Coleman Hearing: part two

Coleman and solicitor Stephen Hocking watched by Mrs Coleman - and half of the Barnet Bugle

After the recess, the hearing continued, although Coleman's solicitor felt moved to express they were doing so 'under protest'.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Barnet Bugle, who usually films meetings, and has had to fight to be allowed to do so, and does so usually much to the annoyance of Tory councillors such as Coleman, told Mrs Angry, with some surprise, that Coleman had asked him to film. This instantly set alarm bells ringing in Mrs Angry's blogging head. Were the protestors going to act up? No, as it turned out they kept quiet. But then there were probably other reasons for Brian wanting his performance captured for posterity.

Because it was his turn to speak now.

He chose to use the opportunity to emphasis, in robust terms, and in a well rehearsed address, his support for the State of Israel, his support for the Jewish community, the danger of an increasing, rising tide of anti-semitism. He mentioned Baroness Tonge, and then the views of the complainants, as of they were of the same nature. He referred constantly to pro Palestinian organisations and in terms which suggested that the complainants were extremists, and active members of such organisations. He quoted Abba Eban and the Chief Rabbi in defence of his assertion that anti Zionism was the same as anti semitism. He claimed that anti Zionism was the middle class dinner party version of anti semitism amongst Guardian readers. He said, piously, that if anything in his career was worth doing, it was to fight anti semitism. He presented himself, in short as a hero, a man to be admired and thanked for his selfless dedication to the grateful Jewish community. Mrs Angry noted with interest that he constantly mispronounced the word anti semitic as 'anti semetic': a small detail, for sure, but telling, all the same.

He made no apology for his insulting remarks, for stating that one complainant would have been a black shirt seventy years ago, and that the other was a 'disloyal' Israeli.

He did not trouble himself with the finer points of what the complainants had actually said, or the observations in their statements, of course, and so I am going to repeat these here, as no one else did today, and whereas Coleman and his solicitor were able to present their case without challenge, please note that the complainants themselves had no voice, no legal representation, and the baseless slurs on their character were repeated with no real examination of the facts:

Dr Jago:

'... to be actually accused of being a fascist was just ... to be honest it's one of the most horrible things anyone has ever said to me. In fact, probably the most horrible.'

'I was shocked. I was really really offended. To call someone a fascist is just absolutely beyond the pale.'

'It has got such emotional hatred behind it ... something that emotionally loaded, something that is such a terrible accusation, I think it is absolutely abuse.'

... you can't really let it go because you think, 'Well, I'm not anti Israel ... I'm not anti Israel. I oppose some of Israel's policies, but then, to be honest, I oppose some of the UK's policies - that doesn't make me anti-British. I know many Jewish people oppose some actions of the Israeli government too ...'

'I think it was the disconnect as well. 'Where have you got that I'm an anti- Zionist? As I understand it, Zionism is wanting a Jewish homeland, which I agree with. I have studied enough medieval history to know that it was a terrible situation for the Jews: they got kicked out of absolutely everywhere, persecuted, murdered. Of course they want a homeland, as I would hope for and want one if I were in their place. In fact, that's the point, I have a homeland: it's Britain. I bleieve that Jews deserve one just as I have one. I totally agree with the Zionist principle. I just think that some of Israel's policies need tweaking. So to be called an anti-Zionist is just so far off the mark, it is absurd, without even going into the 'black shirt' aspect ...'

And Ron Cohen:

'As an Israeli who has spent a lifetime campaigning for a just peace and human rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, accusing me of disloyalty is as insulting as it can possibly be.

Councillor Coleman has every right to disagree with my views, but as an elected official, he must do so on a respectful manner, especially when he is acting in his capacity as a member of the council.'

'I approach it from a pro peace position, in order to secure the ongoing acceptance of the State of Israel ... I am an Israeli who believes in peace and the continued existence of Israel. This is not anti Israel, it is for Israel and Councillor Coleman's insinuation otherwise is very insulting.'

Nothing could be clearer, from this comments that neither Dr Jago nor Ron Cohen are either anti Zionist, let alone anti semitic, yet Coleman and continued to refer to them as if they were part of the 'rising tide' of anti semitism which he so deplores, as indeed does anyone with any decency.

Coleman is not interested in the truth in this regard, of course, or the subtleties of political opinion. Perhaps he is intellectually incapable of understanding the complexities of these issues, or perhaps he simply does not care.

As Coleman was delivering his self congratulatory address on the subject of his singlehanded crusade against anti semitisim, and neatly diverting the focus of the hearing away from the real issue, that is to say what the independent investigator described as his 'personally offensive, abusive and demeaning' remarks, one of the complainants, Ron Cohen, asked if he could inform the meeting that in fact he was present. He was not allowed to speak, was instantly silenced. In response to this revelation, Coleman's solicitor made a rather chilling comment, saying wrily that Mr Cohen 'may well wish to speak when he hears what I have to say' ...

Interestingly, Mrs Angry cannot recall Hocking or Coleman referring in any way to the appalling remark in regard to Dr Jago and the blackshirts. It seems even Mr Hocking cannot find an adequate defence for calling someone a latterday Nazi sympathiser.

Hocking, who is a former Tory councillor in Camden, and works for the Beachcroft law firm, referred to Dr Jago and Ron Cohen as 'committed and (my emphasis) - hardened campaigners ... he picked out what appeared to be radical statements made at different times by the organisation whose pro forma letter they had used as a template for their emails to Coleman, in an attempt to make them seem extreme and unreasonable in their opinions, which clearly they are not.

He said of them with barely concealed contempt: 'we are not talking about the girl guides', a phrase he found so pleasing he repeated it later. As evidence of Ron and Dr Jago being steeped in infamy, he referred with theatrical horror to the mention in one document to 'war crimes', saying Veolia was being accused of involvement in the most serious crimes known to man.

This was the distortion of one reference in a document to objections to the occupation of Palestinian territories, which is in breach of international law, and is a result of the 1967 war, therefore the continued occupation and its consequences are, in some people's view, a war crime: to believe this, however, does not make you an anti Zionist and it most certainly does not make you an anti semite.

Why does feeling compassion for people living in an occupied territory make you automatically labelled as some one who does not also feel sympathy and compassion for those subject to the repulsive persecution and hatred of anti semitism? This is something I will never, ever understand.

But in this context it is anyway an irrelevance, a diversion. It was not the reason either complainant had contacted Coleman: they wished merely to suggest that the ethical status of Veolia, with its history of association with occupied territories, was such that raised signifcant doubt as to the suitability to be involved in a bid for business here in London.

Hocking then tried to persuade the committee that in his exchange with Coleman, Ron Cohen had somehow forced him to express himself in the way he did - (ie, as the investigator put it, 'deliberately personal, offensive and insulting abuse') by 'escalating the language'.

He moved on now to that favourite piece of legislation, such a boon to the Tory politician when in trouble, yet so despised when used by anyone else, the European Convention on Human Rights.

He wanted the committee to be mindful of Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression. You know, that thing that is reserved, honoured and cherished for the exclusive use of Tory councillors, but denied to any other resident of Broken Barnet. Mrs Angry did not quite understand his point, but the gist of it it seemed to be that Brian is allowed to say what he wants, and we must all sit and listen, and not answer back.

As we sat thinking about this bizarre interpretation, we found ourselves hearing Mr Hocking telling us that it was not our Brian who was in trouble today: no, no - it was in fact the case that 'the council is on trial' ... are they, he demanded, 'going to challenge anti semitism?'

Before anyone could draw breath, he was then quoting Milton, and to lay outrageous insult on top of outrageous insult, invoking the writing of George Orwell, and the concept of ha - thought crime. That Mrs Angry did not explode in indignation, at this point, is a fecking miracle, I can tell you.

It was time for the committee to withdraw to make their decision. As we waited, the investigator sat at the back of the room reading - uh oh - the Guardian. No wonder, eh Brian? Mind you, it was the sports section.

The committee returned. They found Coleman guilty on two counts of breaches of the code of conduct for failing to show respect. Coleman retained his usual sulky, grim faced expression. Hocking showed no reaction of surprise, and moved quickly on to reasons for mitigation for his client. While he was doing this, incredibly, Coleman sat at the table, in front of the Chair and other members, openly reading messages on his phone.

As he had at the Tambourides hearing, Hocking tried to persuade the committee that the looming introduction of the new localism arrangements for standards meant that the old system of sanctions ought really not to apply. In view of the subject matter, he said, and passions on both sides being what they were ... hello, thought Mrs Angry, nice of you now to see that there are two sides to this issue. He thought that it would be appropriate to impose a sanction at the lesser end, especially get this - at this particular time in the election cycle.

In other words, if a councillor behaves badly, does not co operate with the investigation until the latest possible moment, shows no remorse, and is duly found guilty of breaching the code of conduct, we must, if he is standing for re election, help him to be re elected by not over doing his punishment, and attracting any bad publicity at such a sensitive time. Really?

The investigator was asked by the Chair for his comments. He questioned why it had taken so long to get to this point ... see above, the long delays caused by a lack of response from the respondant ... and reminded the committee that the old regime was still in place in regard to this complaint, that suspension was still available as an option. He gave an example of a similar case where this sanction was used.

Another recess to consider the sanctions to be imposed on the naughty councillor. Rather than looking at the mitigating factors, it seemed, the committee was inclined to remember that Coleman has previous - see Tichborne v Coleman, a couple of years back - he was therefore formally censured by the committee, and ordered to write apologies to Mr Cohen and Dr Jago.

His solicitor tried to get his sanction suspended pending an appeal: the committee refused to allow this.

And that was that.

What do Ron Cohen and Dr Jago get, for the abusive comments they received, being vilified as anti semites, blackshirts, subjected to a year long investigation and then a hearing in which they have no right to take part, even though their reputations were subjected to further potential damage, while the respondant ignores the proceedings for months, and then has the benefit of expensive legal support?

They see Coleman receive a slapped wrist, and maybe in return they will receive a forced letter of apology.

And if you think that was mild, just wait until the new localism act makes the new standards system even more impotent. This in fact shows the contradiction of the localism agenda: claiming to empower a local community to take control of the democratic process, whilst seeking to give more power to elected representatives to do whatever the hell they want, and in between elections, there is not a damned thing you will be able to do about it.

By a fortunate piece of timing, of course, it happens that we are just approaching an election. On May 3rd Brian Coleman expects you to reward him for his marvellous efforts on our behalf these last four years, by returning him to his comfy post at the London Assembly. If you object to this idea, and want to give him perhaps less of a slapped wrist, and more of a kick up his arse, Mrs Angry suggests you do the right thing, and get him where it really hurts - in the ballot box.

Barnet's Standard's Committee conducts hearing into allegations Brian Coleman broke code of conduct from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.

Running on Empty: Broken Barnet on the road to Contract City

Some weeks ago Mrs Angry submitted a formal complaint to the London Borough of Broken Barnet in regard to the council's unregulated use of the MetPro security companies, and the illicit filming that took place on the night of the March 1st budget meeting.

In breach of the council's own procedure, Mrs Angry did not receive any acknowledgement of her complaint within the stated time limit, and only received a response on registering a further complaint with the Chief Executive. The reply she received then merely referred her to the forthcoming audit committee meeting on 16th June, claiming that all the issues she had raised would be addressed by their 'investigation'.

This is Mrs Angry's response:

This reply is of course completely inadequate as a response to a formal complaint, as I am sure you know.

Firstly, Lord Palmer, chair of the Audit Committee, has stated with no uncertainty that the audit of the MetPro issue is just that, an audit, and categorically not an inquiry. We have not been given, despite requests, any detailed information in regard to the remit of this committee, but clearly it will address only the financial aspects of the matter. This means that there is no real investigation by the authority, or anyone else, of the key questions that urgently need to be asked concerning the use of this unlicensed security company, without contract, tendering process, or proper scrutiny, throughout a five year period, at enormous cost to the local tax payer.

As to your assertion that MetPro had no permission to film and that such films that exist are not the property of the council, I think you know that this is nonsense: the authority has failed to regulate the terms of service of the company, failed to check the legally required licensing, or data protection requirements, and worst of all, the CRB credentials of employees. This is surely a serious and extended act of maladministration by the authority.

The authority has a duty of care to residents which it has evidently failed in regard to its casual use of this company. Notwithstanding the failure to prevent the filming, obtaining and destroying a copy of the film footage, as you consequently did, itself indicates an admission of responsibility in regard to the filming which took place. Unfortunately this responsibility has not extended as far as obtaining the other copies, and when I asked for contact details for the company in order to make the request myself, the authority was able only to pass on a generic email address, and this request has simply been ignored.

The lack of communication between the authority and the security company is inexcusable and is a serious failure in procedure. The authority clearly had a duty to hold a tender process, check the credentials of the company, award a contract, and monitor the delivery of service. It would appear evident that the authority has failed to do so in the case of MetPro, and this has directly caused the illicit filming of residents at the meeting on the night of March 1st.

Monroe Palmer, the LibDem chair of the Audit Committee, sent the following statement to Mrs Angry:

The Audit committee is carrying out an audit of this area of concern

It will be a wideranging audit covering, I hope, all the areas of concern you list.

The Committee will receive a Report. It will be available to the public. It will be discussed at the committee meeting in Public. There is a 30 minute slot for statements/questions from the public at start of the meeting.

Please do not think that I and my fellow committee members are not as concerned as you are.

However, we await the Audit Report before we make any recommendations.

We can be sure that Lord Palmer does hope the audit will cover all the areas of concern that it ought to address. It remains to be seen, however, if it will investigate in any depth such issues as the data protection implications of the secret filming, for example.

What powers will the audit committee have to take action on any serious failures that the report may discover? Will those responsible really be held to account, or, as is rumoured, and in a repeat of the Icelandic bank scandal, will some less senior officer be marked out and led to the blood stained One Barnet sacrificial altar?

And the problem with the audit committee's involvement in all this is that in theory, it should already have picked up the warning signs of this failure to regulate the payment of a private contract. If there were no systems in place which would have revealed the long term existence of the use of a private company without the regulation of a contract, then it suggests that this is a serious failure of the audit process. The wider implications are immensely important: if Barnet Council cannot run the contract process properly with the companies it uses now, how on earth can it be trusted with the enormous risk of the One Barnet outsourcing programme? External auditors Grant Thornton have ripped apart the authority's preparations for the launch of this scheme: the lack of risk assessment, the lack of any credible business plan: how are they able seriously to propose further privatisation of our local services when they are clearly so incompetent?

And the situation may in fact be far worse than we first thought. The question must be posed: are there other companies used in casual arrangements by Barnet untendered and unregulated by contract?

On Monday Mrs Angry submitted a question to the press office of Barnet Council regarding the two other security companies used by the borough. When, she asked, were contracts awarded to Blue 9 and Magenta, the companies now being used instead of MetPro, both of which seem to have been used by the authority, in varying degrees, at least since 2006, the same year MetPro was first employed.

After two days with no response, Mrs Angry made further enquiries and was rather surprised to get a reply from a Mr Chris Palmer, assistant Director of Communications at Barnet, (no relation, presumably, to his Lordship) keen to assure her that a response would be forthcoming. He is of course a big fan of Mrs Angry, despite once barring her from the Barnet Facebook page for making comments which were considered by Mr Palmer to be - oops - of a political nature, or rather of a nature critical of the infallible policies of correct One Barnet thinking.

Mr Palmer is one of the increasing number of senior officers employed by our authority on private contracts. He is employed via a company called Renouval, costing us £44,325 in July to September, and £31,248 October to December, and another £9,072 in January, £9,571 in February, £11,592 in March. Funnily enough, he does not appear to have been paid in April - as Mr Reasonable points out in his latest post, quite a few of Barnet's consultant and agency employees are missing in action. Perhaps they are giving a month's free work as some sort of Big Society contribution?

Blogger Mr Mustard this week revealed that another lucky senior officer, Deputy CE Andrew Travers, only gets out of bed for the handsome amount of £1,000 a day, in his 'interim' post. I'm not sure how long 'interim' means in Broken Barnet: approximately as long as the duration of the Roman Empire, I'm guessing.

You might think that some of our councillors might ask why, at a time when we are being told of the need for radical budget reductions, and so many council workers on low salaries are facing redundancy, we still need to to spend so much money on the long term use of very highly paid senior officers working in private arrangements with the authority. Is this really the best use of resources? Let's be grateful, though: at least Mr Travers' terms of service have been shown to be sanctioned by contract, even at such a price.

Mrs Angry is at a loss to understand why she has not received information about contracts for Blue 9 and Magenta. Er - there are contracts, aren't there? Those naughty people who suggest that there are more companies other than MetPro who have not had their 'arrangements' sanctified by contract are surely mistaken, aren't they? And these tales of an unfortunate habit in our financial department of invoices being paid before orders, or paid twice, must be completely wrong, without a shadow of a doubt, and we are confident that the Audit Committee report will be able to clarify any misapprehensions on this score. If contracts do exist for Magenta and Blue 9, Mrs Angry will be pleased to publish the details here - if she receives a response.

Perhaps we should see no reason for alarm, anyway. Yes, we have a billion pound budget, here in Broken Barnet, and we are just about to throw much of it in the way of private companies in a One Barnet outsourcing free for all, but just because we cannot manage to regulate the 'arrangements' we already have, this does not mean that it bodes ill for the future of privatised services in our borough. There is nothing wrong in public services being given to any friendly company willing to accommodate the wishes of our Tory administration. We don't need all that bureaucratic red tape and rubbish about safeguarding, and risk assessment, do we?

Equally, Mrs Angry is happy for her council tax to be spent on the monthly bills of private consultancies and agencies employing senior officers, on long term interim posts which are never filled, or made subject to council pay scales, and conditions of service. If we have to pay over the odds for these people, well: this is how market forces work. This is how we do things in One Barnet. Private enterprise has been slowly sliding its hand upwards along the trembling leg of the public sector, and we have been told we must learn to close our eyes and put up with it.

Oh: thing is, all around the country, the many mutant versions of easycouncil/One Barnet/New Strategic Direction are beginning to fall out of favour - look what has happened in Suffolk, where the massive outsourcing agenda has now unceremoniously been given the old heave ho: this is what new Leader Mark Bee had to say:

“The days of the council being a ‘light’ council, being an ‘easy’ council approach which I think underpins the New Strategic Direction, are over. It is now about working with Suffolk to come up with Suffolk solutions.”

The latest thinking on outsourcing generally is of course that, hello - big surprise: it doesn't actually provide the profits we were all once promised. Private sector seducers are getting their wrists slapped. Easy councils are not quite as easy as they once seemed.

Here in Broken Barnet, a significant number of senior officers have legged it, over the past few months. Why the rush to leave Barnet, a successful London borough? Well: it's pretty clear that they do not want to be associated with the collapse of the One Barnet programme. Like canaries down a coal mine, they are the first indicators of a disaster waiting to happen: they are getting out before it's too late, and their careers are hopelessly compromised.

Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: in the next couple of weeks there will be a leadership vote: this gives you an opportunity to stop the One Barnet programme in its tracks. You must know that so much is at stake now: not only are huge numbers of loyal council staff facing terrible uncertainty over the future of their jobs, vital frontline services here in this borough are going to be put at risk. Those who will be affected will be the most dependent and vulnerable members of our community.

Look at what is happening around the country, not just in other local authorities, but with examples of private companies given the responsibility of delivering public services. Look at the perilous state of care homes providers Southern Cross, and the fire service company AssetCo: remember MetPro, and the legionella scandal in local care homes: making profit from public services comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by the residents who have no option but to rely on a deteriorating standard of service.

It's up to you, Tory councillors: in your first year in office, as we know, you have not exactly covered yourselves in glory. Here is a chance to redeem yourselves in the eyes of your constituents. Elect a new leader who is courageous enough to call a halt to the One Barnet programme, and save us all from the disaster waiting to happen.