I got an email asking what I thought of Boris Johnson's tirade of expletives at Keith Vaz. To be honest I hadn't thought anything of it until I was asked. Being a punk rocker with a cupboard full of vinyl which would have a "parental guidance" sticker on if it was released today, the idea that there is anything shocking about two grown men swearing at each other on a private phonecall is ridiculous. It doesn't shock me, outrage me or disgust me. If he was swearing at my Auntie, I'd be upset, but Keith Vaz is a big boy.
It does strike me that Boris has not done himself too many favours. The Tory press such as the Daily Mail can hardly rail against "Foul Mouthed Yobbo's" if their pin up boy talks like this, can they? Boris has cultivated an image of being a dotty intellectual. We expect something a bit cleverer and a bit funnier from Boris when he's upset. If he'd rung up and said "Mr Vaz, Coitus Holidayicus et Mortis" we'd have chuckled and said "Good old Boris, he's so witty". When he said to Vaz "You are trying to make me look like a F*****g fool", a bubble was burst. Good old Boris isn't quite as cerebral or witty as we thought. Of course Vaz was trying to make him look like a fool, he's an opponent. It's Boris's job not to fall into the trap. He failed. He just looked Naive and out of his depth.
I'm not shocked or surprised by his swearing but I am at his general inability to cope with a few opposing politicians being a bit beastly. Bozza, if you want to get on in the job, you need a much thicker skin.
Friday, 13 February 2009
"Even the Bankers have apologised" - Not in Barnet they haven't
Just seen a clip of David Cameron on Question Time in full flow haranguing Gordon Brown. "Even the bankers have apologised" he said in reference to the Credit Crunch. My first thought - "What about the leader of Barnet Council, Mike Freer - He's just collected the Banker of the Year Award from Private Eye magazine, he lost £27.4 Million in Iceland (sorry should I have said mislaid) of our cash - where is the apology to us".
Well Dave, I don't know if you read The Barnet Eye, if you do, why don't you pick up the phone and have a word with Mike Freer. Tell him to set a good example and apologise for losing (sorry mislaying) our cash. He's a banker, he's Council Leader, He's head of resource management for Barnet Council. If anyone should apologise he should.
Well Dave, I don't know if you read The Barnet Eye, if you do, why don't you pick up the phone and have a word with Mike Freer. Tell him to set a good example and apologise for losing (sorry mislaying) our cash. He's a banker, he's Council Leader, He's head of resource management for Barnet Council. If anyone should apologise he should.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Councillor Richard Weider - Barnet's Most Useless Councillor?
Barnet Council's very own Mr UselessThere is some hot competition for this title, but from what I've seen of our estimeed friend in action, Councillor Richard Weider must surely take the title. How do you measure the uselessness of a Councillor? Well it's hard, but I'd say a good place to start is by seeing if they've actually done what they said they'd do.
Now our current hapless numpty, Richard Weider recently came to my attention at the Hendon Residents forum. His rather clumsy attempts to bully local resident Vicki Morris were comprehensively slapped down by the Chairman, his esteemed colleague Councillor Brian Gordon. I though to myself, maybe I'll take a little look at what Mr Weider has been up to recently - I shouldn't have bothered.
Firstly I looked at the council questions. Well Mr Weider has asked one in the last few months - How many Freedom of Information requests have been asked by MP's. Well done Mr Numpty - now it's recorded for posterity that Hendon MP (Weider's own Labour MP) is the hardest working in this department. He's asked the most. Now when Weider goes canvassing and his constituents ask "Is Andrew Dismore hard working?" He can either say "Yes" or tell a porkie. Well Done Richard, great own goal.
Now the reason I was checking his questions is because Councillor Weider runs a blog. In November he asked for some questions to ask http://richardfweider.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html
Guess what? He got one :-
Blogger Rog T said...
Hi Richard,
Great idea having this forum. Well done.
I have a question for you. Can you get an update on the situation regarding Darlands Lake and the plans going forward.
Now as you can see I asked a non contentious, non party political question, but unfortunately Councillor Weider was too busy scoring own goals to bother. We are none the wiser as to the council's plans for this important nature reserve as old lazybones didn't actually bother. Now I could understand if he'd got a hundred replies, but he only had one !!!!
On his blog for this year, as the credit crunch eats into our livelyhood, Councillor Weider has managed a mere 2 entries. What are they about? What does Councillor Weider think will most get the pulses of his voters racing?
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Israeli Elections
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Live Blog of Israeli Election Results
Not quite what we had in mind when we read the title of his blog :-
I hope this is a way in which people will be able to hear what is going on in Edgware while also being able to communicate with me.
Now I don't know much about the Israeli elections so I thought I'd see what Councillor Weider's analysis would tell me :-
21:50 - Thats it for tonight more comment tomorrow
21:45 - Shas are recommending Likud as the main governing party and Netanyahu and Lieberman are speaking on the phone.
21:40 - Is this the end of Barak and Labour. Yes to the first, increasinly likely to the latter. What are we to make of the continual decline of the founding party of Israel.
21:10 - Sky news are suggesting that Kadima, Likud and Labour could form a grand-coaltion. While, others are trying to suggest and workout how Kadima or Likud form their own coalitions, I think the grand-coalition is quite likely.
Well, that's OK then. The last message left at 21.50 on Tuesday - still no new update - Councillor Useless strikes again !!!! I think next time I'll tune into Sky News.
Holocaust Denial
It seems that the various Christian Denominations have been having a few issues with Holocaust deniers and other assorted Nazi and Fascist scumbags of late. As I'm a (rather bad) Roman Catholic, I thought I might give you my views on the subject.
As I've mentioned before, one of my first jobs in the 1970's was working with a Jewish stonemason, who'd been with the British Army when Belsen was liberated. He was an incredibly intelligent man who had seen things no one should ever had to see. He was also a friend of my father, who had been an officer in the Royal Australian Air Force during the war and flown 40 missions over enemy territory for bomber command.
One day over a mug or two of industrial strength tea, the question of the holocaust was being discussed. My Father had been raised in the Australian outback, amongst Aboriginal people. Over our cups of tea back in 1976, my father was telling us that somewhere near where he was born, was one of the few places where Aboriginals fought back against white settlers, who were pursuing a policy of genocide against them, in the early part of the last century. My father was explaining about aboriginal culture and that in the traditional Aboriginal way of thinking there were only three numbers one, two and lots.
Our Stonemason friend unexpectedly interjected by saying "That is a good way of looking at the holocaust". He mentioned Stalin's quote that "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". At the time of the conversation, the holocaust denial movement was in it's infancy (too many people with fresh memories to argue with then). Looking at many website's today, I am amazed by how much of what our friend said over a cup of tea in 1976 has come to pass.
He stated that he never ever used the term "6 Million" as no one could ever know how many millions had died. He always used the term "the unknown millions". He went on "how can you assign a number to such a tragedy, once you do, people for their own purposes will start twisting and distorting the figure. They will seek to chip away every single number they can, whilst ignoring all of the evidence around them" He said that they would claim that everyone who died after the liberation "was a victim of the allies" - even though their death was made inevitable by the Nazi's. He said that they would claim everyone who had disappeared off the face of the earth, had moved, not been murdered and burnt. He said that every record the criminal Nazi regime had destroyed would be counted as another life saved.
I asked why would anyone do such a thing? His response - "Imagine the crimes of the Nazi's as a jigsaw with six million pieces. If you take one piece away, you can still see what the picture is. If you take ten away, if you take a hundred away, if you take a thousand away, even if you take ten thousand away. There will however come a time when you take so many pieces away that you can't recognise the picture anymore. At that point they will say - actually the picture looked like this. You can't see the picture, you know they saw the picture before the parts were taken away so you trust them".
If a government's actions kill one person that is a tragedy, if they kill two people it's callous, if they kill lots of people they are a tyranny. The Nazi's killed untold millions. I heard many accounts of things in Belsen from our friend. He stated that the camp guards were the most degenerate and cowardly people he'd ever met. He said that if he'd had the chance he'd have machine gunned all of them. He said that the Nazi's were a warning to the world of what happens when a psychopath and a bunch of criminals get into power. He impressed one point on me and said "Never forget this". The point "The road that starts with a lie being allowed to let pass, ends with babies being fed to guard dogs". I've never forgotten that, I hope I never do.
Which brings us to the "Six Million" - is it accurate? - well it's good enough for me as an illustration of a very big number (more than lots). If anyone ever challenges it, they are not doing it for reasons of historical accuracy, because accuracy is impossible. They are doing it because they want to hoodwink us into believing that a bunch of evil, murderous criminals lead by a psychopath were really a bunch of great blokes. If you think that the world will benefit from racist policies or eugenics you cannot consider yourself a Christian. Jesus didn't gas the disabled, he cured them. Jesus didn't hate Jews, because he was a Jew. When he was crucified and was dying he is reported to have said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Doesn't sound too compatible with the Nazi agenda. Oh and as to his treatment of foreigners (a current rallying cry for our local brand of nutcases) - remember the story of "the Good Samaritan". Samaritans were considered to be undesirable foriegners by his audience. The story was illustrating the fact that there is good and bad in all races. He was saying that these people you despise (like the far right portray asylum seekers today) are no better or worse than you. I'm not a very religious person, certainly not a scholar. I was brought up in a house where you listened long enough to understand that the message was bleeding obvious, no more - some things are clearly right and some are clearly wrong - it's really not that hard. Nothing could be more obvious to me than the fact that if you are a Nazi Numpty you shouldn't be standing in a pulpit telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
As I've mentioned before, one of my first jobs in the 1970's was working with a Jewish stonemason, who'd been with the British Army when Belsen was liberated. He was an incredibly intelligent man who had seen things no one should ever had to see. He was also a friend of my father, who had been an officer in the Royal Australian Air Force during the war and flown 40 missions over enemy territory for bomber command.
One day over a mug or two of industrial strength tea, the question of the holocaust was being discussed. My Father had been raised in the Australian outback, amongst Aboriginal people. Over our cups of tea back in 1976, my father was telling us that somewhere near where he was born, was one of the few places where Aboriginals fought back against white settlers, who were pursuing a policy of genocide against them, in the early part of the last century. My father was explaining about aboriginal culture and that in the traditional Aboriginal way of thinking there were only three numbers one, two and lots.
Our Stonemason friend unexpectedly interjected by saying "That is a good way of looking at the holocaust". He mentioned Stalin's quote that "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". At the time of the conversation, the holocaust denial movement was in it's infancy (too many people with fresh memories to argue with then). Looking at many website's today, I am amazed by how much of what our friend said over a cup of tea in 1976 has come to pass.
He stated that he never ever used the term "6 Million" as no one could ever know how many millions had died. He always used the term "the unknown millions". He went on "how can you assign a number to such a tragedy, once you do, people for their own purposes will start twisting and distorting the figure. They will seek to chip away every single number they can, whilst ignoring all of the evidence around them" He said that they would claim that everyone who died after the liberation "was a victim of the allies" - even though their death was made inevitable by the Nazi's. He said that they would claim everyone who had disappeared off the face of the earth, had moved, not been murdered and burnt. He said that every record the criminal Nazi regime had destroyed would be counted as another life saved.
I asked why would anyone do such a thing? His response - "Imagine the crimes of the Nazi's as a jigsaw with six million pieces. If you take one piece away, you can still see what the picture is. If you take ten away, if you take a hundred away, if you take a thousand away, even if you take ten thousand away. There will however come a time when you take so many pieces away that you can't recognise the picture anymore. At that point they will say - actually the picture looked like this. You can't see the picture, you know they saw the picture before the parts were taken away so you trust them".
If a government's actions kill one person that is a tragedy, if they kill two people it's callous, if they kill lots of people they are a tyranny. The Nazi's killed untold millions. I heard many accounts of things in Belsen from our friend. He stated that the camp guards were the most degenerate and cowardly people he'd ever met. He said that if he'd had the chance he'd have machine gunned all of them. He said that the Nazi's were a warning to the world of what happens when a psychopath and a bunch of criminals get into power. He impressed one point on me and said "Never forget this". The point "The road that starts with a lie being allowed to let pass, ends with babies being fed to guard dogs". I've never forgotten that, I hope I never do.
Which brings us to the "Six Million" - is it accurate? - well it's good enough for me as an illustration of a very big number (more than lots). If anyone ever challenges it, they are not doing it for reasons of historical accuracy, because accuracy is impossible. They are doing it because they want to hoodwink us into believing that a bunch of evil, murderous criminals lead by a psychopath were really a bunch of great blokes. If you think that the world will benefit from racist policies or eugenics you cannot consider yourself a Christian. Jesus didn't gas the disabled, he cured them. Jesus didn't hate Jews, because he was a Jew. When he was crucified and was dying he is reported to have said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Doesn't sound too compatible with the Nazi agenda. Oh and as to his treatment of foreigners (a current rallying cry for our local brand of nutcases) - remember the story of "the Good Samaritan". Samaritans were considered to be undesirable foriegners by his audience. The story was illustrating the fact that there is good and bad in all races. He was saying that these people you despise (like the far right portray asylum seekers today) are no better or worse than you. I'm not a very religious person, certainly not a scholar. I was brought up in a house where you listened long enough to understand that the message was bleeding obvious, no more - some things are clearly right and some are clearly wrong - it's really not that hard. Nothing could be more obvious to me than the fact that if you are a Nazi Numpty you shouldn't be standing in a pulpit telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
Hale Tories say London Assembly Member Brian Coleman is a 404
For those of you unfamiliar with Netspeak, a 404 is a mistake, an error, something which doesn't work, something that isn't where it's supposed to be, a path that takes you somewhere other than where you want to go.
Far be it from me to say anything bad about London Assembly Member Brian Coleman (he of the huge taxi bills, huge allowances and huge amounts of free Dinners), but whilst checking out the Hale Conservatives website, I decided to have a look at the link to Councillor Coleman's website. Guess what I got a 404 - it seemed strangley appropriate.
Now having seen Councillor Brian Gordon in action at the Hendon residents forum last week, I decided that he seemed rather sensible for a Tory. Is he sending us a coded message of his opinion of his colleague?
Try it for yourself Click Here - http://www.haleconservatives.co.uk/ - then click News and Links, then Click Cllr Brian Coleman, Greater London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden.
This is where the Link took me :-
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=34181
Have the Tories finally seen the light ???????
Please note: This has been amended. It is Councillor Brian Gordon, not Richard Gordon as originally stated
Far be it from me to say anything bad about London Assembly Member Brian Coleman (he of the huge taxi bills, huge allowances and huge amounts of free Dinners), but whilst checking out the Hale Conservatives website, I decided to have a look at the link to Councillor Coleman's website. Guess what I got a 404 - it seemed strangley appropriate.
Now having seen Councillor Brian Gordon in action at the Hendon residents forum last week, I decided that he seemed rather sensible for a Tory. Is he sending us a coded message of his opinion of his colleague?
Try it for yourself Click Here - http://www.haleconservatives.co.uk/ - then click News and Links, then Click Cllr Brian Coleman, Greater London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden.
This is where the Link took me :-
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=34181
Have the Tories finally seen the light ???????
Please note: This has been amended. It is Councillor Brian Gordon, not Richard Gordon as originally stated
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Don't read this !!!!
Don't click on this link.
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/02/mass-photography-protest---11-am-monday-16th-february-2009-metropolitan-police-h.html
It's very naughty so steer well clear
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/02/mass-photography-protest---11-am-monday-16th-february-2009-metropolitan-police-h.html
It's very naughty so steer well clear
Lets Do Drugs?
I was listening to the radio today and it appears that there is a recommendation that Ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B drug. It appears the government has refused to listen to this advice. What are we to make of this? Well personally I don't really understand the difference between the classifications. Surely something is either illegal or it's not. If you were to ask the majority of parents if their child should go to prison for possessing a small amount of illegal substances, most would say no. If you asked them whether a dealer selling their child an illegal drug should go to prison, you would probably get a different answer. We all know that some drugs are illegal. The question we should be asking is what are we trying to achieve? Why are drugs illegal?
If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.
So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-
a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people
Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.
A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.
As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.
Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.
I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.
If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.
So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-
a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people
Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.
A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.
As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.
Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.
I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.
The Brian Coleman Bus Conundrum
Just a quick post. Can anyone out there please explain why Brian Coleman thinks it's a rubbish idea to extend to extend the 263 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20881
Wheras it's a great idea to extend the 210 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20502
Why is it great for people's access to events at synogogues be made better but a bad idea idea to make it easier for people in Archway and Holloway to visit sick relatives in Barnet hospital?
How come lengthening the 210 won't make the buses late wheras lengthening the 263 will?
Me personally, I'd like to see good access from public transport to synogogues, hospitals and pubs.
Just asking ......
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20881
Wheras it's a great idea to extend the 210 bus :-
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=20502
Why is it great for people's access to events at synogogues be made better but a bad idea idea to make it easier for people in Archway and Holloway to visit sick relatives in Barnet hospital?
How come lengthening the 210 won't make the buses late wheras lengthening the 263 will?
Me personally, I'd like to see good access from public transport to synogogues, hospitals and pubs.
Just asking ......
A decent initiative from Mike Freer and Barnet Council
This is my one hundred and forty second blog on Blogspot. I think it is unique. This blog is proof that if Mike Freer genuinely does something sensible, I will recognise that and support it. I guess it's a shame he's been Council leader since 2006 and it's the first time I've had cause to say this , but well done Mike Freer.
It seems that Barnet Council have a new policy of paying local suppliers within 10 days. As we occasionally do work for Barnet Council, that will make a difference and is a very sensible and helpful initiative. Having argued tirelessly for more support for small businesses, this is what one might consider a green shoot of common sense. If Mike would like to address a few other issues which will make a difference, maybe he could consider these :-
1) Reduce the time taken to process appeals against business rating (my last one took 2.5 years to be heard, whilst Barnet sat on my cash).
2) Address the issues with parking in shopping local shopping centres (he acknowledged this is a problem with his Xmas rebate)
3) Instruct his planning officers to remove pointless restrictions placed on planning consents (Former Councillor Jane Ellison sorted one of these out for me & Mike agreed that the Council were being ridiculous - hasn't stopped other businesses having similar problems though).
4) Have a sensible policy of Town Centre regeneration & sensible policies towards bookies, banks and estate agents taking over shopping centres.
5) Preference for local suppliers in tendering for council contracts. Large multinationals have resources to deal with the bureacracy, local companies don't. This means that there is not a level playing field
6) Support for small businesses to employ disabled/long term unemployed
7) Support for small businesses to train people with educational issues
8) Waive or discount license fees for start up businesses in 1st & 2nd year.
All of these things will have a major impact on the success of small business in Barnet. The Council seem to be singularly unaware of the costs that bureaucracy imposeson small firms.
Click Here - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/press_releases.htm?id=1885 - for details of the new council payment policy.
It seems that Barnet Council have a new policy of paying local suppliers within 10 days. As we occasionally do work for Barnet Council, that will make a difference and is a very sensible and helpful initiative. Having argued tirelessly for more support for small businesses, this is what one might consider a green shoot of common sense. If Mike would like to address a few other issues which will make a difference, maybe he could consider these :-
1) Reduce the time taken to process appeals against business rating (my last one took 2.5 years to be heard, whilst Barnet sat on my cash).
2) Address the issues with parking in shopping local shopping centres (he acknowledged this is a problem with his Xmas rebate)
3) Instruct his planning officers to remove pointless restrictions placed on planning consents (Former Councillor Jane Ellison sorted one of these out for me & Mike agreed that the Council were being ridiculous - hasn't stopped other businesses having similar problems though).
4) Have a sensible policy of Town Centre regeneration & sensible policies towards bookies, banks and estate agents taking over shopping centres.
5) Preference for local suppliers in tendering for council contracts. Large multinationals have resources to deal with the bureacracy, local companies don't. This means that there is not a level playing field
6) Support for small businesses to employ disabled/long term unemployed
7) Support for small businesses to train people with educational issues
8) Waive or discount license fees for start up businesses in 1st & 2nd year.
All of these things will have a major impact on the success of small business in Barnet. The Council seem to be singularly unaware of the costs that bureaucracy imposeson small firms.
Click Here - http://www.barnet.gov.uk/press_releases.htm?id=1885 - for details of the new council payment policy.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Councillor's doing there job properly
On this blog we praise anyone we see doing the right thing and kick anyone in the goolies who we see doing bad things. Isn't that the way it should be? What do I think Councillors should make their no 1 priority? Cutting Taxes, making YouTube video's, attending conferences in the USA, reopening dangerous country lanes to speeding traffic, buying TV's for officers to put on their desks, spending £650,000 on consultants to write blue sky discussion documents about future shape? I suspect you've guessed, I don't think any of those things are a priority. I think that a Councillors No 1 priority should be to protect the most vulnerable members of society. Those that for whatever reason can't look after themselves. Those of you who have followed my blog for a while, will be aware that I've praised Councillor John Hart for intervening with Barnet Council when my now dearly departed mum was having problems with Barnet Council providing her meals on wheels service. When the council outsourced this service many old and vulnerable people suffered immense hardship and hunger as meals didn't arrive. Councillor Hart, being rather more sensible than some of his colleagues, stepped in to help.
It now seems that Barnet Council are yet again putting the boot into the vulnerable and elderly people in Barnet. Councillor Duncan MacDonald (Lib Dem) is leading a campaign against this atrocious policy - http://cllrdmacdonald.blogspot.com/. In short, the Barnet Tory beancounters have realised that it costs more to keep people in sheltered accomodation than a normal property. Their solution, cut the budget for sheltered accomodation by 75%. It seems that a bit of research has shown that Barnet are not unique in trying to cut the budget here - http://www.shelteredhousinguk.com/.
I've known several family and friends who's elderly relatives ended their lives in sheltered accomodation. A warden system allows an elderly person to have both independance and safety. I'd be the first to agree that some budgets in Barnet should be slashed to save money (conferences, tellies, YouTube video's, etc) but I'd fight to my last breath to protect vulnerable and eldelry people to live in dignity.
I trust you feel the same. Well done Councillor MacDonald for raising this matter.
It now seems that Barnet Council are yet again putting the boot into the vulnerable and elderly people in Barnet. Councillor Duncan MacDonald (Lib Dem) is leading a campaign against this atrocious policy - http://cllrdmacdonald.blogspot.com/. In short, the Barnet Tory beancounters have realised that it costs more to keep people in sheltered accomodation than a normal property. Their solution, cut the budget for sheltered accomodation by 75%. It seems that a bit of research has shown that Barnet are not unique in trying to cut the budget here - http://www.shelteredhousinguk.com/.
I've known several family and friends who's elderly relatives ended their lives in sheltered accomodation. A warden system allows an elderly person to have both independance and safety. I'd be the first to agree that some budgets in Barnet should be slashed to save money (conferences, tellies, YouTube video's, etc) but I'd fight to my last breath to protect vulnerable and eldelry people to live in dignity.
I trust you feel the same. Well done Councillor MacDonald for raising this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)