Broken Barnet

Breaking news: Investigate Barnet Council's use of consultants, Eric Pickles, demands Unison

2012-02-10T10:38:00.012Z

Mrs Angry has just received this press release from Unison.

Cast your mind back to last week's Newsnight/Exaro News investigation into the interesting salary arrangements of Ed Lester, the CEO of the student loans' body ... here in Broken Barnet this sort of use of 'interim consultants' is a long established tradition, and this practice is no doubt common throughout local government and other public sector areas. In fact, so common, one might almost be forgiven for using the 'r' word ... 'riddled' ... ( this is how you use it, Ken, just for future reference ... )

Fellow bloggers Mr Reasonable and Mr Mustard have been banging on for quite some time about the peculiar status awarded to so many of our highly paid long term short term senior officers, here in Barnet. For example:

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/06/yet-another-consultant-running-barnet.html

http://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2011/12/consultant-or-employee-which-costs-more.html

In the case of Mr Lester, the auditors checked the arrangements with HMRC.

Presumably our external auditors Grant Thornton have done the same? Because, as we know, everything in the garden in Broken Barnet, is lovely, isn't it, Mr Hughes?

NEWS FROM UNISON LONDON REGION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2012

UNISON CALLS ON ERIC PICKLES TO INVESTIGATE BARNET COUNCIL

UNISON, the UK’s largest union, is calling on the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, to launch an immediate inquiry into the use of consultants at Barnet Council after public sector tax avoidance hit the headlines in the case of Ed Lester the Head of the Student Loans Company.

The union believes that the proper employment and procurement practices have not been followed exposing the Council to significant reputational and financial risks.

Eric Pickles has already had to step in and reprimand the council, after local residents and Barnet bloggers exposed the METPRO Audit scandal when METPRO a private security firm were awarded a contract at a cost of over a million pounds - without a tendering exercise, written contact or any proper invoicing - to ‘keep an eye’ on local bloggers.

Laura Butterfield, Regional Organiser at UNISON, said:

“We are really concerned that proper procedures have not been followed at Barnet Council. Over the last two years Barnet Council has employed a long list of consultants including the Deputy Chief Executive and Assistant Director of HR. Only an immediate inquiry can clarify the correct processes were followed. Given Danny Alexander’s intervention in the Ed Lester case last week how can we ensure that future cases are avoided unless all public sector employees are employed through the correct processes?”

UNISON’s key concerns

· The Council has failed to comply with its Contract Procurement Regulations (CPR) and Financial Regulations by employing consultants without any procurement/selection process being followed.– which exposes it to significant reputational and financial risks .

· The Council does not have accurate and complete centrally held contracts register and effective monitoring arrangements so are unable to confirm if this is an isolated incident.

· The Council does not have a complete, centrally held register of contractors showing who is employed, on what basis and at what cost.

We recommend that all spend over the stated threshold in the CPR be reviewed and matched to a central contracts register (in development) in a timely basis. This register needs to be drawn up in full and maintained.

Back in February 2011 the local UNISON branch submitted a report to all 63 Barnet Councillors on 10 February where they made the following recommendation

Recommendation
The Council undertakes as a matter of urgency a review of all payments to staff not employed directly by the Council.

Furthermore we recommend that the Council refer to the HMRC Guidelines in particular the advice to be found here that explains that “It's your responsibility to correctly determine the employment status of your workers - that is, whether they're employed by you or self-employed. This depends on the terms and conditions of your working relationship with each worker.

It's important to get your workers' employment status right because it affects the way tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) are calculated for them. And it determines whether or not you have to operate PAYE (Pay As You Earn) on their earnings.”

Further Information:

1. Student Loans chief 'to pay tax at source'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16854187

2. Pickles attacks Barnet Council
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/07/pickles-attacks-barnet-council.html <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/07/pickles-attacks-barnet-council.html>

Well, does it matter, Mrs Angry, you may be asking, if a typical level of tax and NI is not directly recovered from highly paid senior officers, as permanent employees, here in Broken Barnet, or anywhere else, for that matter? Should we be concerned?

Well, no, not really. Unless you are particularly bothered about the future funding of say, that local hospital facing closure, the school your child attends, the disability benefit your neighbour so badly needs. That's the sort of thing that tax is wasted on, isn't it? Let's worry instead about those benefit scroungers the Daily Mail keeps telling us about, who fiddle an extra fiver a week and live in high rise squalor at our subsidised expense, shall we?

Memento Mori: Mrs Angry's elegy in a churchyard

2012-02-09T16:30:00.023Z

Church Farmhouse seen from the grounds' boundary with the park

Mrs Angry took a trip to Church End, Hendon today, to take another look at the grounds of the Church Farmhouse, which our Tory council wants to sell off for development, along with the Grade 2* listed house, our former museum.

Sneaking round the right hand side of the Farmhouse, rather than the more public approach, it becomes immediately apparent that there is a very intimate relationship between the house, St Mary's church, and even the Greyhound pub, sitting at an angled position to both buildings. The reason for this, as Mrs Angry discovered later, on reading a local history of old Hendon, is that the Greyhound was once known as Church House, and was a parochial building. But the proximity of the tower, the oldest part of the Church, to the Farmhouse is quite astonishing, a matter of a few yards, and the sparsely planted hedge between the two plots is a negligable affair, encouraging the thought that there is no natural division between the farm and the church sites. And all the more reason to protect these grounds from development.

The grounds, or gardens, as we should remember to call them, were still covered in snow, and extraordinarily beautiful and still in the chill early afternoon light. The only noise was from the birds flitting about from tree to tree, and the place was a delightful place to be, even on such a cold winter's day.

The Farmhouse is at the top of the hill, sloping quite quickly away, down to the gate which leads through to another vista across Sunny Hill Park, once a field belonging to the farm. Where the gate is there is another boundary, an old boundary of yew trees, which seems to continue sporadically along the edge of the old churchyard next door. There is also what looks like an old coppiced yew in the grounds, near to the church boundary: of course yews are associated with old churchyards, and even with the pre Christian sites that are often lying under later places of worship.

St Mary's Church, seen from the grounds

It is impossible to stand in the grounds of the Farmhouse, in short, and not realise that this is all part of a very old site, dating back certainly a thousand years, and probably much much further. Small scale archaeological digs by local societies suggest that there may have been a Roman settlement here: in one of the more recent local history guides there is even speculation that there may have been a Romano-celtic temple.

If, like Mrs Angry, you rather enjoy the gloomy pleasures of wandering about churchyards, St Mary's is somewhere you should visit. There are some fabulous tombs and graves, some half open, mouldering away. This is the place, it has been said, that Bram Stoker took as his inspirations for the scene in Dracula ,where Van Helsing cuts off poor Lucy's head. And mindful as we are of Charles Dickens, at the moment, it is interesting to remember that he used to like this spot, and wander about here admiring the view 'northwards and westwards': you can see Harrow on the Hill and other high points in what was once the open countryside of Middlesex.

The churchyard that inspired Stoker ... and the same boundary line

Another literary association is with the Farmhouse itself, where Mark Lemon, the first editor of Punch, used to stay with his grandparents. It is tempting to speculate what satirical view Mr Lemon - or indeed his good friend Dickens - might have formed of the latterday aldermen who are trying to sell this corner of old Hendon off for property development.

That the museum was closed is a disgraceful thing, and will cast an eternal shame on the idiotic Tory councillors of our borough, who, as Labour's Jim Tierney remarked at a recent meeting, know the price of nothing, and the value of nothing.

To try and package up the historical grounds and offer them up for property speculators, or maybe at best, to be tarmaced over for a car park: this is just impossible to understand. But then this is Broken Barnet, where the past has no meaning, nor the future, and the only thing that matters is profit at the expense of everyone else.

Wandering about a churchyard gives a sense of the longer perspective of our time here, though: a thousand years, two thousand years - here today, gone tomorrow. What we leave behind is the only thing people will remember. What will our philistine Tory councillors be remembered for? Shutting museums and a destructive legacy of selling our heritage to the highest bidder.

Memento mori

If you object to the shameless sell off of the Farmhouse gardens, please do so before the end of today, Friday 10th February: email:

The Assistant Director of Estates - quoting ref VAL/SE/313.

colin.bradley@barnet.gov.uk or via ...

first.contact@barnet.gov.uk

Save Church Farmhouse Gardens

2012-02-08T23:12:00.019Z

Church Farmhouse Museum

As reported some weeks ago, there is currently a period of 'consultation' whereby any objections to the 'disposal' of the 'garden grounds' of our former Church Farmhouse Museum in Hendon may be submitted to the council. This period will end on the 10th February. If you have not done so yet, please take the time to write and express your objections.

A notice regarding the 'garden land' to the rear of the museum was published in a local paper, referring to a 'proposed unencumbered freehold/long leasehold disposal' of the grounds surrounding the Grade 2* listed Farmhouse, which until the Tories stripped it bare for sale, held our local museum.

In this notice, a reference was made to Section 123(2A) of the local Government Act 1972, and it is stated that 'Before taking any further decision on the proposal the council will consider any written representations received'.

Church End, Hendon: the Farmhouse second building from left: St Mary's Church on the right

Obviously the scheming council, stuck with the offputting limitations of the listed and protected house, wants to be able to maximise profit from the old museum site by flogging the grounds off to any old developer with a bunch of used fivers in his briefcase.
Similar view, including what is now the bloggers' local, the Greyhound

Mrs Angry has objected on the basis of the long established use of the gardens as a public amenity, the need to retain the area as a greenspace, the need to preserve the integrity of the property's boundaries, and the danger of development if the land is separated from the property, especially in an area of historic and archaeological sensitivity. Church Farm, as the name implies, is adjacent to St Mary's Church, believed to be a Saxon foundation, and certainly in existance by the time Domesday was compiled. But there is proof of an earlier Roman settlement here too, and the material found in one or two small scale archaeological surveys that have been made in this area suggest that we should be doing all we can to stop the development of this ancient heart of the parish of Hendon.

Just to make it more difficult for residents to engage in any easy consultation, the council has not provided an email address to send your views, so you will have to write quickly to:

The Assistant Director of Estates, 1st Floor, Building 2, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 - quoting ref VAL/SE/313. *Update for contact via email below

Rural Hendon, and an eighteenth century view of the church

*Email:

Mrs Angry rang Barnet Council this morning to ask for the name and email address for this officer. This took some time, as the operator remarked: 'It's a nightmare now trying to find who does what job as there is such a turnover ...' 'Mmm', said Mrs Angry: 'All those interim posts ...'

In the end it was suggested that all objections, with the ref number and date of consultation period noted should be sent to: first.contact@barnet.gov.uk

Mrs Angry's Book Club: The Psychopath Test, and the One Barnet knife under the cloak

2012-02-07T10:39:00.032Z

Mrs Angry has been reading a very interesting book this week: one which has had her sitting up in bed in excitement, (a rare thing these days) and floundering about looking for a pen to UNDERLINE IN RED certain paragraphs.

What is this book, Mrs Angry, you may be wondering, and where can we find it?

It is written by Jon Ronson, and it is called 'The Psychopath Test.'

You may borrow it from your local library, or you may wish to visit your local high street and buy a copy ... oh: parking. Mmm. Have to be Amazon then.

In a couple of posts last year, Mrs Angry posed the theory that political administrations sometimes appear to act in a form of group psychosis, exhibiting a corporate personality disorder: in this borough, she argued, the dysfunctionality of much of the local authority's One Barnet regime is entirely attributable to an almost psychopathic detachment from the community with which it is supposed to engage. Or maybe the term should be sociopathic: a functional disorder, serial acts of socially damaging policies rather than a trail of bloody corpses.

And here we are: ha - look, in this book, amongst Jon Ronson's musings on the nature of madness and how it is defined and perceived. And he takes a stroll down the interesting path of speculation that society is dominated by insanity, and that in terms of psychopathy, its influence in political and corporate life is pervasive and dangerous.

In other words, the qualities that define psychopathy bring success in the business world and government: ruthlessness, remorselessness, selfishness, a need to dominate and control, a tendency to aspire to unrealistic goals, manipulativeness, and above all, a failure to empathise with the feelings of others.

In Broken Barnet many of these qualities might be said to be the mark of our merciless Tory council, and its policies in action. Like a serial killer evading arrest, their model for government keeps changing its name: Easycouncil, Futureshape, One Barnet - same old habits though. Nothing much matters except the indulgence of its own fantasies, no matter the cost to anyone else. One Barnet has our borough dragged round the back of a dirty alleyway with a knife at its throat, and we can't do anything about it, except kick out and yell. Or so they think.

Are we going to allow ourselves to be willing victims? I don't we think we will.

The massive scale of the £1 billion programme of outsourcing in which the Tory administration is indulging, with the 'ruthless drive for efficiency' it boasts of, will have fatal consequences for all of us in Broken Barnet. If you are are elderly, or very young, disabled or in need of care or support, be afraid: be very afraid. There will be a new name over the council's one stop shop: it might be BT, or Capita, or Serco, or one of the less powerful private companies: whatever name it is will spell disaster for you. Services will no longer be directly controlled by the authority, and the need to extract a healthy profit from the provision of these services will inevitably lead to higher cost for us, the local tax payers.

Of more immediate concern, however, are the implications for council employees and the local economy.

If the outsourcing programme goes ahead, most of these workers face the terrifying reality of loss of job security: they will be at risk of redundancy or transfer to a new employer with only twelve months guaranteed employment and pay, while the overpaid senior oficers who have arranged this magnificent opportunity for their friends in the private sector will continue with their six figure salaries and the prospect of a bright future.

Mrs Angry is always curious to look at her blog visit stats, and see who is reading the rubbish she writes. Over recent weeks she has been increasingly intrigued by one regular visitor from Bangalore, who seemed unhealthily preoccupied with a search for information relating to outsourcing opportunities here in Barnet. Mrs Angry is always vigilant too with new twitter followers, and always checks them out, finding one or two people she would really rather not be associated with (and goodness me, why some new followers seem to want Mrs Angry to be so intimately acquainted with them, she is unsure: barking up the wrong tree, ladies). And look: here is a lawyer specialising in outsourcing to India. He is blocked now, and after tweeting her suspicions, the man from Bangalore has learnt to be more discreet too ...

Bangalore, citizens, is the outsourcing capital of the world, for IT, software, call centres and so on. BT, Capita, Serco, HCL Axon: they all have a presence there. It seems possible, no: likely, that one of the short listed companies vying for business from Barnet is planning to outsource jobs to the Indian subcontinent, where low pay guarantees them a maximum profit, at the expense of your job, and all the knock on effects on our local economy.

Not only does this mean dreadful consequences for jobs and workers in Barnet, it means a serious threat to the standard of services here: do you really think that a call centre dealing with every council service, with staff thousands of miles away, reading from a script, can deal appropriately with sensitive issues of social care, for example?

Tomorrow will see a day of industrial action by members of Unison working in many departments of the council: services taking action will be in the following areas: Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria; Parking Services, Revs & Bens, Social Care Direct.

Council staff have decided to mark their day of action by a positive contribution to the community, and members have volunteered to help a local charity, the Larches, which works with residents with learning disabilities.

Yesterday, as reported in the previous post, saw a protest by local traders in North Finchley who are being held to ransom by the Tory council's refusal to withdraw its catastrophic new parking scheme: just one instance that reminds us that the residents of this borough are not quite ready to lie down and let the council do what they like with us.

At the weekend this blog alluded to the self indulgent Diamond Jubilee nonsense being promoted by Councillor Coleman and his acolytes, at our expense. No offence to Her Maj, who has always done what she sees as her duty with application, dedication, and remarkable energy. But Mrs Angry prefers to mark another anniversary today: that of the bicentenary of Charles Dickens.

Dickens spent quite a bit of his time here in Broken Barnet, as it happens: he lived just a few hundred yards away from where Mrs Angry is writing now, this evening, when he was writing Martin Chuzzlewit,and spent a fair amount of time walking about the lanes of Finchley: he is also said to have based his inspiration for Oliver Twist on the now demolished Barnet Workhouse. Mrs Angry's suggestion for a new model of One Barnet workhouses, last year, left on the idiotic Ideas Barnet website, stuffed full of bogus ideas planted by senior officers, was, to her horror, left intact, and even received endorsement from some deluded contributors. The use of ironic gestures is a dangerous tactic, here in Broken Barnet, in the twenty first century.

Dicken's writing reflects a profound sensitivity to the eternal preoccupations of the human experience, and the life of ordinary people, and in particular that of the underclass that will always be with us, and in need of care from the more fortunate members of society. This is the antithesis of everything One Barnet stands for, the need to support the vulnerable members of our society, and ignore the best interests of the wealthy, and the privileged, and those who can take care of themselves.

Today, on the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of this great man, perhaps we should remember that a lack of empathy with suffering, and the human condition, is a sign of something abnormal, something to be feared and resisted. We should all of us strive to obstruct the One Barnet agenda, and its 'relentless drive for efficiency', and remind ourselves of the things that really matter: community, society: each other.

Death and taxes: Tory parking policy in Broken Barnet

2012-02-06T13:21:00.013Z

A horribly familiar face at the protest

*see below for footage

Mrs Angry has just returned from North Finchley, where this morning local shopkeepers held a protest to express their fury over the devastating effects on their businesses by the Tory council's new parking scheme.

Local West Finchley Labour Councillor Jim Tierney came to support Cafe Buzz owner and traders' representative Helen Michael, who organised the protest.

The death of a town centre: killed by Tory parking policy, the last nail in the coffin of a local economy struggling to survive the recession.

Brian Coleman lives nearby, of course, in his charity owned, fixed rent flat, within a short walking distance of these shops. He isn't known for his love of walking, however, and would probably be best advised not to show his face in North Finchley, or any town centre other than the favoured Chipping Barnet street where he and his Conservative councillor cronies have their Association offices.

In the real, real world of Broken Barnet, since the introduction of the new parking scheme, shops and small businesses have seen their trade slashed almost overnight, as the new cashless system and rates of charge have led to an abandonment of the high street by local customers.

Many shops are reporting a loss of up to 40% in trade and, already, some long established independent shops are closing down: this morning Mrs Angry heard that now one well known high street chain has taken the decision to cut its opening time in response to falling sales. The effects of this idiotic, irresponsible policy will be fatal for our local town centres, and unless it is retracted immediately, will precipitate an irreversible process of terminal decline in the local economy.

Do they care, the Tory councillors? Because we should not lay all the blame on Coleman, tempting though it is. He is a fool, and cares only about getting his own way. What about the rest of them? Where are the voices of the Tory councillors who privately howl in despair over his behaviour and his policies, but seem totally unable to oppose them. What is stopping them?

There has never been more antagonism felt in this borough towards the local council as there is now. Every driver and local trader in the borough has been politicised by the parking changes, and the Tory vote has been fatally injured, only three months before the London elections. Tory councillors in Barnet, no doubt, are hoping that all this unpleasantness will have died down before the next local elections: if so, they are deluding themselves.

More immediately, though, it is very interesting to reflect on the effect on the GLA and Mayoral elections: the already unpopular Coleman is looking set to lose his place, and the toxic effects of what is happening here is badly damaging the weakening position of Boris Johnson too. Dear, dear: how very unfortunate.

Mr Lynton Crosby: I think you need some more campaign advice.

You have my email address, don't you?

Mrs Angry, x

(Interim consultant, Sack Boris 2012)

...and now here is some footage, thanks to the Barnet Eye, especially as Mrs Angry now realises she needs her highlights doing.

Jubilations: the £1,000 four minute anthem paid for by you, courtesy of Brian Coleman

2012-02-04T11:03:00.059Z

Diamonds are a girl's best friend

On December 23rd last year, when they thought no one would be looking, Barnet Council published a very interesting DPR, or delegated powers report.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/12/mrs-angrys-jubilee-celebration.html

These reports are an authorisation of payment or other decision made by a senior officer: in Broken Barnet they are often the sign of some sort of furtive activity, and always worth checking out. Eagle eyed blogger Mr Mustard spotted this DPR, noted the payment of £1,000 to a Mr Tim Benjamin for a composition to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, and mentioned this in a post.

Mr Tim Benjamin was then revealed to be none other than the son of the Reverend Adrian Benjamin, the turbulent Tory Anglican priest and long time friend of Councillor Brian Coleman. The Rev also runs the All Saints Arts Centre, a body which is favoured, if I may put it that way, by the gilded cheeks of Actor and stand up comedian, Councillor and now Cabinet Member David Longstaff. (I might have got that in the wrong order. He is awfully amusing, but not necessarily in the way he intends ...)

Father Benjamin, you may recall, had caused outrage in Broken Barnet not so long ago by his behaviour at Coleman's Friern Summer show, where he had summarily snatched and retained, then 'lost' the protest banner of the Barnet Alliance, a residents' body dedicated to resisting the Tory One Barnet agenda of savage cuts in budget and a programme of massive outsourcing.

Mrs Angry would have been appalled at the council sanctioning the payment of such a large sum of money to anyone for such a wasteful and indulgent purpose, but she was absolutely infuriated that they had decided to hand £1,000 to someone with a close association with Tory cabinet members, with no apparent consideration of alternative commissions, let alone a consideration that the Jubilee was something that should be marked by a commission in the first place.

At a time of such extreme economic hardship, when our Tory councillors justify their budget of cuts to services on the grounds of absolute necessity, and with all the profound effects that it has on the most vulnerable residents in this borough: the old, the young, the poor, the sick, what do we do? We allow Coleman and Longstaff to pay the son of one of their chums £1,000 worth of residents money for a composition, a four minute 'anthem' to mark a royal anniversary. There was no competition for this award, no consideration that perhaps the community as a whole might be involved in creating some sort of work - without the cost.

Mrs Angry therefore submitted some questions, via the Freedom of Information Act, in regard to the circumstances surrounding this payment. The response was delayed, in breach of the law, and she spent a week chasing the reason why: complaints, jokes, threats: nothing worked, until a council officer with a surprising amount of common sense at last managed to have a partial response sent late last night, with some material promised for Monday. Monday, of course, being the day after the civic service at which this anthem will be premiered, and the remaining material relating to what may well be the very interesting email correspondance of a couple of cabinet members ...

1. When was the Steering Group for the Queen's Jubilee Celebrations set up, by whom, and what are the names of all the members of this group?

2. How many times has this group met?

3. I would like a copy of the minutes of the group's meetings and decisions.

4. Please give me copies of all correspondence by Councillors Longstaff, Cohen and Coleman or council officers, relating to the work of the group

5. Please give me copies of any material or correspondence held by the council relating to the award of £1,000 given to Tim Benjamin for a composition to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

Having trawled through the response sent on Friday, Mrs Angry notes that there would appear to be answers to all her questions except for one glaring omission.

There is no correspondence from Councillor Brian Coleman: as yet. This appears to be causing some difficulty, and perhaps the use of a box full of marker pens for the purposes of redaction.

Admittedly there is nothing from Melvin Cohen either, but then he does not appear to feature in the minutes. The steering group, Mrs Angry was told consisted of the following members. How they came to be involved is anyone's guess: mine would be that they are all known to Brian Coleman, which is all that counts, of course.

Martin Russell
Councillor Brian Coleman
Councillor Melvin Cohen
Councillor David Longstaff
Florence Kaufmann
Christine Richardson
Tom Nathan
Steve Knight
Howard Brabrook
Charles Rowell
Bernd Koschland
Michael Knipe
Father John Hawkins
Simon Lee
Councillor Catherine Salinger
Stephen Lane
Mary Rossiter

Who are these people? Sadly, it would appear that no effort has been made to involve a broad selection of representatives from the borough's ethnically and culturally diverse population. The same old faces, sanctioned by Coleman, have been dragged in to do their duty, and do as he says. An odd assortment, you might think. And where are the representatives of the Muslim community, or Hindu residents, or disadvantaged young people, or schools, or the police, or arts and cultural organisations? Why no Labour or Libdem councillors?

Martin Russell is the borough's Deputy Lieutenant and a long time crony and fellow liveryman of Coleman's at the Worshipful Company of Farriers (yes, really). Bernd Koschland is the Chair of the Standards Committee which deals with complaints against councillors, and is therefore well acquainted with Brian. Flo Kaufmann is an eminent member of the Jewish community. Howard Brabrook is a chair of the Bench in Barnet. Tom Nathan runs the Brent Cross shopping centre. Kate Salinger is a heroine, and living saint, and a true Christian, showing the quality of mercy and forgiveness in agreeing to sit in the same room as Coleman after her scandalous treatment when she rebelled against the allowance rise vote. Michael Knipe is a journalist. Simon Lee: possibly a local businessman. Charles Rowell is a scout leader. Steve Knight is Vice Chancellor of Middlesex University (the one wot gave Brian a doctorate even though he said it was a crap university): oh, and Knight is a member of the mysterious One Barnet Partnership Board, which may or may not exist. Stephen Lane: ah ... well here is where Mrs Angry's investigations took an interesting detour.

Stephen Lane is the Secretary of a fascinating organisation called The Royal Society of St George - see here: http://www.royalsocietyofstgeorge.com/

What is this society? The website, which is awash with stirring quotes from Churchill, Chesterton and Shakespeare, tells us:

"Membership is open to all people who share our love of England and Englishness.

You could take an active part in our mission to safeguard England and to reinforce decency and integrity in our daily lives. In this website you will find full details of the aims of The Royal Society of St. George and details of its activities and fundraising efforts throughout the world."

Oh. That's nice. Mrs Angry tries her best to reinforce decency and integrity, but it's an uphill struggle in Broken Barnet, to be frank. And erm ... what exactly does England have to be safeguarded from, she wonders? I know what you are thinking, but put that thought aside:

"The Society is un-sectarian and independent of party politics. Membership is open to:

All those who subscribe to the Objects of the Society; and

Are born in England or wherever born being English men or English women or children or remoter issue of the same; or

Not being of English descent nevertheless support the aims and objectives of the Society."

Mmm. Well: maybe I should join. Putting aside her mother's unfortunate ancestry, Mrs Angry is awfully English on her father's side. Well, up to 1066, then a bit French. Oh, except the Normans were Vikings, weren't they? See, not English at all. In fact, what is this Englishness that we must safeguard, with jubilee celebrations, and anthems, and leatherette bookmarks? Is the Queen English, or German? Buggered if I know, what do you say, Brian, and Stephen?

Oh dear. Mrs Angry spent far too long this morning visiting their website, in fact, rolling about in mirth, admiring the merchandise, such as this fabulous silver gilt collarette jewel:

A snip at only £375 (including presentation case). Bet Brian has one, don't you? He loves a bit of bling, as we know. He has certainly attended a St George society lunch given by Mr Lane in 2008 at City Hall: may be he was a lucky boy and awarded one of these?

By the way, if anyone wants to buy a little something for Mrs Angry, (Valentine's Day coming up, after all) for only £6 you might want to consider this polyester ladies' bow, with armorial bearings.
I may wear it to the next full council meeting: or residents' forum, if Brian promises to come. I'll email him and ask if he is, shall I? Haven't heard back, since he said he was calling the police.

Back to reality. Or rather no: back to the Jubilee Steering Group.

Coleman, of course, is the dominant presence in the meetings, which read like extracts from some sort of pre war comic novel: Mapp and Lucia, maybe ... look at the weird manic reverence for royal celebrations, the breathless excitement at the possibility that the Queen may just, sshh ... pass by the boundaries of Broken Barnet on her way to Edmonton, the unspoken thought, hanging in the air, of the hopeless longing by Brian Coleman for some sort of royal endorsement which might, just might, you know lead one day to ... some sort of real honour ... CBE, MBE, OBE, DBE, GCSE, KFC ... poor old Brian. And if, as is highly unlikely, he ever does get anything out of the old girl, btw, Mrs Angry will chain herself to the gates of Buckingham Palace, in protest.

It really is a funny world, the 'real world' inside the head of Brian Coleman, one where a whole year of planning, and endless meetings, go into his feverish plans for celebrating what: a royal anniversary? Who cares, really? Less planning went into the launch of D Day, Mrs Angry is sure. As the year progresses, the minutes show that more and more people, the ones with any common sense and perspective, jump ship, and send their apologies, and most of the grandiose plans fizzle out, despite, or perhaps because of, the frenzy of monarchist madness that seems to have overtaken our beloved councillor and Assembly Member.

And so, sadly, we will never see the proposed medallions for every school child, costing £56,000, or the issue of commemorative teaspoons, and who knows what happened to Brian's wish for every Barnet child to be forced to have a leatherette Jubilee bookmark. Such a disappointment. The minutes note the lack of enthusiasm from the education sector for such ideas as inclusion in schools' curriculum of the Diamond Jubilee, as part of their PSHE lessons throughout the year. What?

Other daft ideas included the creation of a maze, and a request that developers, via the planning committees, should be urged to mark the Jubilee with commemorative plaques in all new properties. At one meeting, we are told, Brian Coleman:

'requested that a dedicated Diamond Jubilee section is set up as a microsite of the Barnet online council website to 'go live' following the Royal Wedding in April 2011 ...'

Less batty ideas, involving community engagement and voluntary schemes, as proposed by Brent Cross CEO Tom Nathan, seem to have come to nothing, despite a reminder from Cllr Cohen and even the Deputy Lieutenant of Barnet that the steering group should be an enabler for celebrations by community groups. All that remains, it seems, are two self indulgent Coleman promoted activities: today's civic service, and an event in June in Golders Hill park.

And the idea that we should commission a piece of music for this royal non event? Who was responsible for this?

See the minutes for 22nd February, 2011:

"BC suggested that a piece of music - an anthem or chorus - should be commissioned to mark the celebrations in Barnet ...'

Emails sent to Mrs Angry only refer to Councillor Longstaff's involvement in the approach to Mr Benjamin: of course we are promised the emails from Coleman and others on Monday, so we await their content with anticipation.

By the 4th May, the minutes record that

' Tim Benjamin (son of Adrian Benjamin) has been approached to compose an anthem for the Diamond Jubilee in Barnet. He is keen to do so. As he is a professional composer we need to suggest a fee. Could the Big Society Innovation Bank be used?'

(Oh: and how interesting, in the margin where action points are noted, is the following: "MR to confirm offer with St George's" ... MR being Martin Russell, Brian's chum, and fellow liveryman, the Deputy Lieutenant, presumably, and St George's being the society referred to earlier?)

But oh - the Big Society Innovation Bank: that marvellous enterprise thought up by the Tories in which, having slashed funding to bodies supporting the most vulnerable people in our borough, they give a tiny portion of it back, in hand outs to favoured projects, some of them worthy, but some rather questionable, or projects which should already be properly funded. Funnily enough, this fund was not robbed for Coleman's vanity project, and the idea of sponsorship came to nothing, and that, citizens, is how you, the Barnet tax payers, have ended up paying for four minutes of a royal anthem that no one other than Coleman wants, written by the son of one of his close associates.

The authorisation for this commission was signed by an officer in December, yet clearly the commission had already been agreed much earlier in the year, without any confirmation of the source of funding. Discussions took place between Cllr Longstaff and Tim Benjamin in August and September. Longstaff tells him the steering group 'would like to offer a fee for your work' and asks what he would charge. This seems to be pretty much in the tradition of procurement in Broken Barnet, to be fair. How much do you want? Here you go.

On the 16th September, Mr Benjamin suggested that his fee should be in the region of £1,000, 'if this utterly breaks the bank, however, we can negotiate ...' It would appear that negotiations were not considered necessary: again, this is par for the course in Broken Barnet. He has also asked for travel expenses.

By November, it is noted that 'a first draft of the anthem has now been received by the LBB'. We are told that the musicians of QE Boys school ( ah, Brian's old school, now a highly selective grammar school, always at the top of league tables) and Mill Hill School (presumably the boys' public school whose alumni include MetPro's Noyan Nihat and Saracens' Nigel Wray, or possibly this means the Mill Hill County High School, a favoured successful state school all parents try desperately to get their children into). So: no girls' schools, no involvement by any of the schools in the borough's significant but continually ignored areas of multiple deprivation, no effort to be culturally inclusive.

Included in the FOI response are some puzzling emails sent in early December between senior Barnet officers, heavily redacted, of course to protect the guilty parties, worrying over the legal phrasing of the 'contract' for this commission. By November the group's minutes record that a draft of the anthem had already been received by Barnet, so this might seem to be rather bolting the gate in timing.

"Yes, the council would take a view on its delivery and I imagine, it is unlikely to be rejected. The Council would have difficulty if it tried to argue that it rejected the composition but then went on to disseminate and perform it."

Er: yes. Mrs Angry wonders how the composition was judged to be satisfactory value for money, as required by One Barnet guidelines. Or indeed, a better composition for less money. Perhaps the Director of Corporate Governance whistled the tune for the senior management team, and they gave Strictly Come Dancing style scores, as seen in the outsourcing tender process.

Tim wanted some help with the composition: clearly the muse was in need of a kickstart. Was there some sort of local tune or song, which could be incorporated into the anthem? At one of the steering group meetings, the following ideas were floated, then left to sink to the bottom: (and no, I am not making this up ...)

Barnet Fair?(to the tune of Scarborough Fair) Rejected, probably because it is a centuries old event attended by ... shhh ... gypsies. Mrs Angry could run up a few words on the subject for an anthem, Brian, on the theme of Dale Farm, and a metaphor for those who trade in the politics of exclusion, should you care to commission her.

The Battle of Barnet: Brian has probably never heard of it. In many ways, it's still being fought.

Down at the Old Bull and Bush? (come, come, come and make eyes at me, down at the Old etc) too improper, coarse cockney references to women and alcohol. Nice pub, btw, turn left at Golders Green tube. Convenient for the Suburb and opposite Golders Hill park.

Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines ?(Mrs Angry was made to sit through the film at the cinema when she was a child, and cried with boredom). Good tune, but probably Brian is not interested in the early history of aviation & associations with Hendon Aerodrome. With you on that one, actually, Councillor Coleman.

Anyway, we now know that, according to Mr Benjamin's website, the four minute anthem will be entitled 'Common Wealth'.

Well: Councillor Coleman can probably identify with both those themes, and we are sure it will be awfully uplifting.

Let's hope the civic service has gone ahead as planned and has not, as rumoured, had to be cancelled due to the snow ... Mrs Angry notes with amusement, incidentally, the suitability of the venue, St Jude being the patron saint of desperate situations and hopeless causes.

Never mind, we have June's event to look forward to, in Golders Hill Park. It has been brought to Mrs Angry's attention that this park, in fact, on the borders of the burrough, and a mere stone's throw from the Suburb, is nothing to do with Barnet council, but is run by the Corporation of the City of London. Cllr Melvin Cohen is on the Corporation board which manages this park. All these links with the city and are very interesting, aren't they?

Meanwhile, apart from a privileged few, no one in this borough is going to benefit in any way from all the fuss being made: and here is the terrifying reality - all this nonsense is of a higher priority to Coleman, Longstaff and chums than any of the real issues facing this borough. Bread and circuses, distraction from the things that really matter.

While Coleman's Jubilee anthem is playing out its musings on the theme of Common Wealth this afternoon, traders in North Finchley are preparing for another civic event.

Tomorrow morning, local shop keepers will be holding a funeral: a wake for the death of trade in our local town centres as a result of the catastrophic Tory parking scheme, created, implemented and retained in the face of all opposition and by Councillor Brian Coleman. This scheme has, in a matter of weeks, seen business in local high streets freefall by about 40%: this is simply not sustainable, and shops are already failing and shutting down.

Mrs Angry urges all residents who care about the future of their local high streets to come to North Finchley tomorrow, meeting outside Cafe Buzz for ten o'clock, from where the remarkable owner and local business spokewoman, Helen Michael, will lead a procession, attended by traders dressed in full mourning, and an undertaker who may bear a resemblance to a certain councillor.

Helen Michael

Forget the jubilee and the self indulgent fantasies inside the head of Brian Coleman: this is the real world, here in Broken Barnet, and some of us are fighting for its survival.

Friday joke - for all 'interim' consultants in Broken Barnet

2012-02-03T10:55:00.006Z

Good morning 'Blackhole'. Here is something to cheer you and your chums up this morning.

No need to thank me.

Have a nice weekend,

Love and kisses,

Mrs Angry x

An above standard Standards committee, and some bad news for senior officers

2012-02-02T15:12:00.037Z

Nobody really wanted the meeting to be going on this long. Councillors don't expect it: the senior officers don't like it, and the three bloggers were sitting shivering in the public seating, torn between pleasure at the unusual spectacle before us, and guiltily willing them all to shut up or agree to disagree so we could go home.

And yet, we were forced to acknowledge something rare and rather lovely: this was an event quite unique in the long history of Broken Barnet: a committee meeting in which - ssshhh - a policy promoted by senior management was debated, and considered, and challenged - and ultimately rejected.

The committee rebelled, and insisted on its right not to be a rubber stamping machine. Quite extraordinary. The Director of Corporate Governance was wrongfooted, for once, and had to summon all his powers to try to wrest back control where it belonged, not with the members of the Standards Committee, but with the senior management team, who must direct the council where it is going, and not be interfered with by outside forces, or the processes of democracy.

This was, of course, no ordinary committee, planted with a row of obedient Tory councillors.

This was the Standards Committee, a body necessarily filled with independent members: normal, intelligent members of the community with minds of their own, devoid of One Barnet programming, and inclined to question the preset agenda they were being asked to endorse. Oh, and Libdem councillor Jack Cohen, who always follows his own path, and is the only councillor in Broken Barnet who has any grasp on reality, or any visible signs of intellectual ability and a mind set to question the farthest reaches and idiotic processes of our Tory council.

Before the meeting began, Jack came over and took Mrs Angry to task for another grave error in one of her posts. The Einstein story. Oh no, thought Mrs Angry: have I got the whole theory of relativity completely the wrong way round? The universe back to front, and all my fault? The course of time itself turned inside out, undone by a flaw in one single blogpost? But no, this time it was not the rivets on the Titanic, or Le Chien Andalou versus The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, but another crucial detail: Einstein went to the Ruges house, not the Ruges to Einstein's. Dear me.

He also was keen to tell us about the scandalous story just breaking on the evening news, concerning the CEO of the student loan company who works as an 'interim' consultant, and has been allowed such generous tax breaks by the government, while he supervises the future tax burden of my children, thank you very much. Jack realised that this story was broken by the Barnet bloggers' dear friend Mr David Hencke, who was on Newsnight last night, filmed next to a very nice fireplace, and whose story may well have great signficance for us here in Broken Barnet where half a dozen of our overpaid senior officers also work as 'interim consultants' with interesting and rather puzzling contractual arrangements.

Mr Ed Lester's arrangements, subject to the scrutiny of external auditors KPMG, were kicked over by them to HMRC for approval, but this approval will now, oh dear, have to be reviewed. Not because it was any more right or wrong than it had been before, but because someone has found out. What will happen, Mrs Angry wonders, to the arrangements of our own lucky long term 'interim' officers, whose payment arrangements are approved, one must assume, by auditors Grant Thornton?

Mr Lester was being paid £900 a day, with the promise of an extra £150 bonus, if he was a very good boy. Mr Andrew 'Blackhole' Travers, our deputy CEO and Chief Finance Officer, funnily enough, is paid £1,000 a day, no questions asked, and even if he isn't very good. Only joking, Andy: you're worth every fecking penny, as we know.

On with the meeting then.

Rather amusingly, the token Tory councillor present was Ms Wendy Prentice, who frankly looked as if she considered the whole business of no interest, and only spoke twice, once to complain that the meeting was going on too long, and that she had to be somewhere else. Somewhere in Hadley Highstone, probably. Not sure where.

Another Tory councillor, Andreas Tambourides, sent his apologies. He is the councillor who himself recently was found guilty, by the Standards committee, of a breach of the code of conduct as a result of an email he had sent to other councillors regarding their colleague Kate Salinger, the only member with the integrity and courage to refuse to vote for the scandalous allowance rise the Tories tried to award themselves straight after the last election, whilst delivering an austerity budget to the residents of Broken Barnet. Councillor Tambourides is appealing against the findings of his hearing.

There were only two items on the agenda. The second was dismissed in a matter of ten seconds. Almost. See later for an account of what happened.

The first item took more than two hours of debate. Yes: debate - a real discussion.

The Director of Corporate Governance was for once outnumbered, and flanked on all sides by a predominance of committee members who really wanted to hold him and the proposals he was putting to them to account. Let's name the independent members present:

Michael Barber
Tanya Ossack
Ron Rosenhead
Stephen Ross
Deborah Sanders
David Sparrow
Chair Bernd Koschland

Also present were two Labour councillors, Agnes Slocombe and Claire Farrier.

The proposals being put to the committee were in regard to the status and future role of the committee itself, in the form of a report entitled: 'Update of the Localism Act and Post-Standards Regime'.

Mr Lustig, the Director of Corporate Governance, began by reminding us that in July we wave goodbye to the present Standards arrangements that apply in local government and must come to terms with a frankly terrifying new reality: a world where our elected representatives can pretty much do what they want, how they want, in as obnoxious or outrageous a way as they like, without fear of the consequences. Just remember how some of the councillors behave here in Broken Barnet as things are now, with what is supposed to be a pretty far reaching system of disciplinary proceedings to deter them: think of the incidents of odious, bullying and openly contemptuous behaviour shown to other members, let alone ordinary residents, and try to imagine how much worse things will be in the future. Because from this summer onwards, there will be no effective sanctions to impose on any councillor who discredits his office by a serious breach in the code of conduct for members.

There will, in fact, be no standard code of conduct: authorities will be obliged to have one, and one supposedly based on the Nolan Principles, but each council will make up their own version. The essential values of the Nolan Principles, we are reminded, are as follows:

selflessness
integrity
objectivity
accountability
openness
honesty
leadership

All of them qualities, you may feel, that are so very alien to the ethos of the Tory administration here in Broken Barnet.

In truth, Mrs Angry feels faint at the very thought of what the Barnet model will be like, bearing in mind the repeated acts of violent assault theTory cabinet has made on our local constitution, in order to prevent any real challenge or scrutiny from either back bench councillors or residents.

The 'over arching' concerns of the new reality, we were told (oh, how they love the term 'over arching', in Broken Barnet: think it means bending over backwards the wrong way, and hoping it will soon be over) are for everyone just to chill out - inflexibility, informality, are the new key words. Pass the dutchie on the left hand side. Yeah, Brian, whatever: you did what? No worries. All a misunderstanding.

Mr Lustig wanted to tell us that he saw this terrible fate awaiting us all as well, yes, terrible, but we could pretend it was not happening by having a powerless standards advisory panel, and a powerless panel of party leaders to hear any complaints about councillors. Because from July onwards, in lieu of any sanctions that ought to be applied to any member who breaches the local code of conduct, such as it may be, any disciplinary proceedings will be a matter for the political parties to decide. Or not.

In other words, if Councillor A,B, or C - especially Councillor C - emails a resident, let's call her Mrs X, and upsets her by say, off the top of Mrs Angry's empty little blogging head, threatening her with a visit from the police on a spurious pretext, well she might be able to make a complaint, but such a complaint would have to be in breach of the new Barnet Code of Conduct. The new Barnet Code of Conduct is likely to be rather short, and lacking in detail, and saying something like, oh I don't know, councillors may say or do whatever they like and unless one of them is caught robbing a bank or mugging old ladies in Victoria Park (especially when there is a corporate hospitality event being held there) then almost nothing they do will be considered reprehensible enough to warrant any proceedings, let alone require any sanction for such behaviour.

There is one saving grace to the new legislation: it will now be a criminal offence for members to deliberately withold or misrepresent a financial interest.

During the address by Mr Lustig, there was a fair amount of shuffling impatiently on seats by the independent members, and Jack Cohen. When the time came for questions: well, frequently in a 'normal' committee meeting, no questions are asked, and reports are nodded through in mute obedience. Not this meeting, though.

Michael Barber wanted to know if the Chief Executive had checked all these proposals? Where did they come from?

Lustig admitted that they had been 'initiated' by him.

The independent members struggled to make sense of the new proposals.

Complaints will be judged by a panel of three political group leaders. What if a complaint were about a leader, or the group only consisted of one member? Why was there no legal representation going to be allowed? What was the point of the complaints procedure if at the end of the process, there was no sanction?

Mr Lustig said that the authority for any 'disciplinary' proceedings would lie with the political groups, and that they would all have their own rules and system of discipline. Yes, thought Mrs Angry, thinking back to Brian Coleman's description of the ritual stoning of Kate Salinger at the infamous allowance rise meeting. That was the twisted Tory version of 'discipline', and an inversion of justice: revenge for 'disloyalty', the defence of dreadful behaviour by the group as a whole, rather than the punishment of morally unacceptable behaviour. In totalitarian Tory Broken Barnet, the only crime is to disobey, and to fail to follow orders.

The likely result of any successful complaint would, we were informed, range from - get a load of this .... a form of 'admonishment' - the removal from committees or withdrawal of the group whip and/or facilities. Well f*ck me, thought Mrs Angry - too harsh, surely. Imagine the terrifying prospect of being locked out of the councillors' buffet at full council meetings. Admittedly, this would upset most of the Tory councillors who only turn up to stuff their faces and collect their allowances.

Jack Cohen said the legislation is 'bonkers'. No one was prepared to disagree. What will happen, he continued, if, in this new system of flexibility and informality, a complaint of the most serious nature is made, perhaps an accusation sexual harrassment, racism - or even bullying? This all needs to be thought through - and he knew it just would not work in practice. He said the while thing was barmy ... a joke. No one was laughing.

It was pointed out that the new arrangements, quite astonishingly, bore no requirement for any system of appeal.

The body language of the independent members became increasingly restless, and disapproving.

Tanya Ossack asked Lustig bluntly - were they being asked to endorse his suggestions? Because she could not support the absence of legal assistance. She then made a reference to a principle which is hardly compatible with the ethos of Broken Barnet: that of natural justice.

Mr Lustig was prepared to agree that of course, the rights of natural justice are very important. He needed to emphasise that these proposals were just, well, proposals, and not simply laid before them for rubber stamping. No, Mr Lustig, thought Mrs Angry, these are not just proposals, they represent the decisions of the senior management team, who are not used to having their recommendations challenged in such a robust manner, and in such a way which appeared to be moving towards a rare defeat in the face of real opposition.

Ron Rosenhead queried several parts of the report and its 'suggestions'. He said they were in danger of rushing into a decision. Lustig tried to address his points as best he could, but clearly the independent members and Jack Cohen were not satisfied.

By now it was clear that the committee was not going to roll over and do as it was told. Pleas about the shortage of time 'in the calendar' fell on deaf ears. There was a consensus amongst the members that they could not agree to anything at this meeting, that further thought and discussions were necessary. Mrs Angry and fellow bloggers looked on at this unprecedented rebellion in awe, and some unseemly amusement at the discomfiture of the Director of Corporate Governance. But that was the outcome of the two hour discussion, and it was the only possible conclusion.

The second item on the agenda was something very important, and timely: a report on 'Registration and Declaration of Interests by Members.

There is an interesting summary below this title, beautifully phrased:

This report provides the Standards Committee with assurance that Members are making in-year updates to their Register of of Members' interests and declaring interests at meetings.

Mmm. There are members who do both of these things, it is true. The real issue is whether or not there can be any assurance, limited or otherwise, that all members are doing these things.

This is not a matter of personal choice: elected members are obliged by law to comply with certain clear requirements in relation to declarations. Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard have evidence to suggest that compliance with such requirements is not being observed by all members, and after some investigations and a visit to inspect the full register at North London Business Park, we have submitted this evidence to the Director of Corporate Governance, in his capacity as Monitoring Officer.

No mention was made of this, of course. And no acknowledgement of this complaint has been made yet. And the report itself was about to be hurried with graceless haste through the safety of official endorsement, accompanied by an echo of the usual whimpering sound of submission: agreed, agreed, an obedient committee. We won't be spending time on this, we were told.

I wouldn't be so sure, remarked Councillor Cohen.

After some trouble catching the eye of the Chair and Mr Lustig, and a wink in the direction of Mrs Angry, he said he wanted to raise the issue of the publication of the declarations. He pointed out the ridiculous, heavily supervised process and immense inconvenience that was evidently involved for anyone wishing to view the register itself, especially the declarations of the six councillors who refused to allow their declarations to be published online.

The unknowing independent members looked bemused by the direction this item was taking and one asked if anyone ever actually made a visit to see these declarations. Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard waved in their direction and mouthed hello, yes, yesterday, as it happens. The Director of Corporate Governance looked uncharacteristically unnerved by this exchange, and quickly replied to Jack Cohen that the arrangements reflected a decision made by the council. Jack supposed, therefore, that he would have to submit a motion to council on this very issue. And that was that, the report was stamped and sealed, and everything dangerous -almost everything -safely contained.

The temperature in Committee Room last night seemed even colder than it was outside, when we left the Town Hall. As we sat there, fingers almost too frozen to write, it occurred to Mrs Angry that the Siberian temperatures promised more than the late arrival of winter: it was the cold reality of the wicked world to come, here in this borough, where one or two of the collection of petty tyrants and gibbering fools who call themselves our elected representatives will shortly be swishing through the streets of Broken Barnet like the Queen of Narnia, answerable to no one, and caring even less. A truly chilling prospect.

*Update Friday:

On twitter this morning, local MP Mike Freer appears to have agreed to look into the tax arrangements for our 'interim' senior officers, in order to yield more revenue to help the poor. Aaah. That's nice. Let's see if Robin Hood lives up to his promise, shall we?

Here is a recording of the meeting, stolen from the Barnet Bugle. Best bits an hour in.

Barnet Council Standards Committee 1 Feb 2012 from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.

Wham, Bam: thank you Ma'am: Jubilee celebrations in Broken Barnet

2012-02-02T11:47:00.018Z

Marvellous news: a press release has issued forth from the bowels of North London Business Park in regard to the Diamond jubilee celebrations here in Broken Barnet for HM the Queen. The Queen has been queen for sixty wonderful years, apparently, and is getting quite good at it now, so here in Broken Barnet we are marking the occasion with some events involving our Tory councillors and their immediate circle of friends.

Civic service to mark accession in Queen's Jubilee year

This weekend sees the first major event to mark Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee in Barnet, with a civic service set to coincide with the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne in 1952.

The service, taking place at 3pm on Sunday 5 February, will be at Golders Green Parish Church in West Heath Drive.

It will be a multi-faith service, including readings from Bishops of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and prayers from representatives of the borough’s main religions. It will also see the debut of a piece of music written especially for the Diamond Jubilee in Barnet, by composer Tim Benjamin.

Councillors, school headteachers and members of the clergy, as well as the Queen’s representative in the borough, Deputy Lieutenant Martin Russell, will join with members of the Golders Green Parish Church congregation for the rousing service which will end with a rendition of the National Anthem. [Members of the public are also invited to attend the service).

Following the service, the borough’s attention will turn to the Diamond Jubilee Festival scheduled for Monday 4 June in Golders Hill Park.

Meanwhile, residents across the borough are starting to sign up to hold street parties to mark the occasion via the council's Pledgebank website . 18 streets have already signed up to hold a party in their street during the double Bank Holiday weekend. All residents need to do is visit pledgebank.barnet.gov.uk, register their street and if four of their neighbours pledge to join them, the council will provide free public liability insurance and advice on road closures.

Councillor David Longstaff, Cabinet Member for Safety and Resident Engagement, said: “I am looking forward to this weekend’s Civic Service and think it will be a great opportunity to show what high regard our monarch is held in our borough. A lot of planning has gone into this event and I believe we are one of a few places in the country to be officially marking the anniversary of the Queen’s accession.

“2012 is set to be a memorable year for many reasons and it is clear that residents from across the borough are already getting their plans underway to mark Her Majesty’s Jubilee.”

Mrs Angry is of course keen to get a place in the very front row of the church for Sunday's civic service, where a number of seats have been designated for the borough's much loved blogging community. Perhaps she will take the opportunity of asking Mr Tim Benjamin, son of Brian Coleman's friend, the banner snatching Reverend Adrian Benjamin, what he intends to do with the £1,000 of tax payers' money that has been given to him for his Jubilee composition, in circumstances that are as yet unclear, as Mrs Angry's Freedom of Information request about the way in which this commission was made has been obstructed, in breach of the law, and delayed with no good reason. This is what she asked:

1. When was the Steering Group for the Queen's Jubilee Celebrations set up, by whom, and what are the names of all the members of this group?

2. How many times has this group met?

3. I would like a copy of the minutes of the group's meetings and decisions.

4. Please give me copies of all correspondence by Councillors Longstaff, Cohen and Coleman or council officers, relating to the work of the group

5. Please give me copies of any material or correspondence held by the council relating to the award of £1,000 given to Tim Benjamin for a composition to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

When Mrs Angry complained about the lack of response last week, she was assured that it would arrive 'shortly' ie implying the same day. Nothing arrived. On Monday she complained again: she was promised it would be with her by the end of Wednesday. At the end of Wednesday afternoon, she asked again where it was: no response at all. Oh: please don't think that this is in any way unusual, by the way, because for any politically sensitive response, this is how Barnet always responds. Mrs Angry remarked to an officer earlier this week:

"If this delay were unusual, I should not be inclined to be so annoyed. It would appear, unfortunately, that those answering FOI requests in Barnet are under the impression that it is acceptable continually to flout the law.

The Freedom of Information Act defines a very important principle of the right of access to material on request by members of the public. This legislation is essential to the proper scrutiny of local government, and the success of the new policy of localism and open data supported by the Secretaty of State for Communities and Local Government.

Responses to FOI requests are in fact meant to be made well within the twenty day period, not days or weeks beyond that limit. I have never received a response earlier than the statutory limit. There is also a clear correlation between the length of delay and the extent of political sensitivity of the material requested. This is not acceptable in a properly run, open and honest system of government.

In this instance, there is absolutely no reason why this response should not have been addressed within the time limit, and while I appreciate this is not your fault, I do not intend to accept any more feeble excuses from the authority regarding these deliberate delays in reply."

Now one of the things that worries Mrs Angry about this commission to the Rev's son is this: the delegated powers report authorising the payment to him was published at the end of December, and the piece is due to be performed this Sunday. Did he really come up with a bit of a tune over Christmas, rehearse it & have it ready so quickly? How much of the creative process has gone into the conception of the work? For £1,000 I want something pretty substantial, Mr Benjamin, not something cobbled together in a couple of weeks ... Oh ... unless of course it was written quite some time before, in the knowledge that it stood a pretty good chance of winning the contract? Fair enough, so. (Do you think that it might be Bishop 'Don't call me Len' Arnold coming to the service, by the way, Mr Hanley?)

It might have been nice to have had a local competition - any competition, actually, but preferably involving some of our schools, or one of the brilliant musicians and music groups in the borough, but no, Mrs Angry is sure that Councillors Coleman and Longstaff know best and it is much better to spend money we are always being told we do not have to spare on a commission to someone they know and trust.

Mrs Angry notes with amusement that the two events scheduled to celebrate the sixty year reign of our monarch are both in the same area, ie the Hampstead fringes: one 'rousing' (rabble?) service at St Jude's in the Garden Suburb, safe now that the Gaddafi house and the Congolese Ambassadors' homes have been cleared of squatters by the concerted campaigning of local Tory MP Mike Freer - and then a festival in Golders Hill Park. Lovely. Hope Councillor Coleman's park hire scheme is up and running by then, and that he charges us all for the pleasure of entry. Ooh er, Mrs Angry.

But to be serious, sort of, for a moment: why should two such privileged parts of the borough be the focus of all this fuss? Mrs Angry would imagine that actually the Queen would expect a rather more inclusive and diverse celebration, involving the less advantaged areas of the borough, elderly citizens, children and young people who might benefit from a free community event.

The truth is that Coleman and his pals want an excuse to show off to an audience in a setting that matches the grandiose imaginings of his fantasy life, a world festooned with moth eaten civic ritual, where Brian is forever Mayor, and everyone is obliged to bow before his majestic glory.

Send Him victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us ... but only til May.

Ha. Here is a rousing tune for you, Brian. Commission free.

Mrs Angry x

I do declare - no, actually, I don't: I'm a Tory councillor, and this is Broken Barnet

2012-01-31T18:32:00.036Z

Inspecting the register of councillors' interests

After a couple of weeks of asking, several emails, and quite a few phone calls, Mrs Angry was at last allowed today to exercise her right to inspect the register of councillors' interests which is held, under lock and key, at the offices of the London Borough of Broken Barnet.

Mrs Angry was warned before her visit that she would not be allowed to photocopy the details of these interests, even though most are supposedly already available on the council's website. The sight of the actual documents is guarded with jealous and attentive care, and no one must be allowed to vulgarise the contents by putting them into the public domain. Can you imagine the effect on the citizens of Broken Barnet, if they were privy to the intimate secrets of our Tory councillors? Before you knew it, there would be a bloody revolution, with an ugly mob armed with pitchforks marching relentlessly towards Hendon Town Hall, demanding the head of Brian Coleman, on a silver platter, garnished with an array of unpaid parking tickets. Dear me.

But at last, armed with a large notebook, and accompanied by the steely eye of fellow blogger and designated witness Mr Mustard, Mrs Angry was allowed to enter the doors of North London Business Park and granted a rare view of the Register of Interests.

Like a pair of very unwelcome weapons inspectors in the middle east, we were escorted through the corridors towards a secret destination, led in silence by an anonymous council officer, our appointed chaperone, who strangely wore no ID, and declined to say who he was, or what department he worked in. (Comms team, was Mrs Angry's original guess, although this individual matches the description of someone who works on the Chief Executive's staff, she now learns).

Our supervisor was making a few notes during the visit, Mrs Angry observed, so she dutifully made sure, by a system of well aimed kicks in the direction of Mr Mustard's shin, that no mention was made of the real points of interest in the register: sorry, Mr Chaperone, and by the way, she was rather insulted by your lack of interest in the offer to allow you to strip search her on the way out ... (if only you knew what she had concealed in her Broken Barnet blogger's special duty spy knickers - very uncomfortable, mind you ....)

At the end of our inspection, the chaperone went to a phone to report in discreet whispers to an unknown source that we were finished, but, for security reasons, we were not allowed to leave the room until another officer had arrived to take the register back into safe custody: simply ridiculous.

This room was enormous, with seating laid out rather like the Talk London event the other week, a dais with tables set for a panel of speakers, in front of an audience of empty chairs. A senior officer from Corporate Governance was waiting, in charge of the registers laid out on the table like a buffet, before handing over to the official chaperone. Mrs Angry sat down on the panel seating and laughed: are we going to be asked to address a conference on localism, she asked? The officer shook his head gravely. Oh, well, is Mr Walkley making us coffee? Mr Walkley, she was informed, in absolute seriousness, is not available this morning. Mrs Angry rather enjoyed the thought that, were he not otherwise engaged, he may well have breezed in with a cheery greeting and a tray of coffee and biscuits.

We took our place, rather absurdly, on the stage, and the chaperone sat in the audience immediately in front of us, where he remained for the next two hours, arms folded, eyes fixed intently on our every move, just waiting for one of us to slip a piece of paper into our files, or slide something into our pockets. The whole experience was rather like visiting someone on remand in prison, watched over by the screws, on the watch for illicit transfers of contraband.

For the hapless officer, it must have been like being made to sit through a particularly tedious fringe production of some Pinter play: two hours watching a pair of middle aged bloggers turning over the pages of endless lists, scribbling, and laughing at the entries, marvelling at stuff in the withheld interests like the matching set of neck tie, pocket handkerchief, cufflinks and a packet of loose tea given to Councillor Rajput, (oops, that was supposed to be a secret, and do you know he is about the only person Mrs Angry can think of who would be thrilled to receive a matching tie, pocket handkerchief and cufflinks. Not sure about the tea.) or noting the rather poignant offering of a 500 piece jigsaw of the Church Farmhouse Museum to the deputy Mayor, shortly before she and her colleagues decided to shut it and flog it off.

Oh, and looking for a few rather more important things that should have been there, but were not.

And what were all the obsessive security precautions for? What were we doing? Looking at declarations which are supposed to be freely available and in the public domain. Most of it is already in the public domain, on the internet. A handful of Tory councillors refuse to allow their declarations to be published online, ie: Brian Coleman, Sachin Rajput, Daniel Seal, Andreas Tambourides, Barry Evangeli, Joan Scannell.

Mrs Angry wished that the London Borough of Broken Barnet had shown such regard for personal data when they allowed MetPro to film her at the infamous Budget meeting last year, or when they allowed someone to steal the very personal details of her son's educational records from an officer's lap top. But they prefer to report other people for being criminally negligent data processors, even when they are not data processors, don't they, rather than keep their own house in order?

And what is there, anyway, to protect so diligently? Quite a lot, as it happens. The truth, which, in Broken Barnet, as we know, is a dangerous commodity, and must be protected from the cold light of scrutiny. And what is the truth, Mrs Angry, you may be asking?

The really dangerous stuff, oh, you empty headed senior officers of Broken Barnet, lies elsewhere, in the free world, where information is unbound and openly available and may be compared to the works of fiction lying in your register of interests.

Well, here is a funny thing. Since Mrs Angry first asked to come and see the register, a report has been submitted to tomorrow night's Standards Committee which addresses the matter of the register and the councillors' declarations. Item 7, point 4.1 says (my emphasis):

'The levels of in-year updates to the Register of Members' Interests would appear to indicate that members are generally reporting their interests appropriately. If these indications are being interpreted correctly, then this would result in a lower risk of there being breaches of the Code of Conduct for non-declaration of interests and the potential damage to the Council's reputation that could arise as a result.'

Mrs Angry is sufficiently well versed in the language of One Barnet Corporate Governance to know that this is the sound of a senior officer watching his back. Someone somewhere suspects that there are may be significant omissions or, oh dear, even downright lies amongst the register of interests, and he or she would be quite correct.

There are a number of Tory councillors in Barnet who have made apparently inaccurate declarations in regard to their interests.

As it states on the forms they have all signed, to make a false declaration would be a very serious matter: it clearly requires the member to state:

'I recognise that it is a breach of the Council's local Code of Conduct to

1. omit information that ought to be given in this notice

2. provide information that is materially false or misleading

3. fail to give further notices in order to

-bring up to date information given in this notice

-declare an interest that I acquire after the date of this notice and have to declare

I further recognise that any of the above acts or omissions may result in a referral to the Standards Committee for an investigation of my conduct.

Does all this matter, Mrs Angry? Yes, it does matter.

The lazy dolts sitting on the Tory side of the council chamber here in Broken Barnet, the ones who tried to vote themselves a whopping pay rise on top of their already overly generous allowances as soon as they got into power, who sit back and let the cabal of Cabinet members like Brian Coleman walk all over them and what passes for their consciences, and vote through the shameless sell off of our council services to the private sector via the One Barnet scam, and have smothered the lingering last breaths of our town centres through the idiotic new parking scheme, and who will allow our parks and greenspaces to be shut to residents in favour of Brian Coleman's corporate hospitality clients, and who allowed our museums to be shut, and our libraries, and our childrens centres ... yes, all of these guilty councillors are supposed to demonstrate to us, the electors, that they are responsible, and honest, and worthy of our trust and respect.

Would it matter if one of them lied about something on a declaration form?

Of course it would.

Which is why Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard are writing to the monitoring officer to ask him to investigate the apparent 'inaccuracies' in the declarations of several Tory councillors. We hope that this will be done fairly, thoroughly, and openly.

But this is Broken Barnet. We do things differently here, don't we?

*Update Wednesday:

Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard have now reported what appear to be inaccurate or partial declarations of interests, gifts or hospitality by seven Tory councillors to the Director of Corporate Governance, in his capacity of Monitoring Officer of the London Borough of Broken Barnet.

We have asked for these apparent breaches of the code of conduct to be investigated, and have expressed our concern that the voluntary system of declarations would appear to be in need of greater scrutiny.

There are many local authorities who, in contrast to Barnet Council, put a real commitment into putting the principles of transparency and accountability at the very core of local democracy. Take a look, for example, at the website of Oxford City Council here where you will find a page dedicated to making the processes of local government more accessible to residents.

On this site you can easily find find links to all local councillors and a full array of information relating to their involvement with the council: not only contact details but their individual declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality, declarations at meetings, and even a record of their attendance at meetings. How amusing it is that a Labour controlled authority has a better understanding of the government's intentions regarding the localism agenda and its much vauneted extension of transparency, than our renegade Tories here in Broken Barnet.

Other easily accessible information includes links to pages dealing with 'transparency and open data'. Freedom of Information, and archives of the recordings of council meetings. There are pages offering advice on how to complain about a councillor - just imagine that here - and even how to become a councillor.

Funnily enough, at a recent meeting, a senior Tory councillor (no: it wasn't Councillor Coleman) whispered a most improper and unwelcome suggestion into the innocent ear of Mrs Angry. Have you ever, he murmured, leaning close, would you ever, you know ... consider becoming a councillor? Mrs Angry was tempted to slap him for his impertinence, and complained bitterly to another blogger about this appalling insult.

The other blogger suggested that the naughty councillor was only trying to get into Mrs Angry's erm, good books. Mmm. Anyway, Mrs Angry pointed out to the Tory teaser that she would rather gouge out her own eyes with a rusty nail than do any such thing. Do not misunderstand me, she told him: I think that to be a councillor is very important and very hard work - if you do it properly.

In this borough, sadly, very few councillors take their responsibilities seriously, and far too many see their roles as some sort of honorary appointment, with allowances distributed as a form of patronage, not as a reward for dedication to public service on behalf of the community. This is the root cause of the sickness and moral corruption gnawing away at the rotten heart of the Tory party in Broken Barnet: the sooner we cut it out, and rid ourselves of these wastrels, the better for us all.

Will he bite back? Mrs Angry tempts Brian Coleman with a canape

2012-01-30T14:29:00.017Z

The Famous Five in trouble again, daring to write to Tory councillors

Well - Mrs Angry has just returned from the police station.

Yes: tossing and turning all night, overcome by remorse by her dreadful teasing of poor Brian Coleman, she decided there was nothing else to do but take herself to the nearest cop shop and turn herself in, before Brian contacted them and informed them of her dreadful crime.

Can I help you, Madam? asked the officer on the duty desk.

Yes, said Mrs Angry, bowing her head in shame. I have come to report myself for committing a terrible offence.

Dear me. What have you done?

Mrs Angry explained that she had written an email to a local Tory councillor, which he said was malicious because she was being anonymous. But, she sobbed, I was just being me: is that so wrong, officer? I don't even know if I really exist, let alone live anywhere.

And what did you say in this email, Madam?

I referred to the undemocratic assault on our local authority's constitution which has had the effect of repressing the freedom of expression at all local residents' meetings.

Yes, and?

And I invited him to the next meeting.

And?

That's about it. Except ... he said if I did it again, he would ... sniff ... report me to the police.

What for?

Oh. Er ... I'm not sure ...

Madam, said the police officer, who was a graduate entry fast track policeman with a degree in comparative literature and a well developed sense of irony, What sort of dystopian nightmare world would we live in, if a resident and/or local blogger could not write to an elected representative without fear of the threat of being reported to the police? Is this 1984? Is this councillor some sort of Big Brother dictator?

Yes, said Mrs Angry, with a quivering lip: This is Broken Barnet, and we're talking about Brian Coleman.

Right, said the policeman. You might have a point then. If I were you, Mrs Angry, I would go home and hide under the dining room table and never come out again ... but there, there ... don't cry ...

When Mrs Angry got home, she sat under the table with her lap top, and found a message from fellow blogger, Mr Mustard. He told her he had also had a reply like this from Councillor Brian Coleman, after writing a perfectly reasonable letter to him as Mr Mustard.

============ Forwarded message ============
From : Coleman, Cllr Brian Conservative
To :
Date : Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:23:26 +0100
Subject : Anonymous letter
============ Forwarded message ============

I believe you to be the author of an anonymous letter sent to my private address ( I am sure you are aware this is an offence )

Any further such letters will be reported to the Police

Please not that I do not wish to receive any further communication from you and should you persist this will be reported under the Council’s malicious communications policy

Goodness me. Wonder what the offence is? Is being anonymous in this sense and not giving a full address similar to say, a councillor who fills out their declaration form and forgets to give the details of property owned in the borough where legally required to do so, as might appear to be the case of some Tory councillors in Barnet? (Not Brian, of course, as we know he lives in a charity owned flat).

Mrs Angry understands that Mr Mustard's solicitor took the matter up, and Mr Mustard tells her "I did an FOI about the council's malicious communications policy and the answer was that one did not exist" ...

Aha. Now Mrs Angry could understand someone objecting to an email or letter in which some sort of personal threat was made, as clearly this would be unacceptable. To respond in such a manner to this sort of communication is of course completely unneccessary and simply makes him look a fool.

So, Mrs Angry thought perhaps she would try again, just to see, if she played by the rules, what would happen. What a good idea! She decided to write to her (interim) Assembly member, Brian Coleman, and see if he would be more receptive to her invitation.

Dear Brian,

I recently attended the Talk London event with Mayor Boris Johnson, held at the Peel Centre in Hendon, and was rather disappointed that you, as the local AM, were not on the panel to ask questions. I know that there were one or two of us in the audience who would have liked to raise the issues of the catastrophic new parking scheme, and a shocking new proposal to hire out our local parks and greenspaces to private customers. I did keep putting up my hand to ask a question, but sadly you seemed not to be able to see me, even though I was sitting right at the front.

I would like to ask you now if you would care to come to the next Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum to speak to us about these terrible new schemes. We have already asked the local councillor and Cabinet member who is responsible for the two policies to attend, but he has declined to appear, because he is very shy. As I know you are not at all shy, and always keen to speak up on controversial issues, I am sure you will welcome the opportunity to come and mingle with some of your consituents and listen to their concerns. If necessary, I am sure that we could provide a light buffet and some canapes. And don't worry: we don't bite! Well, no, that's not entirely true: I used to, but I am trying to give it up.

Yours in anticipation,

Mrs X

Finchley

And do you know, citizens, within minutes she received a lovely reply. Look:

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Your email has been received and will be dealt with as soon as possible. If you are a constituent of Barnet or Camden, please ensure that you have included your full name and address. I receive a large number of emails, letters and phone calls each day but I will aim to respond to your message quickly. Kind regards Cllr Brian Coleman AM FRSA"

Thank you for taking the time to write to me ... Kind regards! ... Cllr Brian Coleman AM FRSA! You see: he can be thoughtful, and oh: what do you mean, an automatic response? And did I realise there is a GLA election coming up?

Let's see. I don't see why he would not respond to Mrs X, if not Mrs Angry, do you?

BTW: Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard are coming to NLBP tomorrow: do say hello, if you see us. If we manage to get in and out without being detained, we will explain further, in due course.

More parking outrage in Broken Barnet

2012-01-30T12:34:00.011Z

Mrs Angry is thrilled to find this in her in box this lunchtime: look - a wonderful example of the Big Society in action: local parking warden volunteer and Labour GLA candidate Andrew Dismore has found time to issue Councillor Brian Coleman with a special 'parking ticket' ...

Here is the latest press release from our next Assembly member:

Dismore gives Coleman a taste of his own medicine

When out campaigning with Labour Councillors and activists against Barnet Council’s monstrous parking charges on Saturday 28^th January, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet could not resist the temptation to “ticket” Barnet parking supremo Cllr Brian Coleman’s car with Labour’s “parking ticket” campaign leaflet (photo and copy leaflet attached)

Mr Dismore said:

“It was too good an opportunity to miss.

When I saw Brian Coleman’s car parked on his off street parking space outside his church owned flat, it seemed to me grossly unfair that while others in his street needed parking permits for which he has jacked up the charges, he did not, so I “ticketed” him.

It’s a pity we can’t levy a fine on Cllr Coleman just as his parking wardens fine so many residents and business customers as they struggle with his outrageous charges and convoluted payment systems. But our parking ticket leaflets make the point by demonstrating the unfairness and asking people to sign labour’s petition against the charges.

He is now planning even higher charges with a proposed increase of 5% from April this year.

People power forced Westminster Council into a humiliating climb down over their proposed night time and weekend charges in the West End. We need people power to stop Conservative Barnet Council’s unfair charges too, so that’s why we are encouraging people to sign our on line petition, which has thousands of signatures already.”

Oh dear, Andrew, watch out: hope you don't get a call from the boys in blue, investigating a complaint about you impersonating a parking attendant. Brian is in a very tetchy mood, for some reason. Mrs Angry is expecting to be arrested at any minute for her gross impertinence of yesterday. Come on boys: see how hard you are ... but you'll never take me alive ...

Mrs Angry's Sunday afternoon

2012-01-29T15:50:00.027Z

*Update 8.15pm: Brian Coleman threatens to report Mrs Angry to the police!
Yes, really: see below!

Plus:* Monday: an insultingly brief response from Cllr Thompstone regarding the Forum, see half way down.

F*ck this for a game of soldiers: let's upset some Tory councillors instead ...

Mrs Angry hates Sundays afternoons, don't you? Probably a hangover from childhood, in her case, when Sunday meant a grim routine of attending mass, followed by homework, then Sunday lunch, with the terrible ordeal of spinach and brussel sprouts, and Mrs Angry being made to sit at the table until she ate them, which usually involved about two hours sitting sulkily, arms folded, in front of evil, mocking, cold green vegetables, and threatening to throw up. Then more homework, followed by bathtime in an ice cold bathroom with no heating, and a hairwash, and a prolonged episode of crying, or even screaming, as the tangle headed Mrs Angry ran around the house trying to avoid her mother and the hairbrush.

In adult life, or what passes for it, Mrs Angry has eliminated most of these horrors from her Sunday: best of all, no spinach or brussel sprouts. Eurgh. But in adult life you simply swap one set of horrors for another, don't you? And there are always things to do on Sunday that you have put off the rest of the week. Like sending those emails you think about writing, with such relish, at three in the morning, when you can't sleep. Or is that just me?

For example: one to the Chair of our local Residents Forum, the rather grumpy Reuben Thompstone, which has now escaped from the night time wanderings of Mrs Angry's imagination and slipped into the apparently out of office in box of our antipodean councillor:

"Dear Councillor Thompstone,

I would like to ask you the following three questions:

1. As you know, in an attempt to prevent residents from discussing politically sensitive issues of public concern in any council meeting, several amendments to the local consitution were made last year which, amongst other restrictive practices, prevent residents from raising any matter at our Forums which do not meet your definition of 'public works', and we are now forbidden from mentioning, criticising, debating or challenging any aspect of what you consider to be 'council policy'.

At the recent Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum, several of my questions were excluded from the agenda, including the extremely controversial subject of the proposal by Councillor Brian Coleman, to hire our parks and greenspaces to private customers. These questions were banned despite the fact that they did clearly relate to 'public works', and I was informed in writing by Mr John McArdle, the senior officer in charge of the highly contentious parking scheme, that this was because we may now not raise any matter that is 'boroughwide', even if it is in regard to 'public works'.

Despite the exclusion of my questions, other questions on park hire were allowed, as indeed, rather mystifyingly, a question of mine on the subject of ... park hire. In order to prove the point about the ridiculous new rules on exclusion, I had asked a facetious question about 'dogging', and was amused to see that you are prepared to discuss such an indelicate matter, yet consider a serious and very pertinent set of questions on what is a matter of enormous concern in regard to the proposed hire scheme to be unsuitable for inclusion.

I would like an explanation from you, in your position as Chair of the Forum, as to why this was so, and I would also like to know where in the council's constitution it states that questions regarding boroughwide issues may not now be raised at a Residents Forum.

2. Many of the speakers at last week's Forum were continually interrupted by you and asked to stop speaking, on the pretext that there was not enough time to allow them to express their views, yet the meeting finished early, at 7.20 pm, forty minutes before the end of the time allowed. I suggested to you that you might like to resume the discussion on some of the more contentious issues, but you declined to consider this. May I politely suggest that in future you manage the time better so that the issues which are of so much concern to residents are fully debated and that you do not regard the meetings as something to be endured, rather than an opportunity to engage with the people whose views you are supposed to represent? Which brings me to:

3. At the beginning of the Forum, before I was allowed to raise my question, I expressed my strong objection to the exclusion of my perfectly reasonable questions, and I asked you to explain to me how exactly you thought that the blatant censorship and heavy handed management of the Forums was in anyway compatible with the principles of your own government's new policy of localism, its committment to transparency, accountability and scrutiny, and its stated aim to empower communities to engage more closely with the processes of local government.

You refused to answer this point, saying that you would be happy to answer after the meeting, but at the end of the meeting, with forty minutes to spare, you were still curiously reluctant to discuss this. I would like therefore to offer you the opportunity to explain to me in writing your answer to this question. I am sure that my friend Mr Pickles will be very interested to see what you have to say.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

cc Eric Pickles"

*Update, Monday:

Subject: Re: Residents Forums in Broken Barnet
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:28:41 +0000
From: Cllr.R.Thompstone@Barnet.gov.uk
To: madashell999@hotmail.co.uk

Thank you for your comments which I have noted.

Regards,

Reuben Thompstone
Councillor for Golders Green
From my Blackberry

Mrs Angry was not pleased with this response - and she imagines Mr Pickles will not be either, Mr Thompstone - and has replied thus:

hmmm, good, but I don't want you just to note my comments, that is not enough, I am afraid. I am asking you to reply to some perfectly reasonable questions: I don't mean to be difficult, but if you are not prepared to explain the policies you are enforcing, perhaps you should consider standing down as Chair of the Forum.

Theresa Musgrove

oh, and while we are feeling mischievous ... in the words of Margaret Thatcher's favourite prayer - Lord, make me a channel of your peace:

"Dear Councillor Coleman,

I was deeply saddened to hear, at this week's full council meeting, that you are too scared to attend the local Residents Forums, due to the 'appalling behaviour' that ensues at such events.

I must agree with you.

To be lectured by our elected representatives in the form of a long list of new regulations at the beginning of such meetings that we, the residents, may not raise any issue at these Forums that is not a matter of 'public works', or that dares to challenge any aspect of 'council policy' is indeed an outrageous affront to civil liberty, and an utterly objectionable assault on the principle of the freedom of expression. Such behaviour is indeed simply appalling, and quite intolerable, and will I suspect be answered in no uncertain terms by voters at the next election.

Oh dear. Not long til May, is it?

In the meanwhile, may I reassure you that if you should feel moved to accept your invitation to the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Association to discuss your immensely popular and successful parking and park hire schemes, you will receive nothing less than a warm welcome - and perhaps some lighthearted heckling, taken, I am sure, in the spirit in which it is intended.

Love and kisses, as always,

Mrs Angry

cc Eric Pickles"

No responses yet, for some reason.

*Update:

Absolutely unbelievable ... oh dear me, Mrs Angry can hardly type for laughing: look at this response just arrived from Councillor Coleman:

I do not accept anonymous e mails which I consider malicious communication and future e mails will be blocked and may be reported to the Police

Right. Excuse me while I reply ... back soon ...

Dear Brian,

You know perfectly well who I am, this is not an anonymous email, and I am perfectly entitled to write to you. If you want to report me to the police for the dreadful crime of sending an email, and yes, I can see that this could be considered an offence of the most awful depravity, I suggest you contact the Acting Borough Commander, who is a regular reader of my blog, and a very nice man, and I am sure that he will be very amused.

Yours as ever,

Mrs Angry xxx

The Friday joke: Gutter politics in Broken Barnet

2012-01-26T18:01:00.032Z

Matthew Offord (third from left) sticks his parliamentary oar in again

Have you seen this week's edition of the Barnet Press?

It carries an editorial comment which may puzzle some readers - take a look:

MP should leave it to the professionals

"The life of an MP might seem exciting to some. Speaking to constituents then going to the Palace of Westminster to call the powerful people in the country to account.

But after almost two years in the Commons, Conservative Matthew Offord is looking for a challenge, and the life of an amateur detective has taken his fancy.

Mr Offord has examined the clues and concluded that Labour's Andrew Dismore - in allowing a tenant to stay in his second registered home - is guilty of electoral fraud.

But the fact that this is the third time Mr Offord has attempted to report the crime casts some doubt on whether the authorities are taking his fears as seriously as he is.

Inspector Offord may want to let the real police handle this - he wouldn't want anyone mistaking his unbiased commitment to justice for a petty attempt to smear a political enemy."

Strong stuff. What is it all about, you may be asking? To explain, Mrs Angry will publish the following extract from Hansard, the Parliamentary record, taken from a debate about 'Individual Voter Registration' in the House of Commons. The following statement was made by Offord, the Conservative MP for Hendon, on 16th January:

"As Labour Front Benchers have tabled the motion, they need to answer some questions, particularly about a candidate in the Greater London authority elections who resides in Westminster, in Westbourne Grove, and registers himself on the electoral register with his girlfriend at his permanent residence, but has continued to allow himself to be registered at a second property he owns in the London borough of Barnet that is inhabited by his tenant. If that is not legally wrong, it is certainly morally wrong, and it is dishonest to mislead voters into presuming that the candidate lives locally. Where would Labour Front Benchers say that that person lived? For sure, many Members of the House have access to two properties, and the law states that people who have two homes are allowed to register at both addresses, but it is an offence to vote more than once in a general election, although such people may vote in both areas at local elections."

Mr Offord won his seat from Labour's Andrew Dismore in May 2010, after a close run campaign in a marginal constituency rumoured to be amongst those favoured by Tory donor Lord Ashcroft for extra support and attention: a tactic which, if true, would have appeared to have been successful, as Offord scraped in with a majority of around only a hundred votes.

Since being elected, Offord has hardly covered himself in glory, inspiring a series of idiotic stories about his unfortunate Mr Bean like tendencies, rather than glowing reports of his work on behalf of the constituency: breaking a wrist in the bathroom on honeymoon, damaging his sight when a mug flew out of his kitchen cupboard, etc. Very accident prone, is our Matthew.

Since acquiring a cute little puppy called Max, who has far more political acumen than his owner, Offord has attempted to adopt a more positive image. Max has has generally been a good influence, and a wise mentor. But oh dear, try as he might, Max has failed to stop Matthew from succumbing to the temptation of using parliamentary privilege to cause trouble for his political enemies.

Take a look at these comments, made a year ago, on the 20th January 2011, in a parliamentary debate on anti-semitism. Reading this now, incidentally, Mrs Angry is struck by the ridiculous comment immediately preceding the remarks which caused so much controversy.

"We heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott). However, it is not just Jewish people who are subject to anti-Semitism. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said he has also been subjected to it."

Er: what? It is not just Jewish people who are subject to anti-semitism ... Really? He continues:

"A useful illustration comes today from my local paper, the Hendon Times, where I have been attacked by someone who helped us in the general election campaign. I was always rather concerned about some of the views of this individual, but we are a broad church in the Conservative party. However, this individual started making anti-Semitic comments. Once I was elected, I would have no truck with any such individuals. I hear today through the local press that he has decided to join UKIP. UKIP is welcome to someone who makes anti-Semitic remarks, because he is certainly not welcome in the Conservative party."

Offord was challenged by the individual whom he accused of anti-semitism to repeat such allegations outside parliament. He did not.

An article in the local Times on 21st January explained the background to this story, referring to the man he had mentioned in parliament, a former Tory activist and Chair of the local ward, who had -

"criticised Mr Offord for being “uncontactable” among his reasons for quitting the Conservative party.

He told the Times Series he was joining UKIP and intended to stand against Mr Offord for the Hendon seat at the next General Election.

Mr Offord refused to give a statement on the matter to the paper, but instead used Parliamentary Privilege, where MPs can say what they want without fear of legal action, to launch his attack"

Clearly, as we are reminded today, which happens to be Holocaust Memorial Day, anti-semitism is vile, and always utterly unacceptable. An accusation of any act of racist abuse is very serious - but it is a smear which cannot be legally challenged when made in such circumstances.

Offord did himself no favours by resorting to such tactics in the course of his spat with a former Tory colleague.

Parliamentary privilege is exactly what it says, a privilege, and one which should not be abused or misused. It offers an MP a legal immunity which should be used sparingly and carefully for matters of public interest, not for the purposes of private bickering. But it seems Mr Offord has resorted once more to such a shabby ploy in an attempt to discredit a former rival, and the new Labour candidate for the forthcoming London Assembly.

After Matthew Offord's latest remarks in parliament about Dismore, a particularly nasty story appeared in the London Standard repeating his accusations, and naming the tenant - a local Labour activist - who has been dragged into this debacle, through no fault of his own.

As it happens, Mrs Angry knows the tenant who has been staying in Mr Dismore's home: he is a decent and honest individual, and so, in her opinion, is Andrew Dismore.

As the article in the Standard actually admits, under City Hall rules, candidates for the London Assembly do not have to live in the constituency in which they stand. Dismore is breaking no laws by owning two properties, and many people are registered in more than one place, especially in Barnet where there appears to be a difficulty in maintaining accurate records. Does Offord mean to suggest in all seriousness that he thinks Dismore will vote twice? What is he suggesting, exactly? Or is he just trying to cause trouble? Has he really not got anything more important to raise in Parliament?

What has Offord done to help the local traders seeing their businesses bleeding to death, as a result of the catastrophic parking policy his former fellow Tory councillors here in Barnet have imposed on our town centres?

Where was he when they shut Hendon's Church Farmhouse Museum, and where is he now they are trying to flog the listed building and historic grounds off to developers?

What is he doing to fight Brian Coleman's plan to pimp our parks and greenspaces to private customers, shutting the parks to residents or charging them for admission to events?

Andrew Dismore was a hard working constituency MP when he represented Hendon, and well respected by residents of all political allegiances. He got on with his constituency work with diligence, and commitment, and with a notable lack of self promotion, in contrast with other MPs of our acquaintance, here in Broken Barnet.

He didn't disappear during times of crises abroad, playing Action Man and posing in a wet shirt for ridiculous photo opportunities on hotel balconies, claiming he was fighting 'narco terrorism' on behalf of the people of Hendon.

He didn't make a fool of himself invoking the Human Rights Act when he was told to stop bringing his dog into Westminster.

He didn't waste the time of our already overworked and under supported police with idiotic complaints about the perfectly reasonable living arrangements of his former rival.

He didn't use parliamentary privilege for personal attacks on political opponents.

In the next election, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the voters of that constituency will want to return any Tory MP, let alone the one we have now: indulging in this sort of gutter politics is hardly going to make that possibility any more likely.

And there is another angle to this story, of course.

Andrew Dismore is standing as the Labour candidate for Barnet and Camden in May's GLA elections. The present assembly member is one Brian Coleman. Coleman is in deep shit: he has made himself hugely unpopular over the last few years, and the parking fiasco in Barnet has really incensed the normally reliable Tory vote in this area: he is very likely to lose his seat to Dismore. If Barnet and Camden is taken by Labour, the chances of the Tories losing control of the Assembly is a very real one.

Boris came to Barnet last week, and was clearly taken aback by the level of hostility shown by residents to Coleman and Barnet Council. If Barnet and Camden falls to Labour, the balance of power on the London Assembly will be in real doubt. Brian Coleman is a candidate impossible now to promote in a positive way: so what to do? Go for Dismore. The Standard, of course, is always ready to help out Boris, and look there we are, a horrible story all wrapped up and in print for everyone to read on the tube on the way home.

Of course the really amusing story in relation to our GLA candidates' accommodation is the story of the current Tory member Brian Coleman, and his charity owned home.

Do we have to repeat it again? The man who earns around £130K from his publicly funded posts lives in a flat belonging to a charity, Finchley Methodist Church, of which our Mr Coleman happens to be a member, and he is also the beneficiary of a fixed rent which is set at a level half of the current market value. He has told a single mother constituent of his, struggling to support a six year old son with special needs, and pay her rent for the same sized flat, in the same area, at double the rate he pays, that she should 'live in the real world' and not expect to be supported by 'the system'.

Not sure why the Standard forgot to mention this story, or why Matthew Offord has not used parliamentary privilege to highlight such hypocrisy, but then, as we know, in this borough, the things which really matter tend to be overlooked in favour of political expediency.

This is Broken Barnet, and this is how things are. If you don't like it, don't vote for it. In May you will have the choice of voting for Brian Coleman, or Andrew Dismore. Does Mrs Angry have to make it any more clear where your duty lies? Ignore the black propaganda: it's a sign of how desperate the Tories are. Do the right thing, and give Coleman a kick up the *rse.

Have a nice weekend.

Crawling naked up the Edgware Road: full council, part two

2012-01-26T10:13:00.024Z

Good news: some Olympic events are to be held in Broken Barnet after all - read on

*Update on the park hire scheme, see below:

When a full council meeting begins in Broken Barnet, apart from a lot of jiggery pokery with golden maces and velvet robes, bowing, and standing up, or not standing up, for the Mayor, we are then expected to stand again, and listen to a prayer from the Mayor's chaplain.

At this point on Tuesday's meeting, Mrs Angry stood in amusement watching Councillor Coleman as the Greek Orthodox priest gave the usual address, asking for God's blessing, and entreating the blackhearted councillors of Broken Barnet to come together in peace, love and understanding. Brian, who is of course a devout Methodist, bowed his head in touching reverence and spiritual reflection as the priest spoke. AMEN, he barked at the end of the prayer.

Yes: amen to all that.

Straight to councillors' questions and answers: 67 of them, in twenty five pages. There were so many, in fact that the time limit allowed only about half of the supplementary questions to be raised.

Now here is an interesting thing: of the 67 questions, 39 of them were answered by Brian Coleman, and only 6 by the alleged leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius. A small number of other queries were addressed by one or two Cabinet members.

Why is it, Mrs Angry, you may be asking, that so many answers were provided by one Cabinet member?

It is because Brian Coleman, effectively, is the de facto leader of the council. All the contentious issues which are currently dominating the scene here in Broken Barnet - parking, the hire of our parks, and so on, are under his cabinet portfolio for environment, and therefore provoke the most questions, but he also exerts a domineering influence on the control of the council, and does exactly as he pleases, and he has taken over almost every function of the leadership. Leadership without reponsibility, or accountability.

As we have seen in recent weeks, if Coleman is asked to attend a committee meeting or a Forum, to answer questions from colleagues or residents, he does not. If he does not agree with a statement the leader makes in public, he over rules him and says with a shrug 'the leader can say what he likes'.

Nestling amongst the genuine queries are the usual nauseating dummy questions by helpful councillors. Brian Gordon is a master of these: this time it was the turn of Coleman's no 1 fan Rowan Turner:

'Will the Cabinet Member thank the many staff based at Mill Hill depot who worked normally on November 30th and ignored calls to strike?'

Answer: ( I must tell you, Brian, btw, that you do not need spaces before and after every punctuation mark, and Inappropriate Capital Letters are just a form of Shouting and Look a Bit Mad, to be quite honest ...)

Answer, verbatim:

'Yes , I am delighted that the Refuse service operated as normal and that street cleaning also took place despite intimidation on the picket line from the GMB Union . The vast majority of Barnet Council staff worked normally and ignored the premature and pointless action of certain Trade Unions in striking whilst in the middle of negotiations with the Government . I am sure Councillors and residents will not forget the actions of the staff '

Yes. Mrs Angry is confident that councillors will be lined up with Cheery Words and a Warm Handshake when waving goodbye to all loyal staff as they pick up their Redundancy notices, or shove off to a private company with a loss of Job Security beyond twelve months, thanks to the One Barnet outsourcing scam.

Incidentally, Mrs Angry is interested in Cllr Coleman's allegation of intimidation on the picket line, and imagines he must have proof of this which he will be presenting to the GMB?

Another statement which needs challenging is in response to Q38 from Labour's Pauline Coakley Webb:

'Before imposing the cashless parking service, did the Cabinet Member seek advice from the Police on personal security implications for users and potential users of the new system?'

Answer: 'No, this was not necessary as the system is inherently safer . It has operated in many other Boroughs ( with higher street crime rates than Barnet for a number of years '

Another typical Coleman reply, delivered with complete certainty and absolutely no evidence: worse still, this reply directly contradicts what we were told at last November's Forum by our friend, the senior officer in charge of parking, Mr John McArdle.

Mr McArdle appears to be operating on a different wavelength to the rest of the council, and his responses to Forums are very interesting: earlier this week he told Mrs Angry that she may not raise an issue of boroughwide significance at a Forum, even if dealing with 'public works', which appears to be a new decision and not sanctioned by constitutional change, and now we have his Cabinet member telling us the police were not consulted over the new parking scheme, when we were previously told by McArdle that Commander Basu himself was in approval of the change, a statement which Mrs Angry challenged, as she did not believe it at the time.

Which statement is the truth? Another email on its way to you, Mr Mc Ardle: two for you now to answer, when you get round to it. Thanks.

Oh: hang on. Make that three emails.

Question 42, from Labour's Alan Schneiderman:

'How many pay and display machinese have been completely removed to date and at what cost? When will the removal programme be completed?'

Answer from Coleman:

'At the time of writing 234 machines have been completely removed and the footway reinstated at a total cost of £29,952. the programme will be completed within a month.'

Hmm. Compare that answer with this, from Mr McArdle a few days ago:

'... I can confirm that RM Countryside has been paid only for those machines actually removed and that the payment is far less than £80,000. I had planned to use this contractor for the entire job, but the Council’s procedures prevent this so another is being found. This will take time to organise.'

If you recall, after local bloggers caught Barnet yet again using a DPR to award business to a company with whom it had one of the many non compliant 'contracts' that have been exposed after the MetPro scandal, they were shamed into halting the deal, and instead of all machines being removed by the end of November, most of them are still there. Don't believe them when they say they cannot bring them back into service: they can, but they won't, because saving face for Brian Coleman is more important than saving the livelihoods of Barnet's shopkeepers.

So are Barnet going through the correct procurement process of tendering for the work of the meters' removal, and will this really be done in the space of a month?

Question 16 was from Libdem Jack Cohen to our Brian:

'Why didn't you attend the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum on the 23rd of November?'

Coleman: 'Because my Ward ... ' (again, no need for a capital letter, Brian, even though it is Your ward) ' ... is in the Chipping Barnet Constituency.'

Oh dear, the poor old boy has temporarily, and uncharacteristically, forgotten that he is Cabinet Member for Environment for the WHOLE borough, and had been asked to attend on that basis. Jack Cohen reminded him of this fact, and asked again why he had refused to come.

Because, heckled Mrs Angry, he is TOO SCARED ... CHICKEN!

Coleman stood up in a fury. He blurted out that he had not attended BECAUSE OF THE APPALLING BEHAVIOUR OF RESIDENTS ... There was much raucous laughter at this point in in the public gallery, where sat not only Mrs Angry, who is one of these RESIDENTS, but also Mr P, who provides so much entertainment, and some spectacular displays of disrespect to his elected representatives, at these otherwise inflexibly controlled council events.

Coleman is right to fear what might happen if he attended one of these Forums: he would never survive. Like any specimen under scientific scrutiny, the Cabinet Member for the Environment can only thrive in a properly controlled Environment - as Cllr Tierney described later in the evening, one that is hermetically sealed, and removed as far as possible from reality.

Mrs Angry's fellow SMOG, (St Michael's Old Girls) Kath McGuirk had submitted the most important question of the evening. One of the significant and lasting legacies of our convent education is, of course, an uncompromising intolerance to matters of morality in public life, and a becoming maidenly aversion to unneccessary displays of nudity by short fat Tory councillors, and so:

Q24:

'Would the leader confirm what he is doing to lobby and ensure that the Olympics are delivered on budget and on time so that Councillor Coleman's pledge to crawl naked up the Edgware Road does not come to pass?'

Cornelius' response, sadly, revealed no visible signs of a sense of humour, which is in itself rather amusing, as usually he is guilty of grinning at the most inappropriate moments in council meetings, and takes everything in the most lighthearted, whimsical way, in order to pretend it is not really happening. His written answer here said: 'we lobby hard to maintain robust controls'. Hold on, was that a joke? Is the thought of our beloved councillor doing a spot of naked grovelling on a public highway a bit of a turn on for some Tories? Probably. In Broken Barnet, especially. In this case, however, Mrs Angry suspects he was too scared a. to think about Brian Coleman with no clothes on, and b. to make a joke about it.

In fact, Cllr McGuirk had to retract the scurillous suggestion in her question.

It was not the Edgware Road: apparently the route of Councillor Coleman's naked crawl will be along the Finchley Road, which is much more respectable. Whether or not this event will take place at the same time as the Olympic Torch procession is unclear, but don't say you haven't been warned.

Councillor Mc Guirk had another very important item on the agenda at this meeting, and many of the residents in the public gallery had come to see this issue, ha ha 'debated' by councillors.

Item 3.2: Barnet's Parks are not for sale.

Kath described the overwhelming opposition of residents to the indefensible proposal by Coleman to hire out a number of our parks and openspaces to anyone willing to pay the council for a private event. She listed the number of serious concerns over the withdrawal of access to residents, the potential damage, the litter, the noise. She pointed out that the projected fee cost were prohibitively expensive for ordinary families, thus giving the lie that the scheme was for family events, rather than corporate hospitality or for those privileged few wealthy enough to afford it. Yet again, she said, the Tories were helping those with means to get a better deal from services meant for all.

She pointed out that Victoria Park, created to mark the Diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria by providing grounds for the people of Finchley, will, in the year celebrating the Diamond jubilee of our present queen, be snatched away from the local community to be used as a commercial enterprise by the council.

And what is all this for? Only £30,000 a year, by the council's own estimate. So much upheaval, for so little return - and without even considering the hidden costs of implementing the changes.

Coleman stood to respond. Mr P heckled from the public gallery: Coleman addressed him by name and told him to listen to 'the facts'. These facts, in fact, were somewhat incoherent, and hard to follow.

He said we can do this already, if we want to, we are just 'formalising' our ability to do so .... er yeah ... we should remember that residents with small gardens need somewhere to hold events (could they afford to?) we should 'wake up and smell the coffee', he is 'listening to residents' who want this scheme, and he has a 'duty of care' to such residents - er, what?

DECEIVER AND SCOUNDREL! shouted a member of the public.

IDIOT! shouted another, amongst outrage in the gallery.

The Mayor intervened: May we remind members of the public that in this chamber we respect councillors ...'

WE DON'T RESPECT HIM!

Jack Cohen spoke next. He also questioned the projected revenue being unaccompanied by details of the hidden costs. He remarked that Coleman's references to large venues in other boroughs and the royal parks were ridiculous comparisons: he then observed, tellingly, that he had observed that Councillor Coleman had a curious habit of promoting such grandiose ideas. Hmm.

Councillor Jim Tierney politely thanked residents for their correspondence, including those who had sent him some very interesting information about the history of ours parks (yes, you can tell he is a Labour councillor).

These parks, he said, to cheers from the gallery, belong to the community. There is unanimous opposition to Coleman's proposals. He remarked that, as in the words of dear Oscar, the Barnet Tories could be said to know the price of everything, and the value of nothing - but in fact the truth is that they know the price of nothing, and the value of nothing. This hare brained schemed is not worth the £30,00o we are told it will generate, and he doubts if such a total ever materialises anyway. The Tories were unfeeling, uncaring and unconcerned, but it is the wish of residents that our parks must remain free for all.

There was a prolonged outburst of applause from the public gallery. That's enough, said the Mayor. No it isn't, said one of the residents, and another prolonged outburst ensued.

None of the Tories would speak up in defence of our parks and open spaces. Like the parking issue, another betrayal of their constituents, despite the boroughwide opposition to the proposals. Why do they close ranks on these issues? What are they afraid of? There is no explanation other than that they put their own self interest and ambitions for petty political success within their party group, and the possibility of reward by a nice committee chair appointment, before the duty they have to the people they have been elected to represent. The shamelessness, cowardice and their lack of integrity is truly quite disgusting to observe.

Which leaves us with the item about Barnet Football Club. Now, as you know, not only is Mrs Angry a fully qualified accountant and globally renowned auditor, she is a famous football pundit. Her enthusiasm for all forms of sport is boundless, in fact. Yawn.

But she does sympathise with the fans of Barnet FC in the awful predicament the local club now finds itself.

By the way, Mrs Angry was once persuaded to attend Underhill to sit through a women's football final. Her male companion had shown an unhealthy, and, as it turned out, misguided interest in this event. Sadly, the teamplayers all appeared to be very cross PE teachers who spat a lot and fouled more often than, you know that famous player who fouls a lot, what's his name, can't be bothered to look it up.

Anyway, she hasn't been back since. But she feels that all those blokes who should be a. at home doing the ironing, b. fixing the leaking tap in the bathrooom, or c. out shopping with their wives, girlfriends, or mistresses on a Saturday afternoon, in Brent Cross, (where there is free parking), but prefer to be sat in the cold watching the Bees, should be able to continue to do so.

It is clear that between the lack of interest from Barnet Council, and the decisions of the owner, the fate of the football ground is falling nicely into the lap of would be developers, and in the finest tradition of sports, leisure, and cultural facilities in Broken Barnet, will be sold to the highest bidder as soon as possible.

Labour leader Alison Moore's spoke to her item on the future of the club. She reminded the Tory councillors looking on blankly that it should be a source of pride to the borough, and mentioned the wider benefits to the community, the outreach schemes that are so vital in providing positive activities for disadvantaged young people, and she urged members from all parties to come together to support the club. She was wasting her breath, of course.

Tory Brian Salinger also wanted all members to come together over this. Fat chance. He talked about the pointlessness of megaphone diplomacy and the threat of development - something which is usually denied by Tory councillors.

Aha, local Underhill Tory councillor Andrew Strongolou stood to make a rare speech: long, pointless and tedious. Strongolou appears to have been trying to assume a disguise since his appearance in Mrs Angry's post the other day, in regard to councillors' interests -(he was one of several councillors featured who spent the evening eyeing Mrs Angry with sulky expressions, for some reason). He has a new hairdo which, unfortunately, makes him look like Borat, but perhaps he is growing it for an acting role. Mrs Angry hopes so, anyway. Good luck to him. Maybe avoid a moustache, though, Andrew, and don't give in to the temptation of wearing a mankini, if you can help it.

And did the Tories drop their party politics in favour of supporting the local football team, or did they yet again, do as they were told and put 'loyalty' to each other before the best interests of the community?

This is Broken Barnet: what do you think?

*Update - a response to questions about the park hire scheme:

Mrs Angry submitted the following questions to this week's Finchley & Golders Green Residents Forum, but despite the fact that they clearly do refer to 'public works' issues, as defined by the ridiculously restrictive new rules enforced by an 'amendment' to the constitution, these questions were banned. She was kindly allowed to have the issues referred to an officer, who has replied as follows: Mrs Angry's comments in green.

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

The Events in Parks consultation was to formally categorise existing types of events that are held in the parks and to consult on the potential of extending this service to include private events.

Why on earth would the council need help from residents to 'categorise' existing types of events? This is just the council's attempt to obtain endorsement for a policy of commercialisation that no one wants.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

In relation to the hiring of parks for private events no decision has been taken at this time, we are awaiting confirmation as to which decision making body a report containing the results of the consultation and recommendations with regards to the events in parks policy should be presented to, where any decisions will be taken.

So the decision has not been authorised, and no one knows who will authorise it, because no one in Corporate Governance can remember how the council works anymore. Dear me. How standards have fallen.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

The total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme is not estimated to be in the region of £30,000. The figure of £30,000 as noted within the councils recent budget relates to an increase on the target for income from all events in Parks and Open Spaces.

Yes ... which will be coming from the estimated revenue from the park hire scheme. Even the Cabinet Member does not dispute this figure. Please do not insult Mrs Angry's intelligence by making such a ridiculous statement.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?

Should the decision be taken to permit Private Events in parks this will be administered by the existing team and procedures in place for Greenspaces so no additional costs are anticipated. The particular items you raised above are borne by the event hirer as per the current procedures.

Absolute codswallop: 'no additional costs are anticipated'? There should be a clear business plan which has already calculated the budget necessary for implementing such a scheme, and it is complete nonsense to say that the existing team and procedures will be sufficient to cover an unknown number of potential events of varying sizes.

The 'consultation' exercise has taken place, and the response from residents is that they are universally opposed to any commercialisation of our parks and open spaces. If this were not Broken Barnet, that would be the end of the matter, and the proposals would be dropped. Only a fool would continue to push this idiotic plan through in the face of such animosity. I think we all know who that fool is, and what he will do next.

Mrs Angry's theory of relativity: full council meeting

2012-01-25T10:08:00.019Z

Einstein and Mrs Angry debate the relative merits, or otherwise, of Councillor Coleman's controversial park hire scheme

Last night's full council was preceded by an 'extraordinary' meeting, called last year -yes, last year, five weeks ago, by the Labour group to try to force the Tory cabinet to grant a pre Christmas amnesty from the crippling new parking charges. The new cashless parking scheme has caused widespread damage to shops and small businesses all round the borough, and their owners are seeing a loss in trade of up to 40% in some of our town centres.

With touching regard for the problems faced by traders, the Tory administration has delayed this meeting until nearly the end of January. All the same, it gave an opportunity for Labour's Kath McGurk to present some sort of debate on the issue.

Waiting downstairs before we entered the public gallery, Mrs Angry fell into conversation with Helen Michael, the cafe owner from North Finchley who has been admirably vociferous in her opposition to the idiotic new scheme. Mrs Angry drew her attention to the later meeting's questions from councillors, which included the following from Labour leader Alison Moore;

'Some local businesses are citing the cashless parking service and huge parking charge increases as a major reason for a reduction in trade, and even for shops and businesses closing down - when will the Cabinet member listen to local people and reverse the enormous and unfair parking charge increases that he imposed last year?

The answer by Councillor Brian Coleman says that businesses everywhere are calling in the receivers due to 'booming' internet sales, and even poor old Tescos are reporting 'relatively poor trading', even though most of their shops have free car parking.

Er: yes. Councillor Coleman appears not to have realised that internet shopping has been around for some time, and was not invented last winter, around the same time that our parking machines were withdrawn from use. Using the example of a national fall in sales by Tesco, in competition with other supermarkets, is idiotic even by his standards, as there is no evidence to suggest that the Tesco in Finchley has suffered any particular loss in trade: the fact that it offers the only free parking in the area has more probably bumped up sales significantly in the last few weeks.

He rabbits on about needing to help the High Street with 'more flexibility on change of use' and er 'support for the nighttime economy', 'more intelligent Planning decisions' (might need to find some more intelligent councillors, then, Brian). Yes, no doubt this is the case, but if residents are unwilling to visit the High Street in the first place due to your stupid parking scheme, these changes will make no difference.

His last comment is simply incredible. (His lack of punctuation, not mine).

'Quality retail businesses that are flexible will always survive those that are not will go to the wall. The lazy cop out is to blame the council.'

Helen Michael's reaction to this was I imagine a fair representation of how every shopkeeper in the borough would feel on reading this: complete and absolute fury.

The contempt that Coleman demonstrates here for the opinions of local business owners is truly staggering: here is a man who has spent most of his adult life as a councillor and then Assembly member, supported by publicly funded posts, and has never had the responsibilities or experience of running a successful small business, criticising those who are doing so, in the face of a major recession, and now facing immediate ruin as a direct result of the local Tory council's parking policy, of which Coleman is the architect.

In Finchley Central today, two different shop owners told Mrs Angry how furious and anxious they are over the impact of the parking changes on their business. The first was the manager of a charity shop who said that some days there is almost no trade, but worst of all is the dramatic loss of donations as people are no longer willing to stop and park in order to drop them off. Last week we heard Leader Cornelius speak disdainfully of our high streets being full of pound shops and charity shops: he needn't worry because soon they will all be closed, and nothing will replace them.

The other shop owner runs two businesses in the area, one in Finchley Central, the other in North Finchley. He is a very unhappy man, and says he has lost 40% of his usual level of business, and those customers who do call are spending less, as they have parked in a supermarket with time limited free parking.

Mrs Michael and her fellow traders are not - or were not - political agitators. They are local business owners, naturally inclined to expect support from a Conservative council. They do not expect to be put out of business by a Conservative council, or insulted by sneering remarks from the likes of Brian Coleman.

But Coleman is not solely to blame for this mess: the so called Leader, Richard Cornelius, is almost equally responsible. Either he has completely misunderstood the situation, in which case he is a fool, or he does understand, and is too frightened to stand up to Coleman, admit publicly that his administration has got this badly wrong, and put things right, and if that is so, he should be ashamed of himself.

Also culpable are the rest of the Tory group who as we saw last night, and despite the many councillors who privately state their condemnation of the parking changes, do not have the guts or integrity to stand up for what they know to be right, and vote against the continuation of this policy. Shame on you all, then.

And how very stupid they are. Mrs Angry hears that Boris Johnson has expressed his support for the traders of Barnet in their fight against the scheme, and, as she predicted last week, he will be taking a close interest in this issue, with perhaps some interesting developments to follow. Boris is no fool, and could see on his visit last week, just before the results of the Yougov poll which showed how close he is to losing to Ken, the damage being done to the Tory vote in this area.

Some damage is irreversible: there have been so many high profile issues here in Barnet in the last two years which have upset the Tories' own electoral base. Boris is in danger, Brian certainly is in danger, and the next local elections here in our borough will see a loss of marginal and previously safe Conservative seats in several wards.

During last night's 'extraordinary' meeting, Brian Coleman sat sniggering through the entire motion moved by Labour, whispering to his cabinet chum Andrew Harper. Kath made the case again about the new system discriminating against older residents, to no avail. He simply does not care. He stood to make his reply, screeching in that comical, petulant tone, delivering his usual music hall act, to a more than usually hostile reception from the cheap seats in the public gallery.

The old cash payment system required twelve men to go round all the meters: and they were all men, he told us, mystifyingly, because he had taken the trouble to check (why, Brian, why?). Is this really how we want to run things in the twenty first century?

YES! Everyone yelled at him.

Thousands of residents had already registered for the scheme.

THEY HAVE NO CHOICE!

And let's talk about the Labour party's agenda here ...

WHAT'S YOURS, COLEMAN?

Elderly drivers going out without a mobile phone were frankly somewhat foolish ...

DON'T PATRONISE OLDER RESIDENTS

When he finished his rant, he sat down to applause from his fellow Tories, including, I should add, one or two who really ought to know better and don't think Mrs Angry didn't see you. This was totally unneccessary, and shows you what a bunch of trembling sycophants they all are in his presence - with almost all of them queuing up to badmouth him behind his back to anyone who will listen.

The Libdem's Jack Cohen spoke next, telling us that the health food shop in North Finchley is closing, after many years of trading. When he asked the owner why, the answer was: Barnet Council. This process, he said, is being multiplied the length and breadth of the borough, destroying local business. Why don't the Tory councillors stand up to Coleman BECAUSE yelled someone, (well, ok: it was me) THEY ARE A BUNCH OF COWARDS.

Jack Cohen winked in Mrs Angry's direction, having warned her in the lobby he was going to allude to this blog. He said the Tory cabinet members were happy enought to fleece the local tradesmen but were strangely reluctant to residents' forums when invited to address them about the parking issue, eh Councillor Coleman, who was invited to November's forum but failed to appear. Jack referred to a blogger's comparison of the leadership of the council to a certain Captain Pugwash: Coleman being the pirate, and Cornelius playing the part of Tom the cabin boy who always smiled, and said nothing, although to be fair, that could be said of the Tory group as a whole.
Cap'n Coleman and Richard Cornelius, getting ready to jettison the parking scheme, but not yet

The deadly boring Coleman acolyte Rowan Turner spoke movingly of the dreadful hurt caused by Jack Cohen's 'personal slurs'. Mrs Angry thought in fact that Jack was very restrained in not bowing to pressure from the public gallery to allocate the roles of two other apocryphal members of Cap'n Pugwash's crew, messrs Bates and Staines, but there is no pleasing some people, is there? Turner wanted us to remember the hard work they all do.

WHAT HARD WORK? demanded the gallery.

They still get paid, whatever they do, said Mrs Michael to Mrs Angry, shaking her head in disgust: 'I've worked for nothing for the last two months ...'

As predicted, the Tories voted against the opposition motion. When Labour insisted on a division, which compels each member to be named as to the vote they are making, a Tory councillor tweeted to complain, saying what a waste of time it was. Mrs Angry tweeted back that in fact it informed local residents and traders which Tory councillors had decided not to support local business. He didn't reply.

The full meeting began now, after more pointless flouncing about in lace edged gowns, velvet knickerbockers and tricorn hats by the Mayor and her bearers. Mrs Angry refuses to stand up at this point now, in protest at the assault on our local democracy by these town hall tyrants, and this incurs dark looks from certain councillors and council officers. Mrs Angry does not give a shit.

Any hope of mention of any issues of real importance to the community, such as the hugely contentious matter of Coleman's proposed prostitution of our public parks and greenspaces, had now to be postponed for an interminable length of time as the Mayor announced, in the rather amusingly regal voice she has adopted for what is clearly a role she relishes, plans to tell the Queen how absolutely thrilled we all are at her forthcoming diamond jubilee. This was explained to us at some length. And then it was explained to us that we would also be telling the Duke of Edinburgh how thrilled we were at the Queen's forthcoming diamond jubilee. Fabulous news.

All the party leaders had to tell everyone how thrilled they were too, also at great length. Richard Cornelius talked about her reign spanning the eras of both Churchill and Cameron. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, that was a rare reference to the present Tory leader: in Broken Barnet we barely acknowledge the hurtful truth that Margaret Thatcher has turned into Meryl Streep and no longer spends every election night in Broken Barnet, sat in the Town Hall, with a gin clutching Denis in the Mayor's parlour. In this borough, Tories live in their own little twilight world, thirty years behind the times, long before Eric Pickles started wearing braces, let alone conceive the dangerous idea of localism, and everything our councillors fear from a world gone mad for transparency and accountability.

Royal bowing and scraping finished, now time for a change of tone from obsequious to solemn. There were three recently deceased local figures to remember. One was 99, the other 101, so frankly it was not entirely unexpected. One had been a councillor whom all parties recognised had been a man of integrity and devotion to public office. This was an example to emulate, you might think, but the irony floated over the heads of our elected representatives and out of the window of Hendon Town Hall.

The third was a younger man, Karl Ruge, who had played a prominent role in the community, and clearly had had an interesting life. Mrs Angry's ears pricked up when Jack Cohen spoke about him and mentioned his friendship with Albert Einstein. Apparently on one visit to the great man, he took the trouble to try to explain to Ruge's sister his theory of relativity. He said if she sat on the kitchen stove for one minute, it would seem like one hour, but if they were to walk hand in hand in the garden for one hour, to him, it would seem like one minute ... (have I got that right, Jack, you know, rivets, Bunuel, etc?)

Mrs Angry thought she had almost understood what the old boy was banging on about at last. One minute in the council chamber of Broken Barnet certainly seems like an eternity. And yet the evening had only just begun. Can you bear to read anymore? Not sure I can bear to write it.

continued later, maybe ...

Painting the flowers red, Part Two

2012-01-24T11:22:00.018Z

Last night's Forum was well attended, with most residents there present in order to protest about the outrageous new scheme by, you know who, Brian Coleman, Cabinet Member for the Environment, in which our parks and greenspaces will be hired out for private use, and may even be closed to residents for such purposes in the future.

Yes, I know it sounds unbelievable, even by the base standards that apply here in Broken Barnet, but it has been agreed, by whom we do not know, and the 'consultation process' that has just come to an end was not, in fact, as many residents thought, an exercise to seek their views on the principle of pimping our parks to private customers, but merely a PR stunt pretending to solicit their opinions on the type of events that be encouraged in such locations.

There was an attending cohort of councillors: Tories John Marshall and Dean Cohen, both of whom looked very uncomfortable throughout, Labour members Jim Tierney, Alan Schneiderman, Anne Hutton, Ross Houston, Lib Dem Jack Cohen.

When Mrs Angry arrived, she sat at the front, just in front of Cllr Marshall, just to keep him company. Of course he only turns up at these events to see Mrs Angry, to save himself from hours of lingering next to the nut counter in Waitrose in the hope of some light conversation, and misplaced sympathy from her daughter.

Cllr Marshall and Mrs Angry had an interesting discussion on the subject of the censorship of the Forums. Cllr Marshall is an intelligent man, and an experienced politician, and is clearly uncomfortable with the constitutional changes which have facilitated this assault on the process of 'engagement' with the electorate. When asked how he could reconcile the changes with the government's principle of localism and transparency, well: he could offer no response. He pointed out he had not taken part in the constitution committee which sanctioned such changes. Mrs Angry remarked, with some amusement, that she had bothered to sit through the meeting where the amendments had been passed and wondered why the Tory councillors who wish to disassociate themselves from such undemocratic developments remained silent, and did not seek to take an active interest in the proposals or to influence their colleagues when taking such decisions.

Sitting on the panel were the Chair, Reuben Thompstone, vice chair, Graham Old, and three officers, one from Governance, one from Highways, and Mr John McArdle from parking.

The Chair announced that he would not be reading his way through the rules.This came as a great relief, as a ten minute lecture on the subjects which are now forbidden from inclusion at a public forum is guaranteed to enrage an already mutinous audience, and makes Mrs Angry inclined to want to grab Cllr Thompstone by the tie and give him a well, a good talking to, shall we say?

Ah. First item: Mrs Angry's question about the parks. Here we go again:

1. The council has just announced plans to hire out parts of some of our local parks for private functions and other events. I would like to know:

a. Is it the intention of the council to allow any of these parks to be fully closed to the public for any event?

b. Has external legal advice been taken on the grounds for allowing such use of the parks?

c. Has an equalities impact assessment study been carried out?

d. Why has Friary Park been missed off the list of parks intended for the scheme? Has the Cabinet member for the Environment withheld it from the scheme and if so why?

e. The scheme includes Scratchwood greenspace. Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment aware that this location is known for its use by 'dogging' enthusiasts, and does the council really think this is a suitable venue for weddings and other such events?

Before Mrs Angry began her supplementary questions, she took the opportunity to protest about the fact that her other questions, mostly on public works issues as decreed by the new regulations, had been rejected, and that she had been informed by Mr McArdle that now public works issues that were boroughwide may not be raised, which is why her further question about park hire, had been excluded:

2. For further clarification in regard to the park hire scheme:

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?

Why is it that the first question was allowed, but not the second?

Mrs Angry asked the Chair the same question she had posed to his colleague John Marshall: how exactly was such censorship and repression of debate compatible with his own government's policy on localism and transparency?

Councillor Reuben Thompstone shifted uncomfortably in his seat and stared back at Mrs Angry without speaking. She gestured encouragingly to him to respond to the point she was making. He refused, and said he would not reply. Mrs Angry can only assume, Councillor Thompstone, that you would not reply because you know that you are completely in the wrong, and that what you and your Tory colleagues are doing is utterly inexcusable.

A resident who Mrs Angry will call Mr P was sitting at the front, glowering with ill contained fury. He had been the man who caused a riot at a previous Forum and ended up sitting at the table in front of the Chair, on a chair pulled to with in inches of Thompstone's face, where he remained for the rest of the evening. Really funny, but in a tragic sort of way.

Mr P stood up now and yelled, in some detail, and with some force, his deeply held objections to the contraints of the Forum.

'Censorship,' he pointed out, 'is not democracy!'

Libdem Jack Cohen intervened. He had been present at a recent meeting where the definition of 'public works', and what may or may now be raised at our forums had been formalised by the council, but he could not remember any mention of the exclusion of 'boroughwide' issues. Ah. How very interesting, thought Mrs Angry. It made no difference, though, as far as the Chair was concerned.

On with supplementary questions then, as the written answers to her question were so evasive.

a. please confirm that parks will be entirely closed to residents during a private event if requested, and tell us how often this will be allowed.

b. have you taken external legal advice?

c.can I have a copy of the document detailing the decision not to hold an equalities impact assessment?

d and e: please answer the question, in both cases specifically referring to Brian Coleman, the Cabinet member for environment - did he withhold Friary Park from the list of suitable park venues and if so is there not a conflict of interest when his company holds a summer show in this park at a reduced level of charge and secondly (and I am afraid this is where Mrs Angry disgraced herself and, provoked by the expressions on the faces of the panel members in front of her, started laughing uncontrollably, shamefully, like a silly schoolgirl) - was he asked whether he was aware that Scratchwoods is an area notorious for 'dogging' enthusiasts, and if he considered this was a suitable location for weddings and family events?

Mr P jumped up again. He had been having correspondance with an officer on this issue, which is one he feels very strongly about. He had been told the parks may close entirely for such events, perhaps as many as ten times a year.

The chair yelled back: Mr P, you are disrupting the meeting!

No, he replied: you are disrupting our lives!

Mr P referred to 'Coleman and his minions' who claim that this scheme will rake in revenue for the council, but pointed out that the figures supplied suggest that less than £30,000 per annumn will be made from such hire, and we do not know how much extra cost must be balanced against any such minimal profit.

Mr P reminded the Chair that our parks were created by Victorian philanthropists for the benefit of the community, not to be used as commercial enterprises. To hire out our public parks and openspaces is a major deviation of use, will lose money, and for what? In order to paint the flowers red for Councillor Coleman.

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, musing on the Alice in Wonderland reference. Painting the flowers red, a suitable metaphor for the way in which everything must be forced to comply with the lunatic policies of our Town Hall tyrants.

Other residents made very good points about the proposals. Tirza Waisel asked about the future status of Finchley Community Festival, which was crushed by a demand from Cllr Coleman for a hire charge of around £3,000 while the Summer Show he runs in Friary Park was given rather more favourable terms.

Mr P was not happy with the anwers being given to residents' queries and remarked that proper answers were being withheld, and the 'mechanical approach' of the chair was obstructing the 'debate'.

Another resident voiced the daring suggestion that community events should be free of charge, and a lady by the name of Mrs Read made important points baout the hidden costs of the scheme, the 'lack of positive feeling' towards it, the coming election and the risk of antagonising the electorate. She also reiterated the feelings of most of us by reminding the Chair that in fact, the parks and greenspaces belong to us.

It was clear from the response of the officer that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the parks scheme. Mrs Angry doubts whether the legal case for what is proposed has been properly researched: not that this is a major concern to ourTory council, until a mistake costs them, or rather us, an enormous amount of money.

One very interesting remark was made by the officer: in contradiction of what many residents have recently been told, that in fact the decision to hire out the parks has been agreed, he claimed 'no decision has been made'. Is this more confusion, and spin, or the truth? Hard to tell, in Broken Barnet.

Mr P was becoming very cross. Pandemonium ensued in the time honoured tradition of this Forum. The chair, who had repeatedly told him to shut up, said if he carried on he would have to leave. Mr P carried on.

I am going to ask you to leave for this continual interruption, snapped Cllr Thompstone

And I am going too ask you to leave for being a jackass, replied Mr P

Then there can be no meeting, said Thompstone, airily. Mrs Angry disputed this point, thinking we might very well do much better if he were not present.

I am now asking you to leave, said Thompstone to Mr P.

I am now asking you to leave, said Mr P.

The meeting, said Thompstone, is now suspended. He folded his arms. You are holding us all to ransom, he remarked, smugly.

Hypocrite, said Mr P.

Some residents became very frustrated at this point. Mr P commented that such a state of affairs was the thin end of the wedge, and the mark of a totalitarian government. He is right.

Shall we move on? suggested Mrs Angry, who also thoughtfully pointed out to the Chair that such arguments would not occur if he and his Tory colleageagues had not enraged the community with their determination to censor all public debate. Councillor Thompstone may not have taken Mrs Angry's observation entirely to heart, and indeed looked very cross. Oh well. The truth hurts, Councillor Thompstone, doesn't it?

There is a motion on this issue at tonight's full council meeting, which itself is preceded by an 'extraordinary' meeting of the council to er consider Labour's proposal for a parking amnesty before Christmas. Next Christmas, we must suppose. Better late than never, eh?

Bearing in mind the huge resentment felt by residents over the parking and the parks issue, it promises to be an interesting night. Mrs Angry is this week frankly sick to death of Barnet council and all its works, public or otherwise, but will probably be in attendance.

Funnily enough, by the way, still no response to further emails in regard to visiting the council offices tomorrow to inspect the register of councillors' interests. Not very impressive, is it?

Oh, nearly forgot: here to cheer us all up as we contemplate the council's planned commercial exploitation of our parks is a salutory tale, courtesy of Fascinating Aida.

This is dedicated to the councillor I overheard at last night's meeting asking what dogging was all about.

Avoid if you are easily offended (and if so what are you doing reading this blog?) or are frightened by references to sexual activities involving someone called Brian.

Oh, and just for a regular reader who enjoys retro references to the rozzers ... Enjoy.

Painting the flowers red: another residents forum, Part One

2012-01-24T09:32:00.017Z

'Would you tell me,' said Alice, a little timidly, 'why you are painting those roses?' Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began in a low voice, 'Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So you see, Miss, we're doing our best, afore she comes, to — ' At this moment Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out 'The Queen! The Queen!' and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces ...

'Who are you talking to?' said the King, going up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

'It's a friend of mine — a Cheshire Cat,' said Alice: 'allow me to introduce it.'

'I don't like the look of it at all,' said the King: 'however, it may kiss my hand if it likes.'

'I'd rather not,' the Cat remarked.

'Don't be impertinent,' said the King, 'and don't look at me like that!' He got behind Alice as he spoke.

'A cat may look at a king,' said Alice. 'I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where.'

'Well, it must be removed,' said the King very decidedly, and he called the Queen, who was passing at the moment, 'My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!'

So, yes: another Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum. Let us set the scene, before the main act ...

The senior management team did their best to keep last night's meeting secret,by not advertising it and emailing reminders to a privileged few residents at the very last moment, and made it almost impossible to submit any issues for what passes for discussion at these events, but Mrs Angry is an optimist and continues to attend the forums and attempt to ask questions, in the hope that it at least causes some inconvenience to the coalition of knaves and fools who run our borough.

At the last Forum, the Chair Reuben Thompstone had closed the meeting just as it was time for Mrs Angry's issues to be raised: wasn't that a coincidence? This meant that her question about the scandalous new park hire scheme was held over to last night's meeting.

1. The council has just announced plans to hire out parts of some of our local parks for private functions and other events. I would like to know:

a. Is it the intention of the council to allow any of these parks to be fully closed to the public for any event?

b. Has external legal advice been taken on the grounds for allowing such use of the parks?

c. Has an equalities impact assessment study been carried out?

d. Why has Friary Park been missed off the list of parks intended for the scheme? Has the Cabinet member for the Environment withheld it from the scheme and if so why?

e. The scheme includes Scratchwood greenspace. Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment aware that this location is known for its use by 'dogging' enthusiasts, and does the council really think this is a suitable venue for weddings and other such events?

In addition to this question, Mrs Angry added the following:

2. For further clarification in regard to the park hire scheme:

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?

3. At a recent business meeting in Finchley, the Council Leader allegedly reported that Barnet Museum has been 'saved from closure' and is now being run by volunteers. Please confirm that in fact the museum has always been run by volunteers, and that the Museum is still facing an uncertain future as no agreement has been reached.

4. Church Farmhouse Museum and the surrounding grounds have now been put up for sale. Does the council intend to protect the grounds of this historic building from development and preserve them as a greenspace for residents, or will they be sold off for development?

6. Is it possible to review the level of lighting in Chaville Way, the approach to Finchley Central underground station? The lighting is totally inadequate, and is potentially a risk for the security of women and vulnerable travellers using the station late at night, Bearing in mind the determination to remove staff from ticket offices, and the frequency of muggings in the immediate vicinity of tube stations, it would seem a good idea to improve at least the perception of personal safety.

7. Can you tell us why, despite a payment of £80,000 to a company with whom Barnet has a non compliant contract for the work, the parking meters in our borough are still in place? They were supposed to have been removed by the end of November, 2011.

Have we paid the company in question for work left unfinished?

Surely it is more sensible to retain the machines and reintroduce the cash payment system?

8. Why has so little publicity been given to the latest Forum meetings? The reminder about the meetings sent by email is the only notification I am aware of, and does not give sufficient time for questions to be considered and submitted, and must cause inconvenience for council officers attempting to deal with the questions in such a short time.

After submitting these issues for the meeting, Mrs Angry was rather annoyed to receive the following response:

Thank you for below email. The previous questions were accepted for the last meeting and are on the Issues List for this meeting. Please note that answers have been provided (attached).

For the new questions only Question 6 (highlighted) will be placed on the Issues List as all the other questions are not public works issues and/or local issues specific to Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum. The questions will be better directed to the relevant Service Areas and I have copied in the relevant Services so that they may respond to you directly
.

Qs 2 & 3 – Matt Gunyon, Leisure Contracts Manager

Q4 – Suzanna Ellis, Property Services

Q7 – John McArdle, Parking Manager, Environment, Planning and Regeneration

Q8 – Governance Service

Mrs Angry received a response yesterday from Mr John McArdle, in which he stated:

Dear Mrs Angry,

I understand that you submitted a question on the removal of pay and display machines for the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum, but this was determined to be a borough-wide issue therefore not a matter for that meeting.

This question has now been passed to me, and I can confirm that RM Countryside has been paid only for those machines actually removed and that the payment is far less than £80,000. I had planned to use this contractor for the entire job, but the Council’s procedures prevent this so another is being found. This will take time to organise.

These machines were decommissioned as part of the move to cashless parking and the internal structures for maintaining them and collecting cash dismantled to deliver savings. It would not, therefore, be practicable to bring them back into service as the Council no longer has the capacity to deliver such activity.

I trust that these comments are helpful to you.

John McArdle

Interim Parking Manager | Environment, Planning and Regeneration

Hmm. Mrs Angry has now replied to Mr McArdle:

Dear Mr McArdle,

Thank you for your email.

I have to confess to being rather amused by your response. The only reason the removal programme has been halted is because local bloggers discovered that the payment to RMCountryside was in breach of regulations, being made by the means of a delegated powers report to a company already acknowledged to have a non compliant 'contract' with the authority.

I imagine that you, Ms Pam Wharfe, and Councillor Brian Coleman would like to thank us for pointing out your rather unfortunate breach of the rules, and I am sure that we are all happy to continue to advise the council on the management of procurement and contractual obligations.

In return, it would be nice if we, and all other residents, might be allowed to raise such issues of concern at our Forums and not be censored on the spurious grounds you present in your response. It is simply ridiculous that you were obliged to attend last night's meeting, yet remained silent throughout as my perfectly reasonable questions in regard to parking was not allowed to be raised in open debate.

To inform me that we may now not even discuss issues that do fit the new definition of 'public works' if they are 'boroughwide' is outrageous, and I simply do not accept that this is the case. I would ask you to tell me where in the council constitution this new definition exists, or who has told you that this new rule must apply.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

To be continued ...

Nothing to declare? Our Tory councillors' interesting interests

2012-01-21T18:02:00.060Z

Sins of omission? The infant Mrs Angry at prayer

So ... Mrs Angry is not welcome at North London Business Park, it seems. The senior management team is very scared of letting the wicked witch of Broken Barnet loose on the withheld interests of our Tory councillors, and reluctant to let her see the updated interests and gifts and hospitality too.

Why would that be, do you think?

Is it something she said?

Or could it be that some naughty councillors have forgotten to update their declarations, or to make a full and open disclosure of all the interests which must be disclosed by law?

No. Mrs Angry does not believe that to be possible.

Perhaps one or two of them have forgotten that they own that particular property, or have that undeclared post ... I do that all the time, you know, misplacing things, don't worry: where are my reading glasses? You're wearing them, Mrs Angry. Ah yes - all the better to see you with, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

We have no reason to believe that our Tory councillors have any reason to be anything but open, transparent, and eager to be scrutinised by the armchair auditors of Broken Barnet. Do we?

The interests listed online on the Barnet Council website are from June 2010. There are thirty three listed, and six withheld. For the purposes of this post I will refer only to those online, excluding former leader Lynne Hillan, who is unwell.

Now, Mrs Angry was under the impression that these forms are meant to be re-submitted every year, but perhaps that is not so. Certainly it is a requirement that any changes, or additional gifts and hospitality, must be updated within 28 days. The rules, as dictated by the local Code of Prractice, and of course the statutory requirements of section 81(1) of the Local Government Act 2000, are very clear about the duties of councillors to be open and honest in their declarations: to omit information, or to provide false information, or to fail to give further notices of additional details, is clearly a breach of the regulations.

Mrs Angry is not fully confident that all councillors have entirely understood their responsibilities in this respect, despite the clear instructions on the forms they have signed. It may also be possible that the council has been negligent in not updating information received. In either case, Mrs Angry would argue that the failure to provide clear and open and easily accessible information in regard to their elected representatives' interests signifies that the residents of Broken Barnet are yet again being wilfully obstructed from a proper process of scrutiny of the authority's actions and policies.

And about half of the councillors have, since June 2010, made additional declarations, either a new position on a committee, or an attendance at a charity dinner or similar, but almost all of these entries are very brief, and few in number. The other councillors, poor old loves, have apparently received no gifts or hospitality at all, and many have apparently not taken any additional roles either in business or in the community which ought to be declared.

Sadder than the number of councillors that no one likes enough to buy a present worth more than £25, or to invite out to dinner, are the number of them who - sorry, Mrs Angry is reaching for her hankie - are seemingly homeless.

In section 10, there is a requirement for members 'to declare land in the borough which you have a beneficial interest (that is, in which you have some property interest for your own use) ...'

Most councillors have declared a home address, but not all of them. Councillors Maureen Braun, Tom Davey, David 'Goldenarse' Longstaff, Wendy Prentice, the current Mayor Lisa Rutter, Andrew Strongolou, and Reuben Thompstone, have nothing to declare.

This must mean, presumably, that they are all tenants - or living with their mum and dad?

Well, perhaps not the latter explanation for Maureen Braun, above. Her declaration is very short in detail, in fact: the word NONE is scrawled repeatedly over every section, in what looks, Maureen, to be frank, like rather bad tempered handwriting. Mrs Braun lives in a nice road in Mill Hill, but her home there is not listed as a beneficial interest, therefore it must be owned by someone else.

Ah: hang on, according to land registry records, there is a house at the same address owned by a Mr and Mrs Braun. Mrs Angry is confused. She is sure there is some perfectly satisfactory explanation for this and is happy to publish any such explanation, but on the face of it there does appear to be a rather puzzling contradiction of the facts as listed on the declaration, doesn't there? Perhaps Maureen did update this omission at some point, and the senior officers in charge of the register have forgotten to update the register?

Wendy Prentice, as we have remarked before, has given no address but written cryptically 'about three acres of Hadley Green' in response to this section. There is of course a requirement in the declaration form that states: 'You should give the address or a brief description which is sufficient to identify a location' Hmm. Mrs Angry can only conclude that Councillor Prentice is being a bit of a tease. Mrs Angry can be a bit of a tease, too, and nothing wrong with that, but there is a time and a place, you know,as it can lead to unfortunate misunderstanding.

About three acres of Hadley Green ... let's see ... according to a potted history on Barnet online, historic Hadley Green is 24 acres in size, so, erm, 1/8 of the green is owned by Councillor Prentice, but we have to guess which ones. Or, as we have previously speculated, perhaps she is, like some of Mrs Angry's forebears, a member of a gypsy/travelling community, and moves about a bit?

As there is, rather disgracefully, no provision for gypsies and travellers in the London Borough of Broken Barnet, Mrs Angry wonders how Mrs Prentice has managed to escape the beady eye of the Old Bill and her fellow Barnet councillor Rowan Turner, who has a great interest in this issue, and pitch her tent on Hadley Green without being spotted. Is she engaged in some sort of Tory #Occupy protest? (She is rather new age in her appearance: Mrs Angry observed at a council meeting last week that Mrs Prentice, who is a woman of, well, mature years, has adopted a surprising new hairdo: a sort of Glasto granny look - blonde crop with flamingo pink edged fringe. Very courageous. Miss Angry wants to do something similar with her hair, Wendy, but I won't let her.)

At last weeks Boris bash, Tory Leader Richard Cornelius expressed his concern about the high number of young people in the borough who are unemployed: it is a very serious problem, and clearly one not unknown amongst our councillors too.

Andrew Strongolou, pictured above, not only has no home listed, he has nothing listed under employment. Andrew, like his colleague David Longstaff, was rumoured to have aspirations (there you go, that can only be a good thing, can't it?) to be an Actor. He has in the past had some extra work, and been listed on a casting agency. Since Mrs Angry took an interest in Councillor Longstaff's golden arse, as revealed in a promo film on his own agency listing, Councillor Strongolou's own details on the Lynchmob Agency appear to have disappeared from the internet. Shame.

Why his former acting career is not declared on his form, Mrs Angry does not know. Perhaps he is shy. Not a good thing if you want to be on the stage, darling, one would have thought. Or perhaps he has jacked it in. Must be hard living on just the pittance he receives as a councillor, though. Still, he seems to keep himself busy: he is involved in the Cypriot charity Rizokarpasson Association, listed here as a committee member, and on Linkedin described as 'Hospitality Secretary'. He has also had an interest in a company called Sunlight Productions Ltd, which is a non-trading company. Whatever that means.

Ironic, perhaps, that Councillor Tom Davey, who is now the stern faced young Cabinet member responsible for housing, has no property interest of his own to declare. Presumably he must be in rented accommodation too, or maybe with Mum & Dad. His form, Mrs Angry notes, is dated from 2008, with a couple of amendments scribbled in in 2010.

Tom Davey, who works as a finance analyst for British American Tobacco, has strong views on many issues. He is very keen, for example, to wean the undeserving poor from their dependence on social housing, and in his new role is overseeing the introduction of wonderful Victorian values of self help and aspiration to respectability.

Would be council tenants who wish to have any real chance of one day being housed in Broken Barnet now have to demonstrate a 'positive contribution to the community' and will only be granted a tenancy for a limited number of years, in order to prevent stability of tenure, sentimental attachment to their homes, or demanding too much in the way of subsidised housing, a concept only allowed in the real world of Broken Barnet for Tory cabinet colleagues of Councillor Davey who might be in need of a charity owned flat, and whose Mum & Dad cannot accommodate them. For the majority of non property owning residents of this borough, this means living in privately owned housing, paying rapidly increasing rentals, which those in need of benefits are finding it impossible to afford.

Councillor Reuben Thompstone, who will yet again have the pleasure of Mrs Angry's company tonight at our local residents forum, where Mrs Angry will upset him by trying to ask questions, and he will upset Mrs Angry by refusing to allow her to speak, has declared his home to be leasehold, but given no details of where this is. Another tease. Or perhaps he is worried Mrs Angry might come round and peer through his letter box. She might.

The Mayor of Barnet: no declarations since July? ... it's a mystery

Lisa Rutter, the current Mayor, above, also states that she has no beneficial property interest in the borough. She seems to be a nice enough woman, and Mrs Angry is sure that she is entirely honest in her declarations. Perhaps she does not live in the borough, or own any property here.

Ah: hold on - according to land registry records, a Mr Mark and Mrs Litsa Rutter do have a property in N20 - again, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this being omitted from the declaration, and Mrs Angry is happy to clarify this if so. Perhaps it is another case of details not being updated?

It must be noted, however, that as regards the list of gifts & hospitality received, the declarations here end in July. Mrs Angry imagines that Mrs Rutter has continued to declare all her gifts and hospitality, but that these entries have not been updated online. This would be typical of the way we do things in this borough, and reminds us that transparency is not held in the highest regard by our senior officers or our councillors. Council staff are under great pressure of work, of course, and making redundant, last year, the officers most experienced in this area would appear to have had a significant impact on the Governance department's ability to cope with certain aspects of their responsibilities ...

The declaration form comes in two parts: Form 1, General Notice, the -ha -compulsory section, and then a second part, 'Additional Voluntary Declarations', in which the council 'asks' that members give details of membership of organisations or directorships -oh, and shareholdings -not registered under the previous section.

To be fair, some Tory councillors have decided to do the right thing and made some declarations in this section. Mrs Angry commends councillors John Hart, Graham Old, Andrew Harper, Helena Hart, and David Longstaff for doing so.

Mrs Angry confesses to being amused by Councillor Longstaffe's declaration of shares in three companies, and their total value (at the time of signing in 2010) - he tells us rather crossly: 'WHICH IS A LOT LESS THAN I PAID FOR THEM.)

Please remember, Councillor Longstaff, that the price of stocks and shares can go down, as well as up. Market forces, darling: don't complain.

Oh dear, Reuben Thompstone. Not only does he not want us to know where he lives, he has objected to being asked about his stocks and shares, and has written: 'I do not wish to declare'.

It seems that only 13 of our Tory members have been offered any gifts or hospitality. Mrs Angry finds this rather a poignant fact to contemplate. Perhaps the Barnet bloggers should club together and buy presents for those whom nobody likes enough to bother with? Deputy Leader Daniel 'John' Thomas: nothing. Admittedly Mrs Angry would leave the country rather than have to sit through dinner with him, due to the risk of falling asleep with her head in the soup, but all the same. Brian Gordon: ah, well, ditto. Rowan Turner - oh, hold on, something of a pattern forming here.

Those councillors who have made declarations of gifts or hospitality are a bit more lively.

Leader Richard Cornelius, the cheeky monkey, sneaked off from his duties here in Broken Barnet on a trip to Morphou, in Cyprus, 7-10th October, and got £745 worth of accommodation and flights from the local municipality so he could attend, erm, hold, on what is the phrase ... 'a peace demonstration'. Good man.

Oh look: Councillor Joanna Tambourides has also been to Morphou. In 2010 and 2011. She paid her own air fares, she tells us. She is also keen to point out, in both entries, that she shared her bedroom with her husband. Why she should worry about any doubt on this point is unclear.

Mr and Mrs Tambourides: shocking declaration reveals they shared room in Morphou hotel

(*Note to any municipalities reading this: Mrs Angry is also available, at very short notice, to attend any 'peace demonstrations' at your expense providing it is somewhere sunny, warm, with a nice room, and free.)

Not only that, But Richard was given a glass paperweight, and a bottle of wine. You know: the sort of thing you normally get on a demo. You should see the cut glass decanter and key ring I got for my attendance at a poll tax riot in 1990. Worth a few quid now. See, Cllr Longstaff: invest wisely, like Mrs Angry, in socialist activism, and you'll be quids in.

Oh look: here comes Councillor Andrew Harper. Now, interestingly, Andrew, according to the online form, has not updated his change of role. He was of course Deputy Leader of the council until this summer, but has not altered his description in the declaration, holding on with determination to the full extent of his portfolio. Funnily enough, Cllr Harper has updated a change in his role as member of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute council around the same time.
Former Deputy Leader Andrew Harper has been recycled, but is still coming to terms with it

Andrew has had a few good dinners in his time: likes going to the Guildhall, and had some fun at the Tory conference too, entertained by Localis, who have worked with Barnet over some Big Society type balls, and hello, dining with two lady MPs, Penny Mordaunt and Sarah Newton so as to er 'discuss social care and health issues'. Hmm. The old devil. Oh, and what's this? Dinner & full English breakfast at the Sandbanks Hotel, Poole, with Mrs Angry, 14th February 2011, 'to discuss the new localism bill, especially the extension of transparency, accountability and the empowerment of the local blogosphere'. You fecking liar, Councillor Harper. We stayed at the Haven, if you remember ... yes, yes: a joke. It was the Sandbanks, but another councillor entirely. He's promised to take me to Morphou in October.

Now stop joking, Mrs Angry, and make a serious point.

Q: Why does it matter in the slightest, what our Tory councillors declare, and that this information is regularly updated and put in the public domain?

A: It matters because, apart from the fact that there is a legal requirement to declare such information, councillors have control over an enormous budget, paid for by our hard earned money, and must be seen to be acting at all times without being subject to personal or commercial interest. At the moment, scrupulous attention to such declarations of interest, gifts and hospitality is of the most vital importance as we are going through the process of giving away £1 billion worth of business contracts (maybe, you never can tell in this borough) to the private sector.

It is regrettable that so many councillors do not feel moved to declare their stocks and shares, as it would be most unfortunate if, say, some of the members had shares in one of the short listed companies currently vying for one of the enormous outsourcing packages on offer, wouldn't it?

If you haven't got shares in one of the short listed companies currently vying for one of the enormous outsourcing packages on offer, btw, citizens, now might be the time to buy (see: more investment advce from Mrs Angry). Mrs Angry can think of at least two companies who are about to see profits rise considerably, and it might be one way of offsetting the enormous rise iin charges in council services about to come our way.

Finally, and thanks be to God for that: Mrs Angry has still had no response to her request to see the withheld and any updated interests so she and Mr Mustard have informed the relevant officers of their intention to arrive on Wednesday afternoon to exercise their right to do so. If the Director of Corporate Governance sees fit to bar them from exercising their right to do so, Mrs Angry will be obliged to make a formal complaint to the Monitoring Officer. Who is ... er let me check ... the Director of Corporate Governance. Ah. Oh dear.

And to night: the Residents Forums. Mrs Angry has had six of her eight questions banned, despite the fact that they are about parks and other public works issues. She has been informed by the officer in charge of parking that we may now not discuss issues even if they fit the criteria of public works if they are 'boroughwide' issues. This is of course absolutely outrageous, and an act of incendiary provocation, as far as Mrs Angry is concerned.

This is Broken Barnet: have you noticed?

Mrs Angry registers her interest in the councillors' register of interests

2012-01-20T11:13:00.014Z

Updated: see below

For some time now, Mrs Angry has been trying to assert her right to see the withheld declaration of interests of several of our Tory councillors, and has asked also to see the updated versions of the interests available online, which are now a year and a half old. Mrs Angry was under the impression that these declarations are meant to be updated and signed every year, but perhaps she is mistaken.

This process involves a visit to North London Business Park, where, in the interests of transparency, openness and public scrutiny, such documents, containing information which is meant to be in the public domain, is kept under high level security and released for view under conditions similar to released archive material held by security agencies in the States. You may look at the declarations only under the strict supervision of a council officer, and you may not ask for copies of the information. This is Broken Barnet, after all.

Mrs Angry has sent several emails, and made several phone calls, in order to try and see the interests. No one has replied, for some reason.When she spoke earlier this week to a switchboard operator about the problem, the poor girl had never even heard of the register, and ha ha, oh dear, put her through to CAFT, the Corporate Anti Fraud Team. Just imagine Mrs Angry's amusement!

This morning, at last, Mrs Angry managed to catch an officer offguard, and extracted a stuttered promise that it might be possible for her to be allowed into North London Business Park in order to exercise her right to inspect information which, yes, should already be in the public domain, (if we did not live in Broken Barnet).

Apparently we are now actively considering mutually convenient times:(somewhere in December, 2014, probably), and plans are being made for a welcoming reception by the Director of Corporate Governance, with coffee, some light hearted banter and a plate of suspiciously flavoured biscuits.

Mrs Angry is waiting by her inbox, breathless with anticipation.

Update

Oh dear, naughty naughty London Borough of Broken Barnet: you promised you would reply today about seeing the register, didn't you? But you were fibbing, London Borough of Broken Barnet, and now Mrs Angry has lost her patience, and has been through the available councillors' interesting interests with a fine tooth comb, and found some amusing discrepencies.

Stand by.

Happy Birthday Joe, from your doting mama xxx