Part Three: Night of the Long Knives - the hearing

Councillor Andreas Tambourides

Committee Room 3 is right at the end of the corridor of power in Hendon Town Hall, the least used of the Barnet council committe rooms, a fusty old room with a disused fire place, a faded carpet and nineteen thirties lighting, a suitable venue for the hearing of a complaint taken by one Barnet Conservative councillor against another.

Today's hearing, thought Mrs Angry, as she sat idly musing throughout the six hour epic meeting, was really a trial of old style values, the idea of public service for its own sake, and integrity in the democratic processes of local government, versus the mutant brand of brutal, self serving conservatism that we have here in Broken Barnet.

Today's hearing saw the presentation of the report of the investigation into the complaint brought by Tory councillor Kate Salinger against her colleague, Andreas Tambourides, the background to which is dealt with in the previous two blogposts.

Present at the hearing were Tambourides and his solicitor, Mr Hocking, three members of the Standards committee, two independent members and a councillor, legal and governance officers and the Director of Corporate Governance who was present as Monitoring Officer, but also had to substitute for the absent investigating officer. His was a difficult role, in fact and Mrs Angry has to admit, through gritted teeth, that he undertook this part with great skill and navigated the course of the process to the rightful conclusion.

Also present were a couple of bloggers, a union representative, a couple of members of the public - and a reporter from a local paper. Also in attendance were Councillor Barry Evangeli, to support Andreas Tambourides, (and who, ha, Mrs Angry caught shamelessly helping himself to biscuits at the adjournment) Councillor Joanna Tambourides, and oh look, at the back, Councillor Alison Cornelius, wife of Tory leader Richard Cornelius.

At the beginning of the meeting, it was announced that a decision had been made that filming and any similar method of reporting of the meeting would not be allowed. (If you nip across to the Barnet Bugle blog, you can see what happened when this decision was announced ... ) Anyway: Mrs Angry can't really tweet and write at the same time, so this was no great problem, for her. It would seem others present carried on regardless, and indeed why not, as the vote taken in full council not so long ago supporting the filming of meetings had not been qualified in any way.

The acting sub-committee chair, Ron Rosenhead, accompanied by Stephen Ross and Labour councillor Claire Farrier, reminded everyone that this was not a court of law. Jeff Lustig, Director of Corporate Governance, said that he did not see the hearing as a 'confrontational process'.

Introductions were made around the table. Andreas Tambourides, the subject of the complaint, introduced himself and reminded everyone that he was a member of the very same standards sub-committee which was hearing the complaint against him. Mrs Angry tried not to laugh.

Mrs Angry, in fact, spends most of the time in the council meetings she attends trying not to laugh, and trying to keep a straight face. This is impossible. Throughout Mrs Angry's childhood and school days, she was always in trouble for making faces and being perceived as undermining the solemnity of any given situation: Sunday lunch, holy mass, school assemblies, funerals, that sort of thing, and now, in her unrespectable blogging middle age, this regrettable tendency has resurfaced.

Several times during this hearing, in fact, a certain legal officer turned round to look disapprovingly at Mrs Angry, just for sniggering very quietly in her seat, and Mrs Angry would like to point out to the same officer that it is very rude to slip your shoes off under the table in the middle of a serious council meeting and twiddle your bare toes as if you were at the seaside.

Anyway. Where were we?

Let's reduce all the arguments and processes - six hours of them - down to the essential points.

The investigation found that Tambourides has breached the code in not showing respect, and in misusing council resources. Lustig explained why his actions would be seen as those of someone who was a member of a political group, and that it was a 'highly persuasive' argument that he was acting 'on council business'. The timing and context of the the email in question was important in terms of the political significance of the motive and effect of the article that was forwarded to all Conservative councillors in respect of the subject ie Councillor Salinger.

Councillor Kate Salinger was called to the table to assist the panel.

She explained what had happened on the night of the council meeting where her colleagues voted for the now notorious allowance rise. Before the meeting, she had stated that she could not support the vote, as a matter of conscience. In a time of hardship, when so many employees were expected to lose out financially, it was sending the wrong message. Barnet Council workers had been told that their pay wages would be frozen, or capped.

Kate Salinger was told that if she took this position, she would have to suffer the consequences.

She told the panel that she thought - and prayed - very hard about the matter and decided that she had to vote with her conscience.

At the meeting, she was removed from every position which she held, except in one or two cases where this was technically impossible. She listed each one, and it was clear that this ritual punishment had hurt her very much. She had interpreted the rules governing voting as allowing members to vote or abstain on a matter of conscience, which had a greater influence,in any case, than a group ruling.

Lustig asked her about her feelings at the time of the email sent by Tambourides. At first, she replied, she had found it almost laughable. As the day progressed, however, she had had a vast number of phone calls, emails and even letters put through the door in regard to the issue, and been featured on both the BBC and ITV news. The two paragraphs in the emailed article relating to her, and the allegations they made, especially regarding the borough solicitor, were simply not true, and she felt 'livid' at the false assertions that had been made.

Interestingly, Councillor Salinger also told the meeting that she had received many calls and emails from other Conservative councillors who claimed they now wished that they had acted as she had. Safely after the event, of course. This was one of the occasions which provoked exasperated mutterings from Mrs Angry, and another baleful look from a certain legal officer.

Kate Salinger said that she felt that the sending of the emailed article had impuned her integrity. 'I always try to be honest' she commented, ' and to behave with integrity and honour'.

When asked by Lustig why she felt she had not been treated with respect, she explained that respect involved treating people as you would like to be treated yourself. To impune her honour meant she was not being treated with respect.Andreas Tambourides had not checked the veracity of the article, and such behaviour was hardly what you would expct of someone from someone who was himself a member of this Standards Committee.

Four fellow councillors had spoken immediately to Kate Salinger about the article, and seven others had also done so later. It consequently transpired that Councillor Salinger's snivelling Tory colleagues had almost all been too scared of reprisals to agree to be identified when contacted by the investigator.

Stephen Hocking, the solicitor acting for Andreas Tambourides, has some questions. Did she ask Tambourides for an apology? She said that her lawyers, Carter Ruck,(blimey) had done so.

Hocking tried to suggest to Councillor Salinger, at some length, that the article in question was not really about her even though it included the following statement:

"Sources within the Conservatives in Barnet have also confirmed that Councillor Kate Salinger has been contacted by Barnet's borough lawyers over her conduct in a previous incident, unrelated to this incident ...' and claimed Kate Salinger was:

"Already a marginal figure and her actions have ostracised her entirely and she is now history."

Mmm. Kate Salinger listened patiently to what he said, reminded him, as clearly he needed reminding, of the two paragraphs in question, and wrily remarked that his line of questioning was 'very clever'. Not clever enough, as it transpired.

Tambourides' defence thoughout this hearing was that he was not acting in the capacity of councillor when he sent the email, therefore the code of conduct did not apply, and anyway he had done nothing wrong, and not used council resources to send the email, the veracity of which he had no reason to question.

Jeff Lustig carefully tiptoed through the minefield of legal arguments, and pieced together a case to disprove the arguments put forward on behalf of Tambourides. The lengthy addresses of Mr Hocking, and his attempts to quote legal precedent to support his client's defence were interrupted more than once by the committee chair, and it was clear that the committee were not going to be moved by wasted sympathy for Councillor Tambourides' plight.

Mr Hocking spent some time criticising the methods of the appointed investigator, in the course of which he constantly acknowledged, at some length, while continuing his criticisms, that he was not there to defend himself.

He thought that even if the action in sending the email had caused concern, this should have been a matter for party discipline, rather than dealt with as possible misconduct under the code of conduct and a matter for the Standards sub-committee. Tambourides had no intention of upsetting Kate Salinger when he sent the email. (Clearly he thought she would be thrilled to discover all her colleagues were being told she was history, ostracised, and a marginalised character, and to find that her character had been subjected to a baseless slur, a nasty lie about being contacted by borough solicitors over 'her conduct'). But no, it wasn't Andreas Tambourides' fault if he had not realised the article was inaccurate and hurtful, because, and I quote: ' we all assume what we read in the press is true' ...

Here we adjourned, the fact finding part of the hearing having finished.

After lunch, the next part of the process began with the panel announcing its findings of fact.

It was decided that it was more likely than not that Tambourides was acting as a member of the Conservative group and conducting the business of the council when he sent the email.

In response, Hocking said that his client's purpose and state of mind in sending the email was of significance. There was no past history of any disagreements or disputes between him and Kate Salinger (there was some muttering behind Mrs Angry at this point) and then he reminded us of the vital importance of the freedom of the press, and claimed his client had had no obligation to fact check the article before sending it. Really, thought Mrs Angry? Hocking droned on: even Tambourides was looking bored by now, and in danger of falling asleep. Oh God: another legal precedent was quoted.

Jeff Lustig now made some very important points. He reminded the panel that the members' code required a positive obligation to treat other councillors with respect. We must all ask ourselves how we would feel if a colleague were to forward a news article to all other colleagues with unfavourable comments included. Would this demonstrate the fulfillment of the obligation to show respect? He then queried the statement that there was no obligation to check accuracy in such a situation.

In the matter of using council resources, the key word was 'improperly': again there was a positive obligation for councillors to follow when using such facilities.

The committee now adjourned again to decide if there had been a breach of the code.

On the return from their deliberations it was decided that Councillor Tambourides was in breach of the code in relation to:

Paragraph 3(1)
You must treat others with respect

He was found not guilty of the other charge, failing to ensure that the resources of the authority are not used improperly for political purposes.

It was concluded that someone with Tambourides' experience should have been aware of the derogatory references within the email, their capacity to cause offence and the potential effects they would have.

His solicitor said that there would be appeal and asked therefore that any sanction should be suspended pending the outcome of any appeal.

Tambourides had not made up the allegations in the email. There was no history of 'bad blood'. He had no previous, guvnor.

The panel deliberated and their final finding was that, despite taking the submissions into account, they nevertheless had to recognise that Councillor Tambourides was a member of the Standards Committee itself, the implication of course being that he of all members really ought to have known better.

He was ordered to attend a course of appropriate training in the members code of conduct. He must also submit a written apology to Kate Salinger for the distress he had caused her. The sanctions would not be suspended.

There was no mention of whether Councillor Andreas Tambourides would continue, as he has throughout the time since the complaint was lodged, as a member of the Standards sub-committee.

Throughout the long course of the day, sitting in the committee room, Mrs Angry had the great pleasure of the company of Councillors Kate and Brian Salinger. They are a charming, honourable and decent couple, in fact, who are a credit to the values they espouse.

Kate Salinger was the only Tory who had the courage and integrity to refuse to support the abominable allowance rise vote last year. After doing so she was treated in the most vile fashion by each and every other member of her own party, who stood by and allowed her to be subjected to an immediate public humiliation, a ritual punishment, the vengeful stripping of all her council posts, positions I have no doubt that she undertook with commitment, honesty and dedication, unlike so many other of her lazy, greedy, feckless Conservative colleagues.

When this was done, and Kate Salinger left the chamber in tears, significantly, it was a female Labour councillor who came to her assistance, and offered her support. What does it say about the bullies, whimpering cowards and absolute bastards who constitute the rest of the Conservative group on Barnet Council, that they could stand by and let this happen? That they continued to lack the courage to support her openly even though some of them later privately expressed their horror at what had happened?

It says remember: this is Broken Barnet, and this is how things are. No doubt already the Salingers' phone is ringing with colleagues keen to congratulate Kate on her success today. I hope she tells them to f*ck off. She won't, because she is too nice, so let me tell them on her behalf. It really is my pleasure.

Scandalous: or how not to be an activist, by Brian Coleman

A Tory 'activist' and part time worker at City Hall

Here is a mean little story that appeared in yesterday's London Standard, courtesy of their City Hall correspondant, Peter Dominiczak:

Taxpayers foot 'scandalous' bill for full-time TfL union activists

Full-time union activists working for Transport for London cost the taxpayer almost £1 million every year, it emerged today.

As the London Assembly learned that TfL employs 31 full-time activists at a cost of £879,000 per year, one member described the cost as "scandalous".

It also emerged that the Met employs 14 full-time activists at a cost of £361,000 a year, and has 20 officers who work on behalf of the Police Federation, Superintendents' Association and Chief Police Officers' staff associations.

The London Fire Brigade has two full-time activists and one part-time worker, costing £88,000 per year.

The Greater London Assembly has one full-time worker who performs union duties for about £42,000 a year.

Tory Assembly member Brian Coleman said: "The vast payment of Londoners' money to activists to work full-time on union business is scandalous."

A TfL spokesman said: "The number of trade union representatives at TfL is in accordance with Acas guidelines, our agreements with the trades unions and legislation."

A police spokesman said: "Good working relationships with unions and workplace representatives help keep staff properly informed."

Mrs Angry is amused to see a City Hall correspondant so keen to accept Brian Coleman's interpretation of these statistics - and allowing himself to be used as the channel for another pathetic union bashing exercise by our favourite assembly member.

What a pity that Mr Dominiczak didn't bother to query the assumptions in Coleman's attack. Interesting, for example, that the reporter has chosen to use the word 'activist', without the use of qualification, loaded as it is with insinuations about political motivation, rather than the term 'official', 'employee', or 'representative'.

Let's do what Mr Dominiczak has apparently failed to do, and examine the facts.

Transport for London is a huge organisation. In 2008 alone, it had 27,000 employees. To have 31 of those employees engaged in work involving staff representation and industrial relations is hardly disproportionate.

The Metropolitan Police is even larger, of course: in fact it its the biggest police force in the world, with, I believe, in 2010, a total of around 52,000 employees. Having 14 representatives and 20 officers engaged in staff related duties is, again, quite a reasonable number, seen in this context.

The London Fire Brigade has 7,ooo employees. Should it be vilified for the crime of having two full time union officials, and one part time 'worker'?

I think that Londoners would actually think that in the circumstances, such a low number of representatives is entirely inadequate, bearing in mind the continual struggle of our fire service to withstand the political interference and confrontational leadership of the very same Brian Coleman.

Apart from the employment issues facing firefighters in London, there is a real threat to the safety and well being of Londoners posed by the largely unreported fact (except here - http://bit.ly/qNnwLN ) that Assetco, the company which now owns our fire engines, and has a contract to provide 'emergency' cover in disputes, as we saw last year, oh and which gives £350 Harvey Nicks hampers and hospitality to Brian Coleman - Assetco is teetering on the brink of collapse, and has been for months, supported by an enormously expensive legal fight. It is the union and those awful 'activists' which have been determinedly questioning the development of this story, for example, as seen here: http://tinyurl.com/5wefwko

Let's remind ourselves once more, shall we, of the comments made by Coleman, as chair of the fire authority, last year, as reported in, oh, hello - the Standard, on November 26th, by Ross Lydall, in an article with this heading:

Boris Johnson to discipline fire chief for labelling union leaders 'bullies'

The chairman of the London Fire Authority is to be reprimanded by Boris Johnson after calling firefighters' leaders “thick” and “thugs and bullies”.

Tory Brian Coleman, who was appointed by the Mayor to oversee the London fire brigade, also revealed his wish to “break” the London Fire Brigades Union, whose members were a “thoroughly unpleasant and nasty lot”.

It comes after his threat to sack all 5,500 front-line London firefighters and re-employ them on new shift patterns sparked two one-day strikes in recent weeks. A subsequent plan to axe 27 fire engines — leading to the loss of 500 jobs — has heightened tensions between staff and brigade chiefs.

Former mayor Ken Livingstone said: “Boris must get a grip and sack his confrontational fire chief if we're to have long-term solutions to challenges facing the brigade.”

Mr Johnson, who has “confessed ignorance” of the plan to axe engines, stood by his colleague but will discipline him for his remarks.

The Mayor's spokesman said: “Brian Coleman has pursued an important and sensible agenda to modernise the fire service. The Mayor is hopeful the recent dispute will soon be resolved so that London can benefit from those changes.

“Abusive and provocative language from either side of the dispute is inappropriate and unhelpful and the Mayor will make that clear to Mr Coleman.”

Mr Coleman, who is also a Barnet councillor, made his remarks in an interview with the Ham & High newspaper. Referring to the recent fire dispute, which saw clashes on picket lines, he claimed that the Left-wing union had been linked with “bullying and intimidation” back to the Seventies.

Four firefighters have been suspended for allegedly threatening strike-breaking colleagues. Mr Coleman went on: “You just have to stand up to thugs and bullies. The vast majority of firefighters are entirely, on a one-to-one level, decent and pleasant individuals.

“Most of the union officials... are thick, can't string a sentence together and frankly are incoherent. We have to break the FBU... They will fail in the end because neither I nor the fire authority, nor the Mayor of London nor this Government is going to give way to this kind of intimidation.”

FBU general secretary MattWrack said: “I have been afraid recently, as his remarks became wilder, that Mr Coleman was starting to lose the plot. It appears he has now lost it — I hope temporarily.

“If we all crouch in our dugouts screaming 'thick' and 'thug' and 'incoherent' and 'break the union' at each other, no progress will be made.'

Quite. And perhaps the FBU is the perfect example of why Brian Coleman so greatly objects to the idea of a strong union presence in any organisation. In all the cases mentioned, employees are facing the real threat of redundancy or, at best, detrimental changes to their working conditions. They need and deserve the support of representatives to protect their rights at this time.

Oh, we forgot to mention the mysterious reference to a full time worker at the Greater London Assembly, who 'performs union duties'. Er, did you mean Greater London Authority? No? Then Mrs Angry is thrilled to hear that our assembly members have union representation, and does not begrudge a single penny paid to this unfortunate worker. Can you imagine having to be Brian Coleman's shop steward? Actually, if Brian were to be a union leader, well: Arthur Scargill would seem like a shrinking violet, wouldn't he? They have quite a lot of qualities in common, actually, come to think of it. Sorry: just had a vision of a blighted north eastern industrial landscape, with a queue of ex miners outside the job centre.

Apologies to poor old Arthur Scargill for the comparison.

Mrs Angry is pleased to see that Brian Coleman is so appalled at the idea of Londoners' hard earned tax being wasted on the 'scandalous' expense of protecting the working rights of, er Londoners. She is sure that he is also appalled by the thought of tax payers' money being wasted on, oh, dear, I don't know,say the taxi fares of lazy assembly members who think they are too precious to get on the tube or -heaven forfend - a bus.

But Mrs Angry wonders if there is more to this outurst by our Brian than meets the eye. Perhaps it is the term 'activist' which so upsets him?

How would you define 'activity'? The state of being active ... energetic action or movement ... hmm. As we can see from the photo above of one particular self defining Tory activist, this form of furtive, secretive political agitation can be hard to sustain: especially after a long lunch, eh, Brian?

Camarthenshire County Council: no mercy in their means

*pic courtesy Alex Murray Smith, South West Wales Media


Blogging is largely a boys' game, and political blogging even more so.

In Barnet we are unusual in that two of our local political blogs are written by women, ie Mrs Angry and Vicki Morris. I don't know why we are so outnumbered in the wider blogosphere: maybe because it is such a competitive, showy offy sort of milieu. If you don't promote yourself and shamelessly nick stuff off other bloggers, you may find yourself sidelined, and women are perhaps too slow to stick up for themselves when that happens. It's kind of like that Fast Show sketch, with the invisible woman ignored by the men, who then repeat what she says, and tell themselves how brilliant they are.

Mrs Angry, fortunately, on the female side, comes from a long line of over opinionated, dedicated show offs & outrageous liars, and is pretty well able to hold her own with the bad boys. But not always. And sometimes she is aware, rather guiltily, of using the novelty factor of being female to her advantage, but this is generally due to an unstoppable urge to be mischievous, rather than a deliberate strategy.

And sometimes being a female citizen journalist can prove to be a distinct disadvantage, attracting perhaps more animosity and unpleasant attention than might normally have been the case. Yes, I'm talking about Caebrwyn now.

Caebrwyn is the blogging name of Jacquie Thompson, a community councillor who writes about the antics of Camarthen County Council. As it happens, she has followed this blog for some time - see her waterlily icon on this page. I take that as a high compliment, in the circumstances.

On Jacqui's blog there is an appropriate quote from Orwell:
'Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness'.

On Wednesday this week, Jacquie was present at a meeting of Camarthen County Council, exercising her right, as guaranteed by Mr Eric Pickles, to film the meeting on her phone. Here are her words to describe the mood of the meeting, in which a petition with 1500 signatures was being presented by some very elderly residents who were trying to save their day club from being closed.

"As I arrived an elderly lady was presenting her petition, it was heartfelt and passionate and implored the Council to rethink their plans. Several other Day Club members had also been allowed into the Chamber. Much to their shock, the Chairman, Cllr Ivor Jackson then just moved onto the next agenda item. Cllr Sian Caiach was equally shocked and demanded a debate and consideration of a rethink - she and Cllr Arthur Davies were told to be quiet or leave the Chamber, despite their protestations over the fact that there would be no debate, Chief Executive Mark James, shamefully, decided to only allow the Executive Board Member, Cllr Pat Jones to speak - obviously in support of the Council's plans to close the centre. It was the most outragous display of council 'business' I have seen to date. This was why I was there and why I was filming - people need to know what is going on in that Chamber. That is also why they don't want anyone to record it either ... "

Goodness me, sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it, citizens of Broken Barnet - the attitude of open contempt for petitions, the blatant disregard for the process of consultation?

" I was asked to leave by the Chairman and Mark James, I said that I was not doing anything wrong, it is not against the law nor even in their standing orders (rules for meetings), neither was I disturbing the meeting in any shape or form. Mr James sarcastically asked whether I now had a good photo of him to put on my website. As I didn't leave, Mr James and the Chair called the police and then adjourned the meeting. Unlike my complaint of assault in the Public Gallery where the police took four days to take my statement and several more to speak to the chap concerned, it only took ten minutes today for two police cars and four police officers to appear in the Gallery. I tried to argue my point but was then arrested in the Public Gallery for 'breaching the peace'. I was taken outside the door, handcuffed, searched, my phone taken and marched out to the waiting police cars. I was then taken 30 miles to Llanelli police station where I remained handcuffed for another hour before being 'processed', and put in a cell for another two hours.

By this time I was very disorientated, worried about my young daughter who needed picking up from school, I was cold (the police had taken my jacket and shoes and socks) and distressed. Without a solicitor present, I was then threatened by three police officers who said that if I didn't sign an 'undertaking' not to film/record any more meetings I would be kept in overnight, I am not sure now whether they could even keep me that long. Earlier in the day I had been told that they was looking at the relevant legislation and were 'talking' to the council, it is now clear exactly what was discussed; 'she probably can't be charged with anything so tell her to sign and you'll let her go'. I am now asking my solicitor about the legality of this and regardless of the outcome I will not abide by something I was forced to sign. I will be back.

I was then, eventually, released. I can't quite believe what happened to me for trying to film a public meeting. "

Nor can I. Nor can the thousands of people all over the country who have expressed their outrage over this incident, as it have become publicised throughout the media, the blogosphere, twitter, and the press.

Would Camarthen County Council have picked on anyone but a woman blogger, a middle aged mother, who was only trying to use her phone to film bits of a flipping council meeting, involving her elected representatives, performing the duties with which they have been entrusted and are paid to undertake by the people to whom they are accountable? Did they think she was an easy target?

As for the police: what breach of the peace, exactly, had occurred? Why were they so attentive to the orders of the county council, with no evidence of any law breaking? Mrs Thompson had every right, as a citizen journalist, to attend this meeting and record it in this way. She was neither violent nor disruptive. This is an appalling incident, and I hope that the local police force is held to account for their actions.

Funny, isn't it? In Camarthenshire, you get arrested for openly filming elected councillors in a public meeting. Here in Barnet, the council uses casually employed, unlicensed, non CRB checked blackshirted bouncers to secretly film residents and bloggers at a council meeting, but no arrests are made, and the company carries on in business.

And, oh dear: I wonder if, somewhere in Broken Barnet, a little moustachioed senior council officer is rubbing his hands with glee, checking the number of the local police station, and looking forward to the next council meeting? (MetPro Audit Committee, Thursday 16th June, 6.30pm, Hendon Town Hall).

If so, he might like to remember that here in Broken Barnet, bloggers bite back. Mrs Angry is confident, in fact, that there isn't a police officer in the entire borough who doesn't quake in his boots at the thought of having to detain her for questioning ... well, pack your handcuffs, boys - and those fold up truncheons ... I'll come quietly.

Sorry.

What, other than using the rule of the jackboot to silence those who dare to challenge its county councillors, is Camarthenshire famous for, thinks Mrs Angry? Hmm. Dylan Thomas. You know, Fern Hill: 'Oh as I was young and easy, in the mercy of his means, Time held me green and dying, Though I sang in my chains, like the sea ...'

Respect to Caebrwyn, then: singing in her chains, and revealing the bullies of corporate Britain for what they are: town hall tyrants, lunatics masquerading as the patrons of localism: the enemies of democracy.

Broken Barnet's Secret Army

Do you think their mums had to sew the badges on for them?

Last updated 10.00 pm Weds. *see below

Repressive regimes all over the world survive by the use of intimidation. Very often these countries are little more than a police state, where citizens are bullied into obedient behaviour by force and denied any legal recognition of their human rights, including the right to engage freely in a democratic system of government. Of course, this could never happen here, could it?

Er, well, yes, it could, and it did, here in Barnet, at our Town Hall, just this evening. Except it wasn't the Metropolitan police who took control of the residents attending tonight's council meeting: it was Barnet Council's own private army of security men: muscle bound bouncers in black shirts, leathers, and an assortment of pseudomilitary uniforms.

As I left the Town Hall this evening I saw a senior council officer gather his staff together and congratulate them on a job well done. As he did so, his boss - (my personal seat warmer, as it happens) - was elbowing him to shut up, as his chum hadn't spotted Mrs Angry standing with cocked ear, listening with ill disguised fury. Passing the police officer in charge on the way out, Mrs Angry whispered naughtily in his ear to send Mrs Angry's compliments to his boss, who once graciously entertained her at his office in Colindale with an audience, and has been known to read this blog. If you are reading this, Mr S, I think you might want to ask some questions about some of the events described here.

Throughout the evening, the ordinary council officers and regular police officers that I observed showed a remarkable degree of forebearance and were perfectly well mannered, but the way in which security staff were used in tonight's meeting was nothing less than an abuse of power, and unneccessarily prevented many ordinary residents from exercising their rights to attend the meeting.

Worse still, it became apparent that at this event, the proper police advice was ignored by the council and overuled by their own security agents: in other words in Hendon Town Hall, a bunch of black shirted security men and their council bosses have precedence over the decisions of the attending police officer in charge. This is what happened.

I arrived at the Town Hall at ten past six: already there were dozens of police officers and security people milling about outside, and there was a rather odd sort of queue, as if people were waiting for a bus: this was the queue for the 45 places in the public gallery. Luckily I managed, one way or another, to get fairly close to the front of the queue. There was a news camera in the front, and BBC's Tim Donovan walked by. Eventually we were allowed in, in tiny groups of six at a time, past a bag checking process - (no, they didn't dare) - and up past lines of council officers, and more security, all the way up the stairs and into the council chamber.

I have never seen such a heavy, hysterically over the top security presence in such a situation. Obviously very few in the queue managed to get a seat in the public gallery, which immediately caused bad feeling, as several citizen journalists were denied their Pickles guaranteed access to the meeting, and so were union leaders who should be entitled to witness a meeting of such importance to their members. No one had been told to attend at six o'clock in order to have a shot at gaining a seat, of course.

Those who did not get into the gallery were pushed into an overflow room where they had to listen on loudspeakers, without any clue what was going on, or who was speaking, because, oh dear, we do not stream any live or recorded film of meetings in Barnet, do we? At one point the sound system broke down. Many people left, as they felt there was no point in being there. Others fell foul of the enormous security presence lining the corridor between the chamber and the overflow room. One resident at least is said to have been manhandled by the blackshirts: this is being investigated. Another said he had his camera confiscated. By what right?

The miserable budget 'debate' kicked off. Hillan repeated her usual stock phrases of meaningless easybarnet newspeak and doublethink: better services for less money, bla bla bla, painful for all of us bla bla bla live within our means bla bla bla new relationship with our residents: ha ha, that brought the house down, I can tell you.

Alison Moore for Labour pointed out that actually most of the budget cuts were politically targeted, and deliberate choices rather than aimed at protecting frontline services.

Jack Cohen, for the Libdems, noted that this Tory council has become the laughing stock of the nation, with spectacular waste and mismanagement, and for the contempt it showed for the public it was supposed to represent. 'Cynical though I am', he said, 'it is never quite enough to keep up with One Barnet'

Through out all the speeches, Brian Coleman slouched, as usual biting his nails, picking his nose, pursing his lips, or eyes ahead, hands clasped together in one of his 'I am a great statesman' poses. He wasn't on the best of form. Is because of his new interest in good manners in public life? Or perhaps he was feeling a little camera shy. He tried to pull off one of his set pieces, banging on about the world not coming to an end, but like any stand up performer, he is running short of material - and I've already seen his show on this Budget tour, so it's all too familiar. He talked about a subject on which he is an expert: rubbish. He informed us his rule of benevolent despotism will keep Barnet safe, green and clean. 'And mean' yelled a heckler. Our Brian claimed, apropos of something or other, that, contrary to popular opinion, he does have a life, and therefore does not waste it looking at 'certain websites'. He likes this one, though, don't you Brian?

Andrew Harper, oh Andrew Harper, yet again went on and on about himself and the size of his portfolio. Will you give it a rest, man? We've all seen bigger, and no one likes a show off. Some issues there, I feel. Maybe Model X is turning out to be a bit of a disappointment.

When we had arrived, to our amusement some large notices had been stuck on the infamous glass wall that protects the councillors from the seething mob of unwashed residents, and people from Hampstead Garden Suburb, telling us that THE PUBLIC MUST REMAIN SILENT AT ALL TIMES. Oh, how we laughed. The Mayor had explained to us at the beginning of the meeting that the debate we were there to see was taking place amongst the councillors, ah: I see ... no audience participation, no bags of sweets would be thrown into the audience, and Captain Hook/Brian Coleman would not be inviting us to come and sit on his knee (sorry - flashback to childhood trauma - panto at the Golders Green Hippodrome. Don't ask). As a special treat, however, Mr Mayor said at the end of speeches we were allowed to do a bit of clapping. Unfortunately, we got this a bit mixed up, and did a lot of jeering, booing, yelling, and only a bit of clapping, and in all the wrong places.

Those of us in the public gallery were of course filming and taking photos and tweeting away. Staff made feeble attempts to get us to stop, but were simply ignored and, able to follow what was happening with the others via twitter, we soon realised they were having a much worse experience than we were - but that's how it goes, friends, in easyBarnet: those in the cheap seats get one level of service, those of us in the elite section go first class. The rich man in his castle and all that. Sorry. We thought of you, though.

In fact, I became increasingly aware that one or two people had left the gallery and so some seats were free. We asked some council officers why those in the other room weren't being allowed in. No one knew. Time passed and our friends in the other room said via twitter that they weren't being allowed to come in. They were even having to ask one of the bouncers for permission to visit the loo.

The budget debate continued. Little Cllr Robert Ramsbottom wittered on about what a shame it was to cut arts funding. 'Don't do it then!' yelled fellow blogger Vicki (note to boy bloggers and Dave Hill: ahem - the gentlemen were stuck in the overflow room, whereas the fluffy headed ladies made it to the main event ...) Ms Morris put up a terrific show, shouting down Rams and pointing out the Big Society idiocy of cutting grants to voluntary bodies. The public gallery errupted in a torrent of thunderous applause, cheering, floor stamping. She was spoken to intimidatingly by a burly bouncer. She carried on. Police were called in, but had more sense than to do anything with someone who was not causing an offence. Another person in the gallery was spotted by a councillor filming and a security person tried to get him to stop. A council officer intervened, which was interesting: I suspect there is a divergence between council leadership's wishes and the common sense of the officers.

By now there were 17 seats available. We passed a note to some Labour councillors, and they immediately asked the Mayor to let people from the overflow room in. LET THEM IN! LET THEM IN! LET THEM IN! yelled the gallery, stamping their feet. Susette Palmer demanded they were let in too, and then the Mayor agreed, and a cheer arose. And then nothing happened.

The debate continued. We continued to get messages saying that our friends were being refused entry to the gallery. We started to yell this at the chamber. A blackshirt came and told me to stop or: or what? You can't do anything, I said. Yes I can. No, I replied: you can't. And no, he didn't.

The Mayor then stated to us that the police officer in charge of the security had advised no one else should be let into the public gallery.

I didn't believe this, and decided to find out what was going on. I slipped out and made my way along the corridor, which, like the landing, was packed with council officers, police and bouncers. One enormous security man demanded to know if I was perhaps going to the 'bathroom'. I said that I was intending to have a pee rather than take a bath and while this thought was slowly processed I managed to get down the corridor. I asked the police who was in charge and they pointed to a guy by the doors of the overflow room, being anxiously spoken to by a couple of residents. Is it true, I asked him, that you have forbidden anyone to go into the public gallery, even tough there were 17 spare seats? He said categorically that it was not, and very decently, and sensibly, said that I could go into the overflow room and choose 17 people to come in. Really?

So Mrs Angry, on the command of HM constabulary, nipped into the room and told them the good news. But who to choose? It was like being given a life boat on the Titanic, and being told you could rescue only 17 drowning passengers. 'So', I said, pointing my finger: 'Citizen Journalist and blogger Mr Reasonable: I choose you ...' and the Chair of a local voluntary body, and Alex Clayman, the FCH sixth form demo organiser and some other kids, and an assorted mixure of other residents,and they followed me back up the corridor to the chamber. When we got to the doors, we were stopped by security. I argued with some guy who said I could go back in, but not the others. Absolute pointblank refusal to listen to reason. Some have reported that they were stopped by senior officers too, although I didn't see that.

I think this was absolutely extraordinary. The sensible decision of the police inspector in charge of the security operation, intended to defuse any potential conflict, and at the same time safeguard the lawful right of the public to attend a council meeting, was over ruled by a private security company employed by the council as bouncers, and seemingly accountable to no one.

Who was in charge of these men? Was there any co-ordination between them, the council's senior officers and the police? If not, why not?

This is the company which supplied the blackshirts - take a look.

http://www.metprogroup.co.uk/home.php

Of course, despite the name, they are nothing to do with the Met, and I can't see what the pro was all about either. In my view, there should be an urgent enquiry by the bona fide authorities into the conduct of last night's debacle, and lessons learned about how to deal better with the need to balance security with the rights of ordinary citizens living in a democracy and wishing to exercise their lawful right to attend a council meeting.

The meeting this evening voted in a massive package of cuts which will have devastating effects on the daily lives of every residents of this borough. Tonight people came to see this voted through, and to protest. They also came to demonstrate their right to scrutinise council meetings in the way they see fit, by filming, tweeting, and with cameras. (will add links later this morning to the fim clips now available for your viewing pleasure). Here's one of our favourite councillor, and well done, Adam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsAmOAXArE

Re-reading this, this morning, I think I need to emphasise that in many ways, despite the inevitablity of the passing of the budget vote, last night was a triumph for the residents of the borough. Earlier in the day, Lynne Hillan took fright and spoke in the local press about the possibilty of live streaming of council meetings, and during the course of yesterday's meeting those in the public gallery unequivocally established their right to film, photograph and tweet the proceedings. Minister Grant Shapps yesterday tweeted his support of the right to do this, in fact. In short, last night was nothing less than yet another demonstration of the abject failure of Lynne Hillan's leadership. And how nice that her leadership has done more to unite the residents of this borough than any Big Society initiative could ever hope to.

Bur in the end, the evening turned out to be more about the fundamental right of residents simply to attend these meetings and to witness the proceedings without fear of intimidation or attempts to control their right of access. This evening, in short was an absolute disgrace and yet again Barnet has shown itself to be unable to understand the fundamental principles of democracy. Note to the senior managers of Barnet: if you cannot oversee a council meeting without preventing ordinary citizens from taking their places in a half empty public gallery, you may not consider that as a successfully organised event.

And now I am going to bed.

Oh, but, I can't go to bed without adding the funniest episode of the night: as we stood outside after the meeting, and after Mrs Angry winding up a poor policeman by mistaking the arrival of the Mayor's car for her own official limousine, and pretending to open up the door as if to get in, a group of Tory councillors slipped past us, looking furtive, but very pleased with themselves. Cllr Barry Evangeli was beaming with delight, lovingly cradling a tupperware box of cakes and biscuits liberated from the slap up buffet the dear councillors have laid on for them at these meetings. I'll bet he had to fight with Brian for it first though, don't you? Kind of sums them up, really, doesn't it?

* Weds 10.00 pm:

this post has had by far the highest number of hits of any I have written for this blog. I think people are genuinely horrified at the events of last night. And I am appalled to read the following remarks given in today's local Times group online paper by Barnet Tory Leader Lynne Hillan:

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8884511.Security__nothing_to_do_with_me__says_council_leader/

“I don’t think we were about to pick people up bodily and throw them out of the meeting unless we really had to.”

Unless we really had to.

I appeal to the ordinary Conservative councillors in Barnet to consider what happened last night, and these comments, and to ask yourself if you really want to be associated with this sort of remark, and this sort of behaviour. If you don't, I suggest you do something about it. Now.

Something for the weekend?

So. The greedy, shameless Tory councillors of Broken Barnet have got their sweaty little palms on even more of our money, whilst lecturing you, me and all the residents of this borough about the need for austerity and also preparing to slash council funding, services and jobs.

Lynne Hillan, the Leader of this band of brigands, has mysteriously and conveniently gone to ground, and left her Svengali, Brian Coleman, who is well practised in the art of insolent defiance, to deal with any fall out and awkward attention from the media.

Our gang of three local Tory MPs, Freer, Villiers* and Offord, yesterday stated their lack of support for their Tory colleagues' actions. As this response came nearly two days after the event, Mrs Angry fails to be convinced by the depth of their commitment to this position. She predicts that there will be no visible difference whatsoever in the chummy relations between parliamentary Tories and the local Tories, and no efforts made to ask them to reconsider their actions. * (Updated Monday - it seems that actually Mrs Villiers has made no comment on the issue, so one can only assume that she is in support of her colleagues' exorbitant pay rise.)

Government minister Grant Shapps was furious at the allowance hike and asked them to think again. Yeah right, pal. That's telling'em. Now let's see some real hard line response from the government and Conservative party, and action to deal with this renegade bunch, and then I might begin to have some belief in David Cameron's ability to run the country.

Someone suggested to me that the Tories in Barnet were threatening to be almost as much an embarrassment to Cameron's government as Derek Hatton's administration on Merseyside was to Labour in the days of Militant: time to assert your authority, I would suggest Dave, and any other Tory who cares about the reputation of your party. Are you up to it, though?

It's good to see that the Libdem councillor Jack Cohen has apparently reported the council to the Standards' Board, following allegations of deliberate delaying of the inclusion of Item 5.3, the now notorious allowance rise proposal, sneaked into the council meeting agenda at the last moment, allegedly due to 'IT' problems. This last minute inclusion conveniently prevented the usual consultation process with councillors and of course the public too.

This is how the democratic process works, you see, in our borough. During the meeting itself, as soon as the debate on the allowance had started, it was apparent that the Tories were terrified of allowing the discussion to continue: guess which enemy of free speech immediately yelled for a move to end all debate, seconded instantly by a colleague. End of discussion. This is how corrupt and repressive regimes function: fearful of debate, remorselessly intolerant of dissent. Their views are the only ones that are valid, and they will either bully you into agreeing with them, or silence you. This behaviour stinks of the type of political thuggery which my father's generation fought to prevent being imposed on this country: dictatorship, fascism, call it what you will, it is a betrayal of our fundamental rights and freedoms and must be challenged.

In the course of the council meeting on Tuesday, we sat and listened to Tory councillors sneering at the poor who live in council housing, the poor who are dependent on benefit claims. They have no aspirations, they complained. Not like them, desparately aspiring to comfortable life styles at our expense, you understand. They meant scroungers, of course: idle people claiming something for nothing, something they do not deserve.Because the majority of the Tories in Barnet are so intellectually challenged, and the rest of them don't give a shit anyway, no one mentioned the irony of their own frantic clawing after more tax payers money. Lynne Hillan moaned that she had to pay her bills, that she had too much work to do. Oh dear. My heart bleeds. Perhaps she might like to go and get a job, or maybe start another business? Well, perhaps not the latter, eh?

The truth is, Hillan, and your hard-done by colleagues, that being a local councillor is meant to be an act of service to the community, voluntary, with expenses and allowances paid in respect of this service. It is not a salaried position, and not intended to be. If you can't combine being a councillor with supporting yourself, don't stand for council. The tax payers of Barnet have elected you to represent their best interests, not as a favour in order to provide you with gainful employment. It may well be that many councillors actually are incapable of finding and following a position of gainful employment, or running a successful business: these are exactly the sort of people we should not be giving what is, as you claim, such a demanding responsibility, in fact.

At the eventful meeting on Tuesday, Councillor Kate Salinger was the only Tory on Barnet Council to show any integrity whatsoever: she abstained from the allowance rise vote. Even she dared not oppose it. She abstained, she said, in line with her conscience. As I mentioned in the earlier blog, The Tell-tale Heart, conscience, in my opinion, is fairly evidently not something which can be accommodated within the political life of the Tory administration in Barnet. Let us salute her courage and integrity, all the same, in the face of the frankly horrific bullying and intimidation that she received from her Tory colleagues as a result of her refusal to support their grasping pay rise.

What happened to her was vile, ugly, and sickening: an act akin to a public stoning, a ritual humiliation by a largely male group of bullies and tyrants, supposedly her colleagues. Only in the dark disturbed depths of Tory Barnet could you expect to find such pleasure taken in such an unnecessary procedure. One might expect such behaviour by the usual culprits in this administration, but what about the rest of them, the ones who said nothing, kept their heads down and voted with the proposal. What sort of cowards are they? The sort of people who turn aside when someone is scapegoated and bullied and are just as culpable as the bullies themselves.

There is a little known online paper called the London Daily News, which is supportive of Coleman and his gang - reporting the pay rise story it includes a particularly shabby reference to Councillor Salinger: take a look if you want to see how truly pathetic and ruthless this lot really are.

After the council meeting, Coleman tried to justify the treatment of Mrs Salinger as being for the purpose of 'discipline'. Of course discipline is something that he feels should be applied to everyone except himself, and self discipline, the curtailing of one's own self indulgences, is a concept with which he is markedly unfamiliar. The need, for example, to forego an increase in his allowances at a time of hardship for so many. The need to follow the policy of his own party and forego an increase in his allowances in line with government policy, even. Let's hope that senior Tory party members feel moved to sanction their own form of discipline on Mr Coleman, Ms Hillan and their shabby Barnet colleagues. Alternatively, Mrs Angry would be willing to bestow some corrective discipline on Mr Coleman on behalf of the electors of Barnet, if duty called: as Churchill said - give me the tools, and I will do the job - but I'm not entirely confident it would be gratefully received.

In the report submitted to council in defence of the pay rise, scrabbling around for some desperate justification, there was mention of the increased workload due to email correspondance to councillors from residents. Of course this failed to take into consideration the fact that it is a damn sight quicker and easier to correspond by email than by post, telephone or in person. I think perhaps a lot of residents are unaware that they can correspond with their elected representatives in this way. I know that many disgusted and angry voters of this borough may have views on this weeks's events which they might wish to convey to their Tory councillors. You may also feel moved to send a message of support to Mrs Salinger.

This weekend, then, if you feel you would like to make your councillors earn some of their new pay allowances, I suggest you do just that: tell them politely, and succintly, how you feel: their email addresses are easily obtainable from the Barnet website, as are the details of all councillor surgeries, should you wish to visit your councillor in person.

Let's remind the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet that they are the elected representatives of the residents of this borough, that they are the servants of the electorate, and not their masters, and that they are ultimately accountable to us, if not to their own consciences.