One Barnet: 'a brand that has served its purpose' - let's take back control of our democracy, say Barnet's bloggers

Over the last few years, the activities of the current Conservative administration in Barnet have been closely monitored and reported by a group of bloggers, determined to hold to account the elected members who have so blatantly defied the principle of democratic government, and fundamentally betrayed the best interests of the residents of this borough.

We have covered every faltering step of the course followed by the Tory councillors, from their first act, on being re-elected, and lecturing residents and staff on the stark economies necessitated by the demands of austerity, but voting themselves a big fat rise in their own allowances, closely followed by the MetPro scandal, a theme which set the tone for the next four years.

The MetPro affair involved the use by the Tory council of an illegally operating private security company, which barred residents from a council meeting, secretly filmed local bloggers and activists, had close contact with vulnerable children, and was being rewarded by casual but substantial payments, in the total absence of any contractual agreement.

Barnet’s bloggers subsequently revealed that far from being a single case of failure in proper regulation of procurement and contractual management, the council had thousands of legally non-compliant arrangements.

Local tax payers’ hard earned cash had been given away in these agreements, unquestioned: a real scandal, and on an unimaginably wide scale.

The next outrage we reported was perhaps one we should have foreseen: the silencing of dissent at all residents’ meetings, with enforced censorship rules, backed by a deliberate amendment to the local constitution,  meaning no member of the public was allowed to criticise, or even refer to anything deemed to be ‘council policy’.

The reason for this soon became clear.

Barnet was to be privatised, with a massive outsourcing programme, from which an in-house solution was excluded because, we were told, we needed a large amount of capital investment from a commercial partner.

There had been no mention of these plans in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.

Despite the lack of mandate, the Tory administration pushed these plans through, at the behest of senior management and private consultants.

Needless to say, as well as failing to present these plans to residents at the time of election, there was no consultation over the privatisation: a serious breach of regulations, and one criticised in the High Court by Judge Underhill last year.

Another policy imposed by Barnet Tories that was brought to account in the High Court was the catastrophic parking policy, which overnight sent the borough’s high streets into fatal decline, and alienated vast sections of the Conservatives’ own natural electoral base.

The Barnet Conservative manifesto for the 2014 elections is even more enigmatic than the version they offered voters four years previously.

When asked by the Barnet Press why there was no mention of One Barnet leader Richard Cornelius declared that it is a brand that ‘has served its purpose’.

Indeed it has, but whose purpose, and for whose benefit?

Certainly not the residents and taxpayers of Barnet.

Already we have seen the real motives of Capita exposed by their attempts to begin the commercial exploitation of this borough in the form of the development of ‘memorialisation’ of the dead in Hendon Crematorium, and the grossly insensitive removal of benches commemorating loved ones in the grounds, taken away and dumped in a corner of the grounds.

It seems an apt metaphor for the exploitation of our borough, by private enterprise, at our expense, sanctioned by our Conservative councillors.

         

And we must ask - if the privatisation of our borough, and the sell off to Capita of our local services has been so successful, why are Barnet Tories not rejoicing in this fact, and sharing their sense of satisfaction with voters? Why are they being so evasive about the real plans that they intend to impose, should they be returned to office this coming week?

Is it because the One Barnet brand is now so toxic, it must be dropped, and forgotten, and voters duped into approving another Tory council whose agenda is unstated, but is clearly going to endorse the privatisation of council service and expand this policy wherever possible?

We have read this week of plans to privatise child protection services. There can be little doubt that if they are returned to office, without consulting residents, Barnet Tories will be likely to extend the process of privatisation to any other council function they care to delegate. And increased pressure to make massive savings will inevitably lead to cuts in services on a scale as yet unprecedented.

There will, of course, be no proposal to deprive themselves of the same level of allowance they still enjoy, despite the limited function they will retain, in a borough where our vital services will be run not for our benefit, with direct control by them, but by a private company, for profit, at our expense.

In the accompanying footage here,John Dix, blogger Mr Reasonable explains why the takeover by Capita of our council services presents such a threat to the wellbeing of our borough, and what the future will hold for all of us in Barnet, should the Conservative administration be re-elected this week.

         

The choice for voters on May 22^nd is clear – vote Conservative, approve the delegation of control of your borough to private enterprise, and the shareholders of Capita – or take a stand, and begin to reclaim your democratic right to control your own destiny.

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

The art of community engagement: another Residents Forum

As reported in the previous posts regarding the Cabinet meeting, it is more clear than ever that our idiotic Tory councillors are completely in denial about the implications of the One Barnet Judicial Review, the appeal hearing for which is shortly to be heard.

They maintain, in the face of all reason, that the Judge did not find that Barnet Council was in breach of the statutory obligation to consult residents about the mass privatisation of council services, and furthermore, they continue to defy the need to consult residents on this matter, or indeed any other important issue.

One of the core pieces of evidence which proved the lack of consultation was in relation to the censoring of the Residents Forums, achieved just in time to prevent discussion of One Barnet by an amendment of the council consitution. Residents are now forbidden from mentioning, let alone discussing, or criticising any council policy. Questions may only be raised that address strictly technical matters, 'public works': street based problems, parks, that sort of thing. No issue may be raised again within a six month period. The Forums are held at 6pm, when few working residents or parents can attend.

Such repressive and ruthless stifling of debate is clearly an affront to the principle of the freedom of expression, and any elected body with any pretence to the fundamental principles of democracy would be ashamed to adopt such a tactic in order to silence the views of their own electorate.

But this is Broken Barnet, not a democracy, more a Tory run tinpot administration where the swivel eyed loon holds power, and knows no sense of shame or self restraint.

Another restriction has been added to the draconian measure taken to censor the Forums - an earlier deadline for questions, couched in very misleading terms. The Forums are not advertised by the Council, except by means of an email sent in the week before to a few residents who persist in attending, and an advert hidden in the local press which is published the day before the deadline.

The result is predictable, and exactly what they want: low attendance and a shortage of questions. The Forums themselves, at least the one Mrs Angry attends, are run by an intemperate Chair, determined to silence anyone who dares to question the ridiculous rules.

Yesterday saw no papers published for our Forum until two hours before the starting time. Mrs Angry and other residents' questions, submitted on 'public works' issues, were blocked despite arriving on Friday, because they had missed the 10 am deadline - the date had not been given, only two working days before the meeting which one might reasonable assume to mean the deadline should be 10 am Monday, especially as the ad had only appeared the day before. But no: there would be no flexibility, even though only four questions were on the Agenda.

Interestingly, over at the Barnet Forum, maverick Tory councillor Kate Salinger had chaired a thoughtful meeting, with thinking allowed, and, heresy - a question from blogger Mr Reasonable that yes, was a matter of policy - the community engagement strategy. Or rather what passes for it, in an abstract sense, as there appears not to be one. But still, to be allowed to have an adult, daringly free debate about it ...
 
Libdem Cllr Jack Cohen stood obediently before the Chair (this is the feudal way in which proceedings are followed at these events) and asked for the indulgence of Councillor Old on behalf of his constituents who had a very important issue they wished to raise, that had been stupidly disallowed despite being submitted on Friday. He reminded Cllr Old that the Forums were supposed to serve the residents.  

There is nothing I can do, said Old, with evident satisfaction. 

Mrs Angry pointed out the unfairness of our questions being barred on these grounds. Councillor Old refused to listen to her, as usual.

One of the telling features of all Barnet council meetings is the appalling standard of the PA systems they use, and the difficulty residents always have in following the proceedings as a consequence. This suits the councillors very well, of course. They do not want to be heard, nor do they want to listen to members of the public and their impertinent questions. One councillor even made fun of Mrs Angry's hearing at the committee table on Monday - are you deaf? Slightly, yes, Councillor Rams, thankfully, when you are speaking, anyway.

In the Forums, they have elected not to bother with any microphones, and seem perplexed as to why this should be a problem. Can't hear? Sit at the front then.

Item 1 was about a CPZ extension in Hampstead Garden Suburb. The speaker stood before the panel, and spoke eloquently about his misgivings about the whole thing, the flaws in the whole concept of CPZs, and then pointed out there had been, ha ha: no real consultation. That, said Mrs Angry, is how things work, in this borough.

Later on, in the environment part of the evening, residents came along to support the extension. It is of course difficult to convey the sheer horror of what these cosseted residents have to suffer, as a result of other people daring to park outside their houses, but Tory grandee Cllr John Marshall was there to offer his fervent support, and counsel them in their hour of need, and even commanded the Highways Manager to install the CPZ earlier than he had agreed.  

He told an outrageous story of a local garage leaving a serviced car to be collected in - can you believe this - Winnifield Way? 

This is the exclusive road second only to Bishops Avenue in terms of affluence - the residents mostly massively wealthy international owners, and including a house owned by the Gaddaffi family, the occupation of which caused so much fury on behalf of the householder by our Tory councillors and MP. 

Mrs Angry wondered how Cllr Marshall would cope with the duties of a councillor in an area of social deprivation, where real need and the full impact of social exclusion would present an altogether less agreeable and easy role to play.

Some local councillors always attend the Forums: some local councillors, especially the Tory members such as Eva Greenspan and Dan Thomas do not. Councillor Thomas told Mrs Angry he did not think it was necessary. 

But Mrs Angry was puzzled last night to see Tory councillor Lisa Rutter sitting in the front row, accompanied by her husband. 

Councillor Rutter very much enjoyed her reign as Mayor, taking her husband with her everywhere as her escort, and she has retained her queenly air of graciousness since the time of her reluctant abdication in favour of Cllr Schama. 

Councillor Rutter is not a councillor in Finchley or Golders Green, nor a resident, and yet she was allowed to speak to Item 2, proposed by a resident who did not turn up. The resident concerned and 24 other people wanted a mirror put on a tree to allow a better view of the road for motorists. Rutter spoke - at some length - and with no little displeasure, about this item, an issue she said was of great concern to some people she knew in the road concerned, Mayfield Avenue, which is in Woodhouse Ward, and perfectly well represented by three Labour councillors.  She then took the opportunity to criticise unnamed council officers for not responding to her questions about the issue 'in a logical manner'.

It seemed to Mrs Angry that it was completely inappropriate for a councillor from another ward to use the Forum in this way, and especially so when we, the residents, are prevented from speaking openly about issues of our choosing. Rutter's colleague Cllr Old saw no problem at all, however and allowed her to continue unquestioned.

Is this a Residents' Forum, or a Councillors' Forum, asked Mrs Angry?

No reply.

Next up, Item 3 - residents wanting a crossing refuge and a 'keep clear' box to improve road safety in Regents Park Road. In the bad old days, presumably when Coleman was in charge, this had been refused. Now that we have been relieved of his attentions, we are allowed to proceed with such measures, or at least we are allowed to review the situation.

Item 4: a resident who did not turn up was cross about being splashed by buses driving through puddles in Llanvanor Road. It was agreed that a water company had not fixed the mess they made in recent works in the area. Mrs Angry reminded the Highways Manager that Crapita was going to do that in the future for him. He allowed himself the indulgence of a wry smile.

Item 5, and a load of old rubbish from the head of rubbish at the London Borough of Broken Barnet. In fact, he was a very nice man, keen to tell us all about the joys of the new recycling scheme, which will supply us with even more wheelie bins, which we poor taxpayers have to pay for, and then find a place to keep. 

Mrs Angry asked where people like her who live in terraced houses are supposed to put these blasted things, and wouldn't it be better to encourage people to compost their garden waste instead of collecting it, and why did we choose the more expensive tender for the new wheelie bins?

Composting was clearly not of any interest to our councillors, and some 112 streets have been identified as going to have problems with accommodating the new bins, although we are not allowed to know where they are, and the new bins are the most expensive because they will, like the new deal with Crapita, last ten to fifteen years (in fact they will outlive the deal with Capita, which is biodegradable and will be composted in a couple of seasons). And they have very nice wheels. The bins, not Capita.

Ah,last item, a survey sneaked into the Forum with no warning, at the last minute, in the hope that having put almost everyone off attending, a suitably small number of residents would take part. This low return would, in the time honoured traditions of Barnet consultation, produce all the evidence the councillors need to shut down the Forums forever.

Mrs Angry asked how the survey would be conducted, other than in this way? The Chair claimed it would be available on the council website. Hmm. Nicely hidden. Unfotunately for our councillors, residents attending last night's Forum will be making sure the forms are made more broadly available, and a link to the survey will be uploaded later. 

NB: Thursday - the form would appear still not to have appeared on the council's website.

Time for part two, the Environment sub-committee. Mrs Angry usually goes home at this point, but had to stay last night as she was speaking to an item regarding the road safety concerns in her own road.

On the committee were Tories Graham Old, John Marshall, Libdem Lord Palmer, and Labour councillors Houston, Rogers and Hutton.

The first subject was road safety in the Moss Hall Schools area - a parent spoke very well about the urgent need for better safety measures in the vicinity, and raised many issues similar to Mrs Angry's experience in her road. One such subject was the problems caused by a failure to enforce parking regulations. Enforcement officers were never to be seen there, as indeed is the case here in Squires Lane. 

As we all know, this is because parking enforcement has become an income generating service, rather than one intended to manage the needs of drivers, and keep the roads clear, and the officers are targeting the lucrative high streets. Trying to make this point, however, was not allowed by the Chair. 

Really it would be preferable if we did not mention this fool anymore, and ignored him entirely, but now that disgraced former Tory councillor - and former Environment cabinet member - Brian Coleman has embraced the world of twitter, he has committed himself to making as many outrageous/tedious pronouncements as possible, in order to continue to receive the attention he so desperately craves. Today, in a hole, even if he doesn't realise it yet, and so still digging, and in a comment clearly inspired by the issues discussed in this Forum, displaying his usual offensive, sexist attitude, he tweeted:

20mph zones are sops to bored housewives who have no idea about traffic issues.Police have no power to enforce #pointless

By the time the committee had started, the hall's caretaker had been asked by someone, presumably a resident from Barnet Alliance, who use the same venue, to produce a microphone. Unfortunately for Councillor Old, therefore, when Mrs Angry's turn to speak came about, not only, for once, was he able to try to shut her up, her words of wisdom were amplified throughout the room.

You have five minutes, he told her, through pursed lips. 

Mrs Angry had not written a speech, just made observations on the report's recommendations, but the evening's experiences had inspired her to jot down a few brief comments, which she proceeded to deliver, to the visible annoyance of the Chair, who sat busying himself writing I hate Mrs Angry all over his papers, and pretending she was not there, or so she imagined. Labour Cllr Arjun Mittra recorded his reaction:

CllrArjunMittra Cllr Arjun Mittra 25 Jun

Cllr Old enjoying @BrokenBarnet speech

CllrArjunMittra Cllr Arjun Mittra 25 Jun

Ok, he's perhaps not enjoying @BrokenBarnet speech

The reason why Mrs Angry had wanted to comment on the points raised by the speaker from Moss Hall, she informed the Chair, was because it was directly relevant to her own item. In fact, this proves the point that we should, and  must discuss these issues not in isolation, but in terms of policy, and on a wider scale. The reign of Councillor Coleman is over, and now there needs to be a change of culture, and a boroughwide review of policy on road safety, particularly, as in these cases, in the vicinity of schools. What could be more important than the safety of our children? You should be prioritising this issue, and doing that thing so unpopular with the Tory councillors of this borough - consulting the residents and schools of the relevant areas.

Cllr Old did not want to hear this, and told Mrs Angry so, at some length, interrupting her allotted time. She ignored him and carried on, and then had a very productive discussion with Neil Richardson, the Highways manager about the measures necessary to reintroduce some improved level of safety in the Squires Lane/Manor View area. Old made no memorable contribution to the discussion, unlike Labour's Cllr Houston who has helped bring this report to the point of consideration, and the approval of a proposed budget of £21,000 worth of measures to be implemented.

What are the Tory councillors so afraid of, that they must act to control every possibility of free and open debate at any meeting involving members of the public? 

Why does the Chair of a Residents Forum think he is entitled to treat the taxpayers and voters of this borough with such condescension and lack of respect for their opinions? 

Why should we not question the policies, decisions, and possibilities of the issues that affect our daily lives and our rights as citizens? 

How on earth can they think that what they are doing is compatible with the policy of localism, as promoted by Pickles? 

Do they even care what their own party policies are?

Let's see what Eric has to say, shall we?

Flesh and the devil: another week in Broken Barnet

Are you married, or do you live in Hendon? Apologies to Noel Coward. And Greta Garbo.

 *Avanti updateFriday, see below

Another week in Broken Barnet, then. Ho hum. 

What's been happening, Mrs Angry?

Too much, and too little, and all of it in the wrong place. But that's enough about me. 

As for the other civic dignitaries of our beloved borough - yes, Mrs Angry is only one - well. They have been very busy, and very keen to tell us how busy they have been, as there is an election moving inexorably closer, like a horrible black cloud on the horizon, and the foretelling of the end of an era.

Take our heroic MP for Hendon, Matthew Offord, who has been busy all year thinking about same sex marriage. Not because he wants one, but because he opposes the very idea, as he believes marriage is meant to be for the purpose of 'procreation', which was God's plan for Adam and Eve, rather than endless trips to Ikea, arguments in Waitrose, throwing saucepans at each other and years of unbearable domestic strife. Who knew? Matthew Offord, apparently. He is an expert on marriage, since his own wedding three years ago, around the time of the last election, described here by the Barnet Bugle.

http://www.barnetbugle.com/journal/2010/6/17/matthew-offord-blogs-about-his-wedding.html

Dirty Dancing, Bugle?

Procreation, then. Mrs Angry has procreated, have you readers? Twice. Very difficult, apart from the first stage, but quite enjoyable, in the long run, all things considered.

If you have not, why not? But anyway, in the absence of children, please do not have sexual intercourse, or any idea about getting married, as this may upset your member of parliament, particularly if it involves any funny business between one man and another, or one woman and another. 

On the other hand, of course, the Hendon MP is quite interested by the idea of polygamy, and funny business between multiple spouses and thinks about that quite a lot too, and has even asked minister Maria Miller when this is going to be legalised, as we see here:

 

So if you fancy sharing your favours with more than one married partner (married to you, that is, obviously we are all busy sharing everyone else's) then go ahead. 

After all, in the old testament, that sort of arrangement was in favour with the Almighty. It was that spoilsport St Paul who came along and made marriage so boring, wasn't it? And put women in their rightful place, silenced, obedient, shaven headed, and on the same par as a slave, that is.

In this week's local Times, Mr Offord enlarges on his reasons for opposing same sex marriage - see here and now tells us it is wrong because -  "Same-sex marriage is an attack on religion".

This is puzzling, not least because the campaign for equal marriage is for a civil ceremony, not a religious one. 

Matthew Offord and the birds and the bees, all part of God's plan for procreation

But still: Matthew is clearly guided by his faith in the Almighty, and keen to do His will in the London Borough of Broken Barnet. He is also keen to bring the word of God into that place of iniquity, the council chamber, and has proposed a bill in Parliament to call for the re-introduction of prayers before council meetings, a practice which was banned, apparently, by the High Court last year, although as usual Barnet Council pays little attention to what happens in the High Court, and has carried on regardless - see Mrs Angry's post on the last full council meeting,

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-making-of-mayor-of-capitaville.html

where we all stood and watched our shameless councillors bow their heads and pretend to humble themselves before the Lord, whilst preparing to carry on as normal, scheming and plotting and fighting amongst themselves, and selling us all into slavery with Capita. That at least is compliant with St Paul's teachings, mind you, so should meet with approval by our elected members.

Matthew Offord should perhaps show his face at a few council meetings, and see for himself that due respect is indeed shown to the God he worries about so much, even though Mrs Angry is pretty sure, from the unmistakeable smell of sulphur and brimstone that wafts around the corridors and out of the Town Hall entrance, that someone else entirely is in charge of the London Borough of Broken Barnet. Yes, even before the official handover to Crapita.

Says Matthew:

“I feel there is a clear trend of attacking religion at the moment. I believe, for example with the introduction of the gay marriage bill, that people are considered freakish if they believe in religion. 

Reading prayers of any religion before meetings is something members of my constituency feel is important. It is something I always liked and I was upset when it was banned.” 

Hmm. Actually, Mrs Angry thinks Matthew's constituents might have other issues that they consider to be rather more important, but he is bargaining on being a man of faith and opposing same sex marriage as bringing the electoral support he will need to win this most marginal of London consituencies in the next election. 

He seems to have overlooked the fact that the sizeable number of gay constituents in Hendon feel it it important to be given equal rights in law to marriage with the partner of their choice, and not necessarily only a choice approved of by Matthew Offord. 

To be fair, he may care more about following his principles than losing his seat at the next election, and that would be a rare but courageous path to follow.

Finchley and Golders Green MP Mike Freer ploughs a different furrow entirely to his Hendon colleague, particularly on the issue of equal marriage, which has caused something of an awkward schism between the two former Barnet councillors.

Since his election, Freer has chosen to be open about his own sexuality, and the next election will also tell if this honesty will be paid for in votes lost to the type of bigoted voter Offord thinks he must depend on.

Offord asks a range of wildly diverse questions in Parliament, on a range of subjects from the fate of elderly cod, to the future for polar bears, whereas the Finchley MP is rather less active, and perhaps more focussed, recently being - in contrast to Offord - eloquent in supporting the progress of the equal marriage bill. 

This is perfectly understandable, but his constituents in Finchley might well wish that he address with equal dedication other issues that also concern the residents of this constituency, such as the increasingly elusive provision of accessible healthcare, the result of government policy and the NHS 'reforms' which he has so stoutly defended in parliament. 

He remains curiously silent too, on the subject of One Barnet, the programme of mass privatisation foisted on the borough in the course of, or rather under the pretext of the continutation of Freer's 'easycouncil' soundbite concept. 

Freer would do well to adopt some active issues to remind the residents of this constituency that he is a. our MP and b. working on our behalf. He cannot afford to be complacent: although his seat might appear safer than Offord's, Labour has two excellent possible candidates for election in Finchley and Golders Green in Alon Or-Bach and Sarah Sackman, both engaging, highly intelligent and dedicated political activists who would be very worthy representatives of their community. 

One issue on which members of all political parties in this borough appear to agree is that of the proposed 'Avanti' free school in the Broadfields area of Edgware. This is a Hindu faith school from Harrow, which will cater for more than 1600 pupils, is seeking to relocate to another site, and has chosen one which is in a residential area bordering the green belt, with no public transport and terrible access. 

Mrs Angry grew up in this area, and knows it very well indeed, and  spent a year at the old Broadfields primary school that was once located here. Even in those Janet and John days, with far fewer cars, the surrounding roads would become blocked at school times, and parking caused enormous difficulties for residents.

Quite why no suitable site for a Harrow school is available in Harrow is something of a mystery, but clearly the majority of pupils will be obliged to travel some distance to get to Broadfields, and inevitably by car.

In an already congested area, the effect on the area is predictable, and has been loudly opposed by local residents and their representatives. The Broadfields and Fairways sites had been earmarked by an earlier Tory administration for residential developments only: a reasonable proposal, and in keeping with the area if only on the basis of no greater increase in traffic. 

One might hope that the Mayor of London, so keenly aware of the housing shortage in the capital, and locally in this borough, would want to support such development, but of course there is much more political satisfaction in promoting the free school mania which infects our Tory politicians, especially those ex Etonians who like to dictate to the rest of us who are rather less privileged as to how we should educate our children.

Guess who has decided that opposition must be entirely due to innate racism, rather than a desire not to see an inappropriate development in their neighbourhood? Yes, himself, former Tory councillor Brian Coleman, who recently wrote a nasty blogpost which puzzled Mrs Angry, with its unfortunate reference to JCoSS, (whose opponents, rather reprehensibly, were labelled as anti-semites), as 'Jewish Cross Secondary School'. The link with Avanti is unexpected, perhaps, but here we are: former trustee of JCoSS Ben Rich is now a governor of Avanti, whose website includes his profile with the 'Jewish Cross' gaffe, which Coleman has clearly copied unthinkingly.

Ethnic diversity and the support of disadvantaged minorities is a cause notably embraced by Coleman, of course, as you can see in his latest post where he refers to a 'shanty town' of 'Roumanian and mostly illegal casual workers' living in the former Hendon football club, and recalls with nostalgia the time when he and some Tory colleagues dealt with ruthless efficiency with 'a spate of Irish traveller invasions of greenbelt land in Totteridge' - yes, outrageous: in Totteridge. 

Coleman, Mrs Coleman and Finchley MP Mike Freer enjoying each other's company at yesterday's East Finchley Festival

He fails to mention that gypsies and travellers have absolutely nowhere legally to stop in this borough, even for one night, as the council refuses to make even the most basic provision for them, and did so in defiance of the law for many years when there was a statutory obligation to do so. Still, as we know, the Daily Mail inspired monstering and persecution of such marginalised people is perfectly acceptable, and nothing to do with racism.

On Wednesday, the Avanti issue was discussed at the London Assembly. The Mayor, Boris Johnson, who rarely visits this borough, unless an election is in the offing, also took it upon himself to insult those residents who object to the plans, not this time as racists, but as 'Nimbys', who 'disliked school children'. 

Boris does not dislike children, of course, and has procreated several times, as we know, also thanks to the Daily Mail. Birds and bees. That's how it works.

Still, at least he is alleging that the people of the Broadfields area - which has always had a large Jewish population, including increasingly more members of the charedi community - are motivated by a general loathing for all children, rather than those from one faith or ethnic minority. This is the classier, public school version of a tactical smear, see? 

At the meeting held earlier this year for residents who are concerned about the imposition of such a development in the Broadfields site, there was an enormous response from the local community, from local councillors of all parties, MP Offord, and Labour AM Andrew Dismore, who commented this week:

“We now know exactly what Boris Johnson thinks about the people of Edgware and Mill Hill. He has again shown a complete lack of understanding of the problems his Government’s planning policies have created.  His obsession with free schools has been shown to be a chaotic experiment which provides no local places for local children, but only disruption, inconvenience and traffic jams for local residents, whose views and opinions he has casually tossed aside.

As well as insulting local residents he has yet to respond to a letter I sent to him in May suggesting an alternative site for Avanti House Free School. The Mayor could use his powers and extensive land bank to help solve this local crisis, but has so far failed to do so.”

No one seems to have considered, incidentally, the potential impact of such an unmanageable inflow of traffic on those attending funerals at the Jewish cemetery in neighbouring Edgwarebury Lane, just behind the site.

The wards affected by the Broadfields development plans and the temporary site at Fairway in Mill Hill are Conservative, and vulnerable to challenge in the next election. Edgware is represented by self proclaimed Thatcherite Helena Hart, the tremulous Joan Scannell, and Darrell Yawitch (who he?), and even wobblier Hale ward is graced by the attentions of Hugh Rayner, with, oh dear: Tom Davey, and - oh dear again, Brian Gordon, who is alleged to have seen what is coming and decided to stand in Edgware ward rather than his old stomping ground.
 
Boris Johnson's comments serve only to underline the fatal disconnection with the Tories' own heartland, the suburban voters of Broken Barnet. Upset the voters of Broadfields, as well as all the other Tory voters you have already alienated by the events of the last few years, especially the idiotic parking scheme, and you will lose the next election. 

Boris Johnson won't care about that: the loss of Barnet council in 2014 has already been predicted by party strategists, and he won't be standing again for Mayor anyway, but the impact of the Avanti development here in Edgware and Mill Hill will also create more concern for retaining Hendon in the general election. It all depends whether or not they think that too is a lost cause. 

No wonder Matthew Offord is trying to keep God on his side, if not Boris: he's going to have to rely rather heavily on divine intervention in the course of the next couple of years, Mrs Angry suspects. 

*Updated Friday 28th - Avanti School

Here is an interesting development in the Avanti saga: an alternative site, perfectly suitable, more accessible, and ten times larger, yet it appears to have been dismissed due to being, erm - too small. 

What's going on? 

See the press release from AM Andrew Dismore: 

Avanti: Government and Barnet Council need to go back to school

Andrew Dismore, Labour London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden, has today published the response he has received from Government  free schools minister  Lord Nash,  (attached).

Mr Dismore said:

I suggested to the Council, the Mayor of London and the Government, they should make available to Avanti part of the soon to be vacated land on the MOPAC owned  and  Mayor Johnson controlled Peel Centre police training college site in Colindale. Lord Nash says:

“We have had preliminary discussions with Barnet Council to establish whether the

MOPAC site could be suitable for Avanti House Free School. From the information

available, it seems that it may not be large enough for the schools requirements”

But the Peel Centre site to be sold is 54.36 acres, whilst  the Broadfields site  is just  4.4 acres and the Fairway site is only 3.7 acres, a mere fraction of the Peel  Centre land soon to be disposed of and available. If the school seems to think that amount of land is enough for them, why did Barnet Council, in their “preliminary discussions” with the Government, suggest the Peel Centre site was too small?

There seems to be either a breakdown in communication between the Council, the Mayor, the school, and the Government, or they need to go back to school to learn some basic geometry and arithmetic on how to calculate area sizes.

The Mayor said he wanted to use redundant police stations and land for free schools, so what is wrong with this site? It is ideal: it already has plenty of open space and even a running track, and the road and transport links are far easier.

The suspicion must be that something fishy is  going on. Surely the suggestion of using the Peel Centre land for a free school instead of yet more housing overdevelopment is not being refused because it interferes with the Conservatives’ social engineering housing experiment in Colindale?

Whilst the Minister says that both the Fairway and Broadfields sites are “only options”, time is running out for the school’s planned and necessary move in September into temporary premises.

Are they planning, with the connivance of the Conservative Council, to take advantage of the age old dodgy developers’ trick by fast tracking a planning application during the Summer holidays, when the opportunity for most people to object will be much less- even on the very restricted remaining grounds still available after the Government watered down the planning rules, to the detriment of local communities and the benefit of free school proprietors?

It’s time for the Government , Mayor, Barnet Council and school to play fair with local residents and say just what they have been up to in secret behind the scenes.”