On my previous blog, I mentioned why I opposed the involvement of an evangelical group in training Barnet Council officers. I mentioned a certain Miss O'Donovan who used to teach at St Vincents School. She was without peer in the arts of traumatising infant children. As I mentioned, both Mrs Angry and myself benefitted from her "teaching methods". As I stated, I doubt anyone who was taught by her could take any horror film seriously, as we had a year of her scaring the living daylights out of us.
Anyway, here are ten reasons why you should not employ her tactics when teaching infants.
1 - They might end up like me !
2 - They might end up like Mrs Angry
3 - They will grow up with a complete lack of respect for authority
4 - They will become very good at hiding
5 - They will have nightmares years after
6 - They will not be able to take horror movies seriously
7 - They will break into spontanious applause when the witch dies in the Wizard of Oz
8 - They will not be able to bump into a schoolmate without recounting tales of horror
9 - They will never be able to see teaching as an honourable profession
10 - They will never be able to hear any old lady with a certain Irish accent without feeling terrified
Have a lovely Sunday !
Sunday, 25 August 2013
God works for Barnet Homes !
Having had the rather interesting diversion of a theological debate on this blog, with exquisite timing Mrs Angry has discovered that Barnet Homes have engaged the services of an evangelical christian group to "help them with their work". Her blog is well worth a read - http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/obviously-god-has-plan-how-government.html - because it is truly mindboggling that such a thing is happening. It appears that officers from Barnet Homes are being trained by members of "Christians against Poverty". This group is open in its aims of using its charity work to proseletyse victims of poverty.
Before I give my opinions, let me put my cards on the table here. I work as a volunteer for an organisation "The Passage" http://www.passage.org.uk/ , a homeless daycentre, which is a charity set up by the Catholic Church. When I read about "Christian Poverty Action" and the way they work I was shocked. The Passage is funded by Westmintser Council for some of its outreach work and is well respected in the field. This grant is provided to perform specific work and the way the cash is administered is controlled and has democratic accountability. One of the conditions is that the charity performs its role professionally and with respect to the clients. This means not proseletysing them, amongst other things. I would estimate that maybe 50% if not more of the volunteers I work with are not Roman Catholics and a fair few are of no religion at all. It is made 100% clear to all volunteers that their job is to help people, not to convert them. People are expected to be professional in their dealings with clients. In the two years I've been volunteering, I don't think I've ever once discussed religion with a client, let alone invited them to pray. The centre would not work if that sort of attitude played any part in the equation. It most certainly wouldn't work for any of the volunteers who I work with. People work at the centre because it gives the chance for people in a desperate situation to turn around their lives. I would find it repulsive if the organisation attached strings to the work it does. I hope that gives my comments a degree of context.
So returning to "Christians against Poverty". Mrs Angry highlighted the following extract from the Barnet CAP blog "We had some amazing news this month when one of our old clients decided she wanted to ACCEPT JESUS as her Lord and Saviour." http://barnetsouthcap.wordpress.com/ - On the same page we saw this comment "The picture above shows one of our money courses, teaching Barnet Homes housing officers the money course and making new friends throughout. The first one day money course was enjoyed so much, that the next day more people joined us than were booked on, and we have been invited back to do more. The CAP money course is such a good tool, and fits so perfectly with all the benefit changes coming in. Obviously God has a plan!". Now I have no issue with religious charities conducting their business. If they wish to help people with debt, I would say that is a good thing. If they are open and honest about their methods and motivations that is also fine. Mrs Angey highlights what they see as the purpose of their work "Combining CAP's expertise with the love and message of the church we have a life transforming mix. Every year we help over 20,000 people to get out of debt and see 500 people become Christians through our Debt Help work as well as 10,000 people benefiting from our CAP Money Course."
What is not fine at all is for Barnet Homes to engage in a partnership with such a group, for the purposes of training officers. I have no issue with Barnet Homes referring people to Barnet CAP where that may be appropriate. For instance if a Barnet Homes worker comes across someone who is a committed Christian in debt, seeking assistance, then referral to them would be appropriate. The officer would have to be clear in explaining that the group are evangilical Christians in any referral. They should also explain that the group are likely to want to recruit referrals. This would be exactly the same as an elderly Jewish person being referred to a Jewish charity. There may be circumstances where a non christian may also be referred, but this should be done in such a way as to explain exactly what Barnet CAP are and how they operate. It may well be that the positive outweigh the negatives, but the client must be under no illusion as to what is being offered and why.
Where Barnet Homes have crossed the line is sending officers on training courses with Barnet CAP. This seems to me to be crossing the boundary between religion and state in a most alarming way. Whilst I am sure that charity workers withing Barnet CAP have a wealth of experience to offer in dealing with debt, and it is clearly good to share this, training Barnet Homes officers is a completely different thing. In effect Barnet Homes, a subsidiary of Barnet Council is using public money to fund an evangelical organisation.
Now I have no issue with the BarnetCAP or its volunteers. I don't question that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing. I have a big issue with Barnet Homes entering a partneship with them. Firstly Barnet Homes was specifically set up by Barnet Council, to remove democratic accountability from their governance. They are a quango. They spend our money, but we have no say in how they do it. Secondly there is no transparency in this relationship.
So why do I have a distrust of evangelical organisations especially in the field of training? For those new to the wonderful world of Barnet and Barnet blogs, you may be surprised to know that both myself and Mrs Angry attended the same primary school (she was a few years older than me though, Heh Heh). This was St Vincents. It may surprise you to hear that I once had a convesation with the Ex Headmistress of St Vincents. We both had the joys of "training" by a certain Miss O'Donovan. If ever Mrs Angry gets a bit too big for her boots, I simply say "Miss O'Donovan" to her and she breaks out in a cold sweat. I suspect that anyone who suffered her "traditional" methods of education doesn't really enjoy horror films. We know that there is nothing more frightening than a small Irish woman in charge of a class of 6 year olds. I have no idea what deep psychological harm was caused by this woman. She was without peer in the way she terrified those in her care. Many people have challenged this statement, but when her methods were explained, they concurred. She was a junior teacher when Miss O'Donovan was teaching. She told me that even the staff were terrified of Miss O'Donovan. Whatever Miss O'Donovan did or didn't teach me (I am dyslexic, so not much really) she did convince me that I was a very evil person and I would go to hell. I am still not entirely sure she isn't right! Maybe the need to obsessively write blogs when I hear about Barnet Homes officers being trained by evangelical Christians is part of that damage. As I wrote this blog, I speculated how a training session for Barnet Homes officers may have proceeded if Miss O'Donovan was running it. I suspect that the officers would need counselling afterwards for post traumatic shock. That is why all sorts of alarm bells rang when I saw this. I am sure BarnetCAP are too sensible to let loose a Miss O'Donovan on anyone in a training session, but one cannot help but question whether these structures are appropriate for a taxpayer funded organisation such as Barnet Homes. As regular readers of this blog will note, I write this not as someone with a fundamental hatred of religion.
I mention this because I have a deep distrust of zealots teaching people. I have a simple test I apply when I try and assess whether I agree with the aims and aspirations of a charity. Does the charity see a successful outcome as being good for the client or good for the charity? In the case of the Passage, we see a successful outcome as seeing someone housed. The best outcome is that we never see them again. It strikes me that BarnetCAP see a successful outcome as someone becoming an evangelical christian and member of their church.
Before I give my opinions, let me put my cards on the table here. I work as a volunteer for an organisation "The Passage" http://www.passage.org.uk/ , a homeless daycentre, which is a charity set up by the Catholic Church. When I read about "Christian Poverty Action" and the way they work I was shocked. The Passage is funded by Westmintser Council for some of its outreach work and is well respected in the field. This grant is provided to perform specific work and the way the cash is administered is controlled and has democratic accountability. One of the conditions is that the charity performs its role professionally and with respect to the clients. This means not proseletysing them, amongst other things. I would estimate that maybe 50% if not more of the volunteers I work with are not Roman Catholics and a fair few are of no religion at all. It is made 100% clear to all volunteers that their job is to help people, not to convert them. People are expected to be professional in their dealings with clients. In the two years I've been volunteering, I don't think I've ever once discussed religion with a client, let alone invited them to pray. The centre would not work if that sort of attitude played any part in the equation. It most certainly wouldn't work for any of the volunteers who I work with. People work at the centre because it gives the chance for people in a desperate situation to turn around their lives. I would find it repulsive if the organisation attached strings to the work it does. I hope that gives my comments a degree of context.
So returning to "Christians against Poverty". Mrs Angry highlighted the following extract from the Barnet CAP blog "We had some amazing news this month when one of our old clients decided she wanted to ACCEPT JESUS as her Lord and Saviour." http://barnetsouthcap.wordpress.com/ - On the same page we saw this comment "The picture above shows one of our money courses, teaching Barnet Homes housing officers the money course and making new friends throughout. The first one day money course was enjoyed so much, that the next day more people joined us than were booked on, and we have been invited back to do more. The CAP money course is such a good tool, and fits so perfectly with all the benefit changes coming in. Obviously God has a plan!". Now I have no issue with religious charities conducting their business. If they wish to help people with debt, I would say that is a good thing. If they are open and honest about their methods and motivations that is also fine. Mrs Angey highlights what they see as the purpose of their work "Combining CAP's expertise with the love and message of the church we have a life transforming mix. Every year we help over 20,000 people to get out of debt and see 500 people become Christians through our Debt Help work as well as 10,000 people benefiting from our CAP Money Course."
What is not fine at all is for Barnet Homes to engage in a partnership with such a group, for the purposes of training officers. I have no issue with Barnet Homes referring people to Barnet CAP where that may be appropriate. For instance if a Barnet Homes worker comes across someone who is a committed Christian in debt, seeking assistance, then referral to them would be appropriate. The officer would have to be clear in explaining that the group are evangilical Christians in any referral. They should also explain that the group are likely to want to recruit referrals. This would be exactly the same as an elderly Jewish person being referred to a Jewish charity. There may be circumstances where a non christian may also be referred, but this should be done in such a way as to explain exactly what Barnet CAP are and how they operate. It may well be that the positive outweigh the negatives, but the client must be under no illusion as to what is being offered and why.
Where Barnet Homes have crossed the line is sending officers on training courses with Barnet CAP. This seems to me to be crossing the boundary between religion and state in a most alarming way. Whilst I am sure that charity workers withing Barnet CAP have a wealth of experience to offer in dealing with debt, and it is clearly good to share this, training Barnet Homes officers is a completely different thing. In effect Barnet Homes, a subsidiary of Barnet Council is using public money to fund an evangelical organisation.
Now I have no issue with the BarnetCAP or its volunteers. I don't question that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing. I have a big issue with Barnet Homes entering a partneship with them. Firstly Barnet Homes was specifically set up by Barnet Council, to remove democratic accountability from their governance. They are a quango. They spend our money, but we have no say in how they do it. Secondly there is no transparency in this relationship.
So why do I have a distrust of evangelical organisations especially in the field of training? For those new to the wonderful world of Barnet and Barnet blogs, you may be surprised to know that both myself and Mrs Angry attended the same primary school (she was a few years older than me though, Heh Heh). This was St Vincents. It may surprise you to hear that I once had a convesation with the Ex Headmistress of St Vincents. We both had the joys of "training" by a certain Miss O'Donovan. If ever Mrs Angry gets a bit too big for her boots, I simply say "Miss O'Donovan" to her and she breaks out in a cold sweat. I suspect that anyone who suffered her "traditional" methods of education doesn't really enjoy horror films. We know that there is nothing more frightening than a small Irish woman in charge of a class of 6 year olds. I have no idea what deep psychological harm was caused by this woman. She was without peer in the way she terrified those in her care. Many people have challenged this statement, but when her methods were explained, they concurred. She was a junior teacher when Miss O'Donovan was teaching. She told me that even the staff were terrified of Miss O'Donovan. Whatever Miss O'Donovan did or didn't teach me (I am dyslexic, so not much really) she did convince me that I was a very evil person and I would go to hell. I am still not entirely sure she isn't right! Maybe the need to obsessively write blogs when I hear about Barnet Homes officers being trained by evangelical Christians is part of that damage. As I wrote this blog, I speculated how a training session for Barnet Homes officers may have proceeded if Miss O'Donovan was running it. I suspect that the officers would need counselling afterwards for post traumatic shock. That is why all sorts of alarm bells rang when I saw this. I am sure BarnetCAP are too sensible to let loose a Miss O'Donovan on anyone in a training session, but one cannot help but question whether these structures are appropriate for a taxpayer funded organisation such as Barnet Homes. As regular readers of this blog will note, I write this not as someone with a fundamental hatred of religion.
I mention this because I have a deep distrust of zealots teaching people. I have a simple test I apply when I try and assess whether I agree with the aims and aspirations of a charity. Does the charity see a successful outcome as being good for the client or good for the charity? In the case of the Passage, we see a successful outcome as seeing someone housed. The best outcome is that we never see them again. It strikes me that BarnetCAP see a successful outcome as someone becoming an evangelical christian and member of their church.
Saturday, 24 August 2013
Guest Blog - Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist? - A response by Andrew Evans
By Andrew Evans,
Yesterday, the Barnet Eye posted a blog entitled "Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?". I have asked for a right to reply. I do not comment as some kind of Dawkins apologist.
He has said some extremely unhelpful things at times, and outside of his field
of Biology, cannot (and I think does not) claim any kind of authority.
Richard
Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes
that science has disproved the existence of God
He believe that no evidence has been presented to
support a claim for God, he has gone so far as to say that God almost certainly
does not exist but has never said that God has been disproved. This distinction
is very important as it would be very unscientific to say something like that.
and
that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided.
He almost certainly has said this and I might agree,
but I would also question the wisdom of saying it.
Many
people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really
have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel
and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the
right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God.
I think it does have a bearing on your opinion but more of that later.
Of course I agree that people can make up their own mind but that is different from saying every decision is as valid as the next. A belief based on no evidence is harder to defend particularly if one is claiming it gives you the authority to do something.
I have no objection to athiests setting out
their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them
spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want
to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of
wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and
impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are
welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome
to debate them.
I
would be very interested in a debate. I would also find this annoying. I think
it’s great that you don’t impose your views on other people.
I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil.
I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil.
I am all for good people doing good thing, and
against bad people doing bad things. I happen to think that religion often has
the effect of making good people do bad things in its name
I
believe we are all part of the same family
Evolution proves we are literally all part of one
family tree and it is something that inspires me to treat others with dignity
and to extend this, where possible, to animals to whom we are also all related
and
we should treat each other with respect and dignity.
People
have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to
believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China
the same thing happened.
It’s simply inaccurate to say that those countries
‘adopted’ atheism. Atheism comes with no prescription for running a country and
no rules to set out.
I
personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I
believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the
point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to
discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion.
I agree that humans are tribal by nature and that
religion is far from the only way we show this. I feel religion is a
particularly potent form of tribalism. I refuse to discriminate against someone
on the basis of their religion but religion does not give them the right to
discriminate either. To state that it is ‘against your faith’ is no reason to
not allow a homosexual couple to stay at your B&B for example.
I have skipped the paragraph relating specifically to the
tweet for obvious reasons. But I think it’s clear now that whatever Dawkins was
suggesting, it was not a directive for families to disown each other on the
grounds of faith or lack thereof, it was the opposite.
I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove.
I agree. And a non-falsifiable hypothesis is meaningless one. We can look at the evidence before us and observe that the universe appears to work perfectly well without the need for God but as you go on to say, belief in God is not based on evidence ultimately, it is based on faith
Belief is a matter of faith and for the
individual to decide upon.
This doesn’t mean that every claim is as valid as the next
As such I believe athiesm is simply another
form of religion, albiet one with no deity.
Atheism is the rejection of the claims of Theism. That’s
all it is. And Theism is the claim that God exists, created us, and continues
to take an interest in our lives. You only need to reject this claim to be an
a-theist, there are no other ways of thinking prescribed.
It is a system of belief.
Atheism is not, in itself, a belief system.
Whilst
most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me
that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is
spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right
of anyone to hold whatever view they choose.
I strongly support free speech too
I
do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that
in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book
anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.
As discussed he didn’t preach the division of families, he
observed that religion had caused it. The benefit of someone telling him this,
and then him tweeting it, is a separate issue. And atheism isn’t a religion or
a belief system.
It seems
that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed.
What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as
the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre
that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his
initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and
daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a
row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope.
He has not ever
claimed to be the Pope or Archbishop of atheism. Some people may see him that
way and that is their failing.
Mr Dawkins
response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what
caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit
difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at
all constrained.
He based his
conclusions of the first hand account of one of the people involved. And from
this account it was not a mutual falling out. One person was rejected based on
their lack of faith. There could be more to the story.
In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.
In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.
As I’ve already said. Religion is not the only form of
tribalism but often the most potent.
Aaron Shaw
is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his
response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement
to a family feud over religion.
No, he has highlighted
that the division has no basis in reason.
If it was
between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter, he would surely have
reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took
sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly
fundamentalist world view.
As I’ve already said,
he could have had the exact same objection to a Catholic/Protestant dispute.
He, again, has no faith but I’d imagine he would be more sympathetic to the
person who has rejected a claim for God based on lack of evidence.
My view.
Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter
rather than this silly grandstanding.
Hmmm…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor Note : Andrew read the blog posted yesterday and asked for the opportunity to post a full response. At the Barnet Eye we welcome informed, open and honest debate and guest contributions.
Andrew is a 31 year old musician, producer and video editor born and living
in Barnet with his wife (and cat).More info at www.andrewevansmusic.com
Friday, 23 August 2013
Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?
Richard Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes that science has disproved the existence of God and that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided. Many people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God. I have no objection to athiests setting out their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome to debate them.
I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil. I believe we are all part of the same family and we should treat each other with respect and dignity. People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened. I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. That is why I was shocked and moved to write this blog when I saw the following Tweet posted by Richard Dawkins
In effect Mr Dawkins is saying that he encourages families to ban contact between Grandparents and Grandchildren if the Grandparents are not athiests. I cannot imagine how hard this could possibly be for a Grandparent. It is cruel and unfair. My parents were both staunch Roman Catholics. Both of my elder brothers are athiests. My parents would have preferred my brothers children to be baptised. This did cause a little heartache to my parents, but my brother was not prepared to compromise and that was that. My father loved his children as much as he loved my sisters children who were all brought up in the faith. When my father died unexpectedly in 1987, the whole family was devasted. I cannot imagine the heartache that would
have been caused had my brother adhered to Mr Dawkins directive.
I believe that anything which drives wedges into families is evil and corrosive. We may not agree with the religious views of our siblings/parents/children etc, but we have to respect them and love them anyway. My brothers both disagree with my views on faith, but we would defend each other to the death and we respect each others right to hold those views. One would assume that most athiests subscribe to the view because they have a sound intellectual argument to support their views. They should also have an understanding of why their parents subscribe to a different view. Surely the correct way to deal with this situation is to say "Grandma believes this for these reasons, but we have a different view because...." using this approach will allow the child to think about the issue and decide on which road is right for them. I have always encouraged my children to think for themselves about such issues. I have suggested that whatever decision they make is informed and rational. I have no idea whether they will grow up to follow my faith. To be honest, it is their decision and whatever one they make, it will be the correct one for them and I will respect it.
I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove. Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon. As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity. It is a system of belief. Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose. I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.
********** Updated 12:43 ***********
Many thanks to Aaron Shaw who suggested I look at the full twitter exchange preceding this. When I see a tweet which I use in a blog, I will check it for a chain, but the one above had none. Mr Shaw rightly observed that there were two preceding tweets, which when read as an entirity change the meaning.
It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope. Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.
In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.
Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion. If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter, he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.
My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding.
I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil. I believe we are all part of the same family and we should treat each other with respect and dignity. People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened. I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. That is why I was shocked and moved to write this blog when I saw the following Tweet posted by Richard Dawkins
Would you ban yr children's grandmother for a difference in politics? Or music? Food? Sport? No only 1 thing. Yes, poisonous religion.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013
In effect Mr Dawkins is saying that he encourages families to ban contact between Grandparents and Grandchildren if the Grandparents are not athiests. I cannot imagine how hard this could possibly be for a Grandparent. It is cruel and unfair. My parents were both staunch Roman Catholics. Both of my elder brothers are athiests. My parents would have preferred my brothers children to be baptised. This did cause a little heartache to my parents, but my brother was not prepared to compromise and that was that. My father loved his children as much as he loved my sisters children who were all brought up in the faith. When my father died unexpectedly in 1987, the whole family was devasted. I cannot imagine the heartache that would
have been caused had my brother adhered to Mr Dawkins directive.
I believe that anything which drives wedges into families is evil and corrosive. We may not agree with the religious views of our siblings/parents/children etc, but we have to respect them and love them anyway. My brothers both disagree with my views on faith, but we would defend each other to the death and we respect each others right to hold those views. One would assume that most athiests subscribe to the view because they have a sound intellectual argument to support their views. They should also have an understanding of why their parents subscribe to a different view. Surely the correct way to deal with this situation is to say "Grandma believes this for these reasons, but we have a different view because...." using this approach will allow the child to think about the issue and decide on which road is right for them. I have always encouraged my children to think for themselves about such issues. I have suggested that whatever decision they make is informed and rational. I have no idea whether they will grow up to follow my faith. To be honest, it is their decision and whatever one they make, it will be the correct one for them and I will respect it.
I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove. Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon. As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity. It is a system of belief. Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose. I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.
********** Updated 12:43 ***********
Many thanks to Aaron Shaw who suggested I look at the full twitter exchange preceding this. When I see a tweet which I use in a blog, I will check it for a chain, but the one above had none. Mr Shaw rightly observed that there were two preceding tweets, which when read as an entirity change the meaning.
@RichardDawkins My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren strictly because I voice my non-belief. This is discrimination!
— Kathy Massey (@KathyMassey07) August 20, 2013
"My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren [because of my non-belief]". "@KathyMassey07 Obscene to allow her stupid god to interfere.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013
It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope. Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.
In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.
Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion. If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter, he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.
My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding.
Oyster card refunds for delays - A simple way to claim refunds
I am endebted to Councillor Robert Rams for drawing my attention to http://www.claimmyrefund.co.uk/, a simple and easy to use service which lets Oyster card holders receive refunds for delayed or incomplete tube journeys. According to their website
Anyway, check it out. It could save you a few quid and make those nightmare journeys seem a bit more palatable. Personally I think that people who develop technology like this deserve support and if they make a pretty penny out of it, all the better.
Just a quick word about Councillor Rams. I follow his twitter feed and he tweeted about the service in response to someone who asked how they could get a refund. Councillor Rams is one of the very few Barnet Councillors who use twitter and I do think many of them are missing a trick. In the course of their work, Councillors come across all manner of useful information which can be of use to the people they serve. Using twitter and blogs to get this information across is the way forward. I recently commended Robert Rams for also blogging about his diabetes - http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/dealing-with-diabetes-an-open-letter-to-theresa-may/ - I personally would like to see all our councillors use their knowledge and experience to help the rest of us. The Barnet Eye believes in giving credit where credit is due so today we say well done to Councillor Rams for passing on this useful tip. We suggest that he does what we've done and adds a link from his blog to the site as well, so his army of avid readers can receive the benefit of the information in the way that the readers of the Barnet Eye will.
ClaimMyRefund is an independent service, identifying and submitting refund applications for delayed tube journeys for Oyster card holders.I have to confess that I didn't even know you could claim a refund for a late tube journey. I thought these only applied to season ticket holders. The service only costs £2 a year, which means for most regular tube users, it will more than pay for itself after a month or two.
Within the two week claim limit set by Transport for London, using bespoke technology will check all your journeys and identify those that qualify for a refund, process the information required, finally submiting each one on your behalf.
You will receive an email each time a claim is made.
ClaimMyRefund's goal is to provide a 'while you sleep' delayed journey refund claim service to all Oyster card holders.
Anyway, check it out. It could save you a few quid and make those nightmare journeys seem a bit more palatable. Personally I think that people who develop technology like this deserve support and if they make a pretty penny out of it, all the better.
Just a quick word about Councillor Rams. I follow his twitter feed and he tweeted about the service in response to someone who asked how they could get a refund. Councillor Rams is one of the very few Barnet Councillors who use twitter and I do think many of them are missing a trick. In the course of their work, Councillors come across all manner of useful information which can be of use to the people they serve. Using twitter and blogs to get this information across is the way forward. I recently commended Robert Rams for also blogging about his diabetes - http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/dealing-with-diabetes-an-open-letter-to-theresa-may/ - I personally would like to see all our councillors use their knowledge and experience to help the rest of us. The Barnet Eye believes in giving credit where credit is due so today we say well done to Councillor Rams for passing on this useful tip. We suggest that he does what we've done and adds a link from his blog to the site as well, so his army of avid readers can receive the benefit of the information in the way that the readers of the Barnet Eye will.
Thursday, 22 August 2013
It's my birthday and I'll cry if I want to !
Happy Birthday to me !!!!! Today I am 51 !
So will I be celebrating? Yes, sort of. Lat year I was in no mood at all to celebrate, but this year I am in a far better place and a far better frame of mind. Last year I wrote this blog about turning fifty
http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/rog-ts-cancer-blog-why-im-not.html
I reread this and I was struck by the stark words in one particular paragraph
What I am saying is that for all of us, if we encounter such a person, often it can make us feel physically ill. It can upset us and possibly depress us. We should treat this as we would a day fever after a flu jab. The point is that once we have been immunised, there is little point continually re-immunising ourselves. After the first encounter with the dead virus, our immune system realises that this particular thing is nasty. We have the necessary defences to deal with it. We don't need any more exposure. Learn the lesson and move on. Disengage from the trolls and ignore them. Perhaps the biggest problem I have when I see such individuals is that I react to the way they find unwitting victims on media such as twitter and effectively cyberbully them. In the past I have reacted. After much thought and a very interesting discussion with friends last night, I've realises that this is not the way to deal with such attacks. What we do is simply alert the new victims that they are dealing with a rather nasty troll and advise them to disengage.
I have in the past taken the view that the way to deal with such people is to face them down head on. All that happens is you spend endless hours on Twitter and you make yourself angry and fed up. Forget them, unfollow them and ignore them.
I have in the last few days also witnessed some appalling behaviour in the world of business. Sometimes we find that people can behave in a most upsetting manner and be extremely two faced. In the past, again I would have reacted very badly to such behaviour. I must be growing up a little bit. rather than brooding and being angry, I've simply dusted off my feet and moved on. I asked myself the question why I needed to be involved with someone who I clearly couldn't trust. The answer was that whilst it was painful, I was better off out of it. That realisation made it far easier to put it behind me.
There are still challenges. I await the results of my latest PSA test and have the joy of a prostate biopsy too look forward to in September. This is a very unpleasant procedure. In truth I am dreading it as much as anything I have ever dreaded.
Thus far, I've only talked about the negatives. Lets talk for a little while about the positives. There are many. Yesterday we had the kick off meeting for the new film. Capita! The Movie. We have an extremely talented team. The production will be far better and far more ambitious than the previous efforts. These were done on a tight budget and rushed to meet deadlines. This film has to be technically perfect. Wheras with the two Barnet films, we made them to coincide with specific decisions and to raise awareness in relation to these, the new film is not being done to such pressures. I am genuinely excited. For the previous films, myself as producer and Charles Honderick as director did everything and were rushed and stressed by it. For this film, we can stick to our designated roles and give 100% focus to this. I am genuinely excited.
Then there is my business, Mill Hill Music Complex. The past 18 months has been incredibly tough. We launched a new studio complex and have faced a monumental task in getting it right. Monday saw the launch of our new website, one of the final pieces in the jigsaw - http://www.millhillmusiccomplex.co.uk - at last we are starting to reap the rewards. There is some incredibly exciting news about the studios, however I am embargoed for a few days. Lets just say that some of our customers are going to be making a few waves very soon.
I was born under a lucky star. I am approaching the next year of my life in a positive frame of mind. I feel like I am coming to the end of a difficult cycle of my life that started in 2008 with the death of my mum, my father in law and my mother in law. It has been a traumatic and awful five years, culminating with the death of Paul last year. In many ways, writing this blog has helped me deal with the issues and grief. I also think it has made a difference.
One of my beliefs is that every year our birthday gives us a chance to take stock, look at the last year and say "did we do alright?", analyse our mistakes and learn the lessons. Having done that we can look forward to the forthcoming year and take on the challenges, armed with the weapon of knowledge we have acquired through these struggles.
The last few years have been ones of tears, pain, sadness and hurt. Through this blog, we've seen all manner of terrible things happen in our locality. One could be down and depressed, but we are still standing and we have much more in our locker than when we started.
Many apologies if, as my trollish friend implied, this is all a bit self indulgent. It's only once a year so why not?
Many thanks to all of my blog readers. It took me fifty years to get my first million blog hits. Who knows where we'll be in 2014 ? I just hope that in a years time, we are all here, happier and healthier and looking back on a year we can be proud of.
In the last year we've made a film "Barnet - The Billion Pound Gamble", We've saved Friern Barnet Library, we've seen Brian Coleman beat up a woman, get convicted as a criminal and be kicked out of the Conservative Party, we've seen the death of Lady Thatcher former MP for Finchley, we've seen the arrival of Saracens RFC in Barnet and the departure of Barnet FC to Harrow, we've seen a highly successful Mill Hill Music Festival.We've shared all of this and much more besides. Who knows what we'll be looking back on in a years time. Lets hope it is all good
And on a final note, just as I finished writing this my wife gave me my birthday present. "First Issue" on vinyl by PiL. It doesn't get much better !
So will I be celebrating? Yes, sort of. Lat year I was in no mood at all to celebrate, but this year I am in a far better place and a far better frame of mind. Last year I wrote this blog about turning fifty
http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/rog-ts-cancer-blog-why-im-not.html
I reread this and I was struck by the stark words in one particular paragraph
Which brings me to my feelings about my birthday. I am not celebrating for the simple reason that I don't really like myself very much at the moment.If I live until I'm a hundred, I'm half way through my life. I feel like I should feel happy and settled. I don't I feel angry, frustrated and restless. We live in a very imperfect world. The thing is that for reasons which I can't fathom, there seems to be a massive conspiracy being enacted to make it even worse. The NHS is under constant attack. We are denied education about healthy lifestyles and the effects of food. Food products which are scientifically proven to damage our health are sold without warnings. People are sleepwalking into cancer, heart disease and death. The environment is under constant attack by the forces of greed. In this country, there is constant pressure on the green belt. In the wider world, rainforests and coral reefs are being destroyed. I sometimes look at humanity and wonder if us, as a race are like a cancer, out of control, destroying the host planet. We could do great things, if we put our minds to it, we could solve all of the problems facing humanity. If we diverted one tenth of the money we spend on arms and one tenth of the worlds armed forces into sorting out the problems of poverty in the world, then the problems would disappear. I believe that if we eradicated injustice, organisations such as Al Quaida would simply disappear. If you look at how much money the Russians, Americans and British have spent in Afghanistan on war, arms and destruction, and say "what if we'd pulled the soldiers out, stopped supplying weapons and instead spent some of the money on developing a decent society".In many ways, my feelings have not changed, but my general happiness has. Part of that is the fact that I am no longer grieving so heavily after the death from cancer of Paul Hircombe, bass player of the False Dots for 28 years and one of my closest friends. I still miss Paul and I still have issues playing the songs we wrote together, but I feel that cycle is coming to a close. Perhaps the last year has been one of painful growing up for me. There are many things I am very conflicted about, but I have a clearer idea of what I am and who I am. There is a particularly unpleasant Barnet troll who tweeted that the only thing I am any good at is "writing about myself". Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, it doesn't really matter. Today I am being self indulgent and sharing my innermost thoughts. Whilst such trollish individuals clearly launch such attacks purely to try and undermine their targets and try and destroy their self belief, it can actually be a good thing for us. There is a saying that what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. My thoughts turned to the way immunisation works. We expose ourselves to a dead version of the invasive disease, to build antibodies to it. This enables us to fight off the disease when we meet the real thing. Often when we receive a vaccination, we feel ill for a few days, but in the long term we are stronger and healthier.
What I am saying is that for all of us, if we encounter such a person, often it can make us feel physically ill. It can upset us and possibly depress us. We should treat this as we would a day fever after a flu jab. The point is that once we have been immunised, there is little point continually re-immunising ourselves. After the first encounter with the dead virus, our immune system realises that this particular thing is nasty. We have the necessary defences to deal with it. We don't need any more exposure. Learn the lesson and move on. Disengage from the trolls and ignore them. Perhaps the biggest problem I have when I see such individuals is that I react to the way they find unwitting victims on media such as twitter and effectively cyberbully them. In the past I have reacted. After much thought and a very interesting discussion with friends last night, I've realises that this is not the way to deal with such attacks. What we do is simply alert the new victims that they are dealing with a rather nasty troll and advise them to disengage.
I have in the past taken the view that the way to deal with such people is to face them down head on. All that happens is you spend endless hours on Twitter and you make yourself angry and fed up. Forget them, unfollow them and ignore them.
I have in the last few days also witnessed some appalling behaviour in the world of business. Sometimes we find that people can behave in a most upsetting manner and be extremely two faced. In the past, again I would have reacted very badly to such behaviour. I must be growing up a little bit. rather than brooding and being angry, I've simply dusted off my feet and moved on. I asked myself the question why I needed to be involved with someone who I clearly couldn't trust. The answer was that whilst it was painful, I was better off out of it. That realisation made it far easier to put it behind me.
There are still challenges. I await the results of my latest PSA test and have the joy of a prostate biopsy too look forward to in September. This is a very unpleasant procedure. In truth I am dreading it as much as anything I have ever dreaded.
Thus far, I've only talked about the negatives. Lets talk for a little while about the positives. There are many. Yesterday we had the kick off meeting for the new film. Capita! The Movie. We have an extremely talented team. The production will be far better and far more ambitious than the previous efforts. These were done on a tight budget and rushed to meet deadlines. This film has to be technically perfect. Wheras with the two Barnet films, we made them to coincide with specific decisions and to raise awareness in relation to these, the new film is not being done to such pressures. I am genuinely excited. For the previous films, myself as producer and Charles Honderick as director did everything and were rushed and stressed by it. For this film, we can stick to our designated roles and give 100% focus to this. I am genuinely excited.
Then there is my business, Mill Hill Music Complex. The past 18 months has been incredibly tough. We launched a new studio complex and have faced a monumental task in getting it right. Monday saw the launch of our new website, one of the final pieces in the jigsaw - http://www.millhillmusiccomplex.co.uk - at last we are starting to reap the rewards. There is some incredibly exciting news about the studios, however I am embargoed for a few days. Lets just say that some of our customers are going to be making a few waves very soon.
I was born under a lucky star. I am approaching the next year of my life in a positive frame of mind. I feel like I am coming to the end of a difficult cycle of my life that started in 2008 with the death of my mum, my father in law and my mother in law. It has been a traumatic and awful five years, culminating with the death of Paul last year. In many ways, writing this blog has helped me deal with the issues and grief. I also think it has made a difference.
One of my beliefs is that every year our birthday gives us a chance to take stock, look at the last year and say "did we do alright?", analyse our mistakes and learn the lessons. Having done that we can look forward to the forthcoming year and take on the challenges, armed with the weapon of knowledge we have acquired through these struggles.
The last few years have been ones of tears, pain, sadness and hurt. Through this blog, we've seen all manner of terrible things happen in our locality. One could be down and depressed, but we are still standing and we have much more in our locker than when we started.
Many apologies if, as my trollish friend implied, this is all a bit self indulgent. It's only once a year so why not?
Many thanks to all of my blog readers. It took me fifty years to get my first million blog hits. Who knows where we'll be in 2014 ? I just hope that in a years time, we are all here, happier and healthier and looking back on a year we can be proud of.
In the last year we've made a film "Barnet - The Billion Pound Gamble", We've saved Friern Barnet Library, we've seen Brian Coleman beat up a woman, get convicted as a criminal and be kicked out of the Conservative Party, we've seen the death of Lady Thatcher former MP for Finchley, we've seen the arrival of Saracens RFC in Barnet and the departure of Barnet FC to Harrow, we've seen a highly successful Mill Hill Music Festival.We've shared all of this and much more besides. Who knows what we'll be looking back on in a years time. Lets hope it is all good
And on a final note, just as I finished writing this my wife gave me my birthday present. "First Issue" on vinyl by PiL. It doesn't get much better !
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
Rog T's Cancer Blog - God bless the NHS
For
those of you who are regular readers and have read the previous posts
on Cancer, you can skip this first paragraph.This is the latest
installment in my occasional series about how I'm adjusting to living
with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick
summary. I'm 50 years old and I last year had a prostate biopsy
following two "slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took
ten tissue samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which
gives me a 3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active
monitoring. In early February, I got the results of the latest PSA test
- down to 3.5 and an MRI scan which found absolutely nothing. My latest
PSA test in August was not quite so promising, back up to 3.9, in other
words the downward trend has stopped. I've no symptoms and sadly for a
few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it won't be from Prostate cancer. Got
the picture?
Sometime this week I will get the results of my latest PSA tests. Ever wondered what it is like in the USA to have life threatening illnesses. My sister and her husband are US citizens. they both work in healthcare. He is a doctor, she is a nurse. Like me, he had a brush with Prostate cancer. She has a potential anuerism. She pinged me on facebook today to see how I was. The conversation sums up why I say "God bless the NHS" and will fight until I die to preserve it from all threats.
Bear in mind my sister and her husband are professional working people. This gives you some insight into what it is like living in a country where your healthcare is tied up with your job, even with life threatening illness. My Bro in law recently had aggressive prostate surgery. I thank the Lord that my Bro in Law is OK and even more so that I live in Great Britain.
I believe those of us facing this challenge have a moral obligation to fight for decent healthcare for all. I challenge anyone to convince me that the decisions my sister and husband have made are how we should behave in a decent, wealthy society.
Sister
Sometime this week I will get the results of my latest PSA tests. Ever wondered what it is like in the USA to have life threatening illnesses. My sister and her husband are US citizens. they both work in healthcare. He is a doctor, she is a nurse. Like me, he had a brush with Prostate cancer. She has a potential anuerism. She pinged me on facebook today to see how I was. The conversation sums up why I say "God bless the NHS" and will fight until I die to preserve it from all threats.
Bear in mind my sister and her husband are professional working people. This gives you some insight into what it is like living in a country where your healthcare is tied up with your job, even with life threatening illness. My Bro in law recently had aggressive prostate surgery. I thank the Lord that my Bro in Law is OK and even more so that I live in Great Britain.
I believe those of us facing this challenge have a moral obligation to fight for decent healthcare for all. I challenge anyone to convince me that the decisions my sister and husband have made are how we should behave in a decent, wealthy society.
Sister
If
you have surgery, robotic is way to go , but DONT lift anything after- *** was given steroids for vomiting and he thought he was
Arniswartznegger- picked up a caase of water and a gallon water from
boot of car-BAM back to surgery. OK Now
Me
Sister
Sister
Sister
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
** Updated ** Ex Councillor Dan Hope and the Conservative Party - A clarification and correction
I have been contacted by a senior Barnet Conservative Councillor, who has asked to remain anonymous, asking me to make a clarification regarding a blog I posted earlier this week. In the post entitled "
The email also reminded me that Daniel Hope was deselected as a candidate for the Tories in Brunswick Park ward before the 2006 council election. It was suggested that Mr Hope found it impossible to work as a team (the Barnet Eye is still unclear as to the circumstances surrounding this). Following his deselection Mr Hope has left many unpleasant messages on the various sites concerning Councillor Andreas Tambourides, who he blames for his deselection. As Mr Tambourides is well respected in Barnet Conservative circles and is a senior officer in the party, it has been suggested that he is most unlikely to want to work with Mr Hope.
In light of this email, The Barnet Eye wishes to apologise to the Barnet Conservative Party for implying that the blatherings of the Barnet Bugle are associated with them. We accept that he is a marginal figure in the organisation and his antics, views and comments do not represent them.
Please note it is the official policy of the Barnet Eye to correct inaccuracies if pointed out and apologise where necessary.
******* Updated 21/08/2013 12:18 *******
Dan Hope at the Barnet Bigle has responded on his blog to the above statement. It seems Mr Hope has rather missed the point, but hey ho. Anyway if you are interested in what he has to say, please click here.
http://www.barnetbugle.com/journal/2013/8/20/fisking-the-latest-troll-attack-from-the-accurate-barnet-eye.html
The Barnet Eye rather suspects that the motivation for such a statement is purely to generate a few hits on his little read blog. He clearly realises that The Barnet Eye links to any such article and with our large readership, he gets a big boost.
Anyway, whilst we could go through Mr Hope's rather strange comments line by line, we feel that it is unneccessary. We do however have a few observations.
The first is that we find it odd that Mr Hope needs to complain that we have issued a correction. He spends much time blathering about the inaccuracy that he have taken the trouble to correct (the fact that his blog is not an official Tory publication). Mr Hope claims that he was never deselected as a Tory Council candidate in Brunswick Park. I would be most interested to hear whether Mr Hope believes he took the decision to move from the Safe Brunswick Park seat to the one in which he stood, which was unwinnable?
Mr Hope clearly cannot see the irony of his following statement, in regards to our statement that Mr Hope has problems with teamwork "Well Mr Tichbourne if you are so unsure as to what you are talking about, why publish it then? Mr Hope does recall big problems with Ms Hillan and Mr Tambourides with teamwork. Whilst he was Chief Whip of a group with no majority both of his ward colleagues were plotting to remove the elected Leader of the Conservative Group was successfully campaigning for a Conservative victory. He suggests you take your comments back to your 'anonymous' source for clarification." At Mr Hope's suggestion, I went back to the source with this comment. His response was that it was odd how Lynne Hillan & Andreas Tambourides could work well enough with each other. He also points out that as chief whip, Mr Hope oversaw an extremely unhappy period for the Barnet Conservatives, which ended with a leadership challenge and many rebellious councillors. My source wryly comments that party discipline has been better since 2006, despite huge challenges. Mr Hope also misses the irony in our statement that Mr Tambourides is well respected in Barnet Conservative circles. Whilst to Mr Hope this may seem lavish praise, most readers will realise that this is perhaps not a massive compliment in this publication.
Mr Hope also claims that Mr Tambourides has no infliuence and is not an officer in the Barnet Conservative party in his blog, but yesterday on twitter stated
Finally Mr Hope claims that the Barnet Eye has acted like a troll towards Mr Tambourides. He lists several blogs where Mr Tambourides is mentioned. Rather ironically, Mr Hope fails to mention his own comments on several of these blogs, which are less than complimentary about Mr Tambourides. Mr Hope claims that the Barnet Eye "ruthlessly trolls" against Mr Tambourides. Strangely enough, the evidence Mr Hope gives for ruthless campaign includes no blogs this year, only two last year. Not what I would call the most ruthless campaign. Interestingly Mr Hope has not even managed to put the correct links up on his blogs to the relevant articles.
I will leave the final word about Mr Hope to Councillor Tambourides. Whilst I have only ever spoken to him twice, he has never made a single complaint about anything the Barnet Eye. In fact the last time we spoke, he simply said "I'd advise you to be careful with Daniel Hope, he causes trouble".
******* Updated 21/08/2013 14:22 *******
With delicious irony, Mr Hope has added some rather amusing comments to his blog. This one is especially amusing
What makes this so deliciously ironic is that the Mr Hope has put up another post on his blog today, doubtless to capitalise on all the extra hits he's getting. What does it say
As ever Mr Hope thinks confidential comments are fine when they agree with him, but "anonymous gossip" when they don't. Consistency has never been Mr Hopes strong point. Ho Hum .....
Barnet Tories are on a charm offensive
I implied that the blatherings of Ex Brunswick Park Tory Councillor Daniel Hope and his blog "The Barnet Bugle" are part of the official Barnet Conservative Party PR machine. The Councillor, who knows Mr Hope very well, points out that the Barnet Bugle is not an official Conservative publication. He furthermore points out that many of the blogs contained are rather dismissive of various senior members of the Barnet Conservative family. He suggests that it should be clear to anyone that such a person would not be commissioned by the party to represent their views. He draws my attention specifically to the month of October 2011 (http://www.barnetbugle.com/journal/month/october-2011). The three blogs that month criticised Finchley MP Mike Freer for not being anti European enough, implying Freer was sucking up to the Prime Minister. The next blog, rather strangely given the attack on Freer, attacks Hendon MP Matthew Offord for not supporting the Prime Minister and being ungrateful for David Camerons support at the election. The third blog that month attacked the then GLA representative for Barnet, Brian Coleman. Mr Hope predicted that if Coleman put his foot in it again, he would be deselected as candidate for the 2012 election. This was clearly wishful thinking, as was his predictions that the only thing which would save Coleman was the fact Labour are useless. In fact Labour won by ove 20,000 votes.The email also reminded me that Daniel Hope was deselected as a candidate for the Tories in Brunswick Park ward before the 2006 council election. It was suggested that Mr Hope found it impossible to work as a team (the Barnet Eye is still unclear as to the circumstances surrounding this). Following his deselection Mr Hope has left many unpleasant messages on the various sites concerning Councillor Andreas Tambourides, who he blames for his deselection. As Mr Tambourides is well respected in Barnet Conservative circles and is a senior officer in the party, it has been suggested that he is most unlikely to want to work with Mr Hope.
In light of this email, The Barnet Eye wishes to apologise to the Barnet Conservative Party for implying that the blatherings of the Barnet Bugle are associated with them. We accept that he is a marginal figure in the organisation and his antics, views and comments do not represent them.
Please note it is the official policy of the Barnet Eye to correct inaccuracies if pointed out and apologise where necessary.
******* Updated 21/08/2013 12:18 *******
Dan Hope at the Barnet Bigle has responded on his blog to the above statement. It seems Mr Hope has rather missed the point, but hey ho. Anyway if you are interested in what he has to say, please click here.
http://www.barnetbugle.com/journal/2013/8/20/fisking-the-latest-troll-attack-from-the-accurate-barnet-eye.html
The Barnet Eye rather suspects that the motivation for such a statement is purely to generate a few hits on his little read blog. He clearly realises that The Barnet Eye links to any such article and with our large readership, he gets a big boost.
Anyway, whilst we could go through Mr Hope's rather strange comments line by line, we feel that it is unneccessary. We do however have a few observations.
The first is that we find it odd that Mr Hope needs to complain that we have issued a correction. He spends much time blathering about the inaccuracy that he have taken the trouble to correct (the fact that his blog is not an official Tory publication). Mr Hope claims that he was never deselected as a Tory Council candidate in Brunswick Park. I would be most interested to hear whether Mr Hope believes he took the decision to move from the Safe Brunswick Park seat to the one in which he stood, which was unwinnable?
Mr Hope clearly cannot see the irony of his following statement, in regards to our statement that Mr Hope has problems with teamwork "Well Mr Tichbourne if you are so unsure as to what you are talking about, why publish it then? Mr Hope does recall big problems with Ms Hillan and Mr Tambourides with teamwork. Whilst he was Chief Whip of a group with no majority both of his ward colleagues were plotting to remove the elected Leader of the Conservative Group was successfully campaigning for a Conservative victory. He suggests you take your comments back to your 'anonymous' source for clarification." At Mr Hope's suggestion, I went back to the source with this comment. His response was that it was odd how Lynne Hillan & Andreas Tambourides could work well enough with each other. He also points out that as chief whip, Mr Hope oversaw an extremely unhappy period for the Barnet Conservatives, which ended with a leadership challenge and many rebellious councillors. My source wryly comments that party discipline has been better since 2006, despite huge challenges. Mr Hope also misses the irony in our statement that Mr Tambourides is well respected in Barnet Conservative circles. Whilst to Mr Hope this may seem lavish praise, most readers will realise that this is perhaps not a massive compliment in this publication.
Mr Hope also claims that Mr Tambourides has no infliuence and is not an officer in the Barnet Conservative party in his blog, but yesterday on twitter stated
@RossSHouston @alan_s01 @BarryJohnRawlin @ReemaSPatel @Brunswickplab @BarnetLabour Think it is invitation only via Cllr Tambourides, now!
— The Barnet Bugle Ltd (@barnetbugle) August 20, 2013
Finally Mr Hope claims that the Barnet Eye has acted like a troll towards Mr Tambourides. He lists several blogs where Mr Tambourides is mentioned. Rather ironically, Mr Hope fails to mention his own comments on several of these blogs, which are less than complimentary about Mr Tambourides. Mr Hope claims that the Barnet Eye "ruthlessly trolls" against Mr Tambourides. Strangely enough, the evidence Mr Hope gives for ruthless campaign includes no blogs this year, only two last year. Not what I would call the most ruthless campaign. Interestingly Mr Hope has not even managed to put the correct links up on his blogs to the relevant articles.
I will leave the final word about Mr Hope to Councillor Tambourides. Whilst I have only ever spoken to him twice, he has never made a single complaint about anything the Barnet Eye. In fact the last time we spoke, he simply said "I'd advise you to be careful with Daniel Hope, he causes trouble".
******* Updated 21/08/2013 14:22 *******
With delicious irony, Mr Hope has added some rather amusing comments to his blog. This one is especially amusing
UPDATE 21 August: Mr Tichborne has updated his article. Despite being unable to answer the series of errors and nonsense in his orginal article and arguing he has an 'accuracy' policy he has not corrected a single word. In fact the update that he has continues to peddle anonymous gossip.
What makes this so deliciously ironic is that the Mr Hope has put up another post on his blog today, doubtless to capitalise on all the extra hits he's getting. What does it say
One Barnet Alliance member speaking on a confidential basis to the Bugle said(See http://www.barnetbugle.com/journal/2013/8/21/barnet-alliance-states-we-dont-think-that-any-view-that-was.html for full details)
"How can Barbara be so arrogant? Who is she to say if anyone took offense from comments that another spokesmen said should never have been made? And to say that even though they have never debated, discussed or voted on immigration she was sure 'nobody in BAPS would disagree with (her)' makes her sound ten times more arrogant than even they claim Barnet Council has been in not consulting before making decisions."
As ever Mr Hope thinks confidential comments are fine when they agree with him, but "anonymous gossip" when they don't. Consistency has never been Mr Hopes strong point. Ho Hum .....
Capita Technology to revolutionise democracy in Barnet ?
In Barnet we are lucky to have outsourced the running of our council to the worlds greatest technology company - Capita. Unlike many stick in the mud councils, Capita are committed to revolutionising the way Councils do business. In the bad old days of the 1970's, if the council failed to collect your rubbish, you would have to write a letter and then six weeks later you would get a reply fobbing you off. Under the new system run by Capita, you'll be able to ring a call centre in Blackburn and be fobbed off straight away !
What the Capita outsourcing project does offer scope for is a complete overhaul of the way we conduct our democracy in Barnet. Councillors cost a lot of money. There are 63 of them. Each one of them gets a basic allowance of £10,457, costing £658,791. On top of that various councillors get extra allowances
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/1574/allowances_and_expenses/552/allowances_and_expenses
Special Responsibility Allowances 1 August 2010 to 31 March 2014
This table sets out the current rates of Special Responsibility Allowances.
|
Band
|
Amount
|
Positions
|
|
4
|
34,909
|
Leader
|
|
3
|
27,429
17,455
|
Deputy Leader of the Council
Cabinet Members (excl. Leader and Deputy)
|
|
2
|
£15,333
|
Chairman of Planning & Environment Committee
Chairman of Pension Fund Committee
Chairman of Licensing Committee
Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Committees
Chairman of Business Management Overview & Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Chairman of General Functions Committee
Leader of Major Opposition Group
Chairman of Audit Committee
|
|
1
|
£8,852
£2,368
|
Chairman Area Planning Sub-Committees
Chairman of Constitution Ethics and Probity Committee
Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committees (except Business Management)
Chairmen of Residents Forums
Chairmen of Area Environment Sub-Committees
Shadow Cabinet Members
Member of Pension Fund Committee
Leader of Smaller Opposition Group
|
Now I think Barnet are missing a trick. Given that Capita now runs the Council and the role of Councillors is purely to rubber stamp the decisions taken by officers in partnership with Capita, surely we could replace these councillors with holograms. with Capita technology, we could have a big brother like voting system, where we could select our favourite celebrities to feature as these holograms. After all, with the party whipping arrangements, the councillors clearly serve no useful function whatsoever.
The truth is that there is absolutely no democracy whatsoever in Barnet. Since the Tories won the election, there have been many huge changes in the Borough. In every case there has been either no consultaton at all, or the views of local residents have been completely ignored. Here is a non exhaustive list of all of the changes which have occurred in Barnet, which did not feature in the Tory manifesto and there has been zero democratic input
1. Outsourcing of Parking control to NSL
2. Hiking of Parking charges
3. Barnet FC being forced out of Underhill to Harrow
4. Saracens RFC moving to Copthall Stadium
5. Outsourcing of Council functions, including revenue collection, cemetry management and call centres to Capita.
6. Hiking of allowances for Barnet Councillors.
7. Various free schools opening up in sites across the Borough.
8. Erosion of Green Belt.
9. Closure of Friern Barnet Library
10. Abolition of cash pay and display meters in the High Streets
It may interest you to know that in every case, I discussed these issues with my local Mill Hill Conservative Councillors. It may also surprise you to know that in more or less every case, they privately agreed with what I had to say. In some cases, such as the Saracens & free schools, there are benefits to some as well as a downside. I am not saying that these issues should be prevented, in fact I am pleased that Copthall is being used and my experiences of Saracens are that they are a benefit to the area. The issue is that such a development should be take account of the views of the local population.
Another example of this is the Etz Chaim school development, on the site of the former garden centre at Mill Hill. This development caused a huge local row and polarised residents. I recognise the need for new school places and I have no issue with faith schools, especially as all of my children attended them. I am sure Etz Chaim will do a good job for the children it serves. What has always bothered me is the way that Barnet Council, for purely ideological reasons conducted its business. Many people have taken issue with the founders of the school. Personally I take the view that this is unfair. They have purely tried to deliver a school that they think meets their needs. Where I do take major issue is with the way the council have conducted their business in respect of the school. The decisions were not taken in an open and transparent way. I do not subscribe to some of the wilder views mentioned to me. I simply think that Barnet Council wanted to be seen as a flagship Tory council and wanted to be first to jump on the free school train. As a result, they failed to properly consult and properly take account of residents views.
This will probably not be a popular view within the anti Etz Chaim group (and possibly the pro group as well), but as far as I am concerned, when it was clear that the school was going to be steamrollered through, the Council should have made part of the deal be a transformation of the pavillion & cafe in Mill Hill Park, to cater for the various disabled groups etc which used the Cafe at the Garden Centre. The pavillion is run down and in no way comparable with the attractive cafe at the former Garden Centre. Democracy should be about seeking compromises. The only people who benefited from what actually happened were lawyers.
So my question to Capita is this. You are a technology company. You state that you are transforming local authorities. You claim that you deliver better services for residents and local people. Yet in all of this, there is no mention of democracy. I do believe town hall democracy is out of date. Meetings in the town hall are not broadcast, technology is not used to give people a say and local people are excluded from decision making.
In this day and age, this is pathetic. Now that Capita are running the council they should set up system bring real democratic accountability to the Borough. If they can't do that, they should simply replace the councillors with a bunch of nodding dog holograms and save the taxpayer a million pounds a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)