Friday joke: Broken Barnet - the no thinking zone

Not allowed in Broken Barnet: thinking in public: parks, open spaces, enclosed spaces, council meetings, residents forums, libraries, in full daylight, or in the middle of the night

Barnet Council has launched a consultation with residents on proposals for the creation of a borough-wide Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) to control crime, disorder and nuisance associated with thinking in public places.

If implemented, the DPPO will give police the powers to tackle anti-social behaviour and crime associated with the disaffected thought processes and the freedom of expression across the whole borough.

The order would expand on the four DPPOs which are already in place in North Finchley, Finchley, Hendon and Cricklewood town centres.

There has been a strict ban on thinking at council meetings for some time now: councillors have had no problems in complying with this requirement, of course.

Residents Forums have also been subject to no thinking orders since the council's constitution was amended last year, to prevent the risk of any challenge to Tory policy, and the correct thought processes of One Barnet.

Libraries are being closed by Councillor Robert Rams, who has never had an interesting thought in his life, in order to discourage thinking in public, except in Hampstead Garden Suburb, where you may be allowed to think if you are wealthy and likely to vote Tory at the next election.

The new powers would mean if a person continues to think in the area when asked not to do so by a police officer, they could be arrested or fined up to £500 if convicted by a court.

Police officers would also be able to arrest anyone failing to surrender their free will and democratic principles when asked to do so. Public expression of deviant thought, for example posters in shop windows by local cafe owners demonstrating opinions contrary to the principles of One Barnet, and/or its elected members, will be investigated by the thought police from a Specialist Investigations Unit at Scotland Yard.

Another woman thinking: not allowed

The new powers, in addition to promoting responsible thinking, will be complemented with access to support services for people unable to cope without intellectual stimulation.

The powers are not intended to disrupt peaceful activities such as a philospher enjoying a picnic in a park with a glass of wine and a copy of 'Less than nothing: Hegel & the shadow of dialectical materialism' by Slavoj Zizek. Yes, that Slavoj Zizek.

The proposals for a borough-wide order have been formulated because of the extent of existing DPPOs and suggestions for additional orders in four other town centres.

It would also help to tackle any displacement of activism, protests and any related anti-social behaviour from town centres already covered by orders.

Councillor David Longstaff, Cabinet Member for Safety and Resident Engagement, said:

“Thinking and the associated anti-social behaviour it inevitably causes, can be a real blight on our residents’ lives and the lives of Tory councillors.

“These orders are not intended to disrupt peaceful activities, but they can, combined with the right support, be a useful tool in tackling crime and disorder associated with thinking in public places.

“That’s why we would like to hear residents’ views on proposals for borough-wide measures.”

Blogger ' Barnet Bugle' is outraged by these proposals. He stated: 'This anti libertarian town hall diktat will not stop residents thinking, and is completely unenforceable. If I want to sit outside the Town Hall and think, I will, and I am sure that Eric Pickles will back me up.'

Mr Mustard, who thinks rather too much for his own good said: 'This is political correctness gone mad. I intend to email Councillor Coleman about it, later on this evening, when I have returned from thinking with fellow bloggers in the Greyhound.'

Mrs Angry has given up thinking, of course, because it gives her migraine.

Oh, alright: Friday joke & all that, yes, drinking, drinking, not thinking. Almost as bad, according to all the boy Barnet bloggers.

It's true though: our Bog Brother masters on Barnet Council are cracking down and spoiling everyone's fun, because this is Broken Barnet, and we must all behave ourselves.

Oh: unless we are Tory candidates, say, or Tory councillors, who are not subject to any form of scrutiny or any required standard of behaviour.

Ah: except ... naughty Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, you are subject to one new standard of behaviour.

The failure properly to declare any pecuniary interest, in the register of interests, for example, will become a criminal offence.

Don't say you weren't warned.

And now Mrs Angry is off to Barnet's offices at NLBP with her fellow bloggers to help Mr Andrew 'Blackhole' Travers with his adding up, and - well, who knows what else?

Do say hello, if you see us. Actually, no: probably keep your head down and look in the other direction ...

Broken Barnet: an interview with the thought police

Not 1984: 2012: Boris and Talk London in Barnet, in January, watched over by big brother Chair Brian Coleman.

At this event the strength of opposition exhibited by the audience to Coleman's parking scheme led Mayor Boris to express his support for Helen Michael. The event was held, ironically, at the police Peel Centre.

People often ask why Barnet has produced such an intensely active blogosphere.

At the Netroots conference the other day, trying to explain this, I joked about what you might describe as 'the foetid atmosphere of a London borough run by a lunatic collection of mutant, dim witted neo Thatcherite Tories ... '

I also joked that I should have been more forthright in my description. Of course I had forgotten to add the other unique characteristic of this council's form of government: the remarkable tendency to shameless, soviet style repression of the freedom of expression, the defence of free and open debate, the right to challenge and hold to account the often outrageously undemocratic decisions and policies of our elected representatives.

You may recall that last year blogger Mr Mustard was the victim of a frankly deranged attempt by Barnet to have him prosecuted under the pretext of the Data Protection Act, in a desperate move to try to shut down a vociferous critic of council incompetence.

Think back even further to the MetPro scandal, and the use of illegally operating, unlicensed black shirted bouncers to bar residents from a council meeting and illicitly film me and others present with hidden cameras.

Remember the intimidatory Big Brother posters that appeared at council offices on the day of strike action?

Consider all the many, many examples of the refusal to answer Freedom of Information requests, or to publish open data which should already be in the public domain, remember the questions over conflicts of interest, and the declaration of interests by senior officers and members alike.

Look at the blatantly manipulative amendments to the consitution aimed at shutting down the process of engagement with residents and non executive members, the censoring of residents forums, the abolition of scrutiny committees, the cynical planting of One Barnet friendly 'ideas' on Barnet 'consultation' websites.

Ask yourselves this: is this how a democratically elected administration is supposed to behave?

Is this localism in action, Eric?

And now, just when you think things can't get any worse, and the recent downfall of Brian Coleman had marked the emergence of a new era, and a new direction for the future of Broken Barnet, look what is happening.

As reported in earlier posts, one of the leading activists in the campaign which was largely responsible for the defeat of Coleman in the GLA election is Helen Michael, the cafe owner from North Finchley who refused to stand by and see her business, and so many others in the area, face ruin as a direct result of the idiotic parking rules introduced by Coleman.

All around the borough, within a week or so of the new rules and charges being introduced, high street traders were reporting up to 40% loss in business. The clear evidence of the catastrophic impact on local businesses was ignored by Coleman, and ignored by the leader of Barnet, Richard Cornelius, and ignored by all the Tory backbenchers. Cornelius and all his Tory colleagues knew perfectly well that the scheme was a disaster, but chose to remain silent.

Why?

Because they are all a bunch of snivelling, hypocritical cowards, with not a backbone amongst them. They said nothing, but waited until after Coleman's defeat, accomplished by a determined campaign of opposition led by the blogosphere, local traders, and residents' groups.

celebrating the election of Andrew Dismore AM - and the defeat of Brian Coleman

Only then did they - oh, and our local Tory MPS - begin to fall over themselves with a sudden desperate need to convince us that they had always really been against the parking scheme, you know. Leader Cornelius even apologised in a local paper - he was sorry. Sorry!

After Coleman's political demise and two humiliating by election defeats, the parking scheme has been effectively abandoned and will be reviewed. And at what cost? How many businesses, in the meanwhile, have gone under? Will the damage to our high streets ever be undone? Can it be undone?

If it were not for the courage, resilience and determination of Helen Michael, the campaign against the parking madness would never have been won. Tory leader Cornelius was so impressed by her he even had the gall to invite her to stand as a Tory councillor. Guess what, she refused - even though she was a former Tory voter.

Helen had, as part of her efforts to oppose the parking scheme, created, published and distributed a poster directly linking Coleman to the damage to high street trade. It was a hugely popular poster, for obvious reasons, with traders and residents alike, all of whom were badly affected by the impact of the scheme, both financially, and in terms of restricted accessability.

pic courtesy Times Series Helen & the poster:

please note - if the thought police object to the publication of the publication of this poster, do let Mrs Angry and the local press know & we will censor it immediately ... oh and you might want a word with a few hundred traders for the same reason

She was visited by the police in Cafe Buzz, apparently after a complaint from the council, who pointed out politely that the only thing wrong with it was that she had failed to put her details as publisher on the poster as required by law. She immediately agreed to amend the poster, and did so.

The police told her that there would be no further action.

And there was no further action. Until now.

On the night before the election, residents in Finchley and elsewhere in the borough, as well as elsewhere in the capital, reported seeing an organised team of flyposters arriving in the streets and plastering bus stops and empty shop windows with Back Boris posters. It would appear that this co ordinated event, in apparent breach of the law, has not been investigated by the police.

During the Brunswick Park election, the local tory party issued a series of leaflets with some very creative and interesting claims. One of these reported that they had successfully won the retraction of parking charges for the area's previously free car parks. This was in breach of the purdah rules that regulate the conduct of elections. When the Labour agent complained, the CEO of Barnet, Nick Walkley was obliged to admit this was a breach, but merely asked the Tories to 'withdraw the leaflet'. It would appear that no further action has resulted from this, either.

A question for you, Mr Walkley: why is Ms Michael being investigated, and no action taken in regard to the other two cases?

Because out of the blue last week - and blue does seem to be the appropriate colour -Helen Michael was contacted by police and told that she would be obliged to attend a local police station for an interview in regard to the Coleman poster.

She was asked for her 'co operation' - failure to show such 'co operation', one imagines, might have led to her being arrested. Taking legal advice, she sent a statement to the DPP, putting her version of the matter.

Yesterday Helen spent two hours at Barnet Police Station, not arrested, but under caution, being interviewed - a recorded interview - by two detectives from what she was told is Scotland Yard's 'Special Investigation Unit' - whatever that means.

There is a Specialist Operations branch which deals with various security issues, including counter terrorism, but one would imagine that only a complete idiot would think it likely that a cafe owner from North Finchley worried about the drop in sales of her tuna mayo baguettes was a threat to national security, or even the security of a tedious minor local politician - or indeed think it a justifiable use of public resources, especially at a time of such need for counter terrorist scrutiny in the preparation for the Olympic Games.

Even without this unprecedented time of security, which already is causing an enormous strain on the capability and resources of the Met police in London - with the level of criminal activity in this borough, in our city, can we really afford the time, money and energy to interrogate a woman over a months old poster relating to a local parking scheme?

Mrs Angry has seen a transcript of some of the questions asked at this interview, and frankly the nature of these questions is just incredible: not technical questions, but in a deeply worrying line of exploration, actually probing the thought processes behind the production of the poster.

What were the reasons behind the poster?

Were these her own ideas?

Was it just the local traders who were involved in the production of the poster?

Was there any political input or intention in production of the poster?

Helen believes that the official instigator of the complaint is the council. If so, then this is simply outrageous: another example of the dysfunctional, Orwellian mind set of the deluded Tory administration and its senior management - a sign of the desperate, blatant need they have to control not only what we do, but how we think, and what we say.

And what possible justification there can be for police intervention into the thoughts and opinions of ordinary residents, who are, after all, doing nothing but acting within their democratic right to freedom of expression, and attempting to exert some sort of control over a disaffected council elected to represent their interests, but clearly acting with every intention of serving their own self interests, and the interests of a wider commercial sector, encircling this borough, and waiting to grab any opportunity for profit at our expense.

But then of course: how could we forget?

This is not a local community, empowered by the principles of localism: transparency, scrutiny, and accountability, the natural home of the Tory values of liberty, freedom and choice, but the inversion of everything that those qualities represent, the ultimate suburban dystopia, where thinking and speaking out against injustice is subversive and dangerous, and must be controlled.

This is Broken Barnet.

Rewriting the bible: Mrs Angry on God

Michael Gove: not God yet, but he's getting there


God is very popular with politicians at the moment, have you noticed?

Especially the stern faced old fashioned God, who looks and sounds like Michael Gove: or ... no, Mrs Angry thinks perhaps Michael Gove is God, because after all he has just updated the bible, hasn't he? Rewritten it. Produced a new foreword for the King James version being sent to all schools. Wonder what it says? We can only speculate: a revision of the Sermon on the Mount, possibly, with Jesus bigging up the Big society, and supporting the encouragement of business backed free schools in middle class areas.

And now David Cameron has remembered that he is a sort of member of the Church of England, just in time for Christmas, and is suddenly keen to uphold Christian values. For other people of course, and in terms of vague, historical and cultural influence, rather than on a personal basis. Good, good. Right wing politicians have always been fond of promoting religious observance by the masses for the purpose of social control, haven't they? No need to observe the basic tenets of the faith themselves, or to involve one's individual conscience on matters of political policy making.

Here in Barnet, you know, we have senior council officers who like to claim, via the devil's network of social media, that they are doing God's work in the London Borough of Broken Barnet. Yes: really. Certainly there is need of an evangelical mission to reclaim the lost souls of our Tory councillors and the senior management team, but Mrs Angry is mindful of the fact that Old Nick Walkley is in charge of the London Borough of Broken Barnet and all its works, (public works, not policy), rather than the Almighty.

Some local authorities are becoming very keen to do the work of the Lord, too, or at least keen to appear keen to do the work of the Lord, if it persuades religious organisations to take over council functions and help with budget limitations.

You may remember the story from South Wales, featuring Camarthenshire County Council, an authority unofficially twinned with Broken Barnet, as we have so much in common. This local authority is dominated by 'independent' party groupings: as you might imagine, as in most former mining areas, Tory polititicians are still not awfully popular in South Wales, and councillors with conservative tendencies are required to hide their allegiances behind an alias.

CCCouncil was responsible earlier this year for calling police to a council meeting to arrest Jacqui Thompson, the blogger Caebrwyn, for the dreadful crime of sitting in the public gallery, quietly using her phone to film some of the proceedings. The Camarthenshire authority's obsessive secrecy and fear of scrutiny is very much of the same nature as our own home grown tyrants here in Broken Barnet, produced in different circumstances by the same primitive reaction of elected representatives who do not wish to be accountable to their electorate, and senior council officers who have forgotten that they are the servants of the community which pays their salaries.

One of the extraordinary recent decisions of Camarthenshire County Council has been, at a time of severe economic hardship, and oft quoted need for financial restraint, to award the loan of a huge sum of money, on very favourable terms, to a controversial evangelical Christian organisation, the Towy Community church. The council has also given warm approval to the church's planning application for a 500 hundred seat 'auditorium' which would seem likely to be used in effect as a church, with other unspecified amenities on the site. Read Y Cneifiwr's post here:

http://cneifiwr-emlyn.blogspot.com/2011/12/mercy-mysteries-towy-community-church.html

The reason this church is so controversial is that it has, until recently, included on its website a link to the 'Mercy Mission' organisation, a movement based on very extreme fundamentalist views, allegedly including the belief that demonic possession could make young women vulnerable to eating disorders and sexual 'promiscuity'( ie being sexually active, and sinfully, tut tut, enjoying themselves). Says Y Cneifiwr:

"At the recent council meeting which approved the latest funding package for the church, many councillors justified their support on the basis that it would enable Towy Community Church to offer services including a food bank, furniture recycling centre and debt counselling service (run on "Christian principles" of course). A brief glance at the church's website says that the food bank and debt counselling service are up and running and have apparently been operational for some time. The furniture recycling service, which one councillor claimed to have used personally, is not mentioned until you turn to the Xcel project itself where it is described in the future tense. All very confusing."

It seems that there are councillors on Camarthenshire County Council who are naturally disposed to Christian values being upheld in the context of council policy in action. According to Cneifiwr:

Two weeks ago Cllr Gwynne Wooldridge, whose portfolio includes education, stood up to tell councillors that in his view there was only one book that mattered: the Bible.

Good news, then. Sorry. Good News, then, for everyone - whether they like it or not.
Since I wrote the first draft of this post, Caebrwyn has written the following in regard to the Towy decision and the declaration of interests by councillors:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.com/2011/12/towy-community-church-declarations-of.html

"Towy Community Church - Declarations of Interest

Just a brief post relating again to the decision made at the last full council meeting to 'fill' the latest gap in the funding for the Towy Community Church's 'bowling alley' project. The Minutes were published today and I note that two County Councillors, G Thomas and T Davies had declared an interest in this item as they were 'Christians'. Clearly they felt their religious beliefs possibly precluded them from making an impartial decision. I suppose the same could also be said for any atheists, agnostics etc amongst them all. Taken to the nth degree, there would be no one left in the Chamber. A couple of Executive Board Members professed their general faith including Gwynne Wooldridge stating that the most important book was the Bible, and Cllr Pat Jones claimed she saw her 'role' as carrying out 'God's work' in the community. Another became almost emotional as he mentioned how he had contacted the Towy Community Church to give them some furniture and had been hugged by an extremely grateful recipient. Officers also spoke in support of the project. As the 'financial' and 'faith' aspects of this partnership seem to have become blurred, one could almost reach the conclusion that the Council's involvement with the Towy Community Church was entirely inappropriate altogether, particularly given the intention of building a church and the link to the Mercy Ministries (removed last month).

In my opinion, for the Council to have been able to consider this matter in even a remotely impartial manner, and avoid any potential conflict of interest, there was only one correct option; Members and senior officers who belong to, or have faith in, any similarly styled Evangelical church or organisation, should have declared an interest well over a year ago."

The same local authority has suddenly decided, rather late in the day, that it might be necessary to consider whether it ought to have some sort of consideration for equalities issues:

"The County Council's Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee will turn its attention in the New Year to its draft "Strategic Equality Plan" and consider the responses received after the completion of a consultation in 2011. This is needed to bring the council in line with the Equalities Act 2010, the aim of which is to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex; race; sexual orientation; religion; age; disability; gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity."

Hmm. Perhaps they might have thought about this issue when accepting a proposal of partnership from a religious body which has extreme views on these very matters. Evangelical Christians have very intolerant views on the subject of the role of women, homosexuality, sex out of marriage: will such an organisation be prepared to provide services without discrimination and without the imposition of their interpretation of Christian values on such services? If the future of local authorities is going to be pushed, Big Society style, in the direction of low cost partnership with willing voluntary bodies and religious organisations, how can we prevent the risk of intolerance and injustice for minority groups or others whose lifestyles or beliefs are not in accordance with those of the new service provider?

Equalities: oh dear. Sticky subject for conservative minded councillors everywhere.

Not so long ago, Mrs Angry was present at a council meeting where Councillor Brian Gordon, who is a member of the orthodox Jewish/charedi community, questioned an officer speaking to a committee about fostering issues as to whether children are being cared for by same sex couples, and he asked if the authority did not make sure such children had 'a mother and a father'. The embarrassed officer had to remind the councillor of the requirement to comply with statutory equalities legislation. Councillor Gordon did not ask if anyone ensured that the needs of these children were being addressed, that these children were well cared for, or happy: morality, in his view, would appear to be a matter of approving the sexual inclinations of prospective foster parents rather than protecting the well being of the children.

Not so long ago, Mrs Angry was present at another council meeting where Councillor Brian Coleman, who claims to be an 'active' Methodist, declared that he would prefer it if Barnet did not have to provide free transport for children with special needs, the disabled, and vulnerable adults, or 'these people' as he contemptuously described them. The senior officer from Social Services who was present kept quiet, and failed to remind Councillor Coleman of the need to comply with equalities legislation, and also failed to remind Councillor Coleman that free taxi transport and parking is provided for Tory councillors, and that his remarks are completely objectionable.

Mrs Angry is unsure of the way in which active Methodism and a belief in Christian values manifest themselves in the life of Brian Coleman. When constituent and single mother Sharada Osman contacted him recently, for example, with worries about an enormous increase in her rent, his reaction was not one of Christian compassion and offers of assistance, but to inform her abruptly that she should 'live in the real world'. As we know, in the real world, Councillor Coleman lives in accommodation owned by his local Methodist church, and enjoys a fixed rent level at approximately half the market rate. In the next world, of course, Mrs Angry suspects Brian's accommodation may be less well appointed, and rather warmer than he might have expected.

Every full council meeting in the London Borough of Broken Barnet is begun with an address by the Mayor's chaplain: all Tory councillors stand piously in the chamber with heads bowed, solemn faced, listening to the prayers and exhortations of the minister. What a shame that without fail they then turn away and resort to the same old behaviour - immersing themselves in petty squabbles, pointless point scoring against the opposition, refusing all opportunities for debate, obstructing the processes of transparency and scrutiny, and greedily awarding themselves over generous allowances without any open system of appraisal, or public record of attendance at meetings. A minority of senior members take all decisions in secret and bully the rest of their party into agreeing with their policies, backbench councillors being quite content to take their allowances and keep silent when they disagree with their own party's actions, and all of them are complicit in the shameless One Barnet plot to sell off every public service and every council owned asset worth flogging to the highest bidder - or the bidder which has the most influence.

In Barnet we have even incorporated moral judgement into that thing we are not allowed to mention in public gatherings, or to criticise: ssh ... yes: policy. Housing policy is now based on a system whereby families whose parents have shown 'a positive contribution' to the community will be fast tracked to the top of the list for council accommodation. The children of the undeserving poor, through no fault of their own, and with no consideration for their needs, will be punished for having feckless parents by being kicked to the bottom of the pile.

Michael Gove, with similar retro Victorian missionary zeal, wants to send out an army of bibles to the schools of the United Kingdom - not it would seem, reading about his proposals, so much to spread the dangerous radical message of Jesus Christ, which is frankly, Michael, not awfully compatible with your line of Conservatism, but for cultural reasons, the beauty of the language and the historical importance: typically again, a right wing politician using a religious pretext for a political rather than a spiritual purpose.

God is making a comeback in politics in Britain, but this second coming is really a blasphemous inversion of true religious morality: it is black magic, the dark arts: the use of ritual for personal gain.

Faith should be a private matter, a personal morality which might indirectly influence and support the integrity of public life, but should not be something that is imposed on other people.

As we begin the festive season of Christmas, and Chanukah, Mrs Angry would suggest that politicians of all parties, and all faiths, or none, whether in Westminster or the Town Hall, or even, God help us, and them, on the London Assembly, might like to look within the depths of their own dark souls and pledge to live a life that more actively reflects the private morality and the political ideals that they claim to hold so dear, not in a way which judges the actions of those they are supposed to represent, but so as to restore some sense of conscience and service to the community to the public roles with which they have been entrusted.

Mrs Angry, eternal optimist: urbi et orbi.

*Update:

Mrs Angry has been reminded that Barnet has announced a grant of £50,000 to the Jesus House church as part of its 'Big Society Innovation Bank', to be shared with an organisation called 'Elevation Networks', in a project aimed at supporting young unemployed people.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/highlights/highlights-big-society-innovation.htm

Whatever the good intentions of the individuals involved in such enterprises, the question must be asked - will the support offered be extended unconditionally, to all eligible beneficiaries, of all backgrounds, without judgement or discrimination, or will it be offered within the context of an opportunity for missionary outreach work?

And oh dear: the Jesus House charity, in its core values, tells us not only that it receives direction and motivation from God (and now the London Borough of Broken Barnet), it is associated with the Evangelical Alliance, whose views on 'homoerotic sexual practice' (how much practice are you allowed before you have to take the exam?) are explained in a 12 point statement here:

http://www.eauk.org/theology/acute/faith-hope-homosexuality-conclusions.cfm

let's pose that question again, then - is the money invested in the Innovation Bank - your money and mine -being used in a way that is fully compatible with equalities legislation?