A Glowing Report: or another Audit Committee in Broken Barnet, Part one

The art of external audit

As the Audit Committee began on Thursday night, Mrs Angry realised, to her increasing alarm, that she was going to be the only armchair auditor present - Mr Reasonable had a family emergency to excuse his absence, but Mr Mustard had clearly bunked off and not bothered to turn up. Tut tut, Mr Mustard. This meant Mrs Angry was flying solo. Uh oh. Her heart sank. She would now actually have to LISTEN to the evening's proceedings, and try to follow them carefully with some grasp of the interminable discussions about assurances, red lights, green lights, capital reserves and all that stuff. She moaned softly to herself.

Luckily, the delightful and very charming Rabbi Jeffrey Newman was sitting next to her and agreed to perform the most important function of the missing bloggers by poking her awake with his pen at slower points of the evening. Are Rabbis allowed to poke lady bloggers, with or without a pen? Not sure. Reform and Liberal rabbis: yes, probably, Mrs Angry.

Aha: and then Mrs Angry cheered up quite a lot when she remembered Question Time, always a source of entertainment, and of course this time she had submitted some deliberately provocative questions (by audit standards, you understand, don't raise your expectations too high).

An unprecedented number of questions had been submitted to the meeting by members of the question time, a fact which was welcomed by the Chair, the Libdem councillor Lord Palmer, and clearly only an opposition chair would be so welcoming of so many awkward questions.

Palmer began the proceedings by reminding the public that as an opposition councillor, he found his position as Chair very difficult. His political views on One Barnet are pretty clear, and nothing to do with this committee, where his responsibilities are clearly defined.

Four of the questions were from Mr Reasonable, so he will no doubt comment himself on his written responses.

Seated opposite the public, at the far end of the committee table, were the three wise monkeys from external auditors Grant Thornton, headed by Mrs Angry's old sparring partner, Mr Paul 'That would be your opinion' Hughes, who looked to Mrs Angry as if he was in rather a bad mood.

The reason he may have been in rather a bad mood was because because the questions submitted were largely focused on matters which were within the remit of the external auditors, and unusually, many of the written answers were accompanied by comments from Grant Thornton.

Adam Langleben asked about assurances for the internal audit of One Barnet projects, or lack of them and received a bla bla bla response saying everything was in order, of course, with a comment from Grant Thornton saying they were not required to justify the audit approach they take, ooh, get you, Grant Thornton, but 'for the benefit of the Chairman' (not the electors or the questioner, you note, they were in agreement with the council's response. To his supplementary question the reply was only that reports on the issues raised will come to the audit committee.

Barbara Jacobson also asked if the Chair can ensure that the external auditors explained how they reached the conclusion that 'there are adequate arrangements in place for the overall governance of the transformation projects' - ie One Barnet privatisation of council services.

Another snotty answer from GT saying, in effect, this is none of your business and we do not have to tell you. Barbara asked the Chair if he would ask to see the relevant documents. He commented ruefully that he was not running the council, although he wished he was.

Leonardo Alvarado asked about the management of risks relating to the One Barnet programme, and how the community was involved in the scrutiny of this management. Ha. Good question, Mr Alvarado, to which the answer of course is that it is not. The official response expressed the view that our elected members do this on our behalf. Oh, please. His supplementary question asked for a greater involvement by stakeholders, ie you and me, the taxpayers.

The Chair offered to pass the message back to those whom it concerns that there is a desire for residents to be involved. He thought Mr Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers, the Section 151 officer seated at his left hand with an inscrutable expression might like to consider this possibility. He observed with some regret that the censored Residents Forums no longer allow for the open discussion of such matters.

Tirza Waisel asked about the council's own survey which found 'the council scores relatively poorly on whether residents feel involved and able to influence local decisions'. How will the council address this? Response .... bla bla bla, an overarching (Yesss, overarching: now we know we are back in Broken Barnet) an overarching engagement strategy and oh, you get the picture.

At this point Mrs Angry would like to pay tribute to Tirza Waisal, and all the other Barnet residents who are putting so much effort into speaking up for their communities and defying the immoral agenda of the Barnet outsourcing lobby: the councillors, senior officers and private companies circling around the prostrate body of our council services. What they are doing is courageous, admirable, and deserves an expression of gratitude from the rest of us.

Tirza, as ever, struggled valiantly with another question: this council is about to sign two massive contracts: what assurances are there that there will be effective participation by residents in this process before the deals are done?

Palmer told her this was outside the remit of the Audit Committee. All this committee could do is ensure that the existing processes are operated correctly. He repeated his regret at the effective suffocation of the Residents Forum, and noted that the Audit Committee acted historically, reviewing what had happened. Mmm, thought Mrs Angry. And in Broken Barnet, history is rewritten by the victors, as it always is.

Rabbi Newman had also asked about engagement with the local community, something which clearly deeply troubles this thoughtful, conscientious man, who again deserves commendation for his personal committment to the best interests of the community, and the risks raised by the mass privatisation of the One Barnet scam.

Rabbi Newman was palmed off with some reference to 'improvement areas'. He appeared to be unimpressed. He made a reference to localism ... aha: the noble Lord had something to say. Rabbi Newman's question was, he thought, an incredibly good question - Palmer has of course spoken in the Lords on Pickles' Localism bill ...

Oh Eric Pickles, and Lord Palmer, and Jeffrey: do you honestly think that the bunch of Tory hooligans here in Barnet really understand the concept of localism, and support the idea of the greater empowerment of the community?

Ruth Kutner now asked a very good question:

Why does the auditor's report choose to omit the specific details about public challenge matters, especially when they include alleged breaches of EU procurement rules, ultra vires spending and conflicts of interest by senior officers?

Ha: yes, indeed, Mr Hughes ... Mr Hughes, it should be said, avoided the pen twiddling of previous Audit committee meetings, and was obliged to resort to a hand clasping prayerful position throughout this evening. Not that God was ever going to be very sympathetic, Mr Hughes, in the opinion of this blogger.

Response? Well, nothing was raised that the external auditors thought should be reported to 'those charged with governance'.

Isn't that good news, citizens of Broken Barnet?

Oh: except there were 'recent objections' that they were considering.

Hmm.

Grant Thornton commented that 'the matters referred to remained under discussion and it was not appropriate to report the detail'. Oh. Ok then.

Hello: time for Mrs Angry's first question:

Question 1:

Within the Report to Those Charged With Governance, the external auditors from Grant Thornton state, in Item 3.5 - 'Public Challenge Matters':

"We have met with and taken questions from local electors that we will respond to prior to issuing our audit certificate."

As one of the two electors referred to in this item, I would like to challenge this statement and draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that I feel this process to have been entirely unsatisfactory, and that serious issues of public interest raised by myself and the other elector remain outstanding, and have not been responded to, or unneccessarily deferred. I would like to raise one or two of these issues with the Chair of the committee.

The meeting with the external auditor is supposed to be part of a process of scrutiny in which electors are also able to inspect the accounts of the authority, so as to raise any matters of concern with him. When I attended the council offices to do this with a number of other electors, days before our meeting, we were not able to make a proper inspection as all the material was heavily redacted on the spurious grounds of 'commercial sensitivity'. We raised this matter with the external auditor, to little avail.

I would like to ask the Chair if he and his colleagues on the committee agree that the use of such redactions purely on the basis of political rather than genuine commercial 'sensitivity' is completely inappropriate and in clear conflict with the need for transparency and openness in local government, as defined in the new coalition policy of localism?

The response was rather short:

It is understood by the Chairman that the council sought legal opinion regarding access to contract information. Responses to this question are included within question 4. (ie to Mr Alvarado).

From Grant Thornton:

For the benefit of the Chairman (but clearly not for me) we have concluded our correspondance with Mrs Angry and Mr Reasonable on these matters and have nothing further to add.

Oh, Ok. But Mrs Angry did have something further to add. She pointed out that she had, by a most peculiar coincidence, after a month's delay, that morning received a response from the Section 151 officer, Mr Andrew Black Hole Travers, on this very issue,

Dear Mrs Angry

I refer to your email communication dated 14 August 2012.

As requested, please find attached a copy of the council’s Redaction Policy.

With respect to disclosing ‘information relating to individuals working for suppliers’, you are correct in that the same process of redaction has been applied. Where information identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified, the redaction will have been carried out in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Council’s Redactions Policy.

With regards to your point around ‘commercial sensitivity’, you are correct in noting that one company stated ‘n/a’ in their ITQ response, where invited to flag whether any information included was ‘confidential’ or ‘commercially sensitive’. The Council’s standard approach is, however, to consult with contractors at the point when a document is being considered for publication. It was at this stage, in response to such consultation, that the contractor responded that they currently perceive their commercial day rates to be commercially sensitive.

The Council, in reviewing the contract, took account of the Court of Appeal case of Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2012]. The Council, certainly, balanced the public interest in transparency (particularly where the dealings of public authorities and the use of public money is concerned) against the public interest in the maintenance of information which is valuable commercially confidential information.

In carrying out this balancing exercise, the Council’s consideration included the possibility that the London Borough of Barnet is likely to procure management consultancy support of the type included in this contract again. While specifics of the Council’s requirements might differ from those included in this contract, it is possible that this company would bid for such future work, using a commercial strategy similar to that which was successful for them in this instance.

The Council also took account of the likelihood that other local authorities will contract for packages of work similar to those included within this contract in the near future and that sharing this company’s commercially confidential information at this time would be likely to place it at a commercial disadvantage in future procurements.

The Council, further, took into account the fact that “… electors, who have to pay the bills as [council tax] payers and other persons interested such as commercial ratepayers, who do not pay directly but rather via central government grants, have a role to play in assisting the auditor in his audit….”. It is, after all, for this reason that the entitlement is given to electors to inspect documents to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.

Finally, please be reminded that protection is afforded to the public interest by the auditor’s right to access the documents

Kind regards

Andrew Travers

and which she has now, incidentally, replied to as follows:

Dear Mr Travers

Thank you so much for this, even if it took a month to send and arrived, by sheer coincidence, on the day of the audit meeting. I hope you enjoyed the meeting as much as I did.

As for your response in explanation of the reasons for obstructing our inspection of the accounts, frankly, I am afraid that I consider it to be a load of (redacted).

Have a nice weekend,

Mrs Angry

to be continued ...

Friday joke(s) - A week in Broken Barnet, updated

Brian Coleman and Tory leader Richard Cornelius

Mrs Angry sat down in the committee room at the Town Hall this evening, waiting for the Audit Committee to begin. (Full report coming along soon, and, oh boy: it was a cracker of a meeting ...)

Passing by the glass paned doors before the meeting, Tory 'leader' Richard Cornelius glanced into the room and momentarily made contact with the glinting eye of Mrs Angry. She glared at him: he looked away, quickly, and hurried along the corridor.

Cornelius has not responded to my complaint to him about Brian Coleman's repellant behaviour at Tuesday's full council meeting. He avoided making any statement of disapproval of the incident, and as reported in the local Times:

"Council leader Richard Cornelius was seen to laugh and applaud Cllr Coleman’s abrasive comments at the packed meeting in Hendon Town Hall.

In his own statement, the group leader also passed the buck, saying it was up to Cllr Coleman whether or not he apologised."

Mayor Brian Schama also failed to condemn his fellow Tory, saying only:

“Sometimes during council meetings the public gallery can become quite vociferous and this was the case on Tuesday night. However, Councillor Coleman is a very experienced politician and makes his own mind up as to what he will say. I gave him the chance to apologise during the meeting but he declined.”

Schama, in a personal email to Mrs Angry. admitted that Coleman should not have insulted residents in the way he did, but seems reluctant to express the same view in public, which is pretty shabby, in Mrs Angry's view.

What has been overlooked in this incident is that Coleman was being heckled from the gallery, but the individual who appeared to have triggered the outburst was in fact someone who has previously been the subject of Coleman's appalling behaviour, and has had a complaint about him upheld, twice, by the relevant complaints system, but has still, months later, not received from him the apology he was told to make. This is what he was demanding, from the gallery.

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9928532.Mayor_accuses_victims_of_councillor_s_rant_of_bringing_the_insults_on_themselves/?ref=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In my view, Richard Cornelius' behaviour in this matter is shameful, and cowardly, and proves that he is unworthy of his position as leader.

The newly emasculated complaints' system, as yet untested, will be an utter farce as he will be, as leader of his party, the ultimate judge of the merits of any case brought to him, and his comments clearly indicate he has already taken a view of the situation, in defence of his grossly insulting, blatantly remorseless colleague.

Mrs Angry will take her own form of action, which one hopes will be rather more effective.

The local press has given generous coverage to the Coleman outburst story, with full stories in the local Times.

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9923945.Cllr_Coleman_insults_public_with__appalling__comment/?ref=mr

and oh look: my own headline ... have you any idea of the mortification this has caused Mrs Angry's children? Fabulous. Made the whole experience worthwhile.

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9924998.Mrs_Angry_makes_complaint_about_Cllr_Coleman_s__sexist__comment/?ref=mr

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9928532.Mayor_of_Barnet_accuses_public_gallery_of_becoming__quite_vociferous_/?ref=mr

Barnet Press

w.barnet-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=31975&headline=Another%2520complaint%2520against%2520Coleman%2520after%2520%25E2%2580%2598hag%25E2%2580%2599%2520jibe

and the Ham & High.

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_councillor_brian_coleman_calls_members_of_the_public_sad_mad_and_hags_1_1513747

No doubt the idiotic, insulting comments he has made in his new blog about local journalism, and in particular the sexist remarks concerning female reporters, has given them every reason to give him their full attention. Oh, and now see this, in the Standard:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tory-bruiser-brian-coleman-in-two-old-hags-outburst-at-council-meeting-8138928.html

Oh dear, Tooting Twister: not such a good news week for Barnet Council, was it? And goodness me, we haven't even mentioned the squat yet ...

As published in the previous post, Coleman has also taken the opportunity, after his pathetic behaviour at the council meeting, and a 'robust' challenge from Mrs A in the corridor afterwards, to write a frankly raving piece about the Barnet bloggers, making the most laughable, bizarre, paranoid claims about us including allegations that we are to blame for 'criminal damage' to Conservative party offices, and worse still, an attack in the street on his 88 year old mother.

Mrs Angry is intrigued by the lack of reporting in the local press of these alleged incidents (beginning to see what you mean about the local press, Brian) will be writing to the local police to ask for further details of this alleged incidents, to see if they can help her with her enquiries. Oh, ah: unless, of course, they did not actually happen, except inside the head of Brian Coleman?

Mrs Angry has also taken legal advice, and has been informed that such remarks, in a context which clearly identifies three of the Barnet bloggers are defamatory.

Will we take action? We could, and we are told we would almost certainly win. Mrs Angry is not inclined to waste any effort on such a matter, but a professional eye is watching very carefully for any further damaging allegations. Really all one can do is sit back and marvel at the sheer lunacy of someone who can write such a load of shite, with no sense of how absurd he appears.

You may wonder, as Mrs Angry does, why it is that Brian Coleman holds his own mother in such high esteem, and yet holds such contempt for other women, denigrating professional female politicians and journalists (and bloggers), and shouting vile insults at female residents in the public gallery. There is no excuse for such an attitude, and the expression of such disrespectful remarks in someone who is an elected representative is just not acceptable.

You may wonder why Coleman has not been censured by his own leader or colleagues. Two reasons: they lack the balls to take him on, and they share his attitudes, anyway.

The position of women in the Barnet Tory group is subservient and completely without influence. The Tories on Barnet Council are dominated by a merciless, brainless male culture, one comprised largely of men with no intellectual strength but an instinctive determination to hold onto power at all costs. Women are tolerated only if they are of a certain age, (hag vintage, and upwards) and proper 'ladies', and know when to keep quiet, and do what the men in the Cabinet decree.

Just like Mrs Angry, in fact.

This week has been an extraordinary one, even by the standards of Broken Barnet, because there have also been the most incredible developments in the story of the squatters now occupying Friern Barnet Library, as reported in earlier posts in this blog and elsewhere. There is in fact ever increasing interest in the story from the media: BBC news, Radio 4, the Guardian, and even the Big Issue, no doubt due to the issue of vacant properties in a capital city blighted by homelessness.

Please note, incidentally, that the library will be open tomorrow (no need for pop up libraries outside now!) from 11 to 7, for residents to come and use the building as the Carnegie foundation intended, as a library, and not a development opportunity.

At the excruciatingly funny circle of friends meeting at the occupied library on Monday, at which senior Barnet officers were taught an important lesson in how to take part in a democratic debate by a very patient community squatter, we were informed that no legal processes had been instigated, and no 'snap decisions' would be made about such matters. This was clearly untrue, as the next day we heard that an eviction procedure had already begun.

Also at this meeting, naughty Mrs Angry mischievously raised the possibility that the former Church Farmhouse Museum, closed by the council more than a year ago, lying empty, stripped of all its exhibits, and awaiting buyers, might also be occupied by Phoenix and his friends and would that mean the officers of the council would begin negotiations for the creation of a community museum?

The reaction of the senior officers was one which Mrs Angry will remember with fondness for some time. But she had a very serious motive for making this point.

Earlier this year, at a Residents Forum, Mrs A raised a question about a lovely Edwardian park keeper's cottage in Victoria Park whose tenants, a couple with young children, were evicted years ago, and which has been left vacant and open to vandalism, deteriorating dreadfully. She asked why this property had been left open to abuse and left to rot, empty of tenants, when there are so many homeless families in Barnet. It seems there is a similar case in Oakhill Park, and seemingly others.

No response has ever been given by Barnet Property Services, but the day after the question was submitted, at last the property was secured, although of course it is still vacant.

On Saturday Mrs A visited the former museum in Hendon, and observed in horror that the lack of security meant that the Grade2* listed house was hopelessly vulnerable: grounds completely open, gate wide open, no CCTV, easily breachable entry points. What the fire preventative measures are, one can only speculate.

If this property were badly vandalised, or damaged in any way, this would be good news for the council, of course, as in its protected status it is a bloody nuisance and obstruction to the would be developer.

After her suggestion at the meeting on Monday, as she predicted, the council immediately installed new security at the Farmhouse. Better late than never, eh? A shame, perhaps, that it had not been occupied, though, and a fight made to protect this irreplaceable treasure, our only council owned museum and exhibition space, whose contents are being given away, thrown away or sold at auction. More on this in another post.

And it is rumoured that buyers have been to visit the property, so we must expect that sooner or later it will be sold, and a lovely block of flats built in the grounds, courtesy of our grubby, greedy little philistine Tory councillors.

Here is a strange ending to this story: certain interested parties have been landing on this blog with google searches indicating that they are worried about rumours of, well ... the haunting of Church Farmhouse Museum.

Mrs Angry believes that in fact there may well be something to worry about.

The side boundary of the old building is shared by the graveyard of the ancient church of St Mary's, itself said to be on the site of a Roman temple. There may well be graves under some of the grounds of the Farmhouse, as the dividing boundary appears to be relatively recent to the history of the church and house. Oh, and it was this graveyard which inspired Bram Stoker to write a scene in Dracula involving Van Helsing, a tomb, and the body of poor Lucy. Was Stoker inspired by tales told in Hendon regarding the ancient spot? Who knows. Look at this, though ...


A sight to strike fear into the hearts of would be developers everywhere ... a sighting of the Church Farmhouse ghost? A notorious old hag/blogger, escaped from the Greyhound? Or maybe a potential community squatter?

Don't say you haven't been warned ...

Brian Coleman: Sad, bad and mad, and a couple of old hags - how he sees the electorate

Macbeth, Act IV, Scene 1

SECOND WITCH.

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes:—
Open, locks, whoever knocks!

[Enter Macbeth.]

MACBETH.

How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags!
What is't you do?

ALL.

A deed without a name.

Forget about the full council meeting tonight. I already have, except for one thing: the vile behaviour of Brian Coleman towards the residents present tonight in the public gallery, and the cowardly failure of his Tory colleagues to reprimand him for the way in which he acted. Oh, and the venomous encounter we had in the corridor outside the council chamber - see above.

During a 'debate' in the council chamber this evening about the One Barnet idiocy, his usual obstreperous, ranting invective caused some annoyance in the public gallery, and one of the residents involved in the complaint to the standards committe in regard to the Veolia 'blackshirts' case, asked Coleman where his apology was (as decided by the verdict). Residents in the gallery also continued to object to Coleman's speech.

In a completely disproportionate reaction, he suddenly launched into the most astonishing explosion of insulting language, sneering at what he called the 'sad, mad and bad' in the public gallery, and jeering, with visible contempt, at one or two of us in particular: 'a couple of old hags' ...

Yes. You read that right.

'Hags.' Old hags, in fact.

Here are some definitions of that word:

An unattractive, middle-aged (or slightly older) woman. The term is commonly used to describe hysterical or ugly women in positions of power.

An old woman considered ugly or frightful. A witch; a sorceress. A female demon. A hagfish

An ugly, slatternly, or evil-looking old woman. An evil or frightening spirit : hobgoblin, witch.

So: sexist, ageist, clearly meant to denigrate the female residents in the public gallery.

Dr Julia Hines, the chair of Age UK Barnet, who was sitting next to me in the front row, thought that Coleman was directing his insult at us. I was writing notes as he spoke, so cannot say, but we were certainly in his line of vision.

Of all the most disgraceful things I have heard in this council chamber in the last couple of years, and boy, have I heard some terrible things, this was by far the worst, the most offensive outburst from this truly pathetic individual.

Such behaviour is an absolute disgrace, an appalling reflection on the reputation of the Tory group in Barnet Council, and deserves a severe reprimand. Did he get it?

No.

More was to come. He then mentions the leader of the staff union by name, and contemptuously, sneeringly referred to what he called his 'desperate' emails.

The man he referred to so disparagingly, completely inappropriately in any context, but especially in the course of a council meeting, is an individual who works passionately, non stop, for the best interests of his members, and has dedicated every effort he can summon to the campaign against One Barnet, in order to protect council staff from the certain fate which will await them if the mass outsourcing programme is agreed. Mrs Angry believes that a formal complaint will follow in response to this remark, and so it should.

The residents in the gallery were beside themselves with fury and loudly demanded an apology. Opposition councillors were visibly shocked. There was pandemonium, unsurprisingly.

The Mayor, Brian Schama, a nice man, with impeccable manners, did nothing, said nothing to make Coleman apologise. Instead of reprimanding him, in fact, he turned to the gallery and lambasted them, demanding that they keep quiet, and outrageously, that they 'show respect' to the council meeting.

Yes: respect. Respect, Mr Mayor, must be earned.

Clearly Cllr Schama is enjoying being Mayor, and being chauffered around the borough, and wearing the red robes and flouncy blouse of his office, and having people bow and scrape to him, but it would be best if he remembered that he is in that post by the courtesy of the people in the public gallery, and that respect is due first and foremost from the councillors to the people whom they represent.

Mrs Angry was unable to contain herself and pointed out that first of all the councillors, such as Coleman need to learn to show respect for their electors. Residents demanded an apology. The Mayor clearly was not going to ask for one. After consulting a senior officer he was told that it would have to be up to the individual councillor to decide whether or not to apologise. Did Coleman agree to do so? What do you think?

Why did Schama keep quiet? Why did he show such reluctance to censure his colleague? If his wife, daughter, sister or mother had been called a 'hag' by Coleman, would he have allowed this to go unchecked?

One would suspect not, and that anyone would have immediately demanded that Coleman withdraw such a remark.

When the people in the gallery insisted that the Mayor extracted an apology from the old fool, he merely asked him if he wished to do so. Guess what? Coleman refused, and that, as far as the Mayor was concerned, was that.

Why are the Tory councillors so inclined to indulge Coleman's rudeness and bullying? It really is an absolute disgrace, and so cowardly.

Recently someone purporting to be Brian Coleman has been blogging as 'The King of Bling is Back'. This pathetic, unintentionally comical piece of toss is believed by many to be a parody. Mrs Angry has always believed it to be authentic, and indeed Coleman has been given the opportunity to deny it is his work, and has failed to do so, so we may reasonably take that as an endorsement.

In the last week, this preposterous blog has published two sexist remarks about professional women, claiming that female ministers were influenced in their judgement by their attraction to MP Zac Goldsmith:

"I began to suspect that some female Ministers had gazed into Zac Goldsmith MP’s eyes and had immediately succumbed to his very obvious charms".

... and then insisted, in a diatribe against the local press, that certain women journalists were employed for their physical attributes:

"One began to get the feeling certain young ladies were hired for their assets which were not always above the neckline".

Such misogyny and sexist stereotyping is ill judged in a piece of writing, but for an elected member to refer to women, female residents attending a council meeting as 'hags' is simply appalling, utterly unacceptable, and in the view of everyone in the gallery, Coleman should have been required immediately to withdraw his remark, apologise, or leave the chamber. He did neither, and the Mayor took no further action.

As for his reference to the 'sad, mad and bad', in terms of showing gross disrespect to the local residents present in the gallery, the taxpayers and electors who pay Coleman a generous allowance to represent their interests, the case is clear. It should be pointed out that there were many elderly people and residents with disabilities and learning difficulties attending the meeting. One of these individuals, who is a remarkable man who copes with admirable fortitude with both physical and mental health needs, remarked to me later that he was angered and very upset by Coleman's attitude to 'these people', the disabled residents of the borough.

What does it say about the Barnet Tories that they failed to censure Coleman for making such remarks? It tells you everything about the deeply engrained sexism within their own ranks, and the cowering lack of resistence they put up to Coleman and the demands of his boorish behaviour and overweening ego.

A little later Mrs Angry spotted Coleman walking along the corridor outside the chamber, and slipped out to take his photo, standing next to Labour councillor and deputy leader Barry Rawlings. As he approached, I took his picture,and he snarled, idiotically:

'You have been told not to photograph me!'

He then ordered security staff and a council officer standing nearby to stop me. They did nothing of the sort, of course, and looked on in amazement.

Er, no, I said, I have not been told anything of the sort, and I have every right to take your photograph: you are an elected representative of this borough. Oh, and by the way: I want you to apologise for the appalling remarks you directed at the public gallery.

He stood in front of me, in fury, looking as if he was going to explode. I should say he stood looking up at me: he is in truth a little tin pot dictator, reaching, oh, only as far as what, my neckline, eh, Brian?

You are a nasty piece of work, he spat out ... adding rather mystifyingly: You ... you hassle councillors and council officers ... What? (Is he confusing me with that well known stalker and part time council officer hassler, Mr Mustard? Mrs Angry is far too lazy, Brian, to bother with such activity. Admittedly she did invite you to a Residents Forum once and received a threat from you, in return, to call the police ...)

Thank you, I said. You have just made those accusations in front of several witnesses. He stomped off, ranting to himself, and then ending feebly with .... Get a life ...

Yawn. Ok. Expect a letter of complaint, I yelled, adding a pungent and descriptive invitation to see him safely back where he belongs, with the gutless Tory councillors sitting on the far side of the chamber.

Gratitude is due to two councillors: Tory Brian Salinger, who left the chamber in disgust after Coleman's remarks to the gallery, and Libdem Jack Cohen, who twice stood to complain about Coleman, to express his disgust at the sexist language used, and the refusal to take any action by the Mayor.

With grim irony, the item which immediately followed this appalling outburst from Coleman was what was a commendable motion by his fellow Tory Reuben Thompstone: a move to adopt the National Pensioners Convention Dignity Code.

Yes. The gutless, shabby Tory councillors then sat in the chamber with an absolutely gobsmacking lack of self awareness, wringing their hands sanctimoniously and lecturing us about the need to show respect for our elderly citizens.

The old boys, that would be, not the hags sitting in the council chamber, presumably?



Remember how the Scottish play ends, Councillor Coleman: not with the hags, but a bloody defeat:

MACDUFF

Then yield thee, coward,
And live to be the show and gaze o' the time:
We'll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted on a pole, and underwrit,
'Here may you see the tyrant.'

Up yours.

Mrs Angry x

Updated, courtesy of the Barnet Bugle: see Coleman in action, to the accompaniment of some good advice from the public gallery -




Updated, with the latest ravings from Councillor Coleman in his marvellous blog: enjoy.

Get a life!

As the quality of journalism of local newspapers declines and their readership falls through the floor in recent years a new phenomenon has appeared with the rise of the internet ; the local blogger.

It is now a rare occurrence for any professional journalist to be sitting in the gallery of a Council meeting and their place has been taken by the amateur and often obsessive “blogger”

Up and down the country individuals who have a particular axe to grind or have failed to be actually be elected to their local Council sit for hours listening to tedious committee meetings and then composing blogs which often have little relationship to the proceedings they have just witnessed.

The problem with bloggers in local government is that unlike the local press who still have to abide by the rules of the soon to be defunct Press Complaints Commission (although many local journalists openly flout it)

In Barnet we are particularly blessed with bloggers with a number writing several times a day about Barnet Council matters (is the Council really that interesting?). A number have taken to doing it anonymously by adopting silly names which in my view is rather on a par with sending poison pen letters or a Mike Freer put it “the one handed bloggers”. The signs of obsessive behaviour are clear to see, one blogger has viewed this blog over 200 times in less than a week. More worryingly as they become more and more obsessive their conspiracy theories become wilder and wilder and their grasp of reality becomes more tenuous. I did have a very good laugh earlier in the year when one blogger suggested that those of us involved in the organising of the borough’s celebration of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee were part of some sort of “Masonic” conspiracy, for the record I am not a freemason. I do have to admit that there are several blog stories that have appeared that I know to be complete fiction from start to finish because I deliberately fed a pack of lies to either a Council officer or indeed a Councillor whom I suspected of leaking to the bloggers and sure enough the stories appeared.

Their attempts to personalise local politics (where to some extent the local newspapers have followed suit) has lead them to begin to indulge in bizarre activities. Councillors and senior professional officers of the Council have been followed, a black van has been reported suspiciously parked outside Councillors homes, officers of the Council have had their private residences photographed, and one female Council officer had her mobile phone number published, my 88 year old Mother was attacked in the street and one Council officer had to take their house off the market after inappropriate enquiries from bloggers. Additionally there have been repeated acts of criminal damage on Conservative Party premises in the borough. Many Councillors of all parties no longer disclose their private addresses in order to protect their families. In short bloggers rather than attempt to keep the wider community informed and involved, something all Councillors would welcome, have attempted to instigate a regime of intimidation just because they happen to politically disagree with the current Council administration. This is not unique to Barnet with the distinguished Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council Sir Merrick Cockell amongst others regularly being regularly the victim of appalling personal abuse.

Additionally as a lazy way of filling their blog they submit dozens and dozens of Freedom of Information requests on spurious matter which they then reveal as shocking exclusives on their blogs. Of course this is also a tactic employed by the Taxpayers Alliance which regularly reveals “shock horror” that Local Government spends money! In Barnet the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent dealing with FOI requests could have kept Friern Barnet Library open. Just a thought!

I am not worried about blogs that genuinely debate matters of political interest and indeed there are several that cover Barnet affairs from a socialist point of view with which I fundamentally disagree but I enjoy reading. Furthermore the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles’ idea about recruiting “armchair auditors“ is a positive move to enhance the power of the Internet and make local government more accountable. In Barnet some bloggers who think they act as the servant of the voters have actually developed bigger egos than us Councillors; the difference is they don’t have a democratic mandate to back it up and get highly offended if anyone criticises them. They can dish it out but they cannot take it.

One gets the felling that some bloggers have fixated on Barnet Council and its’ officers and members in preference to obsessing over David Beckham or Simon Cowell.

My message to some bloggers, “Get a Life!“

So, to recap, the Barnet bloggers are, according to Councillor Brian Coleman, responsible for criminal activity involving damage to erm .... Tory party offices, and also have been attacking Brian's 88 year old mum. One of us drives a mysterious black van around the dark places of Broken Barnet, and spies obsessively on councillors.

On the other hand, Brian enjoys one of the socialist blogs (me or you then, Vicki?) and is now trying to suck up to Eric Pickles and embrace the concept of localism. Stop laughing.

I have to put my hand up here, and admit that I am in fact well known for inciting acts of urban terrorism, throwing bricks at Tory party office windows, and enjoy mugging old ladies - (sorry, Brian, that would be 'old hags' in your dictionary), whenever the opportunity arises. What can I say? We all need a hobby.

Simon Cowell?