I have received confirmation from Barnet Council regarding the contents of secret papers discussed by the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources committee. Whilst the member in question is not prepared to go on record, they have confirmed that the Committee were fully briefed on the details of the restrictive covenants regarding the site. They have also confirmed that the Council DO NOT intend to share this information with the residents affected.
The covenant on the land allows for any resident on the estate to the South and East of the playing fields to have the right to enforce the covenant, which would require the council to properly maintain the sports ground and to prevent sale and redevelopment of the ground.
The Barnet Eye believes that the Council has failed in its statuatory duties by not publishing the covenant in the "Legal Issues" section of the cabinet papers, that would be visible for all to see. The Barnet Eye accepts the point that legal advice concerning the covenant can be withheld (as opposed to should be).
The decision to refer the decision back to Cabinet by the Scrutiny committee was made on Tuesday Night
We note that Chair of the Committee, Hugh Rayner, who has interests in property development, voted against referal. Good to see Tories John Hart and Brian Gordon standing up for the residents of Burnt Oak though.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Hendon Constituency Special - Meet your local MP Matthew Offord
Topics which I'd suggest people may want to discuss with Matthew.
1. Gay marriage. Mr Offord is a staunch opponent. I'm sure that if you support his opposition he'd love to hear from you. Then again, if you don't agree with Matthew, I am sure he'd be interested to hear from you.
2. One Barnet. Matthew was the deputy leader of the council when One Barnet was dreamed up. As your MP and a senior member of the Conservative Party, I am sure he'd love to hear your views.
3. Human rights for dogs. Matthew has been on National TV proposing a human rights charter for dogs, following a ban on his faithful friend Maximus the Jack Russell. We hope Max will be joining him on Friday. The Barnet Eye is a keen fan of doggies.
4. Cheese shops. The one pledge Matthew Offord made to residents prior to his election was that he'd love to see Mill Hill Broadway become the type of place where ambitious businessmen would open cheese shops. Three years after his election, we still have no cheese shops. If you like cheese, come along and ask Matthew where his cheese shop is.
5. First Capital Connect. Matthew is chair of the Parliamentary Transport committee responsible for First Capital Connect. Do you think FCC are providing a good service? Tell Matthew what you think.
6. Soup recommendations. Matthew was famously mistaken for a soup waiter at the House of Commons by David Cameron shortly after he arrived. Matthew was so proud of this that he tweeted it! Come along and ask him which soup he'd recommend.
7. Responsible Drinking. Matthew is a big advocate of responsible drinking. Drunks can be a public hazard and we are keen to hear what Matthew is doing to address this problem in Hendon.
8. Assaults on women. One of Matthews former party colleagues and mentor was convicted earlier this year for assualting a woman in North Finchley. We'd be keen to hear from Matthew what he plans to do to help eradicate such awful behaviour.
Of course, we are sure that Hendon residents have a whole range of issues that they may want to discuss with Matthew. He doesn't come out to play very often (except when there is an election in the offing) so don't waste the chance.
Monday, 18 November 2013
Barnet Council refusing to answer the questions regarding £16.1 million bung to Capita
Barnet Council have recently started claiming that they have a commitment to openness and transparency. Last week we saw various exchanges with Council officers regarding the £16.1 million of your cash given to Capita to fund investments. What we haven't seen is any proper answers from the Councillors. Let us remind ourselves what the job of Councillors is. They are supposed to provide democratic oversight of the executive and make sure that democratic processes are properly followed when decisions are made. They are meant to listen to our concerns and investigate if there are real issues. In this case, we've been met with a wall of silence.
Councillors receive huge allowances for belonging to the cabinet and being the chair of committees. In return for this, they are expected to do a job. They are not meant simply to be yes men for the officers. They are not meant to be a fig leaf, hiding the privacy of the officers. They are meant to shine a light on their actions and hold them to account when they get it wrong.
So once more, the Barnet Eye appeals to the Conservative cabinet and the committee chairs. Do the job you are paid for.
Councillors receive huge allowances for belonging to the cabinet and being the chair of committees. In return for this, they are expected to do a job. They are not meant simply to be yes men for the officers. They are not meant to be a fig leaf, hiding the privacy of the officers. They are meant to shine a light on their actions and hold them to account when they get it wrong.
So once more, the Barnet Eye appeals to the Conservative cabinet and the committee chairs. Do the job you are paid for.
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Bohemia Eviction - Update
Yesterday I mentioned comments regarding the Bohemia eviction made off the record by a friend who is an officer in the Met Police. He asked me to clarify a couple of points. Please note that he is speaking in a personal capacity and does not wish to be identified.
1. The occupiers had a county court judgement against them. They were therefore illegally occupying the building.
2. The occupiers were members of Occupy, which is an organisation with a track record for large demonstrations and has many affiliates. They had been circulating calls for a mass protest to protect the occupation.
3. The riots two years ago started following a small local demonstration at a police station getting out of hand. The Metropolitan Police learned lessons from dealing with such demonstrations. Whilst there is no suggestion that the Occupiers were looking to cause a riot, as with the 2011 riots, situations can spiral out of control if not properly managed.
4. There was no suggestion of "police brutality" in the operation. There was plenty of aggressive shouting and posturing, but no one was beaten up or taken to hospital. The Occupiers had been asked to leave and were defying a court order. When an operation is underway, the safest way for Police to behave is to be in total control of the situation.
It was pointed out that when the riots of 2011 occurred there was huge loss caused across London. It is a top priority of the Police to ensure that such situations do not occur.
This is what actually happened
We are awaiting more footage.
The one thing that no one has explained thus far is why the administrators for the Antic took such an aggressive stance in regards to the Occupiers, given that they had said they would vacate when a new tenant was identified. They have incurred large costs and I cannot see any great financial gain for them (unless there is a tenant lined up who they suspect will not be to the liking of the local community).
It is clear that there is a need for a community space in North Finchley. It seems sad that all of the positive energy and activities lined up for the Bohemia have simply been crushed. As I said in my blog yesterday, I don't think anyone has come out of this as a winner. If the administrators had engaged with the Occupiers and come to an amicable arrangement, we'd not have any blogs or any debates about Police and their priorities. I am sure some people see what happened on Friday night as good, as it fits some sort of authoritarian political agenda. I just think it is all rather sad. Yesteday there was a mental health roadshow outside the locked building, in the freezing cold. Sad really when there was a perfectly usable space on the other side of the ramparts.
1. The occupiers had a county court judgement against them. They were therefore illegally occupying the building.
2. The occupiers were members of Occupy, which is an organisation with a track record for large demonstrations and has many affiliates. They had been circulating calls for a mass protest to protect the occupation.
3. The riots two years ago started following a small local demonstration at a police station getting out of hand. The Metropolitan Police learned lessons from dealing with such demonstrations. Whilst there is no suggestion that the Occupiers were looking to cause a riot, as with the 2011 riots, situations can spiral out of control if not properly managed.
4. There was no suggestion of "police brutality" in the operation. There was plenty of aggressive shouting and posturing, but no one was beaten up or taken to hospital. The Occupiers had been asked to leave and were defying a court order. When an operation is underway, the safest way for Police to behave is to be in total control of the situation.
It was pointed out that when the riots of 2011 occurred there was huge loss caused across London. It is a top priority of the Police to ensure that such situations do not occur.
This is what actually happened
We are awaiting more footage.
The one thing that no one has explained thus far is why the administrators for the Antic took such an aggressive stance in regards to the Occupiers, given that they had said they would vacate when a new tenant was identified. They have incurred large costs and I cannot see any great financial gain for them (unless there is a tenant lined up who they suspect will not be to the liking of the local community).
It is clear that there is a need for a community space in North Finchley. It seems sad that all of the positive energy and activities lined up for the Bohemia have simply been crushed. As I said in my blog yesterday, I don't think anyone has come out of this as a winner. If the administrators had engaged with the Occupiers and come to an amicable arrangement, we'd not have any blogs or any debates about Police and their priorities. I am sure some people see what happened on Friday night as good, as it fits some sort of authoritarian political agenda. I just think it is all rather sad. Yesteday there was a mental health roadshow outside the locked building, in the freezing cold. Sad really when there was a perfectly usable space on the other side of the ramparts.
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Bohemia - A sad debacle with no winners
Last night, High Court bailiffs, supported by the police, evicted members of the Occupy movement who had been in residence for the last six weeks, operating a community centre on the premises. According to the claim made to the High Court, the eviction has cost the leaseholder £23,000 in costs. As far as I understand, the occupiers had been cooperating with Landlords and showing tenants around. There was no suggestion that damage had been caused by the occupiers, in fact they have made improvements and as anyone with property will know, it is better to have someone in a building. The Occupiers had also offered to peacefully vacate if a tenant was found.
Many texts and messages I received showed a degree of anger at Police for a very heavy handed approach.I find it quite interesting to read about the huge resources invested by the police in the operation. I wish they had mounted a similar operation when an elderly neighbour of mine was burgled last year. I don't blame the police for enforcing the law. When it comes down to it, that is there job. I do question the priority they put on this operation. In effect the taxpayer subsides an operation to close down a community project, for the benefit of a private Landlord. I wonder how many other private Landlords will be receiving such police help when they want awkward tenants evicted.
A senior Police officer I know informed me that the cost of the operation at the Bohemia yesterday was likely to have cost in excess of £5,000 in planning and execution. His view was that the operation was necessary to send a message that the law will be enforced in Barnet. When the occupiers told the press that they believed in Civil Disobediance, the operation and scale became inevitable. In effect the statement was a challenge to the forces of law and order and to the jurisdiction of the High Court. In his view, any such statement, in the face of High Court judgement, will always receive such a response. He also made a comment which I found interesting to say the least. He said the local Police would have seen the operation as an excellent opportunity to test their procedures and operational readiness. They would have been fully aware that the occupiers were unlikely to be violent or aggressive. As such it is a great chance to make sure things work properly, so if there is a situation where a "hard" response is required, everyone knows what they are doing. I suggested that most Barnet residents would prefer a training exercise against Burglars, human traffickers or local gangs. His response was that the Bohemia was a far more useful operation as it was "unusual" and had considerations unlike most police operations, not least local interest and anticipation. So if you were in anyway involved with the Bohemia, you can sleep soundly knowing you've helped the Barnet Police maintain their operational readyness against the forces of anarchy and public disorder.
Then lest consider the Landlords - Mitchells and Butler. This is what is somewhat disengeniously known as a "Pubco". You would think that with such a name, they would be interested to explore the concept of a community pub and may have considered it worthwhile working with the community to explore options to do this. Sadly the plonkers who run Mitchells and Butlers have no concept of what a community pub really is. I spend much of my life in pubs. I love them. Mitchells and Butlers own many pubs in the London Borough of Barnet. Examples that are successful are The Orange Tree and The Arkley. When we say successful, we of course mean financially as opposed to as pubs. The M&B model is not actually a pub. It is a food outlet that sells beer as a sideline. The last thing they want is someone like me to turn up with my mates and drink ten pints of guinness and talking football all night. They certainly don't understand the concept of the community pub. When M&B took over my local, the Three Hammers, they did sseveral things. They removed Sky Sports and the Darts Board. They banned children. They banned dogs from the premises. They also evicted the Mill Hill Jazz Club. Those of you who don't know the Hammers, it was a thriving community pub prior to M&B. It is next door to the Retail trust, which is an establishment for the elderly. Many families would come to bring their elderly relatives for a meal. As children were banned, this trade virtually stopped. The Hammers is on a popular walking route, being adjacent to Totteridge Valley. Dog walkers were banished. The Mill Hill Jazz club, which had been successfully running on a Wednesday night for years was kicked out, as it didn't "fit the profile of the pub". The Darts players were evicted, many who had been patrons for decades. People who would meet to watch football were also evicted. The Pool table disappeared. In short, whole local communities of friends were effectively abandoned. The pub were chasing a new market. One who wanted to eat bog standard pub food, have a half of lager and then drive home. I drink in the Hammers every Thursday with my football team. It has been styled as a bad hotel lounge. The staff are mainly teenagers (some are children of friends) on minimum wage, working with minimum motivation.
Contrast that with the vibrant social scene which was developing at the Bohemia. If I was a director of M&B, I'd have come down and checked out the Open mic nights and other activities being organised. If that had been incorporated into an establishment with cheap, healthy food and inexpesive beer, they would have been onto a winner. Although many pubs around the country are failing, there are plenty that are bucking the trend. They do this by catering for their community. The M&B model is a "one size fits all solution". They have put the postcode of the Hammers into their "demographic profiling" system and it's popped out a solution. It takes no account of the local walkers, elderly, darts and pool players, who used the pub for years. The Bohemia under the Antic Brand had the potential to be a superb pub. It was however suffering from massive under investment. It was an ideal venue for music, but there was no soundproofing, so this was impossible without alterations and upsetting neighbours. A small investment could have fixed this. There was also huge amounts of space which were totally unused. Any company which has aspirations to succeed must continulaly think of new ways to regenerate their business model and stay ahead of the game. It is clear that M&B have run out of ideas. Last Wednesday, I did a pub crawl around the London Bridge area. The pubs we visited were all proper pubs and all busy. We started at the Market Porter in Borough Market. This is how a pub should be. There is a place for the M&B model, it works well at The Orange Tree, but please can we have our proper pubs back?
So as I survey the fallout of the Bohemia debacle, it is clear that we've all lost. The taxpayer has had to fork out £5,000+ for a Police operation. The Police have wasted a day on achieving nothing, whilst burglary, human trafficking, Cannabis Farms, Brothels and Gangs run riot. Mitchell and Butlers have missed a golden opportunity to develop a new model that may have made them millions and if it hadn't would have cost them virtually nothing. The High Court have come out of the debacle also looking unduly harsh. I don't understand why they didn't give the Occupiers a week to make an orderly departure and saved us the cost of a Police operation. The occupiers who were living at the Bohemia have been kicked out onto the streets in the middle of a very chilly spell. The local community has lost the chance to have a great resource.
I am also saddened to read some of the comments left on twitter and newspaper websites. I run a successful business. I employ people and I have done this by looking and learning and talking to my customers. Sadly many of the gloaters have no experience of this and no understanding of what a fantastic opportunity has been missed. The Friern Barnet Community Library showed what can be achieved when people work together. Sadly that was a lesson which seems to have completely passed Mitchells and Butlers by.
Many texts and messages I received showed a degree of anger at Police for a very heavy handed approach.I find it quite interesting to read about the huge resources invested by the police in the operation. I wish they had mounted a similar operation when an elderly neighbour of mine was burgled last year. I don't blame the police for enforcing the law. When it comes down to it, that is there job. I do question the priority they put on this operation. In effect the taxpayer subsides an operation to close down a community project, for the benefit of a private Landlord. I wonder how many other private Landlords will be receiving such police help when they want awkward tenants evicted.
A senior Police officer I know informed me that the cost of the operation at the Bohemia yesterday was likely to have cost in excess of £5,000 in planning and execution. His view was that the operation was necessary to send a message that the law will be enforced in Barnet. When the occupiers told the press that they believed in Civil Disobediance, the operation and scale became inevitable. In effect the statement was a challenge to the forces of law and order and to the jurisdiction of the High Court. In his view, any such statement, in the face of High Court judgement, will always receive such a response. He also made a comment which I found interesting to say the least. He said the local Police would have seen the operation as an excellent opportunity to test their procedures and operational readiness. They would have been fully aware that the occupiers were unlikely to be violent or aggressive. As such it is a great chance to make sure things work properly, so if there is a situation where a "hard" response is required, everyone knows what they are doing. I suggested that most Barnet residents would prefer a training exercise against Burglars, human traffickers or local gangs. His response was that the Bohemia was a far more useful operation as it was "unusual" and had considerations unlike most police operations, not least local interest and anticipation. So if you were in anyway involved with the Bohemia, you can sleep soundly knowing you've helped the Barnet Police maintain their operational readyness against the forces of anarchy and public disorder.
Then lest consider the Landlords - Mitchells and Butler. This is what is somewhat disengeniously known as a "Pubco". You would think that with such a name, they would be interested to explore the concept of a community pub and may have considered it worthwhile working with the community to explore options to do this. Sadly the plonkers who run Mitchells and Butlers have no concept of what a community pub really is. I spend much of my life in pubs. I love them. Mitchells and Butlers own many pubs in the London Borough of Barnet. Examples that are successful are The Orange Tree and The Arkley. When we say successful, we of course mean financially as opposed to as pubs. The M&B model is not actually a pub. It is a food outlet that sells beer as a sideline. The last thing they want is someone like me to turn up with my mates and drink ten pints of guinness and talking football all night. They certainly don't understand the concept of the community pub. When M&B took over my local, the Three Hammers, they did sseveral things. They removed Sky Sports and the Darts Board. They banned children. They banned dogs from the premises. They also evicted the Mill Hill Jazz Club. Those of you who don't know the Hammers, it was a thriving community pub prior to M&B. It is next door to the Retail trust, which is an establishment for the elderly. Many families would come to bring their elderly relatives for a meal. As children were banned, this trade virtually stopped. The Hammers is on a popular walking route, being adjacent to Totteridge Valley. Dog walkers were banished. The Mill Hill Jazz club, which had been successfully running on a Wednesday night for years was kicked out, as it didn't "fit the profile of the pub". The Darts players were evicted, many who had been patrons for decades. People who would meet to watch football were also evicted. The Pool table disappeared. In short, whole local communities of friends were effectively abandoned. The pub were chasing a new market. One who wanted to eat bog standard pub food, have a half of lager and then drive home. I drink in the Hammers every Thursday with my football team. It has been styled as a bad hotel lounge. The staff are mainly teenagers (some are children of friends) on minimum wage, working with minimum motivation.
Contrast that with the vibrant social scene which was developing at the Bohemia. If I was a director of M&B, I'd have come down and checked out the Open mic nights and other activities being organised. If that had been incorporated into an establishment with cheap, healthy food and inexpesive beer, they would have been onto a winner. Although many pubs around the country are failing, there are plenty that are bucking the trend. They do this by catering for their community. The M&B model is a "one size fits all solution". They have put the postcode of the Hammers into their "demographic profiling" system and it's popped out a solution. It takes no account of the local walkers, elderly, darts and pool players, who used the pub for years. The Bohemia under the Antic Brand had the potential to be a superb pub. It was however suffering from massive under investment. It was an ideal venue for music, but there was no soundproofing, so this was impossible without alterations and upsetting neighbours. A small investment could have fixed this. There was also huge amounts of space which were totally unused. Any company which has aspirations to succeed must continulaly think of new ways to regenerate their business model and stay ahead of the game. It is clear that M&B have run out of ideas. Last Wednesday, I did a pub crawl around the London Bridge area. The pubs we visited were all proper pubs and all busy. We started at the Market Porter in Borough Market. This is how a pub should be. There is a place for the M&B model, it works well at The Orange Tree, but please can we have our proper pubs back?
So as I survey the fallout of the Bohemia debacle, it is clear that we've all lost. The taxpayer has had to fork out £5,000+ for a Police operation. The Police have wasted a day on achieving nothing, whilst burglary, human trafficking, Cannabis Farms, Brothels and Gangs run riot. Mitchell and Butlers have missed a golden opportunity to develop a new model that may have made them millions and if it hadn't would have cost them virtually nothing. The High Court have come out of the debacle also looking unduly harsh. I don't understand why they didn't give the Occupiers a week to make an orderly departure and saved us the cost of a Police operation. The occupiers who were living at the Bohemia have been kicked out onto the streets in the middle of a very chilly spell. The local community has lost the chance to have a great resource.
I am also saddened to read some of the comments left on twitter and newspaper websites. I run a successful business. I employ people and I have done this by looking and learning and talking to my customers. Sadly many of the gloaters have no experience of this and no understanding of what a fantastic opportunity has been missed. The Friern Barnet Community Library showed what can be achieved when people work together. Sadly that was a lesson which seems to have completely passed Mitchells and Butlers by.
Guest Blog - Kicked in the stomach - By A.M Poppy
By A.M Poppy,
It’s a clear November night. It’s pitch dark, the temperature is plummeting, and I walk home as if I’ve been kicked in the stomach. I've discovered what it means to be gutted. I’m returning from a squalid car-park where a small crowd of young people who have become friends were assembled forlorn, alongside their motley belongings. Hi-viz jacketed bailiffs were silhouetted in the double doors that give out onto the car park of the Bohemia pub from which the occupiers are being evicted.
Under a lamppost my friends are holding an impromptu meeting deciding what to do, where to go, how to proceed. I can’t help. I’m helpless. The police had arrived after dark, in riot gear, with dogs and bailiffs and broken the door down, apparently. Phoenix has never known such haste in enforcing an eviction order. The ferocity of the entry was captured on a local journalist’s phone. Danny takes comfort in the fact that a neutral reporter will be able to bear independent witness to what has occurred. The journalist as the eyes and ears of the community, yes.
But can he be the heart and stomach of our community? Can he fathom the significance of this expulsion to us who live near this unglamorous, suburban high street? He needs to know that the fact these young people had opened the space up for reading groups, yoga, socialising, and entertainments including some daring burlesque was just the outward surface things.
I am going to make a bold claim: That occupied Bohemia’s main significance was immanent and symbolic, and all the more powerful for that. Occupied Bohemia gave us a stake in the high street, a space that we could invest with a wish, witting or unwitting. Its space represented potential, and in potential anything is possible. Not until I saw the gutted Bohemia – its vital organs, the occupiers, spilled on the car-park tarmac – did I realise that a part of me had died. A part I hadn’t known was there. A part that had invested in that space a sense that as soon as I needed to, or wanted to, I could make something happen in the Bohemia. That feeling has been called many names: empowerment, self-actualisation, hope.
In a time of austerity, when options for most of us are shrinking, when laws are tightening around us and the social safety nets are torn apart, occupied Bohemia offered a chink of the prospect of being agents in our own lives, of shaping our destiny at least a little bit.
With screaming riot police and dogs, the establishment has made clear what it will do to such an impudent feeling. I’m not weeping. I’m stunned, kicked, gutted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poppy was the Green Party candidate for the GLA Elections in 2012. Guest Blogs are always welcome
It’s a clear November night. It’s pitch dark, the temperature is plummeting, and I walk home as if I’ve been kicked in the stomach. I've discovered what it means to be gutted. I’m returning from a squalid car-park where a small crowd of young people who have become friends were assembled forlorn, alongside their motley belongings. Hi-viz jacketed bailiffs were silhouetted in the double doors that give out onto the car park of the Bohemia pub from which the occupiers are being evicted.
Under a lamppost my friends are holding an impromptu meeting deciding what to do, where to go, how to proceed. I can’t help. I’m helpless. The police had arrived after dark, in riot gear, with dogs and bailiffs and broken the door down, apparently. Phoenix has never known such haste in enforcing an eviction order. The ferocity of the entry was captured on a local journalist’s phone. Danny takes comfort in the fact that a neutral reporter will be able to bear independent witness to what has occurred. The journalist as the eyes and ears of the community, yes.
But can he be the heart and stomach of our community? Can he fathom the significance of this expulsion to us who live near this unglamorous, suburban high street? He needs to know that the fact these young people had opened the space up for reading groups, yoga, socialising, and entertainments including some daring burlesque was just the outward surface things.
I am going to make a bold claim: That occupied Bohemia’s main significance was immanent and symbolic, and all the more powerful for that. Occupied Bohemia gave us a stake in the high street, a space that we could invest with a wish, witting or unwitting. Its space represented potential, and in potential anything is possible. Not until I saw the gutted Bohemia – its vital organs, the occupiers, spilled on the car-park tarmac – did I realise that a part of me had died. A part I hadn’t known was there. A part that had invested in that space a sense that as soon as I needed to, or wanted to, I could make something happen in the Bohemia. That feeling has been called many names: empowerment, self-actualisation, hope.
In a time of austerity, when options for most of us are shrinking, when laws are tightening around us and the social safety nets are torn apart, occupied Bohemia offered a chink of the prospect of being agents in our own lives, of shaping our destiny at least a little bit.
With screaming riot police and dogs, the establishment has made clear what it will do to such an impudent feeling. I’m not weeping. I’m stunned, kicked, gutted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poppy was the Green Party candidate for the GLA Elections in 2012. Guest Blogs are always welcome
Friday, 15 November 2013
The Friday Joke 15/11/2013
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, 14 November 2013
Barnet disability charity’s future secured with move to Friary House
14 November 2013:
Barnet charity Community Focus will move from its current location within artsdepot to Friary House in July
2014.
Community
Focus has been serving vulnerable sections of the local community for over 30
years. It runs a wide range of arts courses and projects for over 1500 local
adults and children. Projects include a multi-arts programme for over 600
adults, many of which have learning or physical disabilities, or mental health
issues. In 2010, the charity set up GoldDust Arts, a social enterprise that has
worked with hundreds of disadvantaged young Londoners.
“We are delighted to
announce our move to Friary House, which means our long-term future is secure,”
Tim Balogun, Director of Community Focus.
“Friary House is a lovely building for an arts organisation with interesting
architectural features and plenty of light. The building is fully accessible and
is on local bus routes, so will be easy for our clients to reach. Friary House
is nestled in the grounds of Friary Park, which will enable us to make use of
the beautiful gardens for various arts activities.”
Friary House, on
Friary Road, Barnet, is owned by Barnet Council, which will be helping Community
Focus adapt the accommodation for its use.
“We are grateful for
Barnet Council’s support,” said Tudor Spencer, the
Charity’s Chair of Trustees. “Staff at the Council suggested the building
and have agreed to assist us financially with adapting the accommodation.”
Community Focus has
had one of its busiest years ever running more projects and reaching more people
of all ages.
Some of the projects
run over the last year include an animation film project for young people, the
results of which were screened at the Phoenix
Cinema in East Finchley; a circus project for young people where they learnt a
range of skills such as plate spinning, devil sticks and clowning; and a
printmaking project for adults with disabilities. The charity has continued
running its in-house multi-arts
programme and outreach programme for adults, many of which have disabilities or
mental health issues. Courses have been run on a wide range of topics, from
watercolour and drumming
to dance and jewellery making.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Why the Barnet Eye will not be printing the response from the Chief Operating Officer of Barnet Council to the Barnet Bloggers
Today I received an email from Chris Naylor, chief operating officer of Barnet Council
He starts his response by saying
"I don't think I have a huge amount to add to the answer I have already given about the decision making process, the relationship between the deal, cabinet decision and payment profile and the Council's constitution. "
Mr Naylor then waffles about various things unrelated to the letter sent (as far as I can make out), ignoring all of the substantive points raised.
He ends by saying
"Again, given that your respective blog comments and correspondence with Councillors are generating a lot of enquires for my team, I would ask that you publish this response. I will be sending a copy of this email to
Members due course."
To put it bluntly, in my humble opinion, Chris Naylor is taking the piss. Our blogs have not generated any enquiries, the actions of the council have. If and when Mr Naylor chooses to address the points properly, we will publish his response in full. Mr Naylor clearly thinks that myself and my fellow bloggers are complete idiots and by waffling he can pull the wool over our eyes.
I consider Mr Naylors letter to be a smokescreen. Our letter raised specific points and Mr Naylor has chosen to simply ignore them. Given the seriousness of the issue and the large sums of cash involved, I personally find his attitude and his response insulting. Whilst I am quite prepared for Mr Naylor to insult me personally in this manner ( I expected it) I am not prepared to dignify his response by giving him a platform on this blog to peddle such twaddle. When I first read Mr Naylors response, it was clear to me that it was a crude attempt to shift the discussion away from the serious points raised by the Barnet bloggers and onto nice safe territory for him and his political masters. I for one see no reason why I should collude with him in sweeping the awkward questions under the carpet.
We can tell you that Mr Naylor does not address the facts quoted in our letter in any way shape or form. You can read our response here - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/barnet-council-response-to-letter.html and we are quite specific, using evidence from papers published by the council to back up our assertations. Mr Naylor just ignores all of this - If the council wants to use this blog to simply spout the opinions of what we consider to be overpaid officers, who cannot back up any of their assertions with substantive facts, then they should not be surprised when they get told to go forth and multiply.
When Mr Naylor actually bothers to respond to the points we made and stops treating the people of Barnet like idiots, we'll print his blatherings. Until such time as he does, I suggest that any readers who want to read Mr Naylors version of the truth should keep an eye on the http://www.barnetbugle.com/ as they seem far less fussy about what they print than we are and they seem to be the "organ of choice" that the local Tory administration use when they want to get something into the public domain.
To end with, I make yet another request for a formal independent and public enquiry into this matter. If as Mr Naylor claims, this is all entirely ship shape and above board, then that will be conclusively proven and the matter put to bed in short order. Surely if Mr Naylor is so sure of his case, then he has no grounds to refuse such a request.
He starts his response by saying
"I don't think I have a huge amount to add to the answer I have already given about the decision making process, the relationship between the deal, cabinet decision and payment profile and the Council's constitution. "
Mr Naylor then waffles about various things unrelated to the letter sent (as far as I can make out), ignoring all of the substantive points raised.
He ends by saying
"Again, given that your respective blog comments and correspondence with Councillors are generating a lot of enquires for my team, I would ask that you publish this response. I will be sending a copy of this email to
Members due course."
To put it bluntly, in my humble opinion, Chris Naylor is taking the piss. Our blogs have not generated any enquiries, the actions of the council have. If and when Mr Naylor chooses to address the points properly, we will publish his response in full. Mr Naylor clearly thinks that myself and my fellow bloggers are complete idiots and by waffling he can pull the wool over our eyes.
I consider Mr Naylors letter to be a smokescreen. Our letter raised specific points and Mr Naylor has chosen to simply ignore them. Given the seriousness of the issue and the large sums of cash involved, I personally find his attitude and his response insulting. Whilst I am quite prepared for Mr Naylor to insult me personally in this manner ( I expected it) I am not prepared to dignify his response by giving him a platform on this blog to peddle such twaddle. When I first read Mr Naylors response, it was clear to me that it was a crude attempt to shift the discussion away from the serious points raised by the Barnet bloggers and onto nice safe territory for him and his political masters. I for one see no reason why I should collude with him in sweeping the awkward questions under the carpet.
We can tell you that Mr Naylor does not address the facts quoted in our letter in any way shape or form. You can read our response here - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/barnet-council-response-to-letter.html and we are quite specific, using evidence from papers published by the council to back up our assertations. Mr Naylor just ignores all of this - If the council wants to use this blog to simply spout the opinions of what we consider to be overpaid officers, who cannot back up any of their assertions with substantive facts, then they should not be surprised when they get told to go forth and multiply.
When Mr Naylor actually bothers to respond to the points we made and stops treating the people of Barnet like idiots, we'll print his blatherings. Until such time as he does, I suggest that any readers who want to read Mr Naylors version of the truth should keep an eye on the http://www.barnetbugle.com/ as they seem far less fussy about what they print than we are and they seem to be the "organ of choice" that the local Tory administration use when they want to get something into the public domain.
To end with, I make yet another request for a formal independent and public enquiry into this matter. If as Mr Naylor claims, this is all entirely ship shape and above board, then that will be conclusively proven and the matter put to bed in short order. Surely if Mr Naylor is so sure of his case, then he has no grounds to refuse such a request.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
Barnet Council - Response to letter regarding £16.1 million bung to Capita
Yesterday, at 18:35, I received the email detailed below on my blog email account
-----------
Dear Mr. Dishman, Mr. Dix, Ms. Musgrove and Mr.
Tichborne
Cllr. Thomas and Cllr. Rams have asked me to respond to your
open letter of Friday 8 November 2013.
Please find attached
Chris
Naylor
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Operating Officer
Management
Suite, Building 2, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11
1NP
D/L: 020 8359 5193 Mobile: 07825 351801
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
----------D/L: 020 8359 5193 Mobile: 07825 351801
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
Contents of attachment
----------
----------
I was not surprised by the timing of the email. It had been sent so that it would make the print deadline for the local papers, whilst giving bloggers the minimum possible time to get a sensible response back before the press went to print. I was also unsurprised to be informed that promenant local Conservative Blogger, Mr Dan Hope (who blogs and tweets under the name BarnetBugle) was leaked a copy of the letter and was tweeting about it in time for the press deadlines.
Barnet Council Breaks Silence Over '£16M Capita Payment' Branding Prolonged Social Media Storm A 'Red Herring' http://t.co/PWhIYkpzUS
— Barnet Bugle (@barnetbugle) November 12, 2013
Clearly someone, somewhere at the council wanted to try and get us to rush out an ill considered response. Whilst the Barnet Eye has no objection to other bloggers writing what they like, we have to question why someone with no association with the original email was used in such a way to break the news.
Of course the Barnet Bloggers are not surprised at anything in Barnet anymore. I had speculated yesterday that just such a thing would happen, so we immediately set about mustering all of the resources available to pull together a response. Normally when we jointly draft a response, we work on it for a couple of days, but with looming press deadlines, we had to work really hard to agree a joint response, especially given the lengthy nature of the email.
The Barnet Eye found it intriguing that the Leader of the Council was not included on the list of people who Mr Naylor said were keen for him to respond. We have to ask if Councillors Thomas and Rams were actually the only ones who were happy with it. Did Mr Naylor even bother to show the semi detatched leader, Richard Cornelius? I will be monitoring the Barnet Bugle Twitter feed intently to see the next response from the Council
Here is the text agreed by the four Barnet Bloggers in response to Mr Naylor
In December 2012 the Cabinet
report which authorised this contract was quite clear when it said:
“Capita’s
proposal also includes (within the financial offer described above)
approximately £15.3m revenue investment in areas such as information technology
(computer hardware and software), and customer services. This investment not
only enables Capita to deliver the transformation it is proposing, but also
avoids the Council having to find money in the future to fund replacement technology
for systems that are at or nearing the end of their useful life”.
It went on to say:
“if the
Council chose not to complete this procurement, it would have to:
• attempt to replicate
the investment, technology and other solutions being proposed by Capita
in order to drive out the future savings required”
In September 2013 Barnet paid Capita £15.2 million
which Mr Naylor described as follows:
“Of the total
£320m, £16m of this is paid up-front for the capital investment. The remainder
of the service charges are paid quarterly in advance. The reason for making an
up-front payment to Capita for capital investment, and for payment of service
charges quarterly in advance is that the Council’s “cost of money” – i.e.
the amount that it pays for access to cash, is considerably cheaper than
Capita’s. The Council has internal reserves, and access to the Public
Works Loan Board funding which is closely aligned to the Bank of England base
rate. So the up-front capital contribution and quarterly in advance payment
reduce the overall cost of the contract to the taxpayer.
In August, the Council
made £10.5m payment to Capita which represented the balance of the capital
contribution for investment in the services, and £4.7m in respect of the
service charge.”
The council have made a decision to fund the
investment instead of Capita and from Mr Naylor’s response in October there is
a very clear inference that this would come from reserves or borrowing.
At the audit Committee of 23rd
October the council stated:
“The council
agreed to fund the capital costs up front because the council benefits from
a lower interest rates which keeps the overall cost of funding CSG as low as
possible. The assets are Capita’s, but Capita is obligated to provide them
back to the council upon contract termination for at no further cost” - again
implying borrowing or lost interest on reserves.
Mr Naylor says in his letter of 11 November 2013
that:
“there has been no change in policy, and no
radical change to the terms of the business model agreed by Cabinet on 6th
December 2012”.
Based on the above this would appear to be untrue.
The Cabinet report of December 2012 was very clear
when it said that:
“As dialogue has now closed, the Regulations
permit that the Council may only request a bidder to clarify, specify or fine
tune a tender, but further detailed negotiation is no longer permitted.”
Relieving Capita of the obligation to fund
£16.1 million of capital investment which impacts the cost of the contract by
£800,000 does not appear to fit these criteria.
Clarification is needed over the specific issue of
the origin of the funding source used by the authority to support the £16.1
million. Mr Naylor asserts in his response that this was not from reserves, yet
in his earlier statement he refers to ‘internal reserves’ and the ‘Public Works
Loan Board funding’. Was the funding from reserves, or not? Was the funding
borrowed, and if so, how much, and does not such an action contradict the
position taken by Cabinet member Robert Rams in criticising opposition
proposals to borrow money for capital investment?
Was the £16.1 million from internal reserves,
contrary to Mr Naylor’s statement, or if not, why did Councillor Thomas think
so? If some of the money was obtained by
a loan from the Public Works Loan Board, how much did the sum comprise, and
does the use of borrowed funding not contradict Councillor Robert Ram’s stated
criticism of Labour proposals to fund investment this way?
Why have our councillors remained so reluctant to
address the questions publicly, and why has the Leader of the Council remained
silent on an issue of such public concern?
Why was the belated statement about the £16.1
million at the behest of Councillors Thomas and Rams, rather than the Leader?
There are further unanswered questions about the
authorisation signed by Leader Richard Cornelius on August 5th.
Why is a decision, which is not a decision, listed
as a ‘non key decision’?
Why are there no background papers listed for this
document?
What exactly are the ‘international financial
reporting standards’ to which the document refers?
If this authorisation was merely a technicality,
why was it necessary for the Leader to approve it, rather than a senior officer
acting under delegated powers?
Were the backbench Conservative members aware that
the funding of the capital investment was not in fact an ‘upfront’ payment from
Capita, but to be undertaken by the council? If they were, why have so many
statements been made seeming to imply the contrary?
Is the truth that although the method of funding
the investment this way was arranged between Barnet and Capita, for reasons of
political sensitivity the Conservative administration has failed properly to
explain this to backbench members or the residents of this borough?
Is it fair to suggest, as the Labour leader Alison
Moore commented at last week’s Cabinet meeting, that the way in which the
funding has been arranged would appear to involve a ‘sleight of hand’, and is
this really compliant with the principles of transparency, accountability and open
government, and the duty to protect the best interests of the residents and tax
payers of this borough?
It is clear that there are still many serious
outstanding questions left unresolved and for this reason we repeat our call
for an immediate investigation into the issue so as to ensure that our elected
representatives are fulfilling their roles in the proper scrutiny of the
actions of this council.
Signed
Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)