Rent a cop: the lessons from MetPro, G4S - and the Helen Michael story

Here is a press release from our Labour GLA member Andrew Dismore:

Conservative Council’s henchmen like ‘Metpro’ could replace bobbies if Boris gets his way, warns Dismore

Labour London Assembly Member Andrew Dismore today warned that if Boris Johnson’s vision for Policing in London is fulfilled, it could well result in companies like the now defunct “Met Pro Emergency Response” security firm being handed contracts to patrol the streets of Barnet and Camden.

Labour London Assembly Member Andrew Dismore said:

“Following the Conservative London Mayor’s announcement of major police cuts, Barnet is losing even more police officers. Official figures provided to me by the Mayor reveal that in the past two years our we have lost in Barnet a quarter of Police Sergeants, 13% of Police Constables and over a third of all PCSOs. Camden has lost 11% of its police officers and 39% of PCSOs.

“Mayor Johnson now plans to “outsource” – that is to privatise – local police incident response and patrolling. In Barnet, the now bankrupt Met Pro patrolled the streets of Totteridge and was employed by Barnet Council to provide security guards, including at the Town Hall during Council Meetings, where their robocops intimidated local people and stopped the public attending meetings.

“The idea that a cowboy company like Met Pro could be replacing police officers and PCSOs on our streets is a terrifying prospect, but only to be expected from this Conservative Mayor.

Just look how they have had to draft in the army to help secure the Olympic site because private company G4S has failed to honour its contractual commitments makes a mockery of the Mayors plan for privatised policing in London.”

Mrs Angry understands that links to her blogposts on the MetPro scandal have been circulated to all the Assembly members, and this issue is due to be debated at City Hall next Thursday. Mrs Angry may well drop in to see what our AMs have to say about the matter. Be warned.

And of course anyone who remembers the simply mindboggling story behind Barnet Council's use of the illegally operating company MetPro will know how real the risk is from any dependence on such companies, and boy are there a lot of companies out there, just waiting to take on the work. The thought that we could be expected to allow these dangerous fools to replace the service that needs to be undertaken by professional police officers is simply intolerable, and must be opposed by anyone with any sense.

One of the most pressing concerns in regard to these private companies is the lack of proper regulation and accountability.

The Home Office set up an agency, the SIA, which is supposed to oversee this industry, one notorious for all sorts of unsavoury practices, from protection rackets to drug dealing - and the use of violence and intimidation.

MetPro were used to bar residents from attending council meetings, in situations with children at risk - despite not having CRB checks, and carried out illicit filming of residents, including me. At the very least, the implications of the potential widescale unmonitored use of cctv and other data processing procedures by such companies is hugely concerning,

In theory, you can check up on any private security company by visiting the SIA website, and using the register of licensed operators. Except if you do try to do this, you will find it is almost impossible to use.

As Mrs Angry discovered last year, when trying to check out the employees used by MetPro, there is no easy way to check a particular company. There is no obligation for companies to be approved contractors, and as for individual employees - unless you know their name, or the number of the license they may not have anyway, you cannot confirm whether or not they are acting legally. The website itself warns you it is inaccessible to browsers such as Firefox, and the search facility is conveniently complex, over specific and uncooperative.

Mrs Angry also learnt last year, in fact, from a source that the SIA is known within the Home Office to be allegedly rather less than effective in its role of regulating the private security industry. The MetPro story would certainly suggest that this might be the case.

In the preparation for the provision of extra security for the Olympics it also became clear there was a chronic shortage of suitable private security employees throughout the UK.

It seems that the recruitment of new employees by G4S has been obstructed by difficulties such as security clearance and inadequate training. The training issue is directly the fault of those responsible within the company, but what about the security aspect? Did the government prioritise this as something to be addressed, or were they too distracted by rather less important matters?

The G4S fiasco, and the MetPro scandal: together they present the most compelling argument you could ask for against the casual use of security companies rather than properly trained professional employees. On a wider scale, it is yet another example of the extreme folly of attempting to outsource the provision of vital public services to the private sector.

And there is another dimension to the G4S story, of course.

Last week this blog exclusively revealed the real reason behind the ludicrous investigation of Helen Michael, the North Finchley cafe owner who led a campaign against a stupid new parking scheme, and was consequently investigated and interviewed for two hours, under caution, by SO15 counter terrorism officers, under the pretext of a poster she had produced.

This poster, featuring the charmless local politician Brian Coleman, had originally been published without the required details of publication, an omission immediately corrected by Helen Michael. Despite her action, and an assurance from local police that that would be the end of the matter, the issue was resurrected by counter terror police, seemingly, it seems now, due to the possibility that when the Olympic Torch passes through this borough, traders in North Finchley might line the route with banners protesting about the local council. This has been construed as an eventuality so dangerous, it must be investigated, as a priority, even as the individual 'CF', living under a control order, has made five visits to the Olympic site, and arrests have been made in connection with potential acts of terrorism.

The question must be asked: why has someone like Helen Michael been targeted for so much attention, when the real issues of concern, from individuals presenting potential risk, and the huge problem of the lack of qualified security employees promised by G4S, clearly required a higher level of attention? Where is the real need?

The security of the Olympic Torch relay is an interesting challenge. The risk of terrorist acts is real, but clearly this risk is from a fairly well defined source.

There is also another threat, and one which raises all sorts of questions around the issue of civil liberties. This is the threat of political embarrassment, from people who may have perfectly good reasons to want to protest, and focus attention on their causes. Like a disastrous parking policy, or the closure of a local library.

Cast your mind to the 2008 Olympics, held in Beijing. When the Torch came here, the relay was beset with protest, much of it from pro-Tibet supporters. It caused enormous embarrassment to China - to the Olympic organisers and their corporate sponsors, and to the British government.

When Mrs Angry was in Cornwall recently, the Olympic Torch relay had just passed through the county - into England. As the bearer carried it over the Tamar Bridge, he happened to be displaying the black and white flag of St Piran, the symbol of Cornwall. This flag was ripped from him by a plain clothes police officer accompanying the relay. The incident caused outrage in Cornwall, and not surprisingly.

Is the heavy handed treatment of potential demonstrators along the route of the Torch really considered to be a terrorist threat - or is it perhaps seen as a political threat? Is the visit to the cafe owner from North Finchley from SO15 proportionate to the risk, or is it a waste of resources at a crucial time of need, in the face of possibly the biggest security challenge we have ever faced in this country, and directed not by those tasked with facing that challenge, with strictly limited resources, but by a government intent on controlling the image this country presents to the rest of the world?

Who needs MetPro? More bullying at the Town Hall

Two council meetings last night: Cabinet Resources, followed by General Functions.

If you want a sensible account of what was said, visit Mr Mustard, who took lots of notes. Mrs Angry could hardly be bothered, as the two meetings were rolled out in the dishonourable tradition of Broken Barnet: hurried formal endorsement of One Barnet bullshit, avoiding any challenge, or debate, and the really interesting thing about them was not what was said, but what was not said, and how it was not said. The medium definitely more interesting than the message, and telling you all you need to know about our secretive, grubby and shameless Tory council.

At the Cabinet Resources committee we were graced with the presence of chair Daniel 'John' Thomas, 'leader' Richard Cornelius, yes, himself, Brian Coleman, Sachin Rajput, Robert Rams and Andrew Harper.

Unusually, Coleman kept his mouth shut throughout, but then as the issues being agreed were social care and housing matters, he probably had no interest other than getting the whole business finished as soon as possible. The only time Mrs Angry has heard him comment on such matters in a meeting, in fact, was some time ago, to dismiss the social housing in Grahame Park as a 'slum', and then more recently to express his opinon that Barnet should not have to provide transport for 'these people', ie children with special needs, and adults with disabilities.

The alleged leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius, remained silent throughout too, spending the evening sucking the end of his spectacles and gazing dreamily into the mid distance.

The meeting began with the usual furtive whispering by Coleman into Cornelius' ear. Cornelius did his usual nodding. Coleman nudged Cornelius and sniggered when he spotted the veteran old lefty activist who always attends these meetings with his copy of the Morning Star and hurls a sustained chorus of anti capitalist slurs in the direction of our doltish councillors. Last night the old boy had decided to sit through the meeting wearing a David Cameron mask. Coleman found this amusing, but Mrs Angry imagined it was probably the closest our toxic Tory Brian will ever get to Dave, or any senior government minister.

There were a surprising number of members of the public present at this meeting, and a large number of public questions too. This was clearly tiresome and an inconvenience to the Chair, and a source of some puzzlement to the Tory councillors, who simply cannot understand why anyone would want to challenge their right to force their dangerous policies into practice on the residents of our borough.

Mrs Angry must confess to rather disliking Councillor Thomas, and being naturally inclined to want to give him a kick up the jaxxi whenever he opens his mouth.

Thomas is a very young thirty year old, employed by a building society, with clearly very little life experience, but rather too much confidence in the unassailable correctness of his retro hardline right wing Tory views. He speaks in a curiously unemotional, robotic voice, his face betraying no expression, and appears to be completely without any real understanding of the real difficulties faced by families and vulnerable residents of this borough. This lack of empathy is a quality shared by most of the most influential Tory councillors in Barnet, in fact, and perfectly explains the course to disaster on which we are all set, in hte wake of the obsession they have with the cult like charms of the One Barnet agenda.

The first question was from Barnet Alliance campaigner Julian Silverman. Mr Silverman, you may recall, is a local activist and member of Barnet Alliance,which campaigns against the cuts, and he is also the man who was treated outrageously at a local summer fair by the Tory turbulent priest Reverend Adrian Benjamin, close friend of, guess who - Brian Coleman. At the fair Father Benjamin wrenched the Barnet Alliance banner from the possession of the seventy four year old resident, confiscating it on the grounds that he objected to his political views being displayed at the show, and then claimed to have lost it.

Mr Silverman is an admirable character, who refuses to bow to the dictatorial behaviour of our Tory councillors, and attends council meetings and forums with every intention of speaking out against their tyranny and odious policies. This deeply annoys our Tory councillors, as you can imagine.

Julian has a very interesting political background, as it happens. His father was Sydney Silverman, a well known socialist MP who represented the constituency of Nelson and Colne from the 1930s to his death in 1968. One biographer described him as 'a thorn in the flesh of every government' and his obituary in the Guardian labelled him the 'champion of the underdog'. He took a prominent part in in opposing Mosley's fascists in the East End, and he was responsible for the private bill which introduced the abolishment of the death penalty. One might speculate whether our Tory councillors are capable of seeing any irony inherent in the fact that the son of a man so prominent in fighting fascism and social injustice is being treated with such contempt here now, in Broken Barnet, but then Mrs Angry has little confidence that our Tory councillors have any sense of irony, or self knowledge.

Public questions are given a written answer at these meetings, and then the questioner is graciously allowed to ask a supplementary question at the table. In the tradition of the avoidance of accountability in Broken Barnet, such questions are usually answered with every intention of obscuring the facts, and it is usually necessary to clarify the written response, rather than allow the questioner to ask a new supplementary question. This causes conflict, and much bad feeling, as the Tory chair always seeks to shut the member of the public up and inform them they are not entitled to ask any further question. Mr Silverman was given this treatment, as usual, and objected. As usual he was ignored.

The next set of questions was from Ruth Kutner, and she objected too to the lack of proper response. Mr Silverman agreed verbally, and at this point the Chair, quite outrageously, announced that he would have to leave, because he was interrupting. Julian had made just one comment.

Mr Silverman now dared to ask loudly why the councillors refused to have a proper dialogue, and then, before we knew it, two officers and a security man were standing right in front of him, presumably to try to get him to leave, in a move which was both intimidating, and completely unneccessary. Completely unneccessary, except from the point of view of politics in Broken Barnet, where we like to use security to stifle debate, and trample on the right to freedom of expression, as we saw in the blackshirted MetPro council meetings at the very same Town Hall until last year.

When we protested at the surrounding of Mr Silverman, they backed off, and left him. But Councillor Coleman was not happy. He was observing that Julian had some small recording device. He left the room, and shortly afterwards, the security man came in and started to do something with his equipment. Everyone protested. In broken English, the man said he was doing so because 'it was plugged in', and this was not allowed. Coleman looked on smugly.

You may be asking what on earth such an action achieves.

It has been established that we are entitled to film and record council meetings: if a resident needs to plug in a small device to use a minimal amount of electricity in order to do so, why the hell should he not do so?

Who is paying for the electricity in the Town Hall?

We are.

Who pays for councillors phone bills and taxi expenses, and buffets, and generous allowances?

We do.

Who should have the right to scrutinise the actions of these councillors in their shabby little meetings?

We should.

The issue which Julian Silverman and Ruth Kutner were asking about was in regard to the huge impact that Barnet's new commercial approach to adult social care will have on our most vulnerable residents. What could be of more concern, and of more need for debate and proper consultation by the people of this borough?

But there you go: the urge to shut down any discussion, and the antagonism behind the way in which dissent is handled is yet another example of the bullying culture of Tory Barnet, where scrutiny is resisted at every point, and transparency is a joke.

What are they so afraid of?

Why do they so resent the duty they have to be accountable to us?

Is it because they have so much to hide, or is it simply, as it seems with Coleman, a question of a need to exert control, and to feel important?

How pathetic.

Cont'd later.

Brian Coleman and the Rev: Private Arrangements, and A Private Function

Tea - and sympathy for his landlord: Brian Coleman entertains at Broken Barnet Town Hall

photo: Sierra Express Media


Take a look at today's Ham & High. Hurry through, no, no, ignore page two ... go to page 14, where Mrs Angry is yet again mouthing off about being filmed by MetPro, and Mr Reasonable is, well, his usual lovely, reasonable self. Oh and where Barnet Tory leader Mr Richard Cornelius tells us that, in addition to the bloggers of Barnet providing a full Pickles approved armchair audit service for him, we must now film his council meetings for him for free, with no thanks, and still no apology for his council's own secret filming of us, in order that he can 'share the workings of local democracy with the general public', because he won't pay for the sort of official filming that all respectable councils already have in place.

Not only that, but according to the Ham & High, Mrs Angry is now officially in charge of Broken Barnet, rather than Mr Cornelius, and do you know, readers, this is a heavy burden to carry. I'm not sure I can take the strain. Another trip to Champneys could be on the cards. What? Barred? Mrs Angry? Don't you know who I am?

Anyway: turn to page 2 of the Ham & High now. Oh look: 'Cllr Coleman disputes low rent claim' ... the story tells us:

'One of London's highest paid councillors has hit back at claims that he lives in cut price church housing in Finchley. Barnet Councillor Brian Coleman has lived in a flat owned by the Finchley Methodist Church for at least two decades, paying rent well below the commercial market values for the area ...'

This is of course not a new story, and last year veteran journalist and aspiring Barnet blogger David Hencke somehow acquired a copy of documents suggesting the rent may be as low as £546 a month, for a five room flat, which is, as Mrs Angry can confirm, around half the going rate in this area.

Brian Coleman has often expressed his views about those good for nothing London firefighters who dare to supplement their income by part time work: apparently these rascals are now all modelling for Armani (please send Mrs Angry a photo if you have one - for research purposes, you understand) and they are all such divas, that they will only fit in a bit of firefighting in their spare time. Brian, in contrast, has selflessly turned down many offers of work from Models 1 and Select to concentrate on the four publicly funded posts he has accrued, and which bring in total annual salary of around £130,000.

Last week you may recall Mrs Angry reported the council meeting where Brian Coleman was rolling about in trouser splitting fits of laughter while a younger Tory councillor ranted about union leaders whom he claimed lived in subsidised housing. Hmm.

The property in which Coleman lives is owned by the local Methodist Church. Brian is of course widely recognised as a devout Methodist and is, we must all agree, a truly humbling example of the Christian faith in action.

According to the Ham & High, Brian told them that the rent figure was 'incorrect' but that he did not wish to discuss his living arrangements. He refused to say how much he was paying for the flat.

The church's minister, Reverend Michael Giles, is also tight lipped about his tenant's rental agreement. He told the Ham & High that the church had a 'private arrangement' with Councillor Coleman. Reverend Giles confirmed that the Totteridge councillor paid less than other church tenants, but blamed this lower rate on the restrictions of long standing tenancy agreements and housing laws.

Finchley Methodist Church is now a registered charity. If you look at the Charities Commission website, you will be able to look at the church's details, and in theory, you might be able to look at information relating to accounts, so as, say, to establish how much income the church derives from property rentals. But, oh dear: unfortunately, according to the website, surrounded by a big red outline, we find a note stating that certain key documents are overdue: the annual return is already twenty two days late.

This is not acceptable from any charity, but for a church to be so remiss seems particularly naughty. Mrs Angry would remind the Reverend Giles of the admonition we find in Matthew, 22.21: 'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's ...' and while Mrs Angry is feeling moved to reflect on matters of spirituality, she would like to draw the attention of Councillor Coleman to the words of the founding father of Methodism, John Wesley: 'When I have money, I get rid of it quickly, lest it find a way into my heart.' Or indeed, Matthew, 19.24: 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God ....'

The picture above shows Brian - or His Worship the Mayor, as he was then - (no wonder he cried when he had to hand over to the new one shortly afterwards: can you imagine how he must have enjoyed being worshipped for a whole year?) - entertaining his landlord, the Reverend Giles, to a nice cup of tea at a reception in the Mayor's parlour, in April last year. This reception was held to welcome a visit by Eddie Turay, the High Commissioner of Sierra Leone. One of Brian's other guests - get a load of this - was, bizarrely, Raine, Countess Spencer, stepmother of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the daughter of the redoubtable romantic novelist Barbara Cartland.

The gentleman in the middle of the picture, incidentally, was the Reverend Emmanuel Samuel Ndanema, Senior Pastor and Founder of All Nations Pentecostal Church UK, in West Hendon, who is also CEO of Solid Rock TNV International Limited. The Reverend is to be commended for combining the duties of Christian ministry with the heavy burden of responsibility for his company which has a wide range of interests in Sierra Leone, but deals primarily with the buying, selling, and exporting of uncut diamonds, gold, and gold dust.

To be fair (yes, we must, even in Broken Barnet) to the Rev and His Worship, there is no reason to believe that they were well acquainted with this individual, but it is an unfortunate fact that Mr Ndanema's church, which has links with some interesting countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, appears, according to the Charities Commission website, to have an irregular accounting history, with accounts overdue since June 2009. Perhaps the pastor is now devoting more time to his business interests.

At the reception, we are told, the High Commissioner urged those present to visit Sierra Leone, helpfully informing the gathering that corruption and trafficking of money were now serious criminal offences in his country, which is reassuring. No doubt His Excellency was impressed on his visit by the equally high standards of probity and transparency that recent audit reports have shown to be the hall mark of the current Tory MetPro friendly administration here in Broken Barnet.

MetPro: Love me tender

One of Mrs Angry's more dedicated readers spends an awful lot of time, it seems, sitting up late at night, reading her blog and brooding darkly on certain recent matters: the never ending tale of wonder that is the MetPro story.

Quite often, this mysterious reader arrives at her blog with a little present for Mrs Angry, a google search that shows up on her stats log with rather touching observations on the theme of 'give MetPro a chance in Barnet', or 'Barnet Council is shit' ... if Mrs Angry was not made of sterner stuff, some of these messages might be misconstrued as a form of harrassment, mightn't they?

Well, obviously, one can sympathise to a large extent with the remark about Barnet Council, but really, I would think that our beloved council has bent over backwards to give MetPro all the chance it needs, wouldn't you? Bent so far backwards, in fact, that it lies sprawled on the floor, legs waving in the air?

Quite a few interesting stories are reaching Mrs Angry's ear, too, about the alleged working practices and history of this company. Lots of admirers out there, it seems.

It is now nearly a month since the Chief Executive of Barnet Council promised there would be an audit committee investigation of the MetPro disaster. We are still waiting to hear any real details of this excuse for an inquiry: no timetable, no terms of reference, nothing. This is simply not good enough: it is a deliberate prevarication - as well as a blatant attempt to minimise the political impact of the issue on the authority.

While this delay continues, we have heard that whereas we were told the authority destroyed the illicit footage of residents, in fact it destroyed only one copy, and not the original. On the advice of the Information Commissioner, therefore, Mrs Angry contacted a senior officer of the LBBarnet last week to ask, as a matter of urgency, for contact details of the company to make further enquiries about this issue - any resident who has been the target of such filming is entitled in law to make a subject access request in regard to the material in question. She received no response from the senior officer, or even a basic acknowledgment. Perhaps emails are being lost again? She then also contacted the person in charge of liquidating the now defunct company, and is still awaiting a response from him too. Oh, and she has made a formal complaint to Barnet in regard to the filming - no acknowledgment again - and she recommends that any other resident affected by this issue might wish to do the same.

Last year, the council's incompetence and lack of IT security standards led to a devastating loss of unencrypted personal data relating to school pupils, (including sensitive material belonging to one of Mrs Angry's kids, thank you very much) from a memory stick stolen from a Barnet laptop, and this was reported to the ICO. Barnet then carried out an internal 'inquiry'.

Can anyone remember what happened? Let me think. 'Lessons were learned'. Some lowly officer probably got the blame, rather than the highly paid senior officer ultimately responsible, or the Cabinet member.

Because this is how we do things in Broken Barnet, isn't it? Remember Iceland: who got the blame there? Not the then leader of the Council, now local Tory MP Mike Freer, who claimed the whole mess was nothing to do with him.

Now it seems that another memory stick, with personal data, in the possession of Barnet Council has, under orders from senior officers, been deliberately destroyed. Was the lesson not learned, after all? Oh, you bad London Borough of Broken Barnet, what are you like?

And talking of Mike Freer: look at this amusing One Barnet style story which is reported on the Publicservice.co.uk website - thanks to blogger Vicki Morris for the reference - if you ever wonder what our local MPs get up to all day, it seems that our Mr Mike Freer is keeping himself very busy. He seems to have overlooked the need to raise the MetPro issue with ministers, for some reason. Don't know what he is doing about the Pinkham Way waste proposals. Or any other local matter: oh no, hold on, I believe - like Andrew Harper - he has developed a sudden interest in squatting, moved to urgent action through deep anxiety over the poor old Gaddafi house in Garden Suburb.

And now, bless him, it seems he has found something else to worry about. Ever conscious about budgets, he has for some reason been fretting about .... the number of mobile phones allocated to staff at Whitehall. Hmm. And someone has been told to go and count them all ... Yes, really.

"Ministers' revelations came in response to questions from Conservative MP Mike Freer, who told Publicservice.co.uk he wasn't convinced the idea that central procurement could drive down the cost of government had yet been taken "to the heart of government". Freer, who conducted a rationalisation of staff mobile phones in Barnet, when he was the council's leader, said he feared nine different government departments could have nine different contracts. "No one has a handle on the cost of government," he said."

Of course Mr Freer is a outstandingly gifted politician. Awarded the title of Private Eye 'Banker of the Year', in honour of the £27 million pounds plus of our money lost in Iceland -although not by him, as we know. According to an interview in the Guardian last year, he stated:

"I'm not responsible for the operational matters ... That's what you have chief officers for."

Oh, and he is the creative genius who thought up the easycouncil model, which seeks to outsource all our local council services. (easycouncil=futureshape=One Barnet, a withered rose by any other name).

It seems he also sees himself as an expert on procurement, rationalisation, and the tight control of contracts. Interestingly, in 2006, the year he became leader of Barnet Council, the authority began its use of MetPro security services. Which begs some interesting questions. Was it under his instigation, or with his knowledge? What about procurement? Contracts? Tenders? Ah. Of course the audit report will be able to set all our minds at rest about all that, won't it? And some lowly fall guy has probably been earmarked already for the blame, rather than any chief officer or councillor.

Sure, isn't he your man for worrying about the phones, though, Mr Freer?

I'm thinking he must get bucketloads of letters from constituents, here in Finchley and Golders Green, on this very subject: from decent folk unable to sleep at night for anxiety over the telecom arrangements in Whitehall. Wonder if his expertise on this issue was acquired on those BT organised Vital Vision courses in the US he attended at an expense of £5,ooo of our money, a couple of years back? Remember - the man who failed to finish his accountancy and business law degree at Stirling University was able to claim an MBA after that. In what? How to count phones and stuff? Always useful.

Oh no: look - according to the council, quoted in some dusty old blogs by Don't Call Me Dave and Rog T, actually the purpose of these courses were, wait for it -

"to build relationships between leading government decision makers, (and Mike Freer: Ed), research partners, and BT, to develop and test respective visions of the future, focussing specifically on technological, social and business changes. It seeks to enable the shaping of policy, inform new thinking, and suggest "- oh f*ck this for a game of soldiers, you get the picture, citizens ... money well spent, of course.

Well, I hope that former leader Freer, and current leader Lynne Hillan, who has been conspicuously silent on the whole subject, for some reason, and perhaps the previous Chief Executive, Leo Boland, are all invited to give evidence to Lord Palmer's audit committee, and any other councillor or senior officer who may have had anything to do with the MetPro 'arrangement'. Perhaps they can enlighten us as to our procurement policy for security services - how we got mixed up with MetPro, then tangled up in Blue Nine, now matey with Magenta, according to the latest expenditure: three different companies at least - almost as bad as nine different phone companies, eh?

So many awkward questions hanging still, like angels, in the foetid air of Broken Barnet ...

How about some answers?

MetPro breaking news: Barnet admits only one film destroyed

Today I received an email from Barnet's director of Corporate Governance, or whatever he calls himself this week, in reply to points raised about MetPro and the infamous council budget meeting where I and several residents were secretly filmed by unlicensed security employees. His response included the following observations:

Neither the Council nor its officers requested or authorised any individual or organisation to carry out filming at the Council budget meeting on 1 March 2011. I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the questions you have raised in this regard. The Council was sent a copy of a film it had not sought or permitted to be taken – this was destroyed without being viewed. The original film has never been in the possession of or the property of the Council.

The Council had been assured by Metpro that its relevant staff were all SIA licensed. Ensuring that licensing arrangements were in place and that all associated requirements complied with were matters for the company. You will be aware that the Council has now terminated its arrangements with Metpro.

The actions taken in relation to the public gallery during the course of the meeting were not, as you put it, in contradiction to Police advice. That advice given to officers outside the Chamber was that, whilst it was not their decision on whether or not there should be further admission to the public gallery, they could not guarantee that the timing and nature of the movement would not result in disruption. This advice was given based on observations of those who were not at the time seated in the public gallery. The Police advice was taken into account by the Mayor in making the decision not to admit further members of the public to the gallery.

So: this scandalous story just gets worse. Barnet Council now admits that it received and destroyed a copy of a film from MetPro, but not the original one. It is telling me that it did not look at the film, which seems highly irresponsible, if true: are those of us who were filmed not entitled to know what footage was taken? Worse still, we are now told that other copies exist: why did Barnet not demand that these be handed over, and report the matter to the Information Commissioner? How many other copies are there?

It is not good enough for Barnet to retrospectively divest itself of all responsibility for ensuring that MetPro's staff were licensed - and CRB checked. Surely it had a duty of care to the people with whom these employees came into contact, and is it not a damning indictment of the standards of scrutiny within the procurement process that these vital safeguards were not made? And of course, no mention is made of the truly incredible fact that in the five years that MetPro was engaged by Barnet Council and was in receipt of what may well be millions of pounds of our money, it seems that no contract was ever in place, let alone any proper monitoring and regulation of service delivery.

The claims made in the last paragraph are untrue, and I know they are untrue because I was a witness. I heard and noted what the Mayor said in the chamber, and I also spoke to the police officer in charge, Inspector Simon Roberts. He told me categorically that he had not, as the Mayor claimed, advised that residents in the overflow room should be prevented from taking up the empty seats in the public gallery. I repeat: the Mayor stated that no more residents would be allowed to enter the half empty gallery because that was the decision made by the police, and the officer concerned himself consequently denied this and actually told me to go and get seventeen people to take up the vacant seats. These people were then physically barred from the gallery by security employees and council officers.

There is supposed to be an internal audit committee investigation into the MetPro affair. The council leadership, of course, hopes that this will safely contain the matter without further political damage. This is a mistake.

LibDem peer Councillor Lord Palmer is to chair this committee. I wrote to him, asking him to state when this will meet, what terms of reference the investigation will have, and the extent of any powers he will have to take action in the case of any critical findings. It is evident from his response that there are as yet no answers to such questions. Without any disrespect to Lord Palmer, his good intentions are not enough: an internal investigation, in circumstances as serious as we now know them to be, is clearly both inadequate and inappropriate. We must continue to demand an urgent, honest and fully independent public inquiry.

Press Release: MetPro and Barnet Council

Press release — 4 April 2011

Call for a public inquiry into the relationship between
MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response and Barnet Council

Barnet Council has been engaging private security firms MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response to control residents’ access to council meetings, in particular the council meeting on 1 March 2011. One of the company directors claims the company has also monitored blogs by Barnet residents, and filmed Barnet residents at Council meetings.

Despite holding contracts worth several hundred thousand pounds with Barnet Council, MetPro Rapid Response collapsed recently owing around £400,000, including £245,000 to HM Revenue & Customs. The firm is now in the hands of liquidators; however, MetPro Emergency Response, a company recently set up by the same company directors associated with MetPro Rapid Response, continued for a while to be employed by Barnet after the collapse of MetPro Rapid Response.

As well as providing security for Council meetings, these firms provided security at several council locations, including some housing vulnerable people.

At the meeting on 1 March, it appears that MetPro security staff did not wear visible identification, breaching Security Industry Authority (SIA) regulations, whilst working for Barnet.

Statements made by directors of the company regarding the scope of their work for Barnet have been contradicted by executive officers of Barnet Council.

The full facts regarding Barnet Council’s contract/s with MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response must be revealed to the public. We need to know about the use of data collected by the company (with full consideration for data protection and human rights implications). We need Barnet Council to reveal the extent of the MetPro companies’ activities on behalf of the Council. Residents and Council staff have a right to know what activities their Council undertake. They have a right to expect the Council only to engage firms with a proven track record for such activities and to monitor such, ensuring, for example, that they comply with legislation, eg, SIA regulations.

The only way that trust can be restored in Barnet Council, following the MetPro debacle, is to hold a full public inquiry. We the undersigned call on Nick Walkley, CEO of Barnet Council, and Lynne Hillan, Council Leader, to immediately engage an independent investigator, enjoying the confidence of Barnet residents, to look into the relationship between MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response and Barnet Council. We demand to know what Barnet Council asked MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response to do, and what Barnet Council has done with any information about residents it has had access to as a result of MetPro’s work.

Signed:

Alexander Clayman (N12)

Derek Dishman (EN5)

Adam Langleben (HA8)

Vicki Morris (NW9)

Theresa Musgrove (N3)

Maria Nash (EN4)

Julian Silverman (N12)

Roger Tichborne (NW7)

Adele Winston (EN5)

If you wish to add your signature, please contact Vicki Morris:

vickimorris@btinternet.com

Breaking news: MetPro story leads in Ham & High: updated

So anyway, now I am officially approved by the Guardian, ha (not Vicki M, though, it seems, which is quite ridiculous) I must write a proper lady's blog ... and do you know, Julia, I've just come back from Hampstead - some really nice shoes in Hobbs, by the way, and, oh, while I was there, I picked up a copy of the Ham & High and there was a really interesting looking lead story,

'Council spies paid to secretly film you at open meetings'

right there on the front page, and all over page two as well, which I didn't quite understand, so I went into Waterstone's and asked a man to explain it to me, in words of one syllable.

It seems some foolish woman blogger, who is a mother too, which is more to the point, of course, has been moaning about the MetPro security company and their use by our beloved Barnet Council. Just imagine! I hope she didn't neglect her housework in the course of such activities: those bannisters won't get polished on their own, Mrs Angry!

Will update with more details later, but in the meanwhile, here is the link, for anyone at NLBP trying to find it: http://tinyurl.com/6bszsp8

*Update: so - according to this exclusive story by Georgia Graham, MetPro's Kevin Sharkey has confirmed that his employees regularly used hidden body-worn CCTV cameras. Mr Sharkey tells us that the use of the cameras, like all CCTV, is for the purpose of 'assisting crime prevention'.

I have to tell you, Mr Sharkey, and Tory Leader Lynne Hillan, and Chief Executive Nick Walkley, that as a resident - and as a 'citizen journalist' - I deeply object to being treated like a potential criminal, just by the very act of exercising my lawful right to attend a council meeting.

In fact, I don't just object, I am outraged at this invasion of my privacy by what amounts to a private, unaccountable secret police force with more authority over the conduct of a council meeting than, well, the real police. Something wrong there, isn't there, Neil?

How can an elected council treat its residents in this way? What sort of administration are you running? Why do you fear the presence of your electors so much that you have to use blackshirted bouncers to keep a few union leaders, heads of voluntary bodies, sixth formers and middle aged accountants out of a council budget meeting?

Why have you not answered the questions put to you by me and others in regard to the way in which this company has been contracted to the council? Questions about the number of licences held by employees of this company, as required by law, and why, if they are held, they are apparently not displayed at all times? Questions about CRB checks? Questions about claims made in publicity material by this company? What footage and personal data is this company keeping on me and other residents attending this meeting? Why are they claiming to monitor our blogs, tweets, and God knows what else? Oh, and why are my emails to opposition councillors apparently being blocked? *second update 17.30pm: just received this email response to the question made to a residents' forum which Barnet magically transformed into a twenty day delayed FOI:

"Unfortunately we are unable to respond at present to your enquiry regarding the company providing security cover at the Town Hall. I am still collating this information. I apologise on behalf of the council for not meeting the 20 working day statutory period. I hope to be able to respond tomorrow to this part of your request. "

Mrs Angry feels a little uncertain about the likelihood of this information seeing the light of day tomorrow, but if it does not appear, there will be a complaint to the ICO.

I think Lynne Hillan owes me and several other residents an explanation, and an apology. I'm waiting, but not for very long.