Brian Coleman's backside: human rights and Tory wrongs

Mr Whippy has an argument with Councillor Coleman's backside over his right to park outside Friern Show


Over the last couple of days Mrs Angry has been thinking a lot about Brian Coleman's backside.

Yes: clearly, she is very short of entertainment.

But it is a very interesting backside, and is worth some contemplation.

Brian's arse is a very privileged one after all, and leads a very exciting life. It is carried tenderly by taxi wherever it wants to go, and has been sat on the well upholstered seats of every decent restaurant in the capital, over the years. And now it has even starred in its own Youtube clip. (At least one, anyway: if you know of any others, do let Mrs Angry know, as long as they are suitable viewing for someone of a sensitive disposition. By the way, don't try searching the subject of politicians' arses on google image, if you are ...)

In this extract from an interview with a foreign news channel, Brian's bottom has its own moment of fame, artfully fulfilling the role of political metaphor.

http://youtu.be/0uuj1il43xg

This was filmed outside Finchley Fire Station, just around the corner from Mrs Angry's home, as it happens - (Mrs Angry has to live near a fire station, according to the specifications of her home insurance, because she is too easily bored when cooking, and tends to wander off with a glass of something & return sometime later to find the dinner ablaze ...)

Anyway: in this extract Brian Coleman expresses his firmly held view that the internet needs greater control. He talks with stern disapproval of 'pornography' - good man yourself, Brian, taking a firm line on such filth - and 'libellous stuff' which must be 'regulated'. Tory councillors in Broken Barnet like regulation, of course, as long as it is other people who are being regulated, and not themselves. Regulation, in the form of censorship and repression of free debate, is a good thing. Regulation, transparency and external scrutiny of their own activities is a bad thing.

Hmm. Coleman states that the press is subject to the libel laws, and the internet should be as well. Er, except, Brian, that it already is.

But Mrs Angry is slightly puzzled by Brian's last comment on this clip. Asked by the interviewer about the 'human rights' aspect of regulating the internet in the way he suggests: 'Oh, human rights, my backside - I'm sorry ...' Rather amusingly, in fact, the translation on the subtitles reads ' human rights ... kiss my arse'.

So: Brian Coleman wishes to refer enquiries about the issue of human rights to his backside, which to be fair, is the usual channel of expression of his considered views.

The issue of human rights always gets the more confused sort of right wing Tory in a bit of a tizz. The very mention of the phrase represents something horrible to them: something deeply objectionable, and foreign, and to be resisted with every last breath. A concept in law, a bureaucratic diktat, a legal obligation. Everything that libertarian Tories resent: a imposition of decency and consideration for your fellow man, or, horror of horrors, for women too. And yet, even though they hate the thought of the liberty of other people being formalised and protected by law, they inievitably want their own liberties and rights to be respected, and are quick to invoke legal protection when they feel threatened.

Here in Broken Barnet, we have seen the Tory council try to impose their own form of censorship on the internet, and try to silence the bloggers who have extended such awkward scrutiny of their iniquitous deeds, by a complaint to the Information Commissioner, invoking the Data Protection Act. Luckily the ICO decided to remind the would be dictators of Broken Barnet of the overriding considerations of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the concept protected within this legislation of freedom of expression.

Shocking, you might think, that a local authority has had to be forced to obey the demands of a such a basic tenet of any democratic society, but then if you find this shocking, friend, you need to spend more time in Broken Barnet, where the idea of democracy is an unwelcome stranger, an intruder in the secret garden of Tory interests.

Mrs Angry must inform citizens, however, that our councillor and GLA member Brian Coleman is not completely averse to the defence of human rights in certain circumstances. Look below at this photo from a demonstration held in 2007: the Global Human Rights Torch Relay, part of a campaign to focus public attention on allegations of the abuse of human rights by the Chinese government in the run up to the last Olympic Games. (Brian Coleman, the only man to go on a demo in a pinstripe suit: get your mum to knit you a balaclava, Brian, if you want to have any street cred, is Mrs Angry's advice).

Brian Coleman, perhaps rather surprisingly, had aligned himself with the cause of practitioners of 'Falun Gong', a spiritual discipline involving Buddhist and Taoist ideas, and embraced by a number of adherents in China. Mrs Angry is unsure of the reason for Brian's enthusiasm for Falun Gong, except of course that it reportedly places a heavy emphasis on morality and the cultivation of virtue and moral rectitude, qualities for which Councillor Coleman is widely renowned.

Also present at this demonstration (far right) was Lord Avebury, a LibDem peer who has made a very honourable contribution to the defence of the human rights of minority groups in the United Kingdom, in particular gypsies and travellers.

Ah. The rights of gypsies and travellers living in the United Kingdom is not a cause with which Councillor Coleman has chosen to align himself, unfortunately. In 2009, you may recall, he appeared on the Politics Show on the BBC and told travellers that they should 'stay put in Ireland', and that he would not welcome one single site for travellers in Barnet. Andrew Slaughter, MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush expressed the view that his remarks on this programme were 'loud mouthed' and 'inflammatory' and 'quite disgraceful'.

So: the human rights of followers of a little known spiritual movement in far away China are supported by Councillor Coleman, but not those of a group of residents of the United Kingdom, who have been subjected to centuries of the most extensive and widespread bigotry and persecution, and whose rights to family life, as enshrined in the law, are blatantly ignored by a tradition of institutionalised racism perpetuated by Barnet Council and many other local authorities throughout the country.

Human rights, it seems, in the view of Brian Coleman, are available for certain people of whom he approves, but not others.

Brian is always very keen to see himself as popular within the Jewish community, and this is a burden which the community carries with admirable fortitude, although increasing impatience, especially, for example, in areas of Golders Green badly affected by his new parking policy - (see yesterday's Barnet Eye blog for more on this).

Coleman has made accusations against campaigners oppposed to Veolia, a company which has links with activities in the occupied territories in Israel, and now wants to bid for waste contracts here. This is a tactic of the type which makes any sensible debate on the issue of occupation and the effects on the population completely impossible. It is a hugely sensitive issue, but political criticism of Israel should not always be equated with anti zionism, nor anti zionism with anti semitism, and clearly human rights for all in any conflict should be respected, not for one side only.

Coleman is not the only local Tory to extend the protection of human rights consideration to some groups, but not others, however.

Last year saw Andrew Harper, a local Conservative councillor in Hampstead Garden Suburb, and our local Tory MP and former council leader Mike Freer get their knickers in a twist over the occupation of a house in their ward owned by the Gaddafi family. Much outrage was expressed over the violation of the rights of the absentee householder, and strenuous efforts were made to support the criminalisation of the act of squatting. This infuriated Mrs Angry, for all sorts of reasons, not least because not so long ago she had the misfortune to have to ask both Harper and Freer to pull their fecking fingers out and do something about the occupation of her neighbouring property by council placed neighbours from hell tenants, courtesy of their grossly mismanaged housing scheme, but they did absolutely nothing at all, as her human rights were of course not as interesting or important as those of a dictator living on the proceeds of tyranny in one of the most expensive and exclusive roads in the country ...

Many Tory councillors in Broken Barnet are from the Greek Cypriot community, especially those from the Chipping Barnet association, and together they represent a powerful lobbying group. Barnet is twinned with Morphou in Cyprus, and every year, councillors from our borough go to Morphou for a nice autumn break to 'protest' about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and there is much criticism made about the violation of freedom and human rights in Cyprus.

Barnet is a culturally and ethnically diverse borough, with residents from every part of the world, including many developing countries and states where the most extreme human rights abuses take place on a daily basis: political imprisonment, death, rape, torture. Councillors from Barnet have little or no active interest in these countries, sadly, or even in our other twinned cities such as Jinja, in Uganda, where perhaps they could go and visit and support the Human Rights commission which was established there in 2007 and is now working to try to help those whose own rights have been trampled upon in recent years.

In a truly absurd example of Tory doublethink on this issue last year, Hendon MP Matthew Offord ridiculously made an enormous fuss about his political adviser, Max, a Jack Russell terrier, not being allowed to go to work with him in Westminster. He announced that he would be invoking, yes, the Human Rights convention. It was then explained to him that this would not be possible as Max was not, well, ssh, not human. This came as a blow to Matthew, who relies heavily on Max's close attendance, political guidance, and availability for cute photo opportunities.

Max told Matthew that frankly, he had made a complete arse of himself and that he should now deny he had ever seriously meant to use the law to assert his right to take him to work. Max said: look, Matthew - tell everyone that it was a joke. Matthew told everyone it was a joke. People were already laughing, unfortunately, but for all the wrong reasons, even when Matthew went on the BBC Daily Politics show and told a derisory Andrew Neil that his reference to his human rights was 'in jest', and that it had been his cunning plan to discredit the use of the act, as it gave 'thousands' of people the right to stay in this country, when they should be removed from this country. Hmm. (Max refused to attend this ill advised interview, and so Matthew had to use a substitute, as you can see ...)


In Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. In Broken Barnet, and the world beyond, the message from Brian Coleman's backside is that you only have equality under human rights legislation if enough Tory councillors and Mps find it convenient to support you.

Of course what Brian is really saying, by comparing the right to freedom of expression to his naughty little Tory arse, is that no one on the internet must ever say anything about him that he does not like.

Sorry, Brian. I think it is possible that in the history of this blog, Mrs Angry may possibly have said one or two things about you that you do not like. She sincerely hopes so, anyway: and she would take it as a terrible indictment of her efforts, if she had not.

If it offends you darling, well, Mrs Angry's advice would be a. Póg mo thóin and b. to contemplate the following: as it says in the good book, King James version, ed Michael Gove: 'whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also'.

Amen.

Mrs Angry x

Transparency in Broken Barnet: Mrs Angry writes to Lord Palmer

Mrs Angry has written today to Lord Palmer, the Chair of the Audit Committee of the London Borough of Broken Barnet in regard to the issues raised in the former post regarding the declaration of interests by council officers in the course of the One Barnet outsourcing programme:

"Dear Lord Palmer,

You may recall that at the last Audit Committe meeting I submitted several questions regarding the issue of the conflict of interests of senior officers of the borough, expressing particular concern about the need for transparency during the One Barnet programme and the current tendering process that will outsource £1 billion worth of council services.

I raised the specific example of an officer who had taken an active part in the dialogue process for the customer service package, worth £750 million, and has now taken a post with one of the four short listed companies competing for the business on offer.

Without making any personal accusation of wrong doing in this case, it seemed to me, and to many others, that this is an extraordinary development within the context of such a hugely sensitive commercial negotiation, and that in the interests of transparency and probity there must be an urgent investigation into the circumstances in which this former employee was able to take up a position with a shortlisted tendering company. I am uncertain as to whether any such investigation has since taken place.

At the audit meeting I had asked:

1.What controls and procedures does Barnet Council have in place to manage the risks of conflicts of interest - and the perception of conflicts of interest - inherent in the appointment and secondment of Senior Officers to and from organisations with which the Council has, has had or is likely to have, commercial relationships?

Response:

"Barnet Council's pre-employment recruitment process requires that all selected candidates complete a Code of Conduct-Declaration of Interest questionnaire. Secondees sign a three-way secondment agreement between the individual, Barnet Council and the seconding organisation which will be specific to the requirements of the particular post. All senior individuals working on One Barnet projects sign a declaration of interest form for each One Barnet project for which they are involved in the procurement. In addition, anyone involved in the procurement must sign a Competitive Dialogue Confidentiality Agreement specific to One Barnet."

I asked then if such declarations were in the public domain. You suggested that such material would be available on request made via the Freedom of Information Act. I replied that I had had a less than satisfactory experience of asking questions on 'sensitive' subjects in FOIs to Barnet Council.

If you care to read this piece I have written in my blog on Friday:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2012/01/tender-mercies-peeking-through-keyhole.html

you will see that on 1st November I submitted an FOI request to Barnet in regard to a register of interests for senior officers, the implementation of which was agreed in March 2011.

"In March this year, the council's directors and senior officers proposed creating a register of interests in order to log any potential conflicts of interest relating to procurement and other issues resulting from the One Barnet outsourcing programme. Please tell me when this register was implemented, and give me copies of all entries to the current date."

As is, regrettably, usually the case with any FOI request to the authority on a politically sensitive issue, no response was made within the statutory time limit. This is deliberate practice by the authority and such obstruction, as well as the failure to make the declarations of interests properly accessible, is in direct contradiction of the oft repeated committment to transparency and scrutiny, and the principles of the new localism act adopted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and supposedly a keystone of Coalition government policies.

The eventual response sent 18 attached forms of declaration of interests by senior officers, and refused to forward the details of another 67 'non senior' officers.

Despite the register supposedly being implemented in May, most of the 18 forms were signed in October, the rest in September, yet the 105 working day period for the competitive dialogue process for the DRS package ended, as I understand it, on 28th October. There are some curious omissions too: why are there no declarations from the Chief Executive, and only one from the Deputy Chief Executive? And where, one might ask, is the declaration from the employee who has gone to work for the shortlisted company?

I wonder if, as Chair of the Audit Committee, you would care to comment on the response I have had, and consider what action might be appropriate to pursue in the light of what appears to be a failure of the due process of regulation of the declaration of interests?

Last year's exposure of the MetPro scandal was instrumental in revealing not just an example of gross negligence in the specific case of the authority's security arrangements, but in the wider and frankly astonishing scale of incompetence in the management of procurement, contractual procedures and payment - in the greater context of the failures that needed to be addressed, one issue was overlooked. That was the consideration of whether or not any malpractice had taken place by any council officers. In my view, there was clearly evidence sufficient to warrant an inquiry by the Corporate Anti Fraud Team, and it is deeply regrettable, in my view, and that of many other residents, that no such investigation took place.

In the case of the declaration of interests, and I know that there was some confusion over this at the audit meeting, without suggesting any specific example of alleged fraud, I think that it is paramount that there is an urgent investigation into the broader issue of the apparent lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the interests of senior officers - and any less senior officers with direct responsibilities involving them in the dialogue process of the One Barnet outsourcing project.

I would go further, in fact, and say that the process should be suspended until it can be ascertained that the two separate dialogues - and possibly other recent contractual negotiations - have taken place with due regard to the proper regulation of such processes. Failure to do so could arguably place the authority in a difficult position should it later be challenged by any accusation of improper practices or failures in regulation that may have taken place throughout the course of the tendering process.

As I am sure you are aware, since 1st July 2011 there has been a new Bribery Act, which applies not just to senior officers of the authority, but to all employees, and I would also be interested to hear your opinion as to whether or not Barnet has made adequate provision within its processes and commercial transactions to minimise the risk of breaches of the new legislation, taking into consideration the lack of transparency and apparent laxity with regard to compliance with the register of interests in the case of the One Barnet procurement process.

Yours sincerely,

"Mrs Angry"

Tender Mercies: peeking through the keyhole of the One Barnet House of Fun

Ouverture et transparence: Maison Close, Barnet Brisé

*Update 11th January, see below ...

Ever since the London Borough of Broken Barnet decided to try its hand at the vice game of outsourcing, and pimp the services of the authority to any old punter with a wedge of used fivers, throughout all stages of the act of procurement, the authority has been careful to protect its assets, and titillate prospective clients at the same time, by appearing to follow an outward show of modesty and decorum.

The need to appear respectable and virtuous, in a suitably Victorian tradition of hypocrisy, at the same time as arranging for their employees and residents to be well and truly f*cked by the said outsourcing companies, was reinforced by the unfortunate timing of the MetPro audit, and some very awkward questions raised by all the grubby revelations that ensued from the consequent inquiry.

Wherever the forces of desire collide with someone else's opportunity to make profit, of course, there will inevitably be the accompanying temptations to maximise the potential benefit by coercion, or inducement, and that is why, in the processes of public sector commercial activity, there are supposed to be strict regulations observed by all parties, while the long slow courtship of approaches by large and powerful private companies takes place.

These regulations are supposed to give us, the taxpayers, the reassurance we expect that a policy of transparency, openness, scrutiny, and accountability is in place to protect our best interests, and to empower local communities to take control of the democratic process which is supposed to oversee the administration of their local authorities.

The observance of such regulatory protocols is, unfortunately, as we know all too well here in Broken Barnet, in practice, conveniently ignored whenever some naughty people think they can get away with it.

Here in our borough it seems that every opportunity is seized to evade the gaze of public scrutiny and place obstructions in the way of transparency, and now, placed as we are in the middle of a one billion pound tender process, this obstinate refusal to be accountable has never been more worrying, or more dangerous.

On the 1st of November last year, Mrs Angry submitted the following Freedom of Information request to the London Borough of Barnet:

"In March this year, the council's directors and senior officers proposed creating a register of interests in order to log any potential conflicts of interest relating to procurement and other issues resulting from the One Barnet outsourcing programme. Please tell me when this register was implemented, and give me copies of all entries to the current date."

The One Barnet programme has identified one billion pounds worth of council services to be pimped to private sector companies, and this is being divided into two separate processes, the DRS package valued at £250 million, which began early last year, and the larger £750 million bundle of goodies involving customer services and related interests, which kicked off soon afterwards: you might recall that with ill concealed haste, the OJEU notice for this sell off was published the morning after the night before that was the MetPro Audit meeting, in early June.

The DRS package eventually was focused on the following shortlisted companies:

Capita Symonds
Jacobs
ECHarris
FMConway
Enterprise Mouchel

Mrs Angry understands that surprise, surprise, Capita Symonds and also EC Harris are the lucky two winners from this shortlist, on to the next stage.

The Customer Service sell off was shortlisted to BT (yes, another surprise), Capita (ditto) Serco (yawn) and HCL Axon. CSC and IBM sadly fell by the wayside. Mrs Angry is going to have words with the Broken Barnet racing correspondant about the odds for the lucky winners. No fortunes to be won in this race by rank outsiders, she suspects.

Mrs Angry did not receive a reply to this FOI request within the statutory time limit. As is now deliberate practice with all acute or politically sensitive requests, the response was withheld as long as possible, and released at a time when it is imagined it will do the least damage. Mrs Angry therefore was not surprised to be sent a response more than 14 working days later than the statutory 20 day limit, and of course late on a Friday afternoon, in the run up to Christmas.
The reply contained 18 attachments, copies of declarations of interests by officers, and the following statement.

"Response

Please refer to the attached documents. I can confirm that all the declarations of interest have been reviewed by a senior officer who has declared that none were prejudicial. I can confirm that the register was implemented on 31 May 2011.

Refusal notice We have decided to redact the signatures on the disclosed declaration of interests forms because this constitutes the personal data of a third party. In our view such individuals would not reasonably expect their personal details to be publicised under the FOIA and to do so without their consent would constitute ‘unfair processing’ under the first data protection principle in the Data Protection Act 1998. In these circumstances we are entitled to refuse to disclose this information under the exemption in section 40(2) of the FOIA. For guidance on this and other provisions of the FOIA please visit www.ico.gov.uk. We have decided to withhold some of the information you have requested by you on XXXXX’s declaration of interest form* which has been redacted because it constitutes the personal data relating to a third party. In our view this individual would not reasonably expect their personal details to be publicised under the FOIA and to do so without their consent would constitute ‘unfair processing’ under the first data protection principle in the Data Protection Act 1998. In these circumstances we are entitled to refuse to disclose this information under the exemption in section 40(2) of the FOIA. For guidance on this and other provisions of the FOIA please visit www.ico.gov.uk.

(*name redacted by Mrs Angry)

I can confirm that 67 declaration forms have been completed by non senior officers. These non senior officers were required to sign a declaration of interests form because their presence was required at the One Barnet outsourcing programme council meetings in order to take notes or were required to meet the bidders in order give a background explanation of the work that they undertake within their service area. I can confirm that all the declarations of interest have been reviewed by a senior officer who has declared that none were prejudicial. We have therefore decided to withhold the declaration forms which have been completed by non senior officers on the grounds that this information constitutes the personal data of a third party. In our view such individuals would not reasonably expect their personal details to be publicised under the FOIA and to do so without their consent would constitute ‘unfair processing’ under the first data protection principle in the Data Protection Act 1998. In these circumstances we are entitled to refuse to disclose this information under the exemption in section 40(2) of the FOIA. ..."

Mrs Angry is confused:

Why was the register only implemented at the end of May when the initial stages of the process were already well underway - from April onwards?

More importantly, if the register really was implemented in May, why are all the attached declarations by senior officers only signed so many months later - the majority of them, and all seven of those referring to the DRS package in October? The DRS process includes a 105 working day dialogue which was timetabled to end on the 28th October, and none of the seven DRS forms are dated earlier than the 4th October.

This response claims that 67 officers have signed declarations, but that their identities must remain secret, because of some spurious pretext based on the favourite whipping boy of the London Borough of Barnet: the Data Protection Act.

First of all, what is the definition here of a senior officer? If an officer is senior enough to be entrusted in taking part in a dialogue with commercial partners it is absolutely within the expectations of accountability that they should be seen to be acting properly in this process. This is not a personal or private matter, and quite clearly, in the interests of transparency and public scrutiny, these forms should not be withheld from the public domain.

Now let us look at the individual forms and the curious omissions from the number of forms attached.

One of these forms has two declarations, one of which has been heavily redacted in the FOI response, on the excuse that it relates to a third party, again invoking the DPA. And again, the whole point of transparency and probity is that the right to privacy in this matter is surely overuled by the need for scrutiny? And why redact the whole declaration, rather than the name of the third party?

Mrs Angry is fully confident that all these individuals have acted honestly throughout the tender process, and in fairness it should be acknowledged that any individuals whose names do not appear in the FOI response could conceivably be missing due to error on the part of the parties compiling the response. What would appear to be an inexplicable lateness and selective nature of involvement in the signing of these forms may well be due to someone's administrative incompetence, rather than any individual wrongdoing or conspiracy to obstruct the process of scrutiny. The ultimate responsibility for any conflict of interest, or perception of conflict of interest, lies with the senior management team of the authority, which has a duty to ensure the competent regulation of all council processes. You can read on and decide if you think they are fulfilling this duty.

This is the wording on the declaration forms, which Mrs Angry confesses to finding rather amusing:

"As part of the One Barnet project, the council must ensure complete transparency and probity during the evaluation period. For this reason we have to ensure that all members of the competitive dialogue team do not have any pecuniary or other interests to declare regarding any of the organisations listed below."

According to this FOI response, anyway, only one senior officer has signed declarations in relation to both the DRS and Customer Service packages, and that is Craig Cooper, Commercial Director, 4th October. Andrew 'Blackhole' Travers, the Deputy CEO and Chief Finance Officer has signed only for DRS, 4th October. Funnily enough, forms by the CEO Nick Walkley have not been attached. Why is that? Mrs Angry is perplexed.

Other declarations in regard to the DRS process, and the date of signature:

John Hooton, Assistant Director, Strategic Finance, 4th October.
Martin Cowie, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Management, 4th October
Michael (Mick) Stokes, Assistant Director, Commercial Assurance, 4th October
Rick Mason, Acting Assistant Director, Environmental Health, 4th October
Pam Wharfe, Interim Director, Environment, Planning, & Regulations, 12th October
Customer Service declarations:

Val White, Assistant Director, Children's Services, 18th October
Craig Cooper, as above, 16th September
Ed Gowan, Assistant Director, Commercial Transformation, 11th October
Jacqui McGeachie, Assistant Director for HR, 14th September
Jay Mercer, Deputy Director, Children's Services 18th October
Julie Taylor, Assistant CEO, 14th September
Maria Christofi, Assistant Director, Financial Services, 16th September.

There are two other declarations attached to the FOI response by individuals acting in consultation to LBB in outsourcing projects:

Lynn Witham, who is the MD of 'Parking Associates Ltd', signing on 20th September a form relating to the highly controversial One Barnet Parking Services tender process involving Apcoa, NSL, Mouchel Ltd and On Time Parking. Her form tells us such a declaration is required by any member of the IT evaluation team, yet hers is the only form attached, which is odd. As we know, the lucky winners were NSL, so game over here anyway. Or is it?* Update: see below ...

Martin Cresswell, in relation to the DRS package. Mr Cresswell is - oh, goodness me, CEO of Impower, sorry -iMPOWER (who have been visiting this blog today). You remember Impower: Mr Max Wide, our ubiquituous friend of Barnet and BT, and Suffolk CC, so busy, and now he works for ... Impower! Look at how the good news of his arrival was announced on their website:

Max Wide joins iMPOWER

Max Wide joins iMPOWER

iMPOWER Consulting is delighted to announce the appointment of Max Wide as a Director within the firm. Max is recognised as one of the 30 most influential people in local government. His background as a consultant and as a Director in both public and private sector organisations, means he is highly qualified to strengthen iMPOWER’s reputation in the market for leading edge, high quality, tailored solutions to suit each clients’ needs.

Max will be helping many existing and new clients to re-shape their organisations at what is a critical time for the public sector, when delivering reduced costs at a time when the need and demand for public services is increasing, requires new and innovative approaches from leaders.

I am delighted that Max is joining iMPOWER, his appointment underlines our commitment to local government, and I look forward to the contribution he will make in helping our clients to be innovative and deliver sustainable public services in the future.

Martin Cresswell, Chief Executive

So. Anyone else missing from the declaration forms, that you can think of?

Hmm. Cast your minds back to the last audit meeting,

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/12/friday-joke-no-joke-another.html

where Mrs Angry asked a question about One Barnet, procurement and the declaration of interests:

1.What controls and procedures does Barnet Council have in place to manage the risks of conflicts of interest - and the perception of conflicts of interest - inherent in the appointment and secondment of Senior Officers to and from organisations with which the Council has, has had or is likely to have, commercial relationships?

Response:

"Barnet Council's pre-employment recruitment process requires that all selected candidates complete a Code of Conduct-Declaration of Interest questionnaire. Secondees sign a three-way secondment agreement between the individual, Barnet Council and the seconding organisation which will be specific to the requirements of the particular post. All senior individuals working on One Barnet projects sign a declaration of interest form for each One Barnet project for which they are involved in the procurement. In addition, anyone involved in the procurement must sign a Competitive Dialogue Confidentiality Agreement specific to One Barnet."

Mrs Angry's questions were responded to by the Chair, Lord Palmer, with his own concerns about the issue, as one would hope. What has happened in the meanwhile? F*ck knows.

What does cause Mrs Angry further concern and puzzlement is the fact that the released declaration forms do not include anything signed by a Mr Richard Grice, a senior officer with the borough who left the council to work with BT, one of the four short listed companies tendering for the £750 million customer service package. Mr Grice's signature appears on a draft 'output specification' submitted to a Business and Performance Overview and Scrutiny committee on the 22nd of September. Mr Grice left Barnet on October 28th to start his new job as head of 'Citizens Services' at BT.

Mrs Angry is sure that Mr Grice has always acted entirely properly in regard to his responsibilities at Barnet, but clearly it is reasonable to question why there is apparently no declaration of interest form, and to ask how a senior officer was allowed to continue to take part in the negotiations with BT at a date so close to starting his employment with one of the tendering companies.

It is not enough to expect us to take on trust the honesty and probity of the processes of our local authority - in the interest of transparency all such processes must be open and accountable. I hope you will agree that in the case of the One Barnet outsourcing programme it is clear that the system of regulating the potential conflict of interests is dangerously inadequate and in need of urgent investigation.

There are much wider implications here, of course. With such apparent laxity over the regulation of the outsourcing programme, one has to question why there is such haste and lack of care in the supervision of this process. You might wonder what our elected representatives think of it all.

As it happens, Mrs Angry has a message for the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: if you really cannot see that you have been hoodwinked into approving the One Barnet programme for the benefit not of residents, or even on an ideological basis, but in order to deliver a lucrative prize into the hands of globally dominant private sector companies, then really you are too stupid for words, and it is a wonder to Mrs Angry that you manage to get yourself dressed in the morning, let alone take part in the administration of one of the largest budgets in any UK local authority.

Mrs Angry also has a message for Richard Cornelius, the leader of the council. Leadership, Councillor Cornelius, is about being in charge, and showing initiative. Your council, and your borough has been hijacked by forces beyond the control of the democratic process. Instead of honouring the spirit of localism and empowering the community you represent, and defending the best interests of residents of this borough, you have sat back and allowed us to be used in the most grotesque fashion for the perverse satisfaction of the private sector. Your political career is finished, and sadly, you will only be remembered with fury by the residents of this borough when the effects of mass privatisation begin to affect the lives of their families.

And lastly, to the outsourcing companies who are on the losing side of the tender process - and we know you read all the Barnet blogs with great interest - you might like to look back through the One Barnet keyhole too, now that you have been shown the door.

It's amazing what you can see, you know, from this distance.

*Update Wednesday 11th January:

Mrs Angry's spies tell her that in fact the clock is starting on what is known as the 'Alcatel' period in regard to the award of the parking contract. This is a compulsory waiting time before a contract is signed with the lucky winning company, to give the other companies - see above: Apcoa, Mouchel Ltd and On Time Parking, and perhaps others involved in the tendering a chance to seek redress if dissatisfied in some way with the manner in which the process has been managed. Goodness me, and rumour has it that, oh dear, there may be trouble ahead ... watch this space.

Mrs Angry predicts ... a doomed face saving exercise in Broken Barnet

Mrs X: Mrs Angry: are you feeling refreshed after your Christmas and New Year break?

Mrs Angry: I am not, thank you for asking, Mrs X, but never mind, my psychic energies are simply buzzing with activity, and I have many predictions for the New Year ... and now my spirit guide is whispering something in my ear ... oh. How curious. Really? Mmm. Goodness.

Mrs X: What? Do share with us, Mrs Angry. We won't tell anyone.

Mrs Angry: Very well. This must not pass further than the imaginary boundaries of this post, but I can see a very interesting development in Broken Barnet ...

Mrs X: Go on, go on:

Mrs Angry: I see red faces at North London Business Park, and a good deal of grimacing, and hand wringing, and weasel words. I see a gathering of Tory councillors, and I hear a lot of argument, and hysterical outbursts ... and not all of them are from Brian Coleman ... look, a daring veteran councillor, dressed in a periwig, velvet breeches and buckled shoes, has accused him, in a petulant flounce, and a querolous voice, of upsetting all the Tory voters of Broken Barnet, and threatening his chances of re-election in Hampstead Garden Suburb. Dear dear. And see: hiding in the corner is a vintage clown, not laughing, but weeping into a spotted handkerchief. He doesn't want to be leader anymore, because people keep being beastly to him and blaming him for things. And over there, look: a senior council officer, in kitten heeled shoes, and a surprising interest in football, trying to be very, very helpful: that is touching, isn't it, Mrs X?

Mrs X: It is indeed, Mrs Angry.

Mrs Angry: Would you try to be helpful to Brian Coleman, if you were a senior council officer, Mrs X?

Mrs X: I would not, Mrs Angry. I would put all my efforts into being as disobedient as possible, spike his tea with salt, and trip him up with my size 9 kitten heeled shoes as he passed my desk, and then pretend to be sorry.

Mrs Angry: Probably not a good idea to apply for a job with the London Borough of Broken Barnet, then, Mrs X.

Mrs X: I would rather sell myself in the lowest brothel, in the filthiest street, in the worst slum known to man, or somewhere in Enfield/Southgate/Cockfosters ( If I wanted to, I would know who to ask, citizens - and you would be amazed if I told you how) ...

Mrs Angry: And if you did, Mrs X, would you be taking cash payment, do you think?

Mrs X: Hmm. Of course.

Mrs Angry: And not expect your clients to pay by card, or mobile phone?

Mrs X: That would be foolish. I imagine trade would drop off pretty quick, wouldn't it?

Mrs Angry: Ah, indeed. Parking, shopping, and f*cking: all much the same. Here in Broken Barnet, anyhow. Which is why our Tory councillors are so cross with Brian Coleman: business on the streets of our borough has disappeared, driving away the punters, and of course taking away a significant amount of their protection racket money income from parking. Oh dear ... is there a solution, a face saving solution that will be acceptable to Himself, the man who must not be challenged? Ah: what are you showing me, spirit guide? Is this ... a payment card? A card for poor people, or technophobes, or annoying old codgers who won't stay at home all day just to please Councillor Coleman? Something that can be prepaid, but still seems in line with Brian's fear and loathing of cash. (Rather like the Queen, and Mrs Angry, he does not carry the stuff, or come into close contact with it, unless it is stuffed under his mattress or sewn into his vest for safekeeping). And look: here in Mrs Angry's crystal ball is a helpful company that is very keen to supply the London Borough of Broken Barnet with this magic plastic cash susbstitute, if they can persuade certain senior officers of their marvellous idea ...

Mrs X: But Mrs Angry, many citizens, especially the elderly, simply will not want to use such cards. To introduce such a scheme will involve more wasteful expense, and why go to so much trouble & pointless bureacracy when we could simply just start using our cash machines again?

Mrs Angry: Don't be foolish, Mrs X. The machines are still there, strangely, despite RM Countryside being paid £80K to remove them, even though we have no contract with the company, and no proper competitive tendering took place before they were given the job . The removal programme appears to have been dramatically halted, in fact, for some reason. I would suggest that if the parking contract had been run properly and fairly, it would have been perfectly possible to require the tendering companies in ha - theoretically, anyway - competition for the business to maintain the meters and collect the cash as part of their lucrative deal. To do the sensible thing now, however, and admit they were wrong, and revert to including the option of cash payment method is quite impossible.

Mrs X: Why?

Mrs Angry: Absolutely no reason: except that it would be a major humiliation for Brian Coleman.

Mrs X: And?

Mrs Angry: And wouldn't we all enjoy that?

Mrs X: We would indeed, Mrs Angry.

Come on, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet - rise up ... yes, thank you, Councillor Harper, do sit down - you have nothing to lose but your council seats, committee posts and generous allowances if you do nothing, after all ...

Brian Coleman and an election campaign that dare not speak his name

Brian Coleman: is he chicken?


Mrs Angry is having a few technological problems at the moment. In fact, to be honest, Mrs Angry's life at present would appear to consist of rather too many problems, and too few pleasures. Mrs Angry does not like January anyway, but this is not a good start to the new year, and Mrs Angry would quite like to go backwards to December, like her blog feed, and start again. Or back a little further, perhaps. Quite a lot further. If only time could be rewound - and yes, yes, please don't take this as an opportunity to tell her about neutrinos and the speed of light and all that stuff, because Mrs Angry's son has tried this, at great length, until his mother's eyes glazed over and she fell on the floor in a dead faint, and nothing about it has stuck in her feeble brain, so you needn't bother.

Well anyway: there is some good news to restart the new year, here in Broken Barnet.

In less than five months time we will be facing an election for Mayor and for the London Assembly. Boris Johnson has of course asked for, and received, a certain amount of help from Mrs Angry in his campaign, and perhaps it is this warm encouragement that has persuaded him now to gird up his loins, and to make a rare visit to our borough.

On the 17th January 'Talk London Barnet' will take place at the Peel Centre, in Hendon, from 7 to 8.30pm, and the Mayor of London will be there with a panel of guests 'for an opportunity to question them on investing in Outer London'. Interesting turn of phrase, isn't it? Investing in outer London. Mrs Angry believes that means handing out grants to favoured Tory voting areas in the last few months before an election, rather than supporting the needs of residents in a fairly assessed and regulated programme, so try not to get too excited.

You may not have heard of this interesting event, as it happens, as the publicity for it has been, well, awfully discreet. So discreet that even obtaining tickets has been a test of initiative, involving registering on a website, trying many times to submit an application, eventually receiving a ticket, but then being told that one must turn up an hour before the session starts as entry will be on the basis of first come, first in. If Mrs Angry were of a cynical disposition, and not the trusting, open hearted woman that she is, she might think that actually Boris' people don't want anyone to know about the event, don't want anyone to turn up, and don't want to let anyone in if they do. Why would that be, do you think?

The Tory candidate for the Barnet and Camden constituency is the current member, our much loved local hero, Brian Coleman. Coleman has had his backside firmly wedged in the seat since 2000, and indeed receives the greater part of his £130,000 publicly funded income from the GLA post and associated position as Chair of the London Fire Brigade. If, as many expect, he loses his seat in May to Labour's candidate and former local Labour MP Andrew Dismore, this will be a devastating humiliation for Coleman, albeit a cause for celebration in the streets of London by the liberated populace, on a scale unseen since VE Day, 1945.

Now then: since news of the the Talk London event has emerged, there has been a curious lack of uncertainty regarding the other participants. At first it appeared to be the case that Brian Coleman would be chairing the event, but later publicity inexplicably failed to confirm this. Some naughty suggestions were then made that Brian, who is not, let's be brutally honest, awfully popular in these parts, was too chicken to turn up. Not an idea entirely to be discounted. Every town centre and forgotten street in Broken Barnet is rapidly becoming a no go area for any Tory councillor, thanks to the catastrophic parking scheme, and a heavy catalogue of similarly disastrous policy actions, and now they are all shit scared of engaging in any public forum in which the hostility of the mutinous residents might be openly expressed - and so they should be.

The Tory campaign for the May elections has been a most remarkable thing: poor old Lynton Crosby has clearly decided that the only way to neutralise the Coleman factor, and prevent the toxic stain of Colemanism and Broken Barnet lunacy from creeping over Boris's election prospects, is to shut Brian up, and keep him as far away from Boris as possible, a bit like the embarrassing uncle at a family wedding. Uncle Brian, therefore, is locked in the cupboard under the stairs with a bottle of babycham until the wedding is over - although the guests can still hear him yelling through the crack under the door and demanding more sandwiches.

Our GLA member has issued no press release since July 15th, interestingly: his rival candidate Dismore, on the other hand, has issued numbers of them, many based on information extracted from FOIs regarding the activitities, or lack of them, of our Brian on behalf of constituents.* See below.

No, Brian's own campaign of gentle persuasion and wooing of voters has been carefully based on a charm offensive, all centred around his militant defence of the Titanic flagship parking policy, and supported by memorable utterances on the subject of housing and instructions on 'living in the real world', not subsidised by 'the system', or any local charity, and the burden of cost presented by the transport needs of children with special needs and vulnerable adults - 'these people'. Brian has thus endeared himself to every driver in the borough, every resident with a disability, or with a disabled relative, and every elderly person in the borough who foolishly wishes to use a car, but does not have a mobile phone. Brian has told these senior citizens, in fact, that they do not exist, so presumably they would not qualify for a vote anyway.

Local Tories and the wider Conservative party appear to be deeply concerned about the Coleman effect: dear, dear - tragically, only a few months ago, a fund raiser event for the May elections had to cancelled, despite the glamorous allure of star guests Brian and escort Raine, Countess Spencer. How times have changed. Rumours abounded not sop long ago that many Tories want to dump Coleman as candidate, and every Labour voter in London held their breath, fervently praying it was not true, but - thankfully it's too late to change now - the dangerous moment passed, and our biggest election asset remains in place.

After some probing today it now appears that Coleman has now been listed as Chair for the Talk London event: whether he turns up or not will be interesting to see. Others attending will be Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor for Transport, someone called Gail Laser, 'Chair of Barnet Traders & Barnet Town Team', oh, and easy to overlook - Richard Cornelius, the so called leader of Barnet Council. (Mrs Angry hears the dear leader Cornelius has been inspired by North Korea to work up some sort of cult of personality, Coleman style, here in Broken Barnet. Sadly, at the time of writing, he has so far been unable to locate one.)

Mrs Angry has been racking her brain to try and remember where she has heard of Gail Laser before ... oh, and then she did - here is a Barnet Council press release from the 9th August:

Chipping Barnet residents 'thrilled' at £400k town centre boost

"Chipping Barnet traders and residents had reasons to celebrate after hearing of their success in obtaining £416,000 from the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund to improve their town centre.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced that Chipping Barnet will be amongst the 30 winners of the first round of £10m made available for outer London to “bring the buzz back” to their high streets.

Set up in March, the Mayor’s Outer London Fund is a £50m three year initiative to grow economic activity and drive employment in parts of London benefitting less directly from large-scale infrastructure investment in the capital such as Crossrail and the 2012 Games.

The proposals for Chipping Barnet include physical improvements such as enhancing the green space at St John the Baptist Church in Wood Street. as well as clutter removal and tree planting on the High Street along with other economy boosting initiatives.

A number of these schemes will be delivered in time for Christmas to provide financial help for this historic town centre to attract additional local shoppers over the festive period and beyond.

A bid for Edgware Town centre was submitted, but was unsuccessful.

Chairman of Chipping Barnet Traders’ Association and local resident Gail Laser was “thrilled” to hear that their close partnership with the Barnet Society, Hadley Residents’ Society and Barnet Council enabled a successful bid to the Mayor of London that will now “inject economic vigour into our high street”.

Councillor Brian Coleman, Cabinet member for Environment, said: “This is a much needed boost to Chipping Barnet during these difficult financial times. It is important that we all try to support our local economies so they can continue to serve us long into the future.”

Clearly Ms Laser has reason to be grateful to the Mayor and Brian Coleman. Let's hope she has the nerve to stand up for all the other retailers and small business owners in the rest of the borough who are watching their businesses bleed to death through loss of trade caused by the fatally idiotic parking policy, the gift of Brian Coleman and his Cabinet colleagues.

That the already affluent Chipping Barnet town centre could be deemed in greater need of the Mayor's grant than Edgware is an absolute scandal, in Mrs Angry's opinion. Edgware town centre is of course on the border with Harrow, and populated by substantial numbers of less advantaged residents ... shh, you know, Labour voters. Chipping Barnet is the home of the most influential Broken Barnet Tory councillors, the heartland of their core voters, and a source of lucrative fund raising.

So: with Brian in the chair, a hand picked panel, and the topic of 'investment in outer London', do you think we will be able to have an honest and open debate on the issues that really matter to the residents of this constituency?

Who knows, but Mrs Angry believes that many in the audience will do their best to make sure these issues are raised anyway. Coleman might do well to stay away: it's not going to be an easy night.

*Here is another press release from Andrew Dismore:

As fare rises hit Barnet and Camden commuters returning to work today, Londoners have a clear choice in 2012


Barnet and Camden residents were today suffering a fourth year of inflation-busting fare increases from Boris Johnson, as new research shows that fares in London are now costing over a quarter of minimum wage take home pay.

Today is the first working day back under the new high fares package. It hits Barnet and Camden residents hard at a time when people are facing a squeeze on their quality of life and the London economy continues to struggle under George Osborne’s failed policies.

Ken’s Fare Deal would wipe out Boris Johnson’s planned increases for 2012 and saving the average Barnet and Camden commuter £1000 over the next four years.

Under the Conservative mayor the cost of a single bus ticket has risen by a massive 50 per cent since 2008, whilst the price of a monthly zone 1-2 Travelcard is up 21% costing £230.40 per year more, and the price of a zones 1-6 Travelcard is up a fifth.

New figures from the House of Commons library show that this means an office manager in central London earning £25,600 living in zone 1 or 2 would have to work for three weeks and three days before the cost of their travel was covered. A cleaner on the minimum wage (£11,730) would have to spend 27 per cent of their take home pay in order to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 Travelcard. A newly qualified nurse working in inner London (£25,411) and living in Zone 4 would have to have to work for 5 weeks and a day before they'd paid for their travel, whilst a shop assistant earning the London Living Wage (£16,013) would have to spend 21 per cent of their take home pay to be able to afford to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 travelcard.



Andrew Dismore, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden said:

“Before residents even arrive at work this morning they will have felt the pain of a fourth year of above inflation bus, tube and train fare hikes under Boris Johnson.

“This is the wrong fare rise at the wrong time, taking money out of people’s pockets when the London economy is struggling and when people are very hard pressed.

“The impact applies across Barnet and Camden and London as a whole and across ages and income brackets. Yet every year the Mayor rakes in more income from fares than his budgets and business plans says he will.


Ken Livingstone said,

“It’s time for change. Exactly four months today Londoners will face a very clear choice – a Labour mayor who will cut the fares, or a Tory mayor who raises fares, forcing many to spend a quarter of their wages merely getting to and from work. In elected in May I'll cut the fares saving the average Londoners £1000 over four years.