Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Mr Walkley Changes Trains

(just continuing the Isherwood theme for you, baarnett).

So: that filming of me, other bloggers, and sundry other hapless residents of Broken Barnet, you know, the filming that never took place and produced footage that doesn't exist? Well, according to a daring report in the local Times group paper, Barnet Council has now said that this footage, which didn't exist, has now been destroyed, and therefore does not exist again.

Marvellous news. Mrs Angry's psychic powers have not deserted her, then, having predicted a bonfire yesterday, you may recall. Hope the ICO sees things the same way, and that such an action is not in breach of, say, any Data Protection Act.

Because, call me a sentimental old fool, I would quite like to have been informed that such footage existed, and what it consisted of: did it show me, for example, sticking my tongue out at any councillors, or engaging in an interesting conversation with Inspector Simon Roberts, or being told to shut up by an unidentified MetPro employee not wearing any licence, or perhaps even visiting the loo, without getting formal permission from said security company? Did it manage to capture Councillor Evangeli liberating a tupperware box of biscuits from the councillors' buffet? Questions, so many questions, London Borough of Broken Barnet, and so few answers.

And here is a curious thing: the article in the Times this morning had four comments on it, two from me, perfectly reasonable comments: this afternoon, Mrs Angry noticed, these comments had been censored. Why? Today there was an article in the Standard about this story and we understand that some comments there disappeared too. Later on, a new article appeared in the local Times:

Good news, again:Mr Walkley is now deciding to be concerned about the whole MetPro business. Not only has he taken a box of One Barnet matches to the mythical footage, he has now announced an 'audit'. Audit, in this case, meaning not an external and objective assessment of what has happened, but an internal review by council officers. No, not a cover up: of course not.

Why is this taking place only now? The council has been aware for some time that MetPro Rapid Response was in liquidation. An internal inquiry is something that Mrs Angry had already been told by a Labour councillor would supposedly take place, and Mrs Angry has pointed out that this is simply not good enough. As we have all demanded this week, we deserve an open, honest and full public inquiry into the whole sorry matter. Anything else will stand accused of being less than, well less than scrupulous, shall we say?

Earlier today, as I mentioned, a story about MetPro appeared in the London Standard: More and more: I wonder what tomorrow might bring?

Oh and by the way, who ever is trying to mess with Mrs Angry's emails, and other personal enterprises, and those of other interested parties,(look away now, Julia, I am just about to resort to vulgarity) - Mrs Angry cordially invites you to fuck off, and wait for a visit from the rozzers. Good night all.


Rog T said...

Mrs Angry, the visits from the evil doers presents ample excuses for fun. You can enjoy it and make the most of it or you can worry about it.

You can also buy a cheap PAYG fone, if you know what I mean

baarnett said...

In the London Borough of Broken Biscuits, things get murkier and murkier.

I see in the Times that after the internal inquiry, "any lessons learned will be passed on to the rest of the organisation." I get the impression that someone is being lined up for the usual Barnet response - to deflect any blame from the 'leadership', a manager is chopped, with a big pay-off and a gagging clause.

"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions."

Mrs Angry said...

Rog: indeed, this is all providing wonderful blogging material, and there are so many we ought to thank for the entertainment. I certainly intend to!

Baarnett, I see that you have been listening in to the Broken Barnet Cobra emergency response crisis meeting. I hope that you did not make use of covert intelligence gathering methods in order to do this, as this would be an indefensible intrusion into their privacy.