MetPro/Barnet filming: ICO upholds Mrs Angry's complaint

A personal message for the London Borough of Broken Barnet, from Mrs Angry with love x


Come here ... look: see Mrs Angry's face? Yes, that is a smirk.

Mrs Angry has at last heard from the Information Commissioner in regard to her data protection complaint regarding the covert filming by MetPro at the infamous budget meeting at Barnet's Town Hall on March 1st of this year.

As the letter states:

"On the basis of the information provided to the ICO, it appears unlikely that the London Borough of Barnet has complied with the requirements of the First Data Protection Principle of the DPA (Data Protection Act) in this case. This is because it appears that MetPro on behalf of LBB acted outside of its remit and filmed members of the public including you without your knowledge or consent.

Although this course of action was taken by MetPro apparently without the authorisation or prior knowledge of LBB, in our view it is still the responsibility of LBB as MetPro would not have been at the meeting in the first place if their services had not been engaged by LBB. As far as the DPA is concerned, LBB ultimately has to take responsibility for organisations that they engage in such circumstances."

And of course, the responsibility undeniably lies with Barnet because, in fact, rather than acting outside a remit, Barnet had failed to establish any remit in the first place. As we know, there was NO contract with MetPro, ( and 600 other council service suppliers) - no specification of duties or proper regulation and Lord Palmer's Audit Report clearly identified the council as being grossly negligent in this respect.

The London Borough of Broken Barnet has never acknowledged any responsibility for the illicit filming, nor apologised to Mrs Angry for the incident.

The London Borough of Broken Barnet will be hearing from Mrs Angry in relation to this matter in the very near future.

Metpro Rapid Response: RIP

Yes: the curse of Mrs Angry has struck once more.

More deadly than a bite from Himself, An Amadán Mór, and scarier than the gaze of Medusa, her vengeance has been wreaked.

Vengeance? Hmm, well: as you know I was not exactly amused by the antics of Metpro Rapid Response, Barnet Council's private police force, at the recent council meeting - (see earlier posts, Broken Barnet's Secret Army etc) - nor was I impressed by Barnet Council's impenetrable wall of silence, when asked some pertinent questions about their use of this bunch of faceless, blackshirted heavies. But then last week, I heard something which really, really pissed me off.

After the last residents' Forum, it was alleged that someone apparently in charge of this group of glorified bouncers had claimed that, at the infamous budget meeting, he had had his men secretly filming suspected troublemakers and anarchists like me - ha - with hidden cameras.

Not only that, it was alleged he also claimed that all blogs and tweets were being routinely 'monitored' by this company: Mrs Angry is apparently a particular favourite. Glad you are a fan, Mr Metpro: wish I could return the compliment. Or perhaps I just have?

How grotesque it would be if the council which has so shamelessly, if impotently, tried to defy the instructions from ministers Eric Pickles and Bob Neill to allow filming of council meetings, had actually sanctioned the covert filming of ordinary residents, as they attempted to exercise their lawfull right to witness the adoption of the annual budget, paid for by their taxes.

This would mean that rather than follow a government initiative intended to bring greater transparency, scrutiny and accountability to local government by allowing residents to record the actions of their elected representatives, a private security company, acting on the council's behalf, had been encouraged to spy on ordinary citizens, filmed them without permission or notice, and presumably may still be in possession of film footage of them.

This raises some extremely serious questions about Barnet Council's use of private security companies. Was the council aware of the alleged filming? Had it authorised any such action? What are the data protection implications? If such filming did take place, and the council was unaware of it, what investigation is it going to undertake into the matter?

Mrs Angry wrote to the Chief Executive to ask about this allegation on the 16th of March. She has received no response whatsoever, just as she received none to an earlier email on the same subject. Mrs Angry is a non person, in the London Borough of Broken Barnet.

And then today, she hears from journalist and blogger Mr David Hencke, who has been troubling the council with his attentions again, that there may be a pressing reason for the ominous silence from NLBP:

take a look at his blog:

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/private-security-firm-that-banned-bloggers-goes-bust/

Alas, it seems that Metpro Rapid Response is no more. It is being liquidated, and the security contract will now presumably be up for grabs. Let's hope that the new company is chosen in a careful process, open to the full scrutiny of armchair auditors and all 'respectable' citizen journalists. We live in hope, don't we, readers, even in Broken Barnet?

Let's hope too that Barnet Council will now feel moved to launch a full and honest investigation into the use of this company, and explain to residents and bloggers exactly why it felt the need to control and monitor its own citizens in the manner of a paranoid dictatorship, losing its grip on reality, and teetering on the brink of collapse.

Ah.