This week is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week 7th - 13th February 2022. There is a twitter #tag #ItsNotOK to track the week on Twitter. It is also #ChildrensMentalHealthWeek. Sadly there are far too many children who are suffering mental health issues due to sexual abuse and too many adults suffering legacy issues caused by abusers.
Sadly, this blog is aware of the suffering caused to several of our friends by these issues. Sexual predators are often very narcisistic and controlling personalities who carefully select victims who they think they can control and who will not expose them. One friends eldest child killed themself in their 20's, having only recently revealed historic abuse from when they were seven years old. The demons were too much. Of course abusers do not care. Many deviously manipulate themselves into positions of trust, some as teachers, some as people serving roles of trust in the community, with access to young people. The mechnism we have to protect young people is the DBS disclosure system and the sex offenders register. This only works when people are caught. This is why it is vital that we help and support ALL victims to report abusers.
Many adults also suffer abuse, often at the hands of abusive partners, sadly both grown women and men are not immune to the problem. The most powerful weapon abusers have is the lie that they perpetuate, that no one will believe the victims. That is why it is vital that we believe victims and give them as much support as we can. It is vital that they report abuse to police and it is vital that the police take the claims seriously.
I was intrigued to see the list of 17 grants made to local charities in the Borough of Barnet 2020-21 (the last available period available). CLICK HERE FOR THE SPREADSHEET
Click for a readable version
I don't really want to comment on individual grants. I am sure all recepients are worthy causes and it is good that the council was able to spend £61,177 on community organisations. What did interest me was that it seems some wards did rather better than others. If you have a community organisation that would benefit from such a loan, CLICK HERE for details on how to apply.
There are 21 wards in the Borough of Barnet. I am sure each one has worthy community organisations. It strikes me that the wards that will do best are the wards that have local councillors who are motivated to work with their local community groups. I notice that a couple of charities managed to get two grants in the period.
I'd suggest that a very good question you may wish to ask your local councillors, when they come knocking on your door as we approach the May Council elections is "Barnet Council dished out over £60,000 in grants to local community groups in 2020-21, the last accounting period published, what grants did you secure for community groups your ward in this period?".
My personal view is that I'd want councillors who can give a positive answer. Don't let them fob you off with tales of wonderful projects, make sure they demonstrate that they have supported local charities and can give examples of grants secured. I know several local sports clubs, cub, scout and brownie groups, etc that would have been delighted to have some financial support.
This is a blog that I've found difficult to write. There are many issues that come together and the brew that comes out is rather toxic. Firstly, I have to say that if Joni Mitchell and Neil Young wish to take their art of Spotify, that is there absolute right and I totally support them. If they'd done it because artists are not getting a fair deal from online platforms, I wouldn't be writing this. Secondly, I am very pro vaccine and I deplore people who are making money from spouting anti vax rubbish. I totally believe that there should be strict laws about propogating dangerous myths about medical treatments, especially when this is done for cash. I've not listened to the Podcast that the bloke who all the fuss is about has produced. It would simply irritate me. Personally I'd much rather it wasn't on Spotify or any of the other online platforms. But, and here is the big but, I also believe in the right to free speach and I do not think that suppression of legally held views is the way forward.
We desperately need a way of identifying harmful and dishonest content and legislating for it. Medical authorities and National Governments need to ensure that all relevant data is there so that dangerous lies can be debunked and the people who peddle them are held to account. If platforms such as Spotify host such material, they should be liable to face legal action. But it has to be based on science and properly constituted law. If I say "I will not not be vaccinated, because I saw a video on youtube that says it will make you magnetic and die of cancer and it won't stop you getting ill and dying of the disease it is aimed at" and such a video exists, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If the video contains information that is untrue, then the person who has posted it, has potentially caused me harm. If I suffer as a result I should be able to seek recourse against the platform and the person who posted it. If I die, my dependents should. Harm has been caused.
However, Me, Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, though we may hold such things in contempt, are not qualified and do not have the information to make such a desicision about whether information is false. We need to see medical authorities take the lead on this and governments legislate on it. I take the view that if someone is making spurious claims online, they should have to be able to prove that there is a scientific basis for their views. If they can, then it is a valdi view, even if we don't like it. If they can't, they should face the cost of having their views debunked and they should be legally prevented from posting material in future about health and well being. I am perfectly fine with David Icke saying he's the son of God and we should all wear Turquiose tracksuits. There is no logical reason to remove such things. When he posts myths about vaccines and makes a fortune from doing so, that is a different matter. It disturbs me that in this distopian age, governments don't have the wherewithal to address such myths in a proper scientific manner.
I am reminded of my mother whenever there is a discussion on vaccines. She was nearly killed by Diptheria in 1937. She also saw my brother suffer from Polio. She told me that the anti vaccine mob existed purely because people had forgot the sheer terror of plagues of infectious diseases. I recall her dressing down a friend who was saying they would not give their children the MMR vaccine. My mother recounted how she was told that my eldest brother had Polio and might die. She said that she prayed in gratitude to the Lord that for her younger children, Polio had been banished by vaccination.
I cannot believe how people fall for such nonsense as peddled by the anti vaccine mob, but given that there is not a proper, central WHO resource, which addresses all of the myths in one central place, globally. Of course, some people will always believe that everything is a conspiracy. There are still some who believe the Earth is flat. That is their right, but we don't put them in charge of the NASA moon program.
So what has your week been like? I've had a busy week. Tuesday night I was at the Town Hall doing my civic duty grilling councillors. Wednesday I met with some mates at the Barcelona Tapas bar in Middlesex St. Thursday was five a side, Friday we went for a lovely Mexican meal at Mestizo (well worth a trip, only 30 mins from Mill Hill!), well worth a trip. Last night was at The Alice House in West Hampstead for a party. Looking forward to a nice relaxed Sunday with a Wild Boar joint from Boucherie Gerard once the doggies have had their walkies.
That's enough of me, how's your week been? I've got to say that this weeks list is one that is well worth a read. In fact it's so good that we've eleven tweets this week, whereas the normal rule is ten. I hope you'll agree it warrants an extra one! Please follow any of these Tweeters who tickle your fancy (or any other parts).
Without further ado, this is what our local tweeters have been up to.
1. Lets start with this wonderful image from one of our favourite local groups, looking after our local waterways.
2. I rather like this post. I'd recommend walking Edgwarebury Lane, if you want to get a good flavour of our neighbourhood. From the bustle of Edgware Town Centre to the heart of the Green Belt
Edgwarebury Lane (1904)
This ancient lane, now suburban in nature in its southernmost sections, has long connected Edgware with Elstree. https://t.co/90jwNt46G4
4. I do love a moody picture of a bus in the fog. I would thoroughly recommend checking out Benjamin's pictures, they are wonderful, if like me you love pictures of London.
5. Rules are made to be broken. I normally only pick tweets posted this week, but I missed this and it really deserves a share. I do hope you'll forgive me. It would have been in last weeks had I not been so bad at my job!
— Jonathan Parsons ๐ช๐บ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฎ๐ช (@jonathanpuk) January 29, 2022
6. I've never posted a Tweet in French before, but this is truly wonderful!
La BBC en su bรบsqueda por un estudio de televisiรณn donde hacer frente a las nuevas transmisiones a color arrendรณ en 1969 el Golders Green Hippodrome. 10 de febrero de 1977, la en ese momento consolidada y exitosa banda Jehtro Tull se presenta en dicho recinto. pic.twitter.com/ksvzbRxs0v
9. We do our best to promote the good things in our little corner of paradise. Good to see our friends at A better Mill Hill do as well. Can you help support these initiatives?
This weeks Bonus Tweet!!!!! As we included a tweet from last week, here's a bonus for you. This tweet was posted by the Barnet Society after I started putting the list together and this is a really important matter. Many readers know the Mitre in Barnet, one of the best pubs in our area. Please read the link in the tweet. The Mitre is a historic building. We must ensure that it is preserved. Sadly our Council does not have a great record when it comes to looking after our local heritage. Can I also ask you to follow the Barnet Society and support the brilliant work they do.
I recently got banned by the BBC, well Mr Eddie Nestor on the morning show to be precise! Have a listen. It was quite comical really. I was putting some boxes in the bins and when I came back, one of the guys who works for me said "You've just been banned by the BBC, what have you been doing?". I was quite mystified. My phone immediately started going like mental. My missus phoned up and insisted I rang up Eddie and apologised, completely refusing to believe that, to the best of my knowledge, I'd done nothing. Maybe one day I'll find out. Probably something I said on Twitter that upset the bosses, but who knows.
I'm still not entirely sure why. As a long in the tooth punk rocker, I wear it as a badge of honour and have written a song to celebrate. Whilst you may not be surprised that songs with swearing in by my fellow punk rockers have been banned, when I was researching the list to write the lyrics I was rather surprised at some of the numbers on the list. Here are ten that tickled my fancy as it were.
1. All the young Dude's by Mott the Hoople. Given that I first heard this on Top of The Pops, I was incredulous at first. However, it turns out that the phrase "Wendy stealing clothes from Marks and Spencers" fell foul of the rules about free advertising. I'm not sure that M&S would benefit from army's of shoplifters turning up.
2. I'm always chasing rainbows by Ken Dodd. This is perhaps the most bizarre reason. It was banned for being a 'bad perversion of a Chopin melody".
9. Waterloo by ABBA was another one banned by the BBC during the Gulf war, I'm not quite sure why.
10. Greensleeves by the Beverly Sisters. The little folk ditty originally penned by King Henry VIII was bannned for being too raunchy. I love the Beverly Sisters and they foillowed it up with a cheeky dig at the BEEB called "We have to be so careful" which also got banned.
So there you go. I'm in very good company. And I'm not cross with Eddie (even though he's cross with me), his standing invitation to bring his kids down for a drum practice stands. I'm hoping the ban will make my new tune go gold disc when we record it!
I was sailing around Jamaica, when a boat pulled up alongside. All of a sudden, the occupants threw up a couple of grappling hooks and boarded. I was truly terrified. To my surprise, they all spread out across the deck and adopted the plank position. Bemused, I asked them what the hell is going on. They replied "Its the Pilates of the Caribbean". How did they know I was dyslexic?
I'm sure in years to come, this will be the moment we all remember as the defining moment in the fall of Boris. A tour de force by the delectable Nadine Dorries. My comedy highlight of the week. We pay for someone's wages, who decided it would be a good idea to send her out to speak to the press.
I've just looked at this interview with @NadineDorries again.
You should always check out what they have done over the last four years before believing a word they say. The truth is that the @BarnetTorieshave been raising Council Tax.
To jog their memories here is what you paid in 2018/19 when they were last elected and what you pay now. Does this look like keeping a promise to you?
They promised to Keep Council Tax under control. They have done no such thing. We've all seen how much Boris Johnson likes telling the truth when it is inconvenient. It seems like this has spread to Barnet. We've seen a whole raft of stealth taxes from the Barnet Tories, with Parking charges hikes being imposed across the Borough, potholes appearing as roads aren't maintained, cemeteries getting overgrown. The sad truth is that the Council is being mismanaged and they will say anything to hang on to their juicy allowances as councillors.
Ok, first a confession. I know nasty Barnet bloggers are not meant to say things like this, but I'm starting to like Peter Zinkin, chair of the Barnet Finance, Performance and Contracts committee. I've dealt with quite a few Barnet Tories over the years. Some, such as Mike Freer, Dan Thomas, Brian Coleman, Robert Rams and Reuben Thompstone are aloof, condescending and lack respect for the public. Some are ok, pleasant, treat the public with respect and you can have a chat with them after as normal human beings. I'd include Brian and Kate Salinger, Richard Cornelius, John Hart, Hugh Rayner and Sachin Rajput in this list. It's nothing to do with their personal politics, its just an observation as to how they treat the public in their role as a councillor. I have to add Peter Zinkin to the second list. Unlike John Hart, I've not had a cheeky pint in the Bridge, swapping jokes, but he takes his job seriously and is respectful to the public as committee chair. Myself and John Dix asked questions of the committee and I have to confess, both John and I got straight and candid answers to several questions.
I asked two questions, on agenda items 7 (Capita Contract) and 8 (Chief Financial Officers report). The way the committee works, is that they provide a written answer and then you get the chance to ask a question on the agenda item. A maximum of two question are permitted and the questions can be no more than 100 words long. At the meeting, you are allowed to ask a follow up question if you are not satisfied. There used to be no limit, with just a 30 minute time limit on the questions.
I was first up and I thought I'd push my luck a bit. As I detailed in this blog, I was very upset at the late publication of the reports. This meant that it was impossible to properly review them, One report missed the deadline for questions altogether. It is unacceptable. I started by stating that I thought it was unacceptable and that the council should have a mechanism for dealing with questions when reports are late. Strictly speaking, this question was out of order, but Councillor Zinkin not only accepted the observation, but agreed with the Labour group leader Barry Rawlings that this should be raised with the Constitution committee so that a proper mechanism for dealing with this scenario could be introduced.
I have to admit, I was surprised. It is rare for anything a blogger says in Council to be accepted, but it was most welcome. I realised that I might not have quite as frustrating evening as I expected. Next up, I asked a question about the Capita contract extension. I read the final sentance of the answer out. "As stated
in the report, the financial and commercial elements
are complex and further work is required to ensure
that any recommendations are based on a sound
understanding of the cost and budget position."
I aked whether the Barnet client side organisation was "too thin". For those unfamiliar with council speak, this means that there are not enough qualified people montoring Capita. Councillor Zinkin shocked me with his answer. He admitted that big mistakes were made in 2014 when the contract was set up and yes, the Council team was too thin to do its job, meaning that Capita had got away with murder (not his words). Of course, now everything was fine and dandy and the fact that the deadline for renewing the contract had been missed was nothing to do with lack of resources and the fact that it wouldn't be done until after the election (something I'd suggested was a time bomb for the incoming adinistration) was purely because they were doing such a good job. Councillor Zinkin suggested that he was surprised I could make the "Time Bomb" accusation and that this was most unfair. I replied that they've known the timescales since the contract was signed and had plenty of time. I am not sure whether the fact that renewal has been pushed until after the election is a happy coincidence or a clever political ploy by The Tories. All I know is that it is very handy for them. It would be nice if Labour state that the delay will give a chance to do a proper review and being services in house if this will save money. I don't expect this to happen.
We moved on to Item 8, the CFO's report. It gave me a chance to raise the fact that a single question of less than 100 words makes scrutiny impossible. I admitted I'd misunderstood the wording of the report, but pointed out that the late submission meant there was little time to read the report and cross reference with other reports, as Councillor Zinkin suggested. I stated that the report should give details of costs of slippages. Councillor Zinkin suggested that this info was detailed elsewhere. He also made the offer of the opportunity to go through the reports with a Council Officer. I will be contacting Mr Reasonable to see if he would participate. To be honest, his input would be invaluable and would massively improve scrutiny. In all my time attending meetings, this was the first time such an offer has been made and it is hopefully a sign that after a decade of hostility to the public, we are entering a new era. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses, whoever wins.
Next up, we had Mr Reasonable with three questions. He started by informing Councillor Zinkin that he agreed with me. Project slippage had inherent costs. These needed to be accounted for. John works on large infrastructure projects and understands that interest and finance costs need to be monitored if things are slipping, which they clearly are.
He'd done one of his usual insightful blogs on Monday, detailing how Capita were not providing value for money to Barnet residents. His first question, on the Capita report was a simple one. Would the Barnet Tories please stop making claims about savings, when they are unprepared to provide any evidence to back these claims up. I'm not sure whether Councillor Zinkin agreed or just sympathised. I've listened a couple of times and I'm not entirely sure.
The next two questions concerned the Brent Cross West station development. I had a chat with John before the meeting about this. We share a view that it is right and proper that a station is built. We also have no problem that the council is helping to finance it. His problem (and I agree 100%) is that the council is funding it, taking 100% of the risk, but will share the profits (if any ever arrive) with the developers of Brent Cross. This is absolutely bonkers. When the project was conceived, the world was different, people actually used trains to go to their office every day. I suspect that whatever happens, it will be a long time before such things happen and there is a healthy income stream. However, if the UK is to deal with the challenges of climate change, we need to maximise public transport usage. This means projects like this. John was keen to see the risk properly assessed and included in the council's accounts. There was a degree of acknowledgement that this was a good point. We will see if it is actually actions these.
I stayed for the Capita report. Labour asked for disclosure of various figures, so the public could be informed going into the elections. A vote was held and the Tories rejected the proposal on the chair's casting vote. There was also a dispute when a Labour Councillor read an FoI response that named and shamed a council officer. Councillor Zinkin was enraged. He stated that he did not want councillors demonising officers in his committee. Labour Leader Barry Rawlings (who since I last saw him has grown a huge beard and looks like Santa Clause, without a red suite though) stated that as it was an FOI repsonse, it was in the public domain. I often think the Council would be a better place without political parties. Most of the councillors are reasonable human beings. They are forced to put their hands up all of the time to pass motions they disagree with. You can always tell when they are doing this as they refuse to make eye contact. I'm not sure what they really think they are achieving (beyond preservation of jobs and allowances for themselves). I find it frustration. The council would work so much better if it was open and transparent. This happens in the USA where all public contracts are fully published. I don't buy the concept of confidentiality in commercial contracts. I'd like to see it all published. That way competetors would know where they went wrong and try and be more competetive. I understand that many aspects of what the council do (social work, etc) should be private, but there is no excuse for hiding how money is spent.
I recorded the question time for posterity. If you are interested in these discussions, there are some rather interesting points in there. The Barnet Eye was the first blog to video a Council meeting. Sadly, since the demise of Dan Hope, people don't bother so much. It is a shame, as we really should care. The decisions made in Council affect how much tax you pay, how well your roads are fixed, how your children's schools are run, whether stations are built, how you will be treated in social care if you need it. I could go on. Councillors get paid a minimum of over £10,000 a year to attend these meetings. You pay that, surely you should care what they do?
One interesting thing. As I was leaving, I was approached by the Council officer who was the author of one of the late reports. They explained that the report was ready on time, they take great pride in getting reports produced promptly, but was withheld as it was also relevant to another meeting and was released after this meeting had been held. They were at pains to insist that nothing was untoward. I take that very much at face value, but as the council agreed, in such circumstances, there should be a formal process for delaying the deadline for questions.
did a fine job on drivetime with a news slot which is his forteThe changes you have designed have made the station non stop doom and gloom until 2pm. Put @EddieNestorMBE back where he belongs and give us some sort of break from this misery.
London is an amazing city, we need some focus on the positive and the culture of London during the day. I wish to make it 100% clear that this is not a rant about @EddieNestorMBE and
on @LBC who does an amazing job.
@BBCRadioLondon is not that station. And as for your playlist, both @EddieNestorMBE and @jumokefashola are grown ups who know their onions when it comes to music. I find it quite insulting that you don't trust them to pick their own music. I give up. When I heard the dulcet tones of @BorisJohnson on @BBCRadioLondon I gave up. Now listening to my Wire Pop songs playlist to restore my sanity
London needs a proper station that covers it's culture, music and arts. Pretty much like what Robert does. I will still listen to his weekend shows, as well as David and Carrie Grant, but I'm sorry, I've tried my hardest and the midweek shows simply just doesn't work for us anymore. We've always listened to the morning show in the studio reception and I can't inflict this on my staff and customers anymore.
With Robert, there would be some decent tunes and some great info about what was happening in London. I tried my hardest, but it just doesn't work. Yesterday Vanessa's show discussed ghosting. I thought I'd do the station the courtesy of an explanation. In case you didn't know Sara David is the boss at the BBC who designed the new schedule.
I'll end, with what seems and appropriate quote from Too Late by Wire.
On Friday, we published our analysis of a very disturbing report by the Chief Financial Officer of Barnet Council. This should be of interest to anyone who lives in the Borough, pays business rates or Council tax or has any interaction with Barnet Council. One such resident emailed me in despair today. They had read my report and had a serious question for the committee about the report. Their question was
The financial report of the Chief Financial Officer of Barnet Council was released after the deadline for questions.
I have only just been made aware of it's release.
Please can you ask the following question in relation to this item at Financial Performance and contracts committee:
It appears that Barratts PLC aka Barratt Metropolitan have substantial outstanding debts to Barnet Council.
Please can you explain the nature of these debts ie what are they in relation to and why Barratts have not paid them?
Finally, where can we find copies of the relevant invoices on the Barnet planning portal?
If this is one too many question, please disregard the latter re invoices.
Could you also confirm your receipt of this e.mail.
With thanks and best wishes,
This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable question that any reasonable public authority, with a committment to transparancy would be only too happy to answer. You may be surprised at the response
Thank you for your email. Late questions can be allowed however this agenda item has already received two public questions and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution Article 3:
A maximum of two questions from residents may be asked per agenda item. These will be accepted in order of receipt. Any additional questions received will be not be accepted.
Therefore unfortunately this cannot be accepted.
You may find the reference to the Constitution interesting. Barnet Council used to set a time limit of 30 minutes for public questions, with no limits on questions. One of the first Acts of Councillor Daniel Thomas, when he became Leader was to change the constitution to remove this scrutiny. This report, as I highlighted, is extremely important, but in a Borough of over 300,000 residents they only allow two questions. Back in 2019 when this change was made, I highlighted the risks. I take no pleasure in being right.
My objections at the time of the changes were as follows
Let me spell out the issues (My comments in Red Italics)
1. Questions and comments should be amalgamated; it is perfectly possible to raise a comment as part of a question. The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100.
If there is a complex technical issue to raise as a question, an arbitrary 100 word limit will prevent a properly constructed question, this is especially true for issues on budget. It will result in simple, inane, sloganistic questions, rather than sensible, well thought out, detailed questions.
2. Questions/comments should be raised under the current rules for questions. This means that the council and lead officer would have notice of the question/comment before the meeting and would therefore be in a position to amend the committee report (if necessary) to include a relevant matter raised in the question/comment, if not currently within the committee report.
This is a sensible amendment
3. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item. The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee. No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service.
If a resident notices multiple problems within a report, it will now be impossible for more than one to be addressed. This will mean that there is no opportunity to correct obvious errors. This will also favour organised pressure groups, trades unions and political campaigns, who can muster a gang of questioners, over ordinary, concerned residents.
4. Residents may raise one question/comment per committee meeting in order to allow as many residents as possible to raise questions/comments and ask a supplementary question at Committee.
This is highly dishonest. Under the present system, residents questions are round robin'd so that you ask a question, then the next resident on the list does. When all residents have had a turn, the process starts again. No resident misses an opportunity under the existing system.
5. The deadline for submitting a question/comment be extended to 10am two clear working days before the meeting. Questions/comments will be responded to verbally at the meeting only. Residents will be able to ask one supplementary question for each question/comment made. If there is insufficient time to deal with all questions in the 30 minutes of allocated time, a written response will be provided within a reasonable period. The Chairman should also have the discretion to request that a question answered at the meeting also be responded to in writing.
Whilst I welcome the extension of the deadline, the lack of a written answer is a clear attempt to a) limit the time available for questions. By answering the question, rather than supplying an answer, the half hour will soon be eaten up. Furthermore, it gives little opportunity for residents to ask supplementary questions. In short this is a ruse to stifle debate.
It is clear that the leader of the Barnet Tories, Councillor Dan Thomas, is not keen on the public, transparency or engagement. This was his first action as leader and it is quite frankly despicable. Everyone in Barnet should be concerned. If for no other reason than the fact that the Borough would be £2 million worse off if these rules had been in place in 2012, when local residents and bloggers identified the Metpro Scandal. What sort of regime excludes the public and stifles public debate?
What has fascinated me is that I've seen a huge response to the recent articles, I've had eight times more blog views than usual and a huge amount of debate, comments, shares and retweets etc. A couple of Conservative councillors have privately contacted me to share their concerns about the corporate debt and other aspects of the report. There is a frustration that excuses get cut and pasted from one report to the next with no real effort to actually do anything. It strikes me that excluding the public from the scrutiny process has made the whole issue of scrutiny even more opaaque. I am not saying there is Corporate fraud in Barnet Council, but without proper scrutiny the environment where it can happen becomes a serious concern. What sickens me is that there is no real method for residents to raise this formally.
