One Barnet: the Judicial Review finding - a moral victory, out of time

Maria Nash: pic courtesy of the Guardian

*Updated Wednesday re appeal: scroll down:

A brief statement on the result of the One Barnet Judicial Review, full post to follow:

Lord Justice Underhill has rejected the application for review on the basis that it has been taken too late.

He has, however, found that Barnet has not complied with its obligations under s.3(2) of the 1999 Act to consult, stating in the judgement:  

"the Council never set out to consult about its outsourcing programme at all" ...

In an outstanding piece of creative writing by the press team at Barnet Council, this decision has been presented as a ' clear and complete' victory by Tory leader Richard Cornelius, who has absurdly explained the judge's findings on the failure to comply with the 1999 Act as being merely:  

 "at times critical on details of our own past consultation".

 Maria Nash is very likely to appeal the decision, and more information on this point will follow in due course.

Updated:

Today's outcome was, to be honest, what seemed most likely during the course of the three day hearing at the High Court. It was clear that the crucial issue in the case was not so much the merits of the arguments for review, as the point of whether the case had been brought too late.

Why was the case brought so late? It is very simple. The rules for application for a Judicial Review are not widely understood, by any ordinary member of the public. Most probably have no idea that policies or actions like these can be legally challenged in this way, and very few know that there is a strictly defined time limit which applies to any such challenge. Beyond these complexities lies another, much harder to define: knowing at what point the decision has been taken to which you ought to raise a challenge.

Confused? Not surprising: as one who is probably one of the best informed residents on this issue, and one who sat through the entire hearing, and listened to all the obscure legal arguments on this very point, I have to say that I still do not know where that defining point was, or when, or what it was. Nor, quite honestly, was it apparent in court that the legal experts involved were able to agree on this. 

How, therefore, can it be reasonable to expect ordinary members of the public to know how and when to challenge this massive programme of outsourcing and privatisation?

What were we to challenge? Was it easycouncil, or Futureshape, or One Barnet? 

Are they, were they, the same thing? 

No.

In fact, looking retrospectively at the development of One Barnet, it is now clear to see - retrospectively - that this was not the seamless evolution the council wished to portray, but that One Barnet was always something entirely other to Futureshape.

Futureshape was never a programme of mass privatisation: it was allegedly a way to amalgamate service provision and offer residents more 'choice' and more 'control' over their use of these services. Once re-elected, and under the direction of new Chief Executive, this plan was used as cover for the introduction of the wholescale outsourcing of as many of the council's functions that were not protected by statutory restrictions. Eventually this became known as One Barnet.

There was never any electoral mandate for this hugely significant proposal, and nor was there, as confirmed by Judge Underhill, any consultation with residents over the plans. In court, the judge's astonishment at the absence of such consultation, and the feeble statement in defence offered in the form of statements by Barnet representatives was absolutely clear.

It should be noted that there was also no proper scrutiny by councillors of any party of the plans, as the programme was deliberately removed from the reach of such process - for example in the abolition of the One Barnet scrutiny committee - and the Tory councillors who should have been questioning the policy with some degree of challenge were too lazy, and too complacent.

That many of the same Tory councillors were, by the end of the whole process, deeply worried about the scope and detail of the programme, was evident as late as theapproval  meeting in December when members, including those on the executive,  frightened by the emerging reality of the huge changes they had so easily endorsed, were at last raising fundamental questions about the whole concept: questions that should have been asked two years earlier. 

Why did they not raise these concerns earlier? Because they did not understand the enormity of what they were being asked to approve. They should have informed themselves, on our behalf, but they chose not to. And this dereliction of duty was actively encouraged by those working for the adoption of the outsourcing programme.

Effectively, the senior management team and a handful of ideologically driven Tory councillors have duped their colleagues into offering a hugely profitable new deal for Capita, which will deliver enormous profits to their shareholders, and the mere promise, unquantifiable, unenforceable, of savings which are entirely aspirational, and delivered through means which will have a massive impact on residents, but with the loss of proper democratic control. 

This is a shameful, wicked betrayal of the trust invested in our elected representatives, and will result in enormous and justifiable damage to the electoral prospects of every Tory councillor, once the residents of this borough begin to bear the impact of their decision.

That is, of course, if the deal does go ahead. 

Because the story is not over.

Whatever the findings of the case, an appeal by the losing side was always inevitable. Gerald Shamash, solicitor for disabled resident Maria Nash, who made the application for JR, has today confirmed that she will seek to appeal: and there is a very good case for appeal.

The findings dismiss the challenge on the grounds that it was out of time, but also conclude that Barnet failed in its statutory duty to consult.

If residents were not properly informed and consulted, how then could they take an informed position about the remedies in law that might allow them to challenge the outsourcing programme? 

If residents were kept in the dark about the real significance of the programme, and the process by which it was introduced, how could they reasonably be expected to know which was the relevant decision to challenge, and to know that the clock was ticking from the moment that decision, whichever it was, had been agreed?

The rule of measure for justice in English law is the principle of what is reasonable, and fair. 

Clearly, in the case of One Barnet, therefore, justice is still to be done.

And this case is not just of vital importance locally here in Barnet: local authorities, other public sector bodies and those healthcare companies waiting to feast on the corpse of our former NHS: you may be assured that they are all watching this case very carefully.

Here is the test: if Barnet's complete failure to consult its own residents and taxpayers over the £1 billion sell off of council services is allowed to proceed, it makes a mockery of the coalition policy of localism.

What is the point of Pickles' worrying about Town Hall pravdas, and bin collections, and all the other headline grabbing trivia of much of his ministerial pronouncements, if the fundamental rights of residents to engage in the decision making procedures of local government are proved to be so easily undermined?

In his statement this morning, Tory leader Richard Cornelius insisted it would be wrong for Maria Nash to apply for an appeal. He said it would be a waste of taxpayers' money. He omitted to remind us that the private consultancy company he employs as the 'implementation partners' of One Barnet, whose fees were supposedly to be capped at 'only' £2 million, have now reached the execrable level of more than £6 million. 

Such profiteering from the public purse must be stopped, and we must reclaim a sense of pride in the provision of public services provided by the public sector, locally in the heart of the local community, accountable to the local community.

And so: on behalf of the people of Barnet, and on behalf of the democratic process in every other authority and public body in the country - we fight on.

Nothing about us, without us.

*Updated Wednesday:

Great news: Maria Nash has been granted legal aid so as to appeal the findings of the Judicial Review, on the basis that the judge found that Barnet had completely failed to consult its residents over One Barnet.

To see why Judge Underhill came to this conclusion, you may wish to read the judgement in full, now available here . 

If you do so, you will understand quite how inappropriate it was for Barnet leader Richard Cornelius to gloat on Monday:

 'This is a clear and complete victory for the council. We won and our opponents lost'. 

No, Councillor Cornelius: the moral victory was ours, and the case was lost only due to a confusion on our part over the question of timing. 

We understand that this aspect is more likely to be given a more sympathetic consideration at the appeal court. 

We therefore look forward to this hearing, and once again we trust that, in the end, justice will be done.

Mrs Angry's job application

A new job opportunity in Broken Barnet

Mrs Angry has some very exciting news.

As readers will know, over the last three years or so she has been very busy running Barnet Council on a long term interim consultancy basis, at a daily rate of £1,000, just like the former deputy CEO, now long term interim temporary CEO (are you keeping up?) Mr Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers. 

Unfortunately, thanks to the troublemaking of certain so called investigative, award winning journalists, and the resultant and frankly uncalled for hoohah over the tax dodging arrangements of senior civil servants, and public sector executives, Mrs Angry's payments, via the Broken Barnet Consultancy PLC, and an offshore account in the British Virgin Islands, have abruptly  ended, and it has been necessary to advertise her post on a full time basis, and a rather more modest level of pay. 

See here, if you are interested, https://jobs.barnet.gov.uk/job/Chief_Executive/102046 although this post will be ringfenced to Mrs Angry, Mr Reasonable, and Mr Mustard.

As Mr Mustard is too busy these days collecting parking tickets, and Mr Reasonable spends a lot of his time lying down in a dark room crying and shouting out random obscenities about One Barnet, this will clearly be a shoe-in for Mrs Angry. 

Let's see: the details, then ... full time post - ah, already we have a problem. 

Might need to negotiate some flexibility around this, as Mrs Angry is also a consultant on long term interim secondment to iMPOWER, in charge of a project aimed at capitalisation of title assets, a work still in pROGRESS .... oh,  and she is of course, a full time non executive contracts advisor to CRAPita. 

There is absolutely  no conflict of interest, of course, in holding all these positions, as confirmed by Mrs Angry herself,  in her other capacity as senior partner with responsibility for armchair audit with Grant Thornton.

So, full time - pah. 

And salary ...  £177,613 to £187,613. Well, which is it? Make your mind up. that ten grand difference - is that, ha ha - performance related? Anyway, quite correctly, substantially more than the Prime Minister, who only takes home £142,500, poor old love. 

Job information: oh dear - be warned, if you are easily offended by corporate illiteracy ...

"London Borough of Barnet is implementing on its dynamic vision to become an exemplar authority through the development of radically different approaches to serving the needs of its community which are based on the principles of citizen empowerment, a genuinely local focus and long-term economic sustainability."

... is implementing on its dynamic vision? Really?

... an exemplar authority? Do you mean exemplary: or is exemplar an executive type of templar? Sorry: we have enough masons and rotarians on Barnet Council, as it is: and knights templars are so last millenium, anyway.

... dum di dum, radically different approaches to serving the needs of its community ... based on - oh yes - the principles of citizen empowerment.

Do they really believe this shite? 

No, Mrs Angry, they do not.  

Principles of citizen empowerment? 

How does this council, squirming under the boot of Barnet Toryism, in any way, shape or form abide by the principles of citizen empowerment? 

By savaging its own constitution to censor its own citizens, and forbidding them from raising issues with their elected representatives, and failing to consult residents over the adoption of a £1 billion programme of mass privatisation?

And what qualities does this job require?

"this role requires energy, grit, determination and the capacity to inspire, motivate and drive forward the transformation agenda. Commercial acumen is also essential, in order to deliver the substantial efficiency savings required by the fundamental changes in public service funding prompted by the economic downturn ..." 

Oh. Commercial acumen? Since when has that been a requirement of any senior officer's post in Broken Barnet? 

Energy, grit and determination. Hmm. 

they was nice boys, really, and good to their old mum ...but then, sadly, there was a tragic avalanche

Well, we have plenty of grit, in this borough, stashes of it up at Mill Hill Depot. We know that because everyday on twitter the council advises us it has sent gritting lorries out, sometimes in tropical heatwaves. Distributing grit, in fact, is one of the functions of the council that our Tory councillors really love, because it is visible, deals with a tactile commodity, can be quantified, measured, and distributed in the form of largesse to the undeserving residents. It is not one of those amorphous, abstract things like culture, or heritage, that are so hard to understand, and have no material value.

You will note, of course, that the job advert does not dare to refer to - you know, that thing. The bad thing. The toxic brand. The love that dare not speak its name, and so has become a non thing, a dead thing, a former policy. Shh. One Barnet. 

This name is now taboo. You must call it 'the change programme', or 'the transformation agenda' - just in case it frightens any voters, and reminds people that their Tory councillors are trying to sell their public services into fifteen year bondage with Crapita.

The job application, interestingly, is being arranged through the good services of Penna, who have been awfully helpful in the supply of senior officers to the London Borough of Broken Barnet. 

But look: there is more - a link to an encouraging message for applicants from Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius: http://www.barnetchiefexecutive.co.uk/... The message, says Richard, is simple: 'if it works for our residents, it works for us'. 

Yes, Mrs Angry is laughing out loud.  

What does that mean? 'If it works for our residents, it works for us?'

Mrs Angry thinks it means:   

We wanted to close things down, like Friern Barnet library, but our residents made friends with some squatters and occupied the library and said f+ck off out of it, this is ours, not yours, and we intend to run it ourselves, and we had to give in because they kept writing about it in the Guardian, and upsetting Eric Pickles, and so we surrendered to the will of the proletariat, but maintained our aspiration to an image of benevolent dictatorship by pretending it was our idea all along, and that we were only trying to create a Big Society enterprise, and now we can claim we listen to our residents and have begun a dangerous flirtation with the principles, or at least the pretence, of democracy, here in Broken Barnet.

We do not rest on our laurels, says Richard. 

Hold on: what laurels are these? Ah: you're sitting on them, so you are: stand up, man, let's see ... nope, thought so, nothing there. 

Mind your back, Caesar, by the way.

Laurels for Barnet leader Richard Cornelius

Hold on - here comes a reference to ... One Barnet. Oh. The One Barnet change programme. So yes,  it is officially now just a change programme, a transformation, not a mass privatisation of almost every major council service. 

Good idea, and of course the first action of the change programme is to change or transform the name of the change programme itself - or rather to remove it. 

Mrs Angry had advised Barnet Council on this very issue, as it happens, on behalf of iMPOWER, (our implementation partners with Agilisys, who together, as revealed yesterday here by Mr Reasonable ...

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-one-barnet-consultants-bill-hits-63.html  

... cost you, the Barnet tax payer, a cool £6,324,366.68 since the start of the One Barnet implementation contract. A contract that was supposed to cost 'only' £2 million.

Agilisys, you may recall, is the consultancy now favoured with the presence of Barnet's One Barnet lead officer, Mr Ed Gowan.

After a lot of consideration,  Mrs Angry had suggested to her colleagues at iMPOWER that the name should be changed to oNE BARNET, but this has been turned down by the Directors Group, and Richard of course felt bound to obey their decision. 

Hopefully the £3 million invoice for Mrs Angry's consultation fee for her work on the renaming project will still be honoured. And before you ask, Mr Reasonable, the invoice will be heavily redacted, should you want to check it out ...

Oh, yes - and by the way: on Monday, the change programme formerly known as One Barnet may discover that painting a turd does nothing to disguise the affrontery of its excremental odour.

Judge Underhill will at last hand down his judgement in the case of the Judicial Review at the High Court. Will Maria Nash and the stirling efforts of her legal team prove victorious, and save this borough from the private sector exploitation of our council services? Or will Crapita emerge triumphant, rubbing its hands with glee? 

Mrs Angry will report the decision as soon as it is known.

 

Precious Darlings: Brian Coleman - suffer the little children

Not long to go now, until erstwhile Barnet Tory councillor Brian Coleman is up before the beak, at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, to answer charges, which he denies, relating to the alleged assault of a female resident.

May 3rd, when Councillor Coleman will be standing in the dock, is something of an ominous date, from his perspective: it will be exactly a year since the GLA elections which saw him lose his place on the London Assembly, his chairmanship of Lfepa, eventually followed by the further losses of his Cabinet place, his place on the NLWA board, and even, temporarily at least, his membership of the Conservative party. 

It has been a short, sharp shock for Brian: a spectacular fall, and one which has left him, as a lone independent councillor, isolated, powerless and clearly deeply frustrated. 

At the last full council meeting, Mrs Angry noted, when Councillor Coleman attempted to move a motion, or to intervene in any way , he was not supported by his former colleagues. The questions he had submitted to council were shoved right to the back of the queue, (rather unfairly, Mrs Angry thought, Brian, as it happens) where there was no chance that supplementary questions would be allowed, due to lack of time. 

Interestingly, Coleman's questions were to Leader Cornelius about hospitality, or the lack of it, from Saracens Rugby club, the club who have received such a warm welcome from Barnet Council - and a peppercorn rent for the use of Copthall Stadium, whereas our own Barnet FC club, at home in Underhill for more than a century, has been allowed to depart the borough: the last match was played there on Saturday.

Brian has another outlet for his energies now, of course. He has become a man of letters: not only is he writing his memoirs, but he has become the very thing he has always held in the lowest contempt: a Barnet blogger ...

His latest effort is a real piece of work, combining as it does his favourite subjects of women, children, road safety, nimbyism and faith schools. Yes, Brian is an expert on all these subjects, or at least, he likes to voice his opinions on all these issues, and in this post applies himself to this task with great enthusiasm.

Brian, who has no children, as far as Mrs Angry is aware, is nevertheless an authority on what is best for them, should they have the impertinence to be born, and to be born in the London Borough of Barnet, where a Tory council must be burdened with the duty to provide them with a school place. 

(Brian Coleman, it should be remembered, was not born but created in a laboratory by mad scientists intent on creating a superhuman with extraordinary powers of political insight and natural leadership. The experiment failed, but science's loss was our gain, here in Broken Barnet.)

Ah, but: Brian does not want to provide them with a school place: he wants the council to be divested of its responsibilities to pupils: bring on the free schools, and more and more of them, til no state schools are left. Why does Brian want this? Because he LOVES Michael Gove, and, erm ...  because one primary school he knows has a bunch of governors whom he says feast on pizza and bottles of wine at their meetings, which have been known to go on AFTER 10.30pm, which is past Brian's bedtime, or longer than his concentration span, not sure which.

Brian speaks fondly of the number of faith schools in the borough, although of course as usual failing to refer to the largest community group, that is to say the Catholic community, which nurtured not one but two of the Barnet bloggers ... and our councillor wants to encourage schools which represent other faiths and communities: an admirable ambition, as we all would agree. Oh dear, though - says Brian:

However it seems to me that every time the Community tries to add to the diversity of schools available for parents in Barnet  attempts are made by the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) element to prevent progress.

Ah yes: Nimbyism. (Good of him to explain the term, btw: have often wondered). Oh dear: take a deep breath and read on:

In my view new schools should be opened slap bang in the middle of residential areas . That is where the demand is and it encourages residents to use and appreciate their local schools. I am entirely pro motorist but would make it a criminal offence for parents to drive their children to school . I and probably the vast majority of my generation were never driven to school , we walked or took the bus.

Hmm. So. Let's desconstruct that.

Schools should be slap bang in the middle of residential areas. 

A criminal offence for parents to drive their children to school.

Little Brian Coleman walked or took the bus to school.

Yes, Brian, if we were able to demolish the whole of Broken Barnet and rebuild it - and to be fair, your former Tory colleagues are trying their best to do just that - we might be able to start again, and plan a new borough with schools in the centre of local communities. They are not, they have always and continue to be squeezed into wherever your councillor chums feel is most politically productive.

A criminal offence? Really? But then we might want to make it a criminal offence for, say, councillors to drive to the Town Hall, or Waitrose, or the nearest cash machine. And one imagines our magistrates' courts are rather busy with more important crimes to address, don't you think?

You walked to school, or caught the bus? This may come as a surprise to some, who may have thought your attendance necessitated the accompaniment of an armed escort and a fleet of taxi drivers on standby alert, but we must take your word for it.

And now he makes a typically outrageous remark in regard to some parents' reluctance to walk their children to schools:

Among the excuses I have been presented with are that it is not save for their precious darlings to walk the streets of Barnet .

Their precious darlings.

As it happens, Brian, I used to walk my children miles everyday, to school, to nursery and back, endless journeys. Not every parent, however, lives within walking distance of a school, or is able even to obtain a place at the nearest school to their home.

He continues by claiming that parents insist on using their cars to take children to school because of the 'danger'. Ah: danger? From paedophiles. Says our man:

 ... about one child per year is killed by a stranger , and tragic and appalling as every child killing is , this is the same level as the 1950s ! 

 The suggestion that somehow the streets are awash with paedophiles on the prowl looking to kidnap children and that the only answer is that they need to be driven everywhere in huge 4 by 4s by women with only a vague sense of the rules of the road is absurd.

Yes: so danger, as perceived by parents is that their children will be attacked from paedophiles, and yet again his views of women reveal themselves in all their sexist shame by his offensive remarks about mothers who do not know how to drive.

In fact, this is where he touches on the truth, a harsh truth which he fails to address. The real reason to fear the roads of Barnet is not from predatory paedophiles, but from the appalling standards of safety in some areas of the borough, a danger which he in his former role as Cabinet member with responsibility for roads, has consistently refused to acknowledge, and indeed has taken great efforts to ignore, by removing road safety installations intended to protect our children from harm. 

Yes, Brian, they are indeed our precious darlings. What a shame that you seem not to understand the natural inclination to protectiveness which we feel towards our children.

Coleman observes that the killing of one child a year by a stranger is tragic and appalling, yet fails to be moved by the terrible number of children who die on our roads every year completely avoidably.

Earlier this week, Mrs Angry took her local councillors, and some council officers, on a tour of Squires Lane, here in Finchley, which statistics prove is the site of numerous accidents involving adults and children: there has unfortunately been one fatal accident right outside Mrs Angry's house, caused by a hit and run speeding driver, but there is a large number of schools in the area, and the road is particularly dangerous due to speeding motorists, unmonitored parking,  and most of all, the lack of traffic calming measures. 

We used to have mini roundabouts, and other installations here: they were taken out, due to 'council policy', as Cllr Coleman was of the opinion that they were unnecessary. 

After they were taken out, residents were consulted as to whether they wanted them removed.  When residents objected, and asked for them back, they were told by the council that there was no money to replace them. 

Last week, yet another child was knocked down, badly injured, and airlifted to hospital: so, at last, after a suitable number of sacrificial victims, and now that there is a new Cabinet member and the council's opposition to traffic calming has moved, they came to see the road, and are at least prepared to listen and review the safety of the area.

But let us return to the issue of Nimbyism: funnily enough, his current robust stance on Nimbyism was not evident when Brian Coleman opposed the Saracens' development of Copthall Stadium. Cllr Coleman opposed this because, he said, of the impact of parking at matches on his own ward, Totteridge, which seemed rather absurd as Totteridge is a  long distance from Copthall. Perhaps Brian is not so much a  NIMBYist himself as a PRAT, ie Please Remove All Traffic, when it comes to his own backyard?

But anyway .... schools, schools .... Brian wants us to welcome new plans for the Avanti school to move to the Broadfields area of Edgware. Avanti is already based in Harrow, but is now looking for premisies capable of accommodating a whopping 1,680 pupils.

Now then: Broadfields is the area where Mrs Angry comes from, and her brother and many friends still live there. Her first year at school, in fact, before attending the dreaded St Vincent's, was spent at the neighbouring Broadfields Primary school - an experience which, after the first day, aged four, she was in no mood to repeat, and indeed one which, she announced to her parents, that she had absolutely no intention of repeating, an decision which was sadly overruled by the same parents, with grim determination, despite sit down protests, pleading, and a good deal of melodramatic sobbing every morning for the entire year.

Where the schools are (there are now three in the area) borders the Green Belt, and is extremely badly served in terms of access: not surprisingly, as the area was never intended to accommodate such a density of population. Even in the time of the infant Mrs Angry, a period almost before the age of the motor vehicle, the traffic congestion and parking problems were intolerable: years later, with more schools in the area, to relocate another, huge out of borough school here is madness, and representatives of all political parties agree, as reported in this story in the local Times about a very well attended meeting of residents objecting to the plans: see here

As usual, Coleman has scraped the bottom of the barrel, and resorted to more utterly disgraceful insinuations - and worse - about 'racist and anti-semitic' motivations by objectors to such proposals. 

Coleman, who of course was found guilty last year of smearing a female correspondant and a Jewish resident of being 'anti-semites' has clearly learnt nothing and continues to use such abhorrant tactics to try to discredit those who oppose his views. This is truly nauseating.

The Avanti School will be opposed, not because of racism, but because it is an inappropriate development in that area. Coleman will continue to behave in the way he does until next May, and the local elections, when he will, one presumes, try to stand as a candidate somewhere. 

Whether or not he will be able to stand as a Tory - if indeed this is still technically possible - will depend on the outcome of next week's court case, which Mrs Angry will attend, along with, we can all be sure, a large number of other interested parties.

Uxbridge Magistrates Court, 3rd May, 10 am: details here

*Footnote Tuesday: 

Brian Coleman has again covered himself in glory in his latest post, about the departure of Barnet Football Club from the borough, and its relegation: starting with a touching reference to Enoch Powell, and using that venomous phrase of Thatcherite pleasure in the downfall of old enemies,'Rejoice, rejoice' as a heading, he burbles:

"The late Enoch Powell recounted how when he came down stairs  and picked up the morning paper the day after the February 1974 General Election( which he had opposed and refused to stand as a candidate in )  and saw that Ted Heath had failed to win he sang the Te Deum.

I did exactly  the same yesterday afternoon when I glanced at the football results !

If I had the power I would be ordering that the Church bells in Barnet be rung this morning in celebration of the relegation of Barnet Football Club from the Football League.

I know I am not the only Conservative adding a little Champagne to my orange juice over breakfast this morning at what seems like an end to the 15 year saga of Barnet Football Club ..."

 Oh dear. 

This is a gross miscalculation, on Coleman's part.  The wrath of Bees fans, mostly Barnet residents, provoked for so long by the party politics the Tory party have played over the Underhill ground issue, is now incendiary, and may well destroy the remaining chances that several local Tory - and independent - councillors may have retained for re-election.

But they have had the last laugh. Hat tip to the Barnet Bugle for spotting this:

Coleman has never allowed comments on his absurd blog: clearly many are left, of a less than complimentary nature. His ego, however, did not allow him to ignore some supportive comments left yesterday on the Barnet FC post. Mrs Angry will assist you in reading the subtext, with red highlights:

The Ifster said...

This is good news and I
have to offer my support to what
is a good point, well
stated.

May I take it that this will
also mean that there will be
no returning for this club in future?

I am sure I am not alone in hoping
so!

And that goes for any other football team.

We will surely get those speaking
against this but we must remain strong,
not crumble and continue to fight in the
knowledge that, depite the minority who
express to the contrary, that the club
really do not add antything to the Borough.

4/29/2013

 

Smithy Frombar said... 

 

I total agree with above
comment being a Barnet man
united we must stand against
nasty things happening against
the rights of the council 

Mrs Angry understands that teams of volunteer bell ringers are standing by all over the borough for some more celebrations this weekend. to toast someone very special - and supplies of champagne in all the licensed premises of Broken Barnet are reported to be running dangerously low.