Saracens at the gate, or: Barnet Tories and a £22 million loan

St Mark rescuing a Saracen from a Shipwreck - Tintoretto


We are they who come faster than fate: we are they who ride early or late:

We storm at your ivory gate: Pale Kings of the Sunset, beware!

War Song of the Saracens - James Elroy Flecker


Names matter, in Broken Barnet, as we have often noted. 

The use of language, the choice of language, and the naming of names, all hold a totemic value, one that can only be understood in the context of our borough's political landscape, and its history. 

A history which, since the Cultural Counter Revolution of Barnet Tories' successive administrations, has always to be rewritten, or excised.

When they decided to give the use of Copthall stadium, for only a peppercorn rent, to Saracens, for example, it was considered necessary to change the name of the centre, a local name of great historical significance, with long associations to the manor of Copt Hall, home of one of the borough's most influential families, the Nicholls - and replace it with one of a commercial sponsor. 

Saracen, of course, is a name of significance too: the name applied to the marauding enemies of the early crusaders - a term conjuring up all sorts of masculine 'otherness': an invader; an outsider. 

So now we must refer to Copthall as Allianz Park. And all around the borough, underneath the local signs telling you you are in Church End, Finchley, Whetstone or Mill Hill, you will see a poster advertising Saracens: a reminder of your place in the scheme of things, here in Broken Barnet: culture and history of local meaning replaced by commerce, corporate values - and profit. Or the pursuit of it, however elusive and risky that last aspiration may be.

The entrance to Allianz Park

Well then.

One of the great mysteries of Broken Barnet - and there are many, many mysteries - is the abiding contempt held by Barnet Tories, skulking in their lair up in Chipping Barnet, once but no longer the heartland of their power, for the local football team, Barnet FC. 

Here is a saga longer than anything that ever came out of Iceland: except perhaps the tale of the Icelandic bank disaster - and a story of Nordic Noir as dark and vengeful as anything seen from the sofa on a Saturday night's tv viewing. 

To cut a very long story short, then, due to a total lack of support from the local authority, the Bees were obliged, after a hundred year history in this borough, to leave Barnet, and find a new home in Harrow, thus severing all local associations (and leaving many Barnet FC fans implacably ill disposed towards theTory council, none of which helps their dwindling electoral support in the area).

Compare this studied indifference - some might argue active hostility - to the local football team, with the boundless generosity shown to Saracens: a private company, a commercially run club, with no past local association - other than that the owner lives in Totteridge.  Given our stadium, given the Freedom of the Borough, and now given a whopping £22 million loan because they want to build a new stand at Allianz Park.

Why, you may ask, are they asking us, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet, to arrange them a loan? 

Because they cannot get a commercial loan. 

Why not? 

Well: that the club has had some financial issues is well known, but we are not privy to all the details of the current situation, or the outcome of the 'due diligence' that was required in order to approve the loan last week, because your Tory councillors have exempted the details from publication. 

It may be our money which is at risk, should the club be unable to repay the loan, but we are not allowed to know the circumstances in which it was made, in the first place.

The loan is being arranged on behalf of Saracens by your Tory councillors from the Public Works Loan Board, a body which lends authorities capital sums for a range of projects. The PWLB is due for abolition, in fact, although this decision appears to have been temporarily shelved, due to a parliamentary legislative traffic jam caused by Brexit.

We ask the board for the money, they give it to us, we give it to Saracens, they are supposed to pay it back - over thirty years.

The PWLB was an eighteenth century government initiative, and in the nineteenth century began to offer low cost funding for vitally needed infrastructure for a burgeoning population: new schools, water and sewage systems - the foundations of a better society concerned with health and education - yes, for the many, and not the few.

Rather extraordinarily, however, from reading a number of FOI requests made to the PWLB, it seems the money is handed out by the board's commissioners without requiring an explanation of the purpose of the loan. As one parliamentary memorandum explains: "loans can be agreed with the minimum of scrutiny".

Most authorities, of course, use the funds for vitally needed capital projects such as housing. Some have used the money to invest in commercial property, which, as Vince Cable warned last year, puts local authorities at risk in the same way as during the Icelandic bank crisis, should there be a downturn in the commercial property sector.

Tory leader Richard Cornelius

Here in Barnet we have other uses for a PWLB loan: asking for money not for desperately needed low cost housing, but to help a privately owned company to build a new stand at its stadium. Is this in the spirit of why this loan system was created? Does it benefit the community in any way?

Whatever arguments you might find to claim that Saracens' presence at Allianz Park is beneficial to the borough - bringing a few jobs at the Stadium, some space for Middlesex Uni, a few community projects: oh, and the use of the Stadium centre for election counts - the net gain for the majority of residents is insignificant. Worse still, this massive loan puts us at risk of further financial difficulty should Saracens become unable to keep up repayments, as we will continue to be obliged to repay the PWLB. 

The really infuriating thing about this is not just the amount of risk, but the very fact that Barnet's Tory members are prioritising this matter at a time of such unprecedented crisis for the authority, and in the face of the evidence of their own lack of judgement over Capita - not to mention the experience over the Icelandic investments.

We are, as a result of their financial mismanagement, struggling to overcome a massive budget deficit - the extent of which was only revealed after the May elections, when earlier calculations were mysteriously found to have been seriously underestimated. Plundering the reserves, and planning another round of devastating cuts, is not a sustainable response to this crisis on any long term basis.

We are, as a result of their financial mismanagement, struggling to cope with the unsatisfactory performance of the two massive Capita contracts, leaving council services not, as we were promised, better, and at a lower cost, but paying out huge extra fees while standards fall, while the fraudulent activity of one of Capita's employees has exposed the total absence of proper financial controls in the way the contracted services have been delivered. 

The Tories have not acknowledged their culpability in this: maintaining an obstinate silence while they go through the motions of a contractual review that will almost certainly leave Capita retaining the most profitable services, in order that the Tory administration does not lose face over the exposure of their own failings and political judgement.

Instead of addressing these issues, and in the middle of this crisis, they focus their energies on pushing through this loan. It is truly mystifying. Why? Whose idea was it, anyway? 

For the last few months, questions on this matter have been batted to one side. Freedom of Information requests, made in July, have still not been fully answered, and every excuse under the sun has been made to delay or minimise disclosure.

At the Policy and Resources meeting last week where the loan was approved, many written questions were submitted to the committee Chair about the Saracens loan, by members of the public.

Included among these were important questions about the origins of the proposal: 

Q. Who first suggested the loan, to whom, on what date,
and in what context? Please list all details.

A. The loan was suggested by Saracens in October 2017. We do not

have a record of the context in which it was suggested.

"We do not have a record of the context in which it was suggested". Rather unfortunate.

Is that credible, do you think? They know it was suggested by the club, in October, but can't remember how, when or why? No record, no audit trail. 

Councillor Richard Cornelius met the owner of Saracens, who is a constituent of his, in July and September: no exact dates given here, no details - and it would appear, unless it is being withheld from FOI, that there is no written record of the discussions. 

Cllr Cornelius at the meeting, incidentally, denied his emails on the matter were being withheld from a FOI request, until corrected by deputy Chief Executive Cath Shaw, who seemed to know an awful lot more about the matter than he did: he seemed genuinely surprised.  In fairness, it may well be that he sees no reason not to be transparent and disclose more material, but that it is, like almost everything else that happens within Fortress Barnet, an officer decision to withhold, redact and sit on the papers we maintain are in the public interest to see: the default mode of Broken Barnet, in the age of Capita, and everything that came before it.

The material refused disclosure via FOI was supposedly protected on the ground of commercial interest as well as 'legal privilege'. Public interest, however, would appear to dictate that at least some of this material should be released.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing, over this deal - but it is perfectly reasonable to expect greater transparency over these meetings and discussions: the questions raised by residents - and Labour members - are important, and utterly valid. 

This is simply a request for accountability, and a full range of information, in the public interest, in regard to what is a huge amount of debt that now becomes our liability, as a result of these secretive arrangements. If it all goes pear shaped, we will carry the cost, not the Tory councillors who so easily make these arrangements in our name. 

Many questions were asked about the mysterious 'Company A', which will have to cover half of the loan - (the rest is supposedly matched by security offered by the lease on Allianz Park Stadium, which ... we already own). All of the questions about 'Company A' were refused, with a reference to the exempt papers.

After the exempt session, the proposal was put to the vote. The Tories were down in number, as Cllr Dean Cohen quite properly recused himself, having declared an unspecified personal interest in regard to the Saracens' item. The casting vote, therefore, was made by Cllr Cornelius, as Chair - and the loan of £22.9 million approved.

At a budget consultation at the Old Bull a few weeks ago, I asked Cllr Cornelius if anyone could apply for a whopping loan from the council, these days. Could I? Oh yes, he laughed: as long as I promise to build a stadium stand. 

Cornelius at the Old Bull

Ok. I promise. The details of that promise will be exempt from publication, and indeed I may not be able to guarantee to pay you back, Richard, but: who cares? As security I offer you a mortgaged house, and my collection of back copies of Private Eye - bound to be worth a fortune, one day.

As well as asking questions, three members of the public spoke to the committee to express their concerns over the Saracens loan: Barnet Alliance activist Barbara Jacobson, blogger Mr Mustard (Derek Dishman) - and me. One of the comments I made was as follows:


How curious that a Tory group, which sneers at the very principle of subsidy, when it comes to social housing, or small businesses; that insists on community enterprises ‘washing their own face’, should be so keen on a £22 million hand out to a commercial company, for a project that brings no gain other than to a tiny number of the residents of Barnet.

Here is the paradox: a Conservative administration that is happy to cut vital services to the most vulnerable members of our community; that cancelled the funding for respite care for the families of children with profound disabilities, that dropped the provision of wheels on meals, closed our only local museum, on the pretext of austerity - then handed half a million quid to the nationally funded RAF museum; that has slashed our library service to pieces, and left thousands of disadvantaged children locked out of their local branches with nowhere to study - worrying about none of these things, and preferring to wring its hands over the frustrated development plans of a private rugby club.

Well. As Mrs Jacobson announced at the committee meeting, I don't give a toss about rugby, (except when Ireland are playing, when I might show a minimal amount of interest) but like most residents I do care about the best use of my council tax, and the risk of further financial loss as a result of Barnet Tories' continued profligacy with our hard earned money. 

We do care about the people in this borough who will be sleeping in shop doorways tonight, in freezing temperatures, because there is inadequate shelter for them. We do care about those families who have no chance of ever finding a home in this borough, because Barnet Tories do not believe in the principle of social housing, subsidised by the tax payer. We do worry about schools struggling to maintain the roofs of their ageing buildings, or to provide facilities for pupils with special needs. We care enough to want to see an investment in community centres, and to see our libraries returned to the former standard of excellent service, with pride in the work they do to counter the lack of opportunity for less advantaged residents, and in providing safe spaces for those battling social isolation, and loneliness.

But you don't, do you, Barnet Tory members? You haven't asked for a loan to invest in projects of social capital. Why would you? The undeserving poor must learn to fend for themselves, while we lend a helping hand to more worthy causes, like private rugby clubs.

This is Broken Barnet, still in pieces. And here are Barnet Tories, still wielding the hammer.

Hey, hey, Theresa May: How many women have you robbed today? The Great Pensions Robbery protest reaches Parliament.

'BackToSixty's Yvette Greenway and Joanne Welch (second and third from left) in the road outside Parliament with other protesting women facing pension loss

NB: I no longer support or associate with 'Back To 60', nor the related 'CEDAWPT' campaign.

The issues of inequality in failing to support women affected by pension loss, however, remain unmitigated, and a serious cause of disadvantage for many older women. The answer, in my view, is to lobby for interim benefit support, not associated with compulsory job seeking,  targeted specifically for women of this generation in financial difficulties.

Over the last few years, in my role as roving reporter for this blog, I have, I suppose, found myself in many interesting situations: including some in which perhaps, in respectable middle age, and beyond, one might not expect to end up. 

Situations in which 'direct action', rather than theoretical activism, has been required; civil disobedience, if you like - but being there to observe and report, as well as take part. All of which raises the risk of my long suffering children, at any moment, expecting to find themselves called to collect their errant mother from a custody cell. (That could never happen, could it, Jacqui?) ... Some examples:

Stalked, barred from a public meeting, & illegally, covertly filmed by jackbooted thugs masquerading as licensed security officers, casually employed by Barnet Council. (Not the current ones, who are very nice ...)

Taking over a council chamber, & chasing the feckless Tory members about to sign up to ten years of bondage to Capita, contracts almost unread, into a tiny side room, quivering with fear.

Sitting in a 'reclaimed' library, in a circle, on children's stools, while members of Occupy taught senior council managers, speechless with indignation,  to speak in turn, respecting the rule of democracy, and using jazz hands, to show approval. Not that they wanted to.

Visiting a house squatted by local tenants being made homeless, & discussing tupperware boxes with Russell Brand, who was gracing the protest with his presence, like Jesus visiting the apostles, post death, to gee them up a bit.

Ok, not up there with the Suffragettes, exactly, in terms of daring and commitment, but interesting all the same.

But thinking about the Suffragettes exactly, was what I was doing doing earlier this week, outside Parliament, in the course of another occupation: a blockade of the road outside the House of Commons, causing chaos, hopefully, as far back as Downing Street where, possibly  PM Theresa May was sitting in her limo, unable to leave, while her less fortunate sixty/fifty something sisters were stopping traffic, and bringing Westminster to a standstill. 

You might have heard about the 'Waspi' campaign: Women Against State Pension Inequality, and recognised the purple branding, borrowed from the Suffragettes, of an issue now rapidly gaining attention from all but those who don't want to hear, at Westminster, and elsewhere.

At a time when austerity, despite Mrs May's claims of abolition, has reduced so many to an unprecedented level of poverty, that women are expected to cope without six years of pension for which they had already paid, throughout their lives, in work, and in times of childcare, is nothing less than a national scandal. 

And the resistance to this injustice, rapidly increasing as more and more women discover that the financial security they had believed was theirs by right has been quietly removed, is now part of a wider campaign, including other lobbying groups, notably BackTo60, led by Yvette Greenway and Joanne Welch (seen above), as well as We Paid In You Pay Out.

Backto60, backed by human rights barrister Michael Mansfield, and lawyers Birnberg Pierce, has now secured a hearing in the High Court in regard to its application for a Judicial Review, based on an argument addressing the unfair and hasty implementation of an imposed rise in age qualification for women, failing to inform those affected, and leaving them with little time or ability to prepare for the loss of as much as six years of pension support. 

On Wednesday this week, there was a rally and day of protest organised under the 'One Voice' movement - a body which unifies all groups campaigning to put right the injustice of so many women robbed of so many years of National Insurance contributions.

This event began at an appropriate place: the Reformers' Tree in Hyde Park, a point of memorial commemorating an oak tree used as a meeting place for members of the Reform League, in 1866, when demanding the right to vote for all adult men. The tree was burnt to a stump in the course of one protest, but its location became a symbol of the right of the people to assemble - a tradition maintained to this day, and marked in 2000 by a mosaic, unveiled by Tony Benn.

In 1866, demanding the vote for all men was seen as a desperately radical and dangerous proposition, but the question of universal suffrage, and the inclusion of women, was unthinkable. 

Here we are, only a hundred years after the right to vote was given to some women, and still we struggle to secure our rights to equality. But although in the cartoon above the only woman is looking on from a safe distance, it is her great granddaughters now taking the axe to the rotten trunk of an establishment still dominated by male power, and an institutionalised indifference to the rights of women.

Some people - mostly men - would argue that the increase to 66 for the pension age is in itself a mark of equality, in that it applies the same level of qualification in age to both sexes. But this is to ignore the gross economic inequality that women of that generation have had to endure in their working lives, and also in their traditional roles as caregivers, not just in terms of childcare, but with family responsibilities to ageing parents, unpaid duties often taking them out of employment, and leaving them unable to make full NI contributions, or pay into any private pension fund.

Women reaching sixty on already low pay - and of course women are still paid less than men - exhausted after years of juggling work, and family responsibilities, perhaps unable to find work in a world in which older women are seen as virtually unemployable, are now in many cases facing the most extreme levels of hardship, with no hope of the pension they had paid for, and assumed would be there. In many cases, they received no notification of the change in age entitlement, and those that did had little option for saving enough money to help mitigate the loss of entitlement.

Some women have been left dependent on their husbands for financial support - but many women of that generation who have become divorced have had unfair settlements that ignored or minimised the loss of future pension income. 

As one woman at the protest on Wednesday explained to me, showing the scars from an operation to reconstruct her broken arm after an assault by her former husband - a frail, prematurely aged woman, who often goes without food, or relies on the generosity of a neighbour for a shared meal - she fears for those women of her age or younger still caught in an abusive relationship, because they do not have the economic independence of a pension, that would at least enable them to escape. 

Another serious consequence for women thrown into financial difficulties at this stage in their lives is in terms of their physical and mental health. Not only has improvement in life expectancy for women dropped by an appalling level of 91% since 2011, there is evidence of an unacknowledged impact on older women facing poverty as a result of pension loss, as Yvette Greenway explained to the assembled crowd in Hyde Park, with deeply troubling findings of a survey on depression and suicide amongst this group.

At the Reformers' tree, several other speakers addressed the gathered assembly of women. 

Sophie Walker gave the campaign the backing of the Women's Equality Party:

Sophie Walker

Investigative journalist and former Guardian Westminster correspondent David Hencke also spoke - he has written extensively about the campaign, for example here - and uncovered the previously unknown audit trail of treasury led appropriation of funds meant to cover the stolen years of pension: he also recorded a contribution to an item on that day's 'World at One' on BBC4 on this topic.

David Hencke

Off to Westminster next, where an even larger crowd of women was waiting, gathered around the statue of suffragist Millicent Fawcett - the first statue of a woman in Parliament Square - only placed there this year. In her arms she holds a banner proclaiming: 'Courage calls to courage everywhere'. 

Around Fawcett's statue now were members of a generation of women who perhaps have not been particularly politically active, until now: quite a few of them probably quite conservative by nature, and perhaps formerly Conservative voters. 

Not any more.

The crowd moved over towards a place directly opposite the House of Commons, now shrouded in scaffolding and protective wrapping as the hugely expensive renovation programme continues. No amount of protective wrapping, however, could possibly insulate those inside from the racket the women were making: with trumpets, drums, bongos, whistles, and a fair amount of less than respectful comments chanted in their direction:

Hey, hey, Theresa May: How Many Women Have You Robbed Today?

We Paid In, You Pay Out.

We're Pissed Off! We're Pissed Off! We're Pissed Off!

They were.

Some resorted to making a cacophony in the form of a more domestic method of protest: banging saucepans with kitchen cutlery, cacerolazo style. It seemed appropriate.

At one point, one of the men who had attended the protest, dressed as a Town Crier, read out a list of women who had died before receiving their post 60 pensions. He struggled to maintain his composure, and who could blame him, as he bravely read out the name of his own wife.

Others brought family members and supporters: 

Some bought dogs (his third demo, said this one's owner, proudly) :

Some attended in wheelchairs. Some carried pictures of those who could not afford the journey to London to attend - or who had also died before reaching their pension age.

Some MPs had already agreed to speak to the crowd: it was almost impossible to hear what they were saying, but it was significant that they were now keen to be associated with what is only now being recognised as an issue worth talking about. 

SNP members arrive at the demo.

All parties have been slow to recognise the importance of this issue - Labour has so far failed to grasp the electoral significance of providing the huge number of women affected by pension loss with a pledge to provide the full transitional support that they so desperately need. 

Curiously, however, I found myself standing next to someone who ... surely not? Someone who bore a distinct resemblance to the wife of the Labour leader. 

We can only hope, if it was her, that she went home and gave Jeremy a good talking to, over dinner. Come on, Jezza: you know what we need - and it could make all difference in constituencies like those held by the three marginal Tories here in Barnet, where there are thousands of women hit by this injustice. 

Earlier this year we made a documentary film, shot outside the Town Hall, on this very subject, and included views from a couple of local councillors, including former Tory Sury Khatri - deselected for daring to criticise the Capita contracts - who was also present on Wednesday.

Gratifying to note one right wing Labour MP who came over to take a look at the protest change his expression from one of mildly patronising amusement to one of distinct unease, surrounded by a surging crowd of women in such foul mood, and in no way inclined to move out of his way as they suddenly headed across the pavement, and on to the road outside Parliament.

Within seconds, the traffic ground to a halt. More and more women moved onto the road. After a while, the police response arrived. This consisted of one middle aged officer who politely asked, with genial wink, if we would move back to the pavement. We thought not. 

The women stayed in place, and eventually sat down in the road, obstinately refusing to budge, even when the only four spare policemen left in the Greater London area, after Tory budget cuts, were found and summoned to help. Protests at Parliament are common occurences, of course: sitting down in the road and stopping traffic for more than an house most certainly is not.

One of them, who looked young enough to be the grandson of most of the women there, appeared at something of a loss in terms of what to do, and instead wasted a lot of time talking importantly into his phone, probably asking for a transfer. Two of the older officers tried persuading the women sitting down to shift, telling them we were all creating a Public Nuisance, which was gratifying. 

The women sitting down stared back at the policemen and ignored them, knowing full well five officers could hardly arrest more than a thousand women outside Parliament. Where would they take the ringleaders, now that Holloway is closed?

The whole day was an inspiring moment, in fact, for anyone whose passion for political activism might be in danger of flagging. Empowerment is an overused term, but seeing women seizing the moment, and making their voices count in this way, using direct action, and political protest, to seize control, even temporarily, was something our suffragette mothers would have understood, and approved. If the political establishment refuses to engage in debate, and take action, how else can citizens force them to listen but in this way?

Courage calls to courage: now let's hope our parliamentary representatives are wise enough to listen, and brave enough to act to right this wrong. Whether through the High Court, or by  persistent lobbying, and organised protests like this, sooner or later, change must and will come.

Rue Morgue: the strange story of Barnet's missing Heritage Collection

An archival storage facility, in the age of outsourcing

Time now for a detour through one of the back lanes of Broken Barnet: a meandering stroll that in itself reveals, in grim metaphor, a larger story: the long history of betrayal, by Barnet Tories, of this borough, and this community. Yes, a wander along Rue Morgue.

This is the curious tale of the corporate heritage collection, which, as a Freedom of Information request now confirms, our hapless councillors gave to Capita for safeguarding and - well. Can you guess what happened next? 

Yes. It has mysteriously disappeared, without a trace.

(This FOI request has at least, unlike others over the last few months, not been delayed and obstructed by Barnet, on a variety of pretexts. The ICO has now told Barnet off for this, and further posts will explain why they are so reluctant to respond to two other particularly 'sensitive' requests ...)

The council had been rather keen to keep quiet about the following matter, but a number of Mrs Angry's network of spies have been in touch tell her about it, and to express their fury over what can only be seen yet another failure of duty to residents.

Barnet has now confirmed exactly who was tasked with the care of the heritage collection, or at least the building in which it was so carelessly stored:

The company responsible for securing the site as a whole was Ad Hoc Property Management, who were appointed by CSG Estates. (Yes, CSG being one of the two Capita contracts).

Is there a contract with this company, and has it been renewed, asked Mrs Angry?

Ad Hoc Property Management and other guardian / caretaker companies are periodically utilised by the council to provide guardians / caretakers to secure vacant assets but there is no overarching contract. Each occupancy arrangement is an individual agreement. Ad Hoc still have guardians in the Barnet Mortuary flats and also in the following additional premises:


1. 80 Dawes Lane 2. The Flightways Centre, the Concourse. 3. The Lodge (at the Mortuary site), 1 Dolman Close 4. Rosa Freedman Care Home, Claremont Way.

Barnet Mortuary Flats? More of this later. And: despite what has happened, Barnet seem happy to continue to use Ad Hoc. 

The 'artefacts', we were told, were not insured, but they are trying to get some sort of compensation. From whom, is not stated. Nor why it is taking so long.

In February, the matter was referred to the police. At the end of March, they concluded there was no evidence of criminal activity.  According to the FOI response: It was established that the items were disposed of as a result of human error.

Ah. Human error. Whose error, though? And then: a somewhat puzzling development. After police concluding no criminal activity, and it being established (by whom?) that the items had been accidentally disposed of, Barnet decided to launch an investigation by the Corporate Anti-fraud Team, CAFT. Why? 

This was in early April. But then: Following an investigation, no definitive information as to the location of the artefacts was established.

Dear me. What happened to it then? Not stolen, or - no proof of being stolen. Thrown in a skip? Apparently no line of investigation to follow: no audit trail. How odd.

Well then. 

Over the last few years we have seen our local heritage used by Tory members as yet another asset to take to market, or more opportunity for the predatory developers who circle the skies of Broken Barnet, looking for more and more profitable sites. At the same time, the privatisation of planning and enforcement, thrown in the lap of Capita Re, is enabling more and more development, and increasing the risk of harm to our legacy of historic buildings. 

We have seen so many of these buildings sold, like the Lodge in Victoria Park, demolished without warning, like the White Bear pub in Hendon, or lost through quietly re-arranged plans, like the National Medical Institute for Research in Mill Hill. (Below).

At the moment there are two more pubs of huge significance in terms of local history at risk from planning applications - the Midland in West Hendon, and the listed Railway Hotel in Edgware. The Midland * has been targeted for development - and the Railway *, after years of neglect, and no effective enforcement action, has a retrospective application for the location of a proposed car wash. No one seems able to confirm whether or not the listed interior features of the latter are still intact: which might well be reason to believe at least some of them may have been lost.

* See below at the bottom of the post for links to object to these applications.

Does it matter if these buildings disappear, or lose their historic features? Who cares? Well, I do, and I think most residents do too. Why does it matter? Because all of these properties tell the story of our borough, and of the people who have made it what it was. 

I've written a lot about the Lodge, which is near my home, and I've tried to lobby for better protection for the Railway Hotel, as I grew up in Edgware, and it is a part of my own past. I went to school next to the NIMR in Mill Hill, and was aghast to see it ripped apart, after being assured it was going to be retained and modified.

The Midland has its own story, as part of the coming of the railway in the nineteenth century - as well as serving the local community now, and providing a much needed venue for live music, here in the 21st century, as fellow blogger Roger Tichborne will tell you.

The Railway Hotel

The fabric of these buildings holds our history: but our local history holds little value in the estimation of our Tory councillors.

You may recall the scandalous closure, a few years ago, of the Church Farmhouse Museum in Hendon -  the ransacking of its local collection, mostly donated over decades by residents. What wasn't thrown in a skip was sold off at auction. Tory Leader Richard Cornelius had said the collection was of no value. In fact it raised quite a lot of money: perhaps what he meant was - it was of no value to him.

Social history is of no consequence, in Broken Barnet. The story of ordinary people, and their daily lives, is of no interest. The only use for a museum is in terms of property value, and the potential for development. 

Worse still, a museum, like our library service, now effectively destroyed by the Barnet Tory war on culture, serves as a point of focus and information for the community, and reinforces a sense of identity: one which might interfere in the best interests of developers, and their profits. 

What remains of our corporate heritage? 

Not much.

Even the Town Hall has been pimped by its corporate owners: the civic function wrenched out of most of the building, much of the freed up space given over to Middx Uni to use as they wish, and some of it now available as, of all things, a wedding venue. Council meetings have been squeezed into smaller rooms, and even the Heritage Room is up for rent.

Ah. The Heritage Room. 

A room that holds a special place, in the history of Broken Barnet: the place where, forced out of the neighbouring committee room by a protest by residents, who sat in members' places around the table, our Tory councillors defiantly signed the Capita contracts, unread, and in the face of all reasonable arguments not to. Reasonable arguments that, five years later, they now realise they should not have ignored.

People's Mayor, Mr Shepherd, taking a bow in the Heritage Room, Hendon Town Hall

This room was the sometime depository of the Mayoral bling so loved by our Tory members, who scheme and lobby all year round to take their turn at sitting on the throne of lies that is the centre of the council chamber of Broken Barnet, dressed up in the grubby velvet robe of office, trimmed with mangy fur - that looks as if might just be skinned from the carcasses of feral foxes scavenging among the now discarded waste food bins littering the borough.

Not just golden chains, and silver medals, the corporate bling. There is - or was - a wealth of other holdings, much of it commemorating the formation of the boroughs of Finchley, Hendon, and Chipping Barnet, in the 1930s, later combined as the dark entity that is now the London Borough of Barnet. 

The collection included a large number of gifts offered to the borough, since its inception, marking visits, or thanks for funds raised, or civic events and achievements - gifts from different faith groups and cultural associations - as well, of course, as presents donated to demonstrate the bonds of friendship with the towns around the world with which Barnet is twinned. 

Mrs Angry imagines that former Tory, former Mayor, and lover of all things bling, Brian Coleman, will be beside himself, reading about this ...

Because, as we now know - it's all gone. They lost it.

Given to Capita for safekeeping: and what did Capita do? Pass it over to another contractor, which then, displaying an admirable grasp of ironic justice, shoved the whole lot in a disused mortuary in Finchley - just across the road from Mrs Angry, as it happens. Perhaps it was some sort of gesture, from our colonial masters. A last offering to the gods of the underworld, to fend off the impending collapse of their last outpost.

As a part of the mass outsourcing contracts -  a lure added as as 'sweetener' late on in the tender process -  your Tory council handed over all the profit generating opportunities offered by Mrs Angry's dead grandmother, grandfather, great uncles, and cousins, at the former Hendon Crematorium to Capita. There is a lot of profit in death, but sadly the EasyCrem facility, with promised live streaming of funerals, fast tracked funerals, funeral dvds, & full catering for 'post life' functions - and discounted, pre-used graves for local bloggers - has proved to be less than successful and may well be taken back in house. There will no doubt be much rejoicing in heaven, if not in Capita HQ. 

What they were doing with the mortuary, however ... heaven only knows. 

When Mrs Angry first moved to her present home, it was hard not to notice,  on a regular basis, a disconcerting series of rather sinister dark transit vans, with revolving ventilators, always driven by two grim faced men in black, exiting on to Squires Lane from the side road opposite. It then transpired that, until recently, they were making regular 'deliveries' to - and presumably collections from - the council's mortuary at the end of Avondale Avenue, where post mortem examinations were made. 

This mortuary building, it seems, is where, once upon a time, the pioneer of forensic pathology, Bernard Spilsbury, examined the bodies of a number of famous victims of murder, such as Lord George Sanger, the circus owner, and Margaret Lloyd, one of the women killed by the 'Brides in the Bath' murderer - and even possibly (part of) the exhumed body of Mrs Crippen.

Bernard Spilsbury

A fitting place, then, to stash the last remains of our corporate heritage, now the building itself has been commandeered by Crapita.

And what was sent there?

In truth, the collection of items is, at first glance, unutterably banal. 

So banal, in fact, that by very nature the sequence of humble and sometimes rather bizarre listings has an air of poignancy: the sense of worthy citizens (as they once were) trying to do their civic duty, and build a feeling of pride in the newly formed boroughs.

Ephemera: a record of events whose significance is now largely forgotten: certificates, trophies, shields and badges, all marking some small achievement by people no one remembers; objects given as an expression of affirmation, marking the fleeting moments of someone's life: of the life of a community.

Relics of abandoned interests and former enterprises: clumsy but well meant gestures of goodwill, and encouragement.

Some of the contents, it must be said, are so absurd, it is hard not to laugh, sifting through the listing. 

Here are some favourites: most of these are supposed to have links to photos, but along with the items themselves, have disappeared, so we will have to use our imagination:

Item 7: a Top Hat, and box, dated 1878.

Item 11: a cartoon by Ken Pyne, to commemorate the opening of a new car park at Brent Cross, in 1996.

(Ken, of course, is a regular contributor to Private Eye, which takes a keen interest in the work of Barnet Tory councillors, and has given many a Rotten Borough award in recognition of their corporate folly).

Item 19:  a desk set presented to a Mayor in the 1970s. Tersely worded note added in 1996: 

 2 x pens put in Mayor’s Parlour to replace one that was lost/stolen during Cllr Palmer’s mayoral year.

(That would be Councillor, now Lord Palmer, a Libdem peer. And by implication, a 'collector' of municipal biros. Tssk. Surprised the former Chair of Audit wasn't investigated by the Corporate Anti Fraud Team, as they seem to have so much free time on their hands).

Item 26: a picture from 1906 of the Rev W Reason, former Chair (frame smashed). 

Item 75: a book of paintings by Paul McCartney (Note to thief: please keep, with my best wishes).

Item 242, a copy of the Freedom of the Borough given to Margaret Thatcher (Likewise).

Item 288: a gold crown from Korea, 24k gold, National Treasure #188. What?

Item 295: a box in which there is a pair of black gloves, scarves, fabric pin badges etc in red letters (for OP BRIDGE). 

(Oh. This puzzled Mrs Angry, until she realised it means - shhh, TOP SECRET - it is in reference to 'Operation London Bridge', which is what will happen when the Queen keels over, and our councillors will immediately rush to the Town Hall to put on black gloves, scarves, badges etc, and engage in national weeping, Korean style (see Item 288, which will be worn by the Dear Leader, Richard Cornelius).

Item 360: a pencil drawing of an owl. (Suspect this is wrongly catalogued, and is a portrait of the current Mayor, and serial library cutter, Cllr Tombstone).

Item 507: oh hang on - stand by, Brian, trigger warning: a large silver plate, in presentation case, from the Morphou Municipality, on the occasion of the designation of Brian Coleman as the Worshipful the Mayor of the London Borough of Barnet, from the Mayor and Councillors of the occupied town of Morphou, 19th May 2009. 

(This is from the Old Days, when it was compulsory to worship Brian Coleman. Things have moved on since then). 

Item 568: a picture of The Bridge, Walsall - given to Cllr Finn by a visitor trying to meet every Mayor in the country. Listing explains, in case you were wondering, and of course it does help put things in perspective: The man was from Walsall.

Item 584a: a picture of former Chief Executive Max Caller - in a gold frame. Of course. 

Item 617: a picture entitled 'Ploughing', by David Shepherd - presumably not the David Shepherd, People's Mayor, seen above, pictured in the Heritage Room.

Item 621: a pencil drawing of Prince Phillip, from 1965.

Item 632: a nude female idol, Cypriot, 1400-1200 BC (note says it is a fertility 'ornament'). 

Item 643: Ah yes. A trophy, listed as 'returned' to silver fox, octagenarian Tory councillor John Hart, to commemorate the annual Petanque competition between Barnet and Chaville. 

12 and a half inches long, and in the shape of a tulip. (The trophy).

Returned to Cllr John Hart. 

Not the only councillor to have custody of some of this stuff. 

Several items are listed as being 'held' by one former Tory Councillor, Joan Scannell, who was so ruthlessly deselected by her fellow Tories in Edgware  - some Wedgwood jasperware, and bone china - and another currently serving member, Cllr Wendy Prentice, is stated as having custody of a curious selection of objects: an ash tray, a cat tray, (?) and a wooden deer in a box. 

Just as well they appear to have taken them home for their mantelpieces: they may well have preserved the last remaining items of the collection.

Oh: one other mention of a councillor's interest: 

Item 533: a boxed trowel, in silver, from a Regent Street goldsmith with a Royal Warrant, given by East Finchley library, in 1938.

Well, of course there used to be a lot of silver trowels, and a fair amount of trouser rolling, at the Town Hall, not so many years ago, when Tory councillors used to hold their Lodge meetings in one of the Committee rooms (source: Mrs Angry's brother, who used to work in what was then called Democratic Services, before they removed the Democratic bit, and then the Service). But these days there is no room in the Town Hall for that sort of fraternal mullarkey. 

And yes, that would be the East Finchley library that has lost staff, and space, and was going to be pimped to a 'Wannapreneur' business renting out desks, rather than provide study space to local children. Until library campaigners stepped in. Presumably the trowel, rather than a masonic one, was meant to mark the pride the community felt in laying the foundations of this beautiful, now listed building, so well loved by local residents. What would they have made of the council's current destruction of their work, and their library service?

A mysterious note says: Leader to Polish and relocate to the Heritage Room.

Of course Cllr Cornelius is a busy man, and one might have thought he had better things to do than spend time on buffing up a shine on selected items of corporate bling, but still: as a matter of public interest, Mrs Angry has made enquiries of the Mayor's secretary, to see if the Leader has been polishing his trowel.

No reply, as yet.

And apart from the more bizarre objects in the collection, there were items of genuine interest: boxes marked 'important documents', to do with the early years of the three boroughs; coats of arms, seals; memorabilia related to HMS Fantome, the minesweeper bought by the people of Friern Barnet in WW2, and also material to do with HMS Tartar, a naval vessel adopted by Barnet - endless sports awards, photographs of former Mayors, Town Clerks, long serving officers of the council. Numerous presents from Morphou, Le Raincy, Ramat Gan, Siegerland, Montclair, from Hindu, Sikh, and Bahai communities - a plate from the Neasden Mandir, one from my local Catholic church, even a video of Sathya Sai Baba. 

There is hardly a faith group or community group in the borough, in short, whose gifts have not been tossed aside, into the hands of our feckless contractors, in an act of corporate indifference that tells you ... everything you need to know about the state of Broken Barnet.

Many of these things represent something far more important than material value. 

Not just gestures of goodwill, or tokens of friendship - a recognition of the need to make connections, and build relationships. They are an acknowledgement of the need for inclusion and community: all the things current Barnet Tories think are so unimportant. 

By discarding them so casually, and so thoughtlessly, the council has turned its back on all of this, and demonstrated, with perfect clarity, the utter contempt it bears for the people of this borough, in all its diversity, and its history, as well as all the fragile relationships built over so many years with other communities both in the UK and the rest of the world. 

While the Corporate Anti-Fraud Team were busy not finding out what happened to the heritage collection handed over to Capita for safekeeping, as it happens, they were doing so only weeks after they were shown to have also missed a rather larger loss: the swindling of Barnet taxpayers by one of Capita's managers, to the tune of more than £2 million, over a year and a half, in the course of 62 incidences of fraud. 

There could perhaps be no more complete demonstration of the state we are in: our heritage collection in hoc to Ad Hoc, Ad Hoc left to their own devices by Capita, Capita left with open access to our money and our services, with an in house detective team that arguably couldn't solve a game of Cluedo, let alone spot the biggest act of corporate fraud this council has ever seen.

Barnet Tories have sold us, and our inheritance, body and soul, into bondage to Capita, let them to do exactly what they want, and now, like a bunch of impotent old men, are standing back and allowing them to believe they can still retain all the lucrative services they want. 

As reported by the BBC, the company maintain that the Grant Thornton report into the fraud case and its immediate implications presented a "limited and highly caveated review". They are not going to let go easily: they have too much to lose. 

In the meanwhile, they have us in their grip, another abandoned box of trophies shoved in the back of the mortuary. 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Broken Barnet, September 2018

* If you would like to object to the Railway Hotel planning application, please use this link:


* If you would like to object to the application regarding the Midland Hotel, use this link: