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.

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.

Broken Barnet's Secret Army

Do you think their mums had to sew the badges on for them?

Last updated 10.00 pm Weds. *see below

Repressive regimes all over the world survive by the use of intimidation. Very often these countries are little more than a police state, where citizens are bullied into obedient behaviour by force and denied any legal recognition of their human rights, including the right to engage freely in a democratic system of government. Of course, this could never happen here, could it?

Er, well, yes, it could, and it did, here in Barnet, at our Town Hall, just this evening. Except it wasn't the Metropolitan police who took control of the residents attending tonight's council meeting: it was Barnet Council's own private army of security men: muscle bound bouncers in black shirts, leathers, and an assortment of pseudomilitary uniforms.

As I left the Town Hall this evening I saw a senior council officer gather his staff together and congratulate them on a job well done. As he did so, his boss - (my personal seat warmer, as it happens) - was elbowing him to shut up, as his chum hadn't spotted Mrs Angry standing with cocked ear, listening with ill disguised fury. Passing the police officer in charge on the way out, Mrs Angry whispered naughtily in his ear to send Mrs Angry's compliments to his boss, who once graciously entertained her at his office in Colindale with an audience, and has been known to read this blog. If you are reading this, Mr S, I think you might want to ask some questions about some of the events described here.

Throughout the evening, the ordinary council officers and regular police officers that I observed showed a remarkable degree of forebearance and were perfectly well mannered, but the way in which security staff were used in tonight's meeting was nothing less than an abuse of power, and unneccessarily prevented many ordinary residents from exercising their rights to attend the meeting.

Worse still, it became apparent that at this event, the proper police advice was ignored by the council and overuled by their own security agents: in other words in Hendon Town Hall, a bunch of black shirted security men and their council bosses have precedence over the decisions of the attending police officer in charge. This is what happened.

I arrived at the Town Hall at ten past six: already there were dozens of police officers and security people milling about outside, and there was a rather odd sort of queue, as if people were waiting for a bus: this was the queue for the 45 places in the public gallery. Luckily I managed, one way or another, to get fairly close to the front of the queue. There was a news camera in the front, and BBC's Tim Donovan walked by. Eventually we were allowed in, in tiny groups of six at a time, past a bag checking process - (no, they didn't dare) - and up past lines of council officers, and more security, all the way up the stairs and into the council chamber.

I have never seen such a heavy, hysterically over the top security presence in such a situation. Obviously very few in the queue managed to get a seat in the public gallery, which immediately caused bad feeling, as several citizen journalists were denied their Pickles guaranteed access to the meeting, and so were union leaders who should be entitled to witness a meeting of such importance to their members. No one had been told to attend at six o'clock in order to have a shot at gaining a seat, of course.

Those who did not get into the gallery were pushed into an overflow room where they had to listen on loudspeakers, without any clue what was going on, or who was speaking, because, oh dear, we do not stream any live or recorded film of meetings in Barnet, do we? At one point the sound system broke down. Many people left, as they felt there was no point in being there. Others fell foul of the enormous security presence lining the corridor between the chamber and the overflow room. One resident at least is said to have been manhandled by the blackshirts: this is being investigated. Another said he had his camera confiscated. By what right?

The miserable budget 'debate' kicked off. Hillan repeated her usual stock phrases of meaningless easybarnet newspeak and doublethink: better services for less money, bla bla bla, painful for all of us bla bla bla live within our means bla bla bla new relationship with our residents: ha ha, that brought the house down, I can tell you.

Alison Moore for Labour pointed out that actually most of the budget cuts were politically targeted, and deliberate choices rather than aimed at protecting frontline services.

Jack Cohen, for the Libdems, noted that this Tory council has become the laughing stock of the nation, with spectacular waste and mismanagement, and for the contempt it showed for the public it was supposed to represent. 'Cynical though I am', he said, 'it is never quite enough to keep up with One Barnet'

Through out all the speeches, Brian Coleman slouched, as usual biting his nails, picking his nose, pursing his lips, or eyes ahead, hands clasped together in one of his 'I am a great statesman' poses. He wasn't on the best of form. Is because of his new interest in good manners in public life? Or perhaps he was feeling a little camera shy. He tried to pull off one of his set pieces, banging on about the world not coming to an end, but like any stand up performer, he is running short of material - and I've already seen his show on this Budget tour, so it's all too familiar. He talked about a subject on which he is an expert: rubbish. He informed us his rule of benevolent despotism will keep Barnet safe, green and clean. 'And mean' yelled a heckler. Our Brian claimed, apropos of something or other, that, contrary to popular opinion, he does have a life, and therefore does not waste it looking at 'certain websites'. He likes this one, though, don't you Brian?

Andrew Harper, oh Andrew Harper, yet again went on and on about himself and the size of his portfolio. Will you give it a rest, man? We've all seen bigger, and no one likes a show off. Some issues there, I feel. Maybe Model X is turning out to be a bit of a disappointment.

When we had arrived, to our amusement some large notices had been stuck on the infamous glass wall that protects the councillors from the seething mob of unwashed residents, and people from Hampstead Garden Suburb, telling us that THE PUBLIC MUST REMAIN SILENT AT ALL TIMES. Oh, how we laughed. The Mayor had explained to us at the beginning of the meeting that the debate we were there to see was taking place amongst the councillors, ah: I see ... no audience participation, no bags of sweets would be thrown into the audience, and Captain Hook/Brian Coleman would not be inviting us to come and sit on his knee (sorry - flashback to childhood trauma - panto at the Golders Green Hippodrome. Don't ask). As a special treat, however, Mr Mayor said at the end of speeches we were allowed to do a bit of clapping. Unfortunately, we got this a bit mixed up, and did a lot of jeering, booing, yelling, and only a bit of clapping, and in all the wrong places.

Those of us in the public gallery were of course filming and taking photos and tweeting away. Staff made feeble attempts to get us to stop, but were simply ignored and, able to follow what was happening with the others via twitter, we soon realised they were having a much worse experience than we were - but that's how it goes, friends, in easyBarnet: those in the cheap seats get one level of service, those of us in the elite section go first class. The rich man in his castle and all that. Sorry. We thought of you, though.

In fact, I became increasingly aware that one or two people had left the gallery and so some seats were free. We asked some council officers why those in the other room weren't being allowed in. No one knew. Time passed and our friends in the other room said via twitter that they weren't being allowed to come in. They were even having to ask one of the bouncers for permission to visit the loo.

The budget debate continued. Little Cllr Robert Ramsbottom wittered on about what a shame it was to cut arts funding. 'Don't do it then!' yelled fellow blogger Vicki (note to boy bloggers and Dave Hill: ahem - the gentlemen were stuck in the overflow room, whereas the fluffy headed ladies made it to the main event ...) Ms Morris put up a terrific show, shouting down Rams and pointing out the Big Society idiocy of cutting grants to voluntary bodies. The public gallery errupted in a torrent of thunderous applause, cheering, floor stamping. She was spoken to intimidatingly by a burly bouncer. She carried on. Police were called in, but had more sense than to do anything with someone who was not causing an offence. Another person in the gallery was spotted by a councillor filming and a security person tried to get him to stop. A council officer intervened, which was interesting: I suspect there is a divergence between council leadership's wishes and the common sense of the officers.

By now there were 17 seats available. We passed a note to some Labour councillors, and they immediately asked the Mayor to let people from the overflow room in. LET THEM IN! LET THEM IN! LET THEM IN! yelled the gallery, stamping their feet. Susette Palmer demanded they were let in too, and then the Mayor agreed, and a cheer arose. And then nothing happened.

The debate continued. We continued to get messages saying that our friends were being refused entry to the gallery. We started to yell this at the chamber. A blackshirt came and told me to stop or: or what? You can't do anything, I said. Yes I can. No, I replied: you can't. And no, he didn't.

The Mayor then stated to us that the police officer in charge of the security had advised no one else should be let into the public gallery.

I didn't believe this, and decided to find out what was going on. I slipped out and made my way along the corridor, which, like the landing, was packed with council officers, police and bouncers. One enormous security man demanded to know if I was perhaps going to the 'bathroom'. I said that I was intending to have a pee rather than take a bath and while this thought was slowly processed I managed to get down the corridor. I asked the police who was in charge and they pointed to a guy by the doors of the overflow room, being anxiously spoken to by a couple of residents. Is it true, I asked him, that you have forbidden anyone to go into the public gallery, even tough there were 17 spare seats? He said categorically that it was not, and very decently, and sensibly, said that I could go into the overflow room and choose 17 people to come in. Really?

So Mrs Angry, on the command of HM constabulary, nipped into the room and told them the good news. But who to choose? It was like being given a life boat on the Titanic, and being told you could rescue only 17 drowning passengers. 'So', I said, pointing my finger: 'Citizen Journalist and blogger Mr Reasonable: I choose you ...' and the Chair of a local voluntary body, and Alex Clayman, the FCH sixth form demo organiser and some other kids, and an assorted mixure of other residents,and they followed me back up the corridor to the chamber. When we got to the doors, we were stopped by security. I argued with some guy who said I could go back in, but not the others. Absolute pointblank refusal to listen to reason. Some have reported that they were stopped by senior officers too, although I didn't see that.

I think this was absolutely extraordinary. The sensible decision of the police inspector in charge of the security operation, intended to defuse any potential conflict, and at the same time safeguard the lawful right of the public to attend a council meeting, was over ruled by a private security company employed by the council as bouncers, and seemingly accountable to no one.

Who was in charge of these men? Was there any co-ordination between them, the council's senior officers and the police? If not, why not?

This is the company which supplied the blackshirts - take a look.

http://www.metprogroup.co.uk/home.php

Of course, despite the name, they are nothing to do with the Met, and I can't see what the pro was all about either. In my view, there should be an urgent enquiry by the bona fide authorities into the conduct of last night's debacle, and lessons learned about how to deal better with the need to balance security with the rights of ordinary citizens living in a democracy and wishing to exercise their lawful right to attend a council meeting.

The meeting this evening voted in a massive package of cuts which will have devastating effects on the daily lives of every residents of this borough. Tonight people came to see this voted through, and to protest. They also came to demonstrate their right to scrutinise council meetings in the way they see fit, by filming, tweeting, and with cameras. (will add links later this morning to the fim clips now available for your viewing pleasure). Here's one of our favourite councillor, and well done, Adam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsAmOAXArE

Re-reading this, this morning, I think I need to emphasise that in many ways, despite the inevitablity of the passing of the budget vote, last night was a triumph for the residents of the borough. Earlier in the day, Lynne Hillan took fright and spoke in the local press about the possibilty of live streaming of council meetings, and during the course of yesterday's meeting those in the public gallery unequivocally established their right to film, photograph and tweet the proceedings. Minister Grant Shapps yesterday tweeted his support of the right to do this, in fact. In short, last night was nothing less than yet another demonstration of the abject failure of Lynne Hillan's leadership. And how nice that her leadership has done more to unite the residents of this borough than any Big Society initiative could ever hope to.

Bur in the end, the evening turned out to be more about the fundamental right of residents simply to attend these meetings and to witness the proceedings without fear of intimidation or attempts to control their right of access. This evening, in short was an absolute disgrace and yet again Barnet has shown itself to be unable to understand the fundamental principles of democracy. Note to the senior managers of Barnet: if you cannot oversee a council meeting without preventing ordinary citizens from taking their places in a half empty public gallery, you may not consider that as a successfully organised event.

And now I am going to bed.

Oh, but, I can't go to bed without adding the funniest episode of the night: as we stood outside after the meeting, and after Mrs Angry winding up a poor policeman by mistaking the arrival of the Mayor's car for her own official limousine, and pretending to open up the door as if to get in, a group of Tory councillors slipped past us, looking furtive, but very pleased with themselves. Cllr Barry Evangeli was beaming with delight, lovingly cradling a tupperware box of cakes and biscuits liberated from the slap up buffet the dear councillors have laid on for them at these meetings. I'll bet he had to fight with Brian for it first though, don't you? Kind of sums them up, really, doesn't it?

* Weds 10.00 pm:

this post has had by far the highest number of hits of any I have written for this blog. I think people are genuinely horrified at the events of last night. And I am appalled to read the following remarks given in today's local Times group online paper by Barnet Tory Leader Lynne Hillan:

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8884511.Security__nothing_to_do_with_me__says_council_leader/

“I don’t think we were about to pick people up bodily and throw them out of the meeting unless we really had to.”

Unless we really had to.

I appeal to the ordinary Conservative councillors in Barnet to consider what happened last night, and these comments, and to ask yourself if you really want to be associated with this sort of remark, and this sort of behaviour. If you don't, I suggest you do something about it. Now.