Some by 15% some by 30%. Why? The same answers time and again. "People can't be bothered with the hassle of paying to park". I asked about the 115,000 people that the council have claimed to have registered? "That is less than 1/3rd of the population. That is probably people who have to because they park in Council car parks for work."  The hairdressers have said that it is the hassle factor rather than the cost which is putting her customers off. "People are just baffled by the system. Who has twenty minutes to register for the system, for a quick trim?" The owner of the discount store was far more blunt "They're killing our business and they don't care".

We discussed politics. Most of the assembled group agreed that the small business community is pretty staunchly Conservative. How has the changes affected this "We won't be voting for them agin until they start listening". One of the group said "I love Boris and what he's doing, I can't believe he's tied up with Coleman, that will hurt him round here". Helen has had a bunch of t-shirts made up. She's getting a group of small business owners together to protest at the Boris and Brian show at the Talk London event tonight at the Peel Centre in Colindale.

We discussed the cost of making the parking regime more business friendly. We discussed the claim by Richard Cornelius that it would cost £2 million to introduce free parking  for 1/2 an hour. I dispute this claim. You may ask why? Because it is clear to me that no one really has a clue how much it would cost. There are two types of shoppers. Those that want to spend 5 minutes buying a paper, milk, get cash out of an ATM etc. Then there are those that are having a meal, getting their hair done or other lengthy appointment. To me the answer is simple. Have a designated section of parking in each High Street, maybe 20% of spaces, where there is free parking for 1/2 hour. In these bays, if you park longer than 1/2 hour without a ticket, treble the fine. If the space is available, you can still pay and display for longer, but you have to pay. This would ensure a turnover of car parking spaces. It would mean that people just nipping out for a sandwich at lunchtime would be spared the effects of the stealth parking tax.

Richard Cornelius asked how the council could plug the gaps in their finances. Here's one suggestion. Last year, Barnet Blogger Mr Reasonable suggested on the Council Pledgebank, that he would donate his time free of charge, to the Council if he could look at the books and identify savings. The council never got back to him. I would suggest that Barnet Council, take Mr Reasobable up on his offer. I'd suggest that they also invite myself and Helen Michaels to take part. Any savings we identify, could be offset against the supposed £2 million required to fund the parking changes.

It may not surprise you to know that I think we could save a minimum of five times that amount (£10 million). How can I make such a claim? Well quite by accident bloggers discovered that Barnet Council had paid Metpro Security over £1.4 million for security services. There was no tender for this work and no proper contract. As a result of our enquiries, the agreement was cancelled and the work retendered to companies which charged far less. Even worse, much of the work was deemed "unnecessary". At the audit meeting, where this was discussed, it was revealed that of the 9,700 suppliers Barnet use, only the top 187 are actually properly audited. I would suggest that between myself, Mr Reasonable and Helen Michaels, it is inconceivable that we wouldn't find at least a couple of dozen other such expensive and wasteful practices and examples of unnecessary services. I'd be happy to give the rest of Barnet the £8million savings, once we'd got the funding for our free parking initiative. What is more, I doubt it would take people, who are used to eking out savings running their own businesses very long to achieve. Here is my challenge to Barnet Council. Call the bluff of the Barnet Eye. Take up this challenge. You really cannot lose. You'll either get a stack of savings or you can discredit me for once and all. All I ask is unlimited access to the books. I will happily sign a non disclosure agreement if that is what is necessary, to protect any sensitive data.

Of course, if Barnet refuse to take up this offer, what does that tell you? I await the call.

Boris support for Brian Coleman is starting to bite back

Has Boris made a big tactical blunder by agreeing to appear with Brian Coleman at an election rally tomorrow night. I spoke to a friend last night and he gave me a stark illustration of how Brian Coleman is seriously affecting the core Conservative vote in Barnet.The pay and display changes have been universally rejected by the local business community. Yesterday I bumped into a friend who is a staunch Conservative. He runs a small business with his wife and is a member of the local business community, having run a successful business with his wife for 25 years. He's also an active member of the local Jewish community. He attended Orange Hill Senior High School with me many years ago and has never been afraid to speak his mind. He told me -

This parking business is a direct attack on the local business community. Coleman has behaved in a disgusting manner and clearly doesn't give a shit about small businesses. The local business community have been the backbone of the local Conservatives for many years. Whether it be fundraising or delivering leaflet, we've always supported the party. Now we find that this counts for nothing. We have been attacked and no one in the local party seems to care. I've never voted anything other than Conservative. I could never vote Lib Dem or Labour and I hate Ken Livingstone, but as Boris has chosen to stand on a platform with Coleman, I will be staying at home this time. Even if the parking changes were reversed tomorrow, it would change nothing. As soon as the election is out of the way, they'll put them back. I can't trust Coleman and until he is gone, the Conservative party will have to do without my vote. I'm not the only one. The whole community is up in arms.

If any local Conservative MP's, Councillors or other party activists are reading this, I suggest that they take themselves down to any of our High Streets and have a word with local shopkeepers. The above statement has been edited. There were plenty of words starting with F's and C's that I took out. If the local Conservatives think that they can impose policies which cut peoples incomes, in challenging eeconomic times, without there being a price to pay, then they really are even more useless than we thought.

In May, if Boris Johnson finds he has lost the Mayoralty in a tight race, I wonder if he will look back on the day he took a platform with Brian Coleman in the London Borough of Barnet as the day he lost it?

Guest Blog - Opposition to huge rent rise growing

By Defend Council Housing,

Anger at 8 to ten per cent council rent rises is growing. Cambridge Council is demanding Government action as in 2009, to cut the formula increase for 2012/3. See Cambridge Council letter.
Camden tenants rejected a £10 average weekly rise in rent, heating and other charges. See report here.
Harlow tenants opposed the rise at a consultation meeting last week.
The £30 bn debt settlement and inflation-busting rent formula Government are imposing on Councils, are driving huge rent rises. Tenants, trade unions and councillors rejecting the rent rises, are calling for:

* re-opening of negotiation on the debt settlement
* changes to the rent rise formula
* joint deputations to demand promised £7 bn capital funding backlog.

If Government can continue to write off Housing HRA debt for stock transfer, we should insist on a similar write-off of debt which has been paid many times over in rent and receipts siphoned off by government.Campaigns are proving we can succeed in resisting the mounting attacks on council housing.Swindon council tenants rejected transfer by 6,073 No votes (72.3%) to 2,329 Yes votes (27.7%). see report. The government is promoting a new wave of stock transfer of council homes, subsidised with more public subsidy. Where tenants choose to stay with the council they are demanding the same debt write off.
Wandsworth Council is retreating on a threat to evict a tenant, in face of a growing and determined campaign against political post-riot evictions. See report.Public meetings
Meetings around the country will challenge rent rises and government attacks on tenancies, rents and benefits:
LONDON 21 Feb 6.30 House of Commons committee room 14
LEEDS 24 Feb details to follow
CAMBRIDGE 15 March 7pm Arbury Community Centre, Campkin Rd
HARLOW29 March details to follow.
Organise a local meeting - contact DCH for speakers and leaflets.Other action
Welfare Reform Bill - Vigil & Lobby: 1pm-3pm, opposite House of Lords, Tues 17 Jan; sign petition here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Use the email link in the side bar.

Note : Although Defend Council Housing is a national campaign, many Barnet residents are affected by these issues.

Guest Blog - Nuclear Power in the UK

Guest Blog By Radfax

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/have-your-say/

Urgent responses needed


The Deadline for this objection is the 23 January 2012

The IPC (Infrastructure Planning Commission) is government funded and is meant to be independent.
However they are limited to engaging local communities tothe few villages and cities around Hinkley Point.
but we ca.n all register our concerns as it is after all a national infrastructure project.

"Your representation" maximum 500 words the following info exceed 500 words. The website for registration as an interested party is at the end of this document.

If you have time please use your own words, it will show a stronger and more determined opposition. Keep them busy!

IT'S IMPORTANT YOU COVER THE FOLLOWING POINT FOCUSING ON THE LOCAL IMPACT

1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals)
- Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic.
- Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF.
- Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF.
- 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village.
- These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution
- Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property..
-should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process.

2.Contamination of land

-EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!)
http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf

3. Land Status
- designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA)
- a Site of Community Importance (SCI)
- the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance
- a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex)
- Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges.
-New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant.

4.Health
-Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children.
-Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health.
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm

http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf

Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks.


5. Local Jobs
-EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery.
http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913&section=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y

6. Democracy
-EDF consultations not widely publicised.
-There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima
-The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear.
Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC)
-Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC.
-Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression
- The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk )
http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point

7. Power lines
- new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width )

8. How local is locality?
-Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope.
-This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations.

Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders.


(We can also ask them to help us through the process)
Tel: 0303 444 5000 E-mail: ipcenquiries@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/have-your-say/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radfax is a Barnet Eye reader. Guest blogs are always welcome. Submit via link in the sidebar.


Note : The Barnet Eye focusess on local issues. I happen to agree with Radfax that nuclear power and the implications of accidents will affect the residents of Barnet.

Is intelligent design fact or fiction?

I read in the Observer that Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist society are claiming a great victory, because the government have announced that free schools teaching intelligent design as fact may have their funding removed. They have stated that this is a victory for reason and common sense. I am not so sure. I think they've actually picked the wrong battle. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that intelligent design is science. It isn't, it's a belief. It is not scientifically verifiable. You may or may not believe it to be true, but you will never be able to "proove" God created Adam and Eve.

My issue is not whether such schools teach about intelligent design. It is that they surely should teach the theory of evolution and why it accepted as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. They should have to teach what makes something accepted in this way and why science is based on evidence. If the school, having taught the fundamentals of scientific principles, then say "and we believe this to be science and we believe intelligent design to be scientific" I don't have a problem with this, so long as the pupils have been given the information needed to make an informed decision as to what they choose to believe.

I studied biology to A level. We were taught about the theory of evolution and the competing theory of Lamarkism (which in the 1800's was accepted by many faith groups as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution). The reason a discredited theory such as Lamarkism was mentioned was because it was used to show how flawed theories are superceded by ones with sound evidence. The problem with intelligent design and science is that it is completely unscientific. People who subscribe to the theory, subscribe to belief in God. If you accept that God exists, then you have to accept that God is not bound by the normal rules of science. This in effect means that if you roll a six sided dice, you can get a seven. People such as Dawkins take this as proof that God doesn't exist. People of faith take it as proof that with God anything is possible.

Whatever your belief, you should want your children to have the best possible education. Teaching them things which are not scientific in science lessons, can only be acceptable, if they are taught the science properly and the other bits are taught as belief. If the school wishes to include this in the science curriculum I don't have a problem, so long as everything else is fully covered.

For many years, I struggled with the fact that faith and science are seemingly incompatible. I then realised that I was making a mistake trying to compare apples with pears. The early books such as Genesis in the bible, to me, are early man's efforts to try and understand order in the world. As they didn't have the advantages of science, the book had to describe things in understandable terms. One of the things which many people such as Dawkins use to debunk the bible is the fact that early characters such as Noah lived to the age of 950 year. I happen to believe the reason for this is because until the Jewish people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they used a lunar calendar and had no concept of the solar year. Therefore Noah lived for 950 transitions of the moon. When the people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were forced to use the solar calendar, but they refused to amend the holy texts. Can I prove this? No of course I can't but it makes a degree of sense. What about the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? I believe that this merely refers to the awakening of spirituality in Adam and the recognition of God as a single entity. It is quite clear that humanity existed long before Adam and Eve and it is also that many civilisations existed with no links to Adam, Eve and the Jewish people. It really doesn't matter. The purpose of religion, as far as I'm concerned, is to help us to live a life where we are committed to building a better world and looking after those less fortunate than ourselves.

In short, faith should be about improving ourselves as people. Not in a competetive "my faith is better than your faith" mould, but as a tool for us to challenge our own behaviour and to make ourselves better citizens. These Free Schools that Dawkins & Co are getting so animated about, should concern themselves less with trying to turn the world of science on it's head, argue that white is black and start turning out well educated students who are a credit to their school and their faith and recognised as such by all people regardless of whether they believe or not. At the end of the day, if I need to see an oncologist to get my cancer fixed, I want to see someone who understands the dynamics of cancerous cell mutation and the chemicals which prevent it. I don't want them to send me home and tell me that if I say ten Hail Marys it will all be alright because you have faith. Sadly the world is littered with the graves of people who don't recognise the old truism, God helps those who help themselves, and fall for all manner of non scientific nonsense when faced with life threatening illness. And that is the purpose of education, to teach us to make good decisions. Give the children the tools they need to face the challenges of life. Anything less is completely irresponsible and such schools should not be allowed to teach children, let alone be state funded.

Have a pleasant Sunday

The Saturday Joke - 14/1/2012

1. Law of Mechanical Repair - After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you'll need a pee.2. Law of Gravity - Any tool, nut, bolt, screw, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.
3. Law of Probability - The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.
4. Law of Random Numbers -If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal and someone always answers.

5.Supermarket Law - As soon as you get in the smallest line, the cashier will have to call for help.  

6. Lane Variation Law - If you change traffic lanes, the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (every time).  

7. Law of the Bath - As soon as the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.
8. Law of Close Encounters - The probability of meeting someone you know increases dramatically when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with.

9. Law of the Result - When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will.
10. Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
11.. Law of the Theatre & Hockey Arena - At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle, always arrive last. They are the ones who will leave their seats several times to go for food, beer, or the toilet and who leave early before the end of the performance or the game is over. The folks in the aisle seats come early, never move once, have long gangly legs or big bellies and stay to the bitter end of the performance. The aisle people also are very surly folk.
12. The Coffee Law - As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.
13. Murphy's Law of Lockers - If there are only 2 people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.
14. Law of Physical Surfaces - The chances of an open-faced jam sandwich landing face down on a floor, are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet or rug.
15. Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
16. Brown's Law of Physical Appearance - If the clothes fit, they're ugly.
17. Oliver's Law of Public Speaking - A closed mouth gathers no feet.
18. Wilson's Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy - As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it.
19. Doctors' Law - If you don't feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you'll feel better.. But don't make an appointment, and you'll stay sick.

20. Bloggers Law - Don't move to Barnet or you'll become completely feckin obsessed with the incompetent numptys who run the show and you will spend your life writing blogs in a permanent foul mood.

Have a lovely Saturday Night. I'm off to Camino's in Kings Cross to drink lots of yummy wine, eat lots of lovely Spanish food and to try and take my mind off the fact that Barnet Council seem intent on ruining all of the good things about the Borough.

Is Brian Coleman putting the whole of London at risk?

I read with horror a comment in the blog by GLA Tory Roger Evans. Mr Evans is the GLA rep for Havering and Redbridge and was until last year the leader of the Tory Group. Mr Evans is highly respected and a very decent sort of chap. Unlike his colleague, Brian Coleman in Barnet, he keeps his voters informed of progress at the GLA via his interesting and informative blog.

Whilst reading this blog (for those of us with a rather lazy rep such as Coleman, it is the only way to keep up to date with shenanigans at the GLA) I read that Brian Coleman, who was given the job of running the London Fire and Emergency planning authority, has cut the reserves for dealing with disasters to £24 million - the comment is in the is blog on Mr Evans site  http://city-hall.blogspot.com/2012/01/budget-round-opening-skirmishes.html . The reserves have been whittled down to virtually nothing, to help freeze council tax and to prop up the Met Police budget.

Let us consider what they have to look after.According to wikipedia, there are nearly 8 million people in greater London. The Fire brigade are responsible for safety on the London Underground and Overground networks. Millions of people commute on a daily basis through the city. Trains, Buses and Tubes all carry millions. We have a dozen major railway terminals, and we also have two airports, one of which is the worlds busiest international airport. All of these hubs are under constant threat from numerous and diverse terror groups and all have a history of attacks.

Then there is the River Thames. This has a history of flooding, which the Thames Barrier was constructed to prevent. Whilst this has been used several times in the last two decades to prevent major floods, there is a possibility that this could fail and inundate London. Who would cover this emergency? The LFEPA. Does anyone seriously believe that £24 million would cover the costs of responding to such an emergency?

And then there is the timing. We have the Olympics this year. Although I hope to God it runs smoothly and have a high degree of faith in our security services and Police, it is clear to all that every nutcase in the world would like to cause havoc in London at this time. What has Coleman done? He's cut the reserves in the year in our history when they are most likely to be needed.

Not only that but he's thinned down the organisation. Does the man not realise that the less resources you have, the more reserves you need. Roger Evans says this in his blog :-

Fire Brigade

Under Brian Coleman, LFEPA has made considerable savings and has even helped to bail out the police budget this year. Reserves have been cut to £24 million which we were assured is sufficient to cover unexpected costs. Training is being contracted out and this is expected to deliver further cost reductions.

He may well be reassured by Brian Coleman that this is enough. I am far from convinced. Sadly only a terrible tragedy would prove me right and I hope to God that doesn't happen. I cannot help but feel scared by this man and his disregard for his fellow citizens. He is up for election in May. Need I say more. He gets £50K a year for his part time GLA job and £25K a year from Boris to run LFEPA. It is time we got someone who understood London.