Brian Coleman: the end of the line - a trial in Metroland

Please stop playing games and talking in code ... enough is enough

 

*Updated 7th May, with an open letter to Tory leader Richard Cornelius - see below

Uxbridge might have seemed an odd choice of location for the trial of Brian Coleman. 

Miles from Barnet, difficult to get to ... no, that in fact seems to be why it was chosen: his reputation is such that a local trial, without prejudice, might be impossible, and it may have been thought that holding it in such a place would deter people from attending. 

In fact, at the original hearing,  it was reported that he appeared to be shocked to find so many local residents had made the effort to come, and the trial itself was of course attended by dozens of people keen to watch or report the proceedings - from Broken Barnet, of course, but also from much further afield. 

Mrs Angry and the Barnet Bugle arrived at Uxbridge via the underground, or rather the overground section of the Metropolitan Line. Ah, mused Mrs Angry, as we passed though the suburban sprawl of Middlesex, gleaming in the spring sunshine, some late blossom only just breaking on the cherry trees: Metroland ... 

Suddenly the venue for Coleman's trial seemed rather fitting - in so many ways a character out of time, old before his time, living in another age of faded, mothballed municipal glory, a world of  petty bourgeois respectability, an  age of deference and tea shops, vicars' daughters and bicycles, golf clubs and whist drives, a world that never really existed, except in the aspirations of the lower middle classes  ...

Gaily into Ruislip Gardens
Runs the red electric train,
With a thousand Ta’s and Pardon’s
Daintily alights Elaine ...

But what dark deeds lie under the carapace of respectability covering such apparent suburban idyll, readers?

Uxbridge is on the outer edges of Metroland, the end of the line. Famous for nothing much, except as the birthplace of Christine Keeler, whose dalliance with Profumo at nearby Cliveden caused the downfall of Harold MacMillan's government, and oh yes, as Mrs Angry discovered, the old Magistrate's Court had been the place where a certain Mr Christie, of 10 Rillington Place, had twice appeared on trial for various motoring offences, before the commencement of his killing spree in Notting Hill. 

At the new magistrate's court yesterday, another trial was listed: Councillor Brian Coleman faced two charges, one of common assault by beating of Finchley cafe owner Helen Michael, and another allegation of a motoring offence relating to the same incident . He had previously appeared in the same court to deny both charges.
 
Mrs Angry and the Barnet Bugle turned up just as the court opened, first to arrive other than a group of cameramen and photographers waiting to catch Councillor Coleman's appearance.

We gave our details, and were given details of the case, Judge Deborah Wright, counsel for the prosecution Manjit Mahal, for the defence, Neville Rudston. 

Coleman arrives at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court with his solicitor

Brian Coleman turned the corner to the court room, saw Mrs Angry sitting waiting there, right next to the door, and appeared rather annoyed to see her, which was most amusing. 

He swept by, muttering something unintelligible, into an interview room with his legal representatives.

In court, a retinue of Barnet bloggers, and reporters from the local and national press sat in the designated seats, which were very few. In the High Court, in both cases recently attended by Mrs Angry, after sending in a card and asking permission there was no problem about sitting in court, or tweeting, or indeed in the facilities for the public. In this small town court, it was very different: Mrs Angry left the well of the court twice, once voluntarily when a young local reporter, turning up late, had a tantrum and wanted her seat, second time after Brian Coleman, via his counsel,  made the usher publicly eject her: on asking why, he said there had been 'a complaint'. 

From whom, demanded Mrs Angry, across the court ... ? The usher pointed at Coleman's solicitor. Mrs Angry laughed. Typical Coleman, more worried about the proximity of his old adversary, than the fact he was about to stand in the dock accused of beating a woman in the street.

The public gallery was sealed off from the court by a glass screen, giving the impression of a large number of badly organised and rather eccentric mafiosi sent to trial for money laundering, or perhaps, bearing in mind we were in Uxbridge, circa 1932,  failing to return some slightly overdue library books. 

There was no amplified sound, and little care given to the need to make the proceedings accessible, or audible. Justice, in Uxbridge, may be seen to be done, but not heard.

For Mrs Angry, who has imperfect hearing, it was something of an ordeal, but did not entirely detract from the degree of satisfaction felt at sitting behind Brian Coleman in the dock, and noting the whole of the wooden edifice which contained him, in his moment of shame, was almost completely covered in a display of scratched and semi-literate graffiti, mostly initials, but rather stupidly, in some cases, full names and dates, left by previous defendants: NEV ... DALE ... T.B. ... 

Mrs Angry checked as we left the room later that day: there appeared to be no BC 3/05/2013. But above the judge, the court's emblem loomed large, and reminded us of the principles of British justice: Honi Soit, Qui Mal Y Pense, and Dieu et Mon Droit. The hearing began.

Coleman stood in the dock and gave his name and date of birth. He declined, however, to give his address. The reasons for this were not given in any detail. Mrs Angry imagined that he was worried about queues of admiring residents wishing to call round and visit him with bouquets of flowers, boxes of chocolates, and fulsome expressions of grateful thanks for all his stirling efforts on their behalf, over the years. 

The judge was not impressed by the defendant's wish to guard his privacy however, and ordered him to give the details - in Essex Park, Finchley, where, despite his formerly handsomely paid posts paid for by the public purse - his income was around £130,000 per year - he has lived for many years in a charity owned flat, at a fixed rate rent.

There were some long and mysterious adjournments before the case began properly, during the course of which it became apparent that some discussions were taking place between both the defendant's and the complainant's team. The result was that at the last moment, Coleman decided to change his plea to guilty on the the charge of common assault by beating, and the motoring charge was dropped. 

It was a highly significant admission, of course.

The website for Coleman's barrister, Neville Rudston, informs us:

"He is an experienced criminal barrister who has represented clients in matters including murder, rape and other serious sexual offences, kidnap, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent, armed robbery, serious fraud and the commercial supply of class A drugs".

It also says: 

"He has appeared in matters in the Court of Appeal and the High Court and has successfully availed clients of a wide variety of defences including duress, necessity and abuse of process, often in the face of apparently overwhelming evidence ..."

Interesting, in this context, perhaps, that our Councillor Coleman was encouraged by the same counsel to plead guilty to the charge of assault. But guilty is what he stated himself to be, in the dock of Uxbridge Magistrates' Court.

After the plea, we were told the facts of the case: that he had parked illegally in a loading bay in the high street in North Finchley - an area where even today, a disproportionate number of traffic wardens prowl looking for hapless residents who have tried to visit their local shops and may have made some error in paying for the privilege of parking. 

There is the largest contingency of traffic wardens in the borough here, concentrated for some reason particularly outside Cafe Buzz, run by anti parking policy campaigner Helen Michael.
 
And for some reason, on the 20th September, Brian Coleman decided to ignore the parking restrictions in North Finchley, which apply to everyone but him, and to park where he wanted, in a loading bay outside the HSBC bank while he visited the cash machine, just along the road. Why this bank, next door to Cafe Buzz, rather than any other bank in Broken Barnet, we do not know.

He was visiting the bank, he claimed, because a young man named Tom had been doing some 'odd jobs' for him, and Tom needed paying in cash.

Helen Michael, the owner of Cafe Buzz,  had appeared with her phone, and proceeded to film or photograph him. He had grabbed her arm and her breast, in order to prevent her from doing so, and returned to his car. He had eventually reported voluntarily to Barnet Police Station, an hour after the incident, and the next day, under questioning, had been shown stills of the CCTV which had recorded the incident, which clearly showed Coleman lunging towards Ms Michael. 

Coleman had kept changing his version of events, and when asked about how the injuries to her wrist and the scratches she had had been sustained, could not explain it. An officer had pointed out that Councillor Coleman had long nails. He denied any allegations but today had changed his plea. The prosecution wanted costs, compensation, and a discussion over a potential restraining order.

Coleman referred to 'a campaign of harrassment' and his counsel pointed out that he was of 'previous good character' - the incident had happened in a moment of 'anguish', following 'a lengthy campaign'.  He had now studied the CCTV footage and could add very little. It had been 'a very fast moving event'. Your analysis, it was suggested, was as good as his.

Mmm.

The court now watched footage from the CCTV recording. 



Although seen from a distance, the film was compelling viewing. We all sat in silence, watching the figure of Brian Coleman approach the cash machine, Helen Michael come out of her cafe and film him from a distance, and then, the lunge he made at her, at some speed, and the prolonged tussle, or rather attack, which ensued. People in the public gallery gasped. Monster! yelled one woman. It was truly a shocking sight. 

Mrs Angry reflected on yet another curious example of the peculiar energy which runs through this part of Broken Barnet, along the suburban High Road that once led people to Finchley Common, a notorious area where ruthless highwaymen laid in wait and innocent travellers went in fear of their lives. Centuries later, this territory is still a place of danger, an interface of conflict, a gaping faultline where it all falls apart, sooner or later.

In mitigation, it was stated that Coleman was of previously good character. This was met with some derision from the public gallery. He had devoted his life, we were told, to public service. You can imagine the reaction to that.

'Do I gather', asked the judge drily, 'that the people in the public gallery are not supporters?'

There was, as you might expect, a certain amount of enthusiastic response to that suggestion.

Coleman's counsel continued his attempt at mitigation. The incident had taken place on 'a street where he knows he is hated'. There had been a campaign directed at him: some of done 'very very improperly'. Mrs Angry dabbed at her eyes with a tissue, deeply moved.

Mention was made of all Coleman's former positions on the GLA, fire authority, etc etc. He looked on from the dock, bristling with self importance, not realising that it appeared all the more awful that someone who had been entrusted with such responsibilities had behaved in such a manner. In fact the most telling act of the day was this: he abruptly interrupted his own counsel to interject an ill timed reminder that he had forgotten to say he had been Mayor of Barnet. 

In Coleman's pathetic distortion of suburban values, rooted in a past that never was, with authority bestowed by a chain of office, and all the pantomime of municipal ceremony, this achievement above all else is the one whose memory he treasures, representing something to him we can only guess at: a vindication, a mark of status in his home territory: an acceptance by an establishment only he feels the need from which to demand endorsement. This world he lives in no longer exists, if it ever did, and travelling back into the heart of Metroland to find justice proved to be a fool's errand.

Apart from trying to blame his violent assault on a campaign directed on him, Coleman tried once more to claim that his octogenarian mother had as a result been the victim of an unspecified assault as a result: this claim is one he has trotted out before, in different circumstances, in a defamatory post on his ludiocrous blog, in which he blamed local bloggers for 'bizarre activities' including an attack in the street on his then 88 year old mother. 

We were invited then to feel sorry for his misfortunes: losing his seat on the Assembly, being now on ' a very limited income', personal difficulties for which the complainant, ie Ms Michael, claimed the credit. 

Mrs Angry was again moved to tears, especially when we were asked to imagine the anguish felt by the defendant, after months of stress, which had driven him to act 'instinctively' in his attack, and now, we were told, many people were going to go away and celebrate his moment of shame - not something most people have to bear. Oh dear, thought Mrs Angry, suddenly overcome with remorse. 

Alright, no: not so much remorse, in fact, as the knowledge of justice done, immense satisfaction,  a feeling of righteousness, and a sense of triumph, the triumph of virtue, at last, here in Broken Barnet.

Judge Wright gave her summing up. It was fair, balanced, and well measured. She stated that in her view, the motive for Coleman's assault was 'to avoid the embarrassment of the publicity of his visit and the parking arrangements he made that day'. As a result of the attack, 'Ms Michael sustained a number of injuries, including scratches to her hands and wrist, soreness to the wrist, her shoulder and in the region of her chest'.

Coleman was fined a total of around £1400, including costs, and compensation to Helen Michael. His counsel asked for 28 days in which the sum should be paid. Coleman was said to earn only around £200 a week, the basis for his fine.

As we left the court, Coleman rushed out, and a member of the public yelled something about his now being a convicted criminal. Helen stood and took questions from the media. She said she was delighted that justice had been served, that Coleman's career was effectively finished, and that 'he had picked on the wrong woman this time'. 

Smiles all round: Helen Michael speaks to BBC London

The experience leading up to the trial had been, she commented ruefully, 'an interesting journey'. She thought that his lying and bullying behaviour meant he was not fit for public office, and that he had 'a problem with women', that people had come to the court that day because they felt he had abused them too.

Outside the court, reporters and cameras crews were waiting for Helen to emerge. She gave interviews to the BBC and ITN, and was her usual articulate, intelligent, courageous self, as you can see from the footage above - which includes a contribution outside court from a woman also known as Mrs Angry. 

Mrs Angry's alter ego, Theresa Musgrove, interviewed by ITN

Immediately after the incident had happened last September, Mrs Angry went to see Helen. She was sitting in her cafe, clearly suffering the after effects of shock: pale, shaking, and simply stunned by what had happened, as indeed were we all. On her arm the marks of her attack were clearly visible.  

Helen Michael is a small woman, of very slight build, and no match for the brute force of a man intent on assaulting her: physically, that is. But she was determined to see Coleman brought to justice, and the police response was instant, and highly supportive. While we were at the cafe news came that he had been arrested, and then detained in a police station: he spent that night in the cells, the thought of which brought no little satisfaction to many of us here, in Broken Barnet.

The months leading up to this trial have put Helen under an almost intolerable burden of stress and anxiety. Apart from struggling to keep her business afloat in the aftermath of Brian Coleman's disastrous parking policy in action, she has been the victim of an horrendous assault, been subjected to a lengthy process leading up to the prosecution, and then an appearance in court. Her powers of endurance, and determination to see justice done, have been outstanding: she is truly a remarkable woman: bright, positive, hard working, full of energy - and very funny. She is also extremely brave.

Throughout this period she has also had to come to terms with the serious illness of her mother, who is now gravely ill, and indeed in the last week Helen has been spending much of her time at the local hospice where her mother is being cared for. She is donating the compensation awarded by the judge from Coleman to the Marie Curie Nurses Fund.

After the assault of Helen Michael took place, Coleman's fellow Tories in Barnet closed ranks, and refused to condemn his actions. Leader Richard Cornelius stood by him, saying he liked Brian, and anyway he was innocent until proven guilty, and that to comment further might prejudice his trial. Quite incredibly, the local Conservative Association did not suspend Coleman, and it was left to the intervention and insistence of the central party to force such a move.

Before the trial, it was clear that misinformation was being spread about the incident. Barnet Tory councillors believed that Ms Michael had in some way set up the assault, that Coleman was the victim of a conspiracy: a story in the Evening Standard here included a suggestion from 'friends of Coleman' that Helen had left him 'scratched and bleeding'. 

Even as late as the morning of the trial, a local reporter told Mrs Angry, shrugging, that Coleman would get off, that he had been told the incident was 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'. That all this was a complete lie was clearly demonstrated in court when the footage of the attack was shown.

What happened was that a woman was attacked and beaten in the street, in full view of witnesses, and a CCTV camera, by a man raging with fury that anyone would dare to hold him to account for his hypocrisy in flouting the injust rules which he had imposed on others.  

Since the conviction, no Tory councillor has commented on the matter. 

Barnet Council has stated there is no need for comment as  Coleman was not on council business when the assault took place.

The silence from both local Conservatives and the local authority is simply indefensible.

A proven act of violence against a woman is being ignored, and dismissed as of no consequence. 

Such an act by any man against a woman is always unacceptable, but when it is made by an elected representative of the community, one who boasts of his long record in public office, and indeed is still here, in this community, a councillor and actively involved in various local bodies, this is even more abhorrant. 

A councillor's behaviour when not on council business most certainly is a matter for the local authority and for the local Tory party to which he belonged, particularly in these shameful circumstances. 

To say otherwise sends a clear message that an assault of this nature is trivial, and that the violent abuse of women is of no consequence - this is clearly utterly unacceptable.

There is a deep rooted misogyny within the heart of Barnet Tories: the party here is dominated, as we have often commented, by a culture that is exclusive of women, marked by an absence of female councillors other than those who are dutiful wives of other councillors, or unthreatening in their submission to the culture of bullying which permeates their group. 

Remember the night in 2010, when Councillor Kate Salinger, the only Tory who dared abstain from supporting the vote for an enormous rise in their allowances, was forced to watch as her colleagues, instructed by the whip Brian Coleman, immediately and publicly remove her, one by one, from every council post she held? Afterwards, Coleman commented smugly to the press as she left the town hall in tears: that's discipline for you.

Remember the other night in the Town Hall, where Brian Coleman, in a speech ranting in support of the One Barnet programme, which weeks later he admitted was a total disaster, abused women in the public gallery, including Mrs Angry, calling them 'sad, mad, and a couple of old hags'? His Tory colleagues laughed, and the Mayor refused to force him to apologise. 

The fear and loathing of women felt by Coleman and his colleagues is a demonstration of their own personal inadequacies, and aggravated by one unpalatable truth: the most effective opposition to their reign of tyranny and incompetence has been instigated and galvanised by women. We have been their undoing: not by any other means other than outwitting them, and holding up a mirror to their ugly, threatening faces. The mirror has cracked, from side to side, and Broken Barnet lies in pieces.

Brian Coleman is the true face, the animus of the Tory party in Barnet, and his repellant behaviour is the nothing less than the active representation of their collective psyche. 

Coleman has disgraced himself, his office, and his party. 

He has been exposed as a liar, and a bully, and he has no place in politics, or public life. But he is the past, and now we look to the future, and to the battle to cleanse this borough of the Tory administration which made him, supported him, and continues to support his policies and his attitudes: continues to demonstrate nothing but contempt for the people who elected them, and an absolute refusal to listen to their views, or to engage in the democratic process.

The assault of Helen Michael: the grotesque struggle and assault which took place is an apt analogy of the struggle between the will of the people of this borough and the Tory administration which seeks to keep us in check.

We will not be kept in check, and we will fight back, and we are fighting back, through the processes of justice, until we regain our freedom, and control over our own future.

Updated: Monday 7th May

An open letter to Richard Cornelius, Conservative leader of Barnet Council.

On Friday 3 May Councillor Brian Coleman pleaded guilty to the charge of common assault by beating of Helen Michael, in the High Road in North Finchley. Evidence from CCTV was shown in court and proved incontrovertibly that this incident was nothing less than an utterly indefensible act of aggression. It resulted from Councillor Coleman being caught parking in a loading bay, trying to evade the hugely controversial parking payment scheme he had imposed on residents in this borough.

Despite the fact that he has now been convicted of a criminal act of assault, Barnet Council has refused to comment, absurdly claiming that this is unnecessary as the attack did not take place while the Councillor was on council business.

Indeed local Tory members, including leader Richard Cornelius, openly continued to support their fellow member after he was charged, and were privately informing others that the story of the assault was false.Councillor Coleman was suspended from the party only after intervention from Conservative Central Office. Since the conviction, local Conservatives have issued no statement.

By his own actions Councillor Coleman has shown himself to be unfit for public office: such bullying behaviour, dishonesty and hypocrisy are not acceptable in an elected representative of the community. We demand therefore that he stand down from his seat in Totteridge, and that the Conservative Party expel him from membership.

We call on Richard Cornelius, as leader of Barnet Council, and on behalf of the Conservative Party in this borough, to apologise to Ms Michael, and to dissociate himself and his colleagues from this appalling incident. 

To remain silent is not an option: to remain silent is to condone an act of violence against a woman, and this was and must always be absolutely unacceptable.

Signed:

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Broken Barnet: an interview with the thought police

Not 1984: 2012: Boris and Talk London in Barnet, in January, watched over by big brother Chair Brian Coleman.

At this event the strength of opposition exhibited by the audience to Coleman's parking scheme led Mayor Boris to express his support for Helen Michael. The event was held, ironically, at the police Peel Centre.

People often ask why Barnet has produced such an intensely active blogosphere.

At the Netroots conference the other day, trying to explain this, I joked about what you might describe as 'the foetid atmosphere of a London borough run by a lunatic collection of mutant, dim witted neo Thatcherite Tories ... '

I also joked that I should have been more forthright in my description. Of course I had forgotten to add the other unique characteristic of this council's form of government: the remarkable tendency to shameless, soviet style repression of the freedom of expression, the defence of free and open debate, the right to challenge and hold to account the often outrageously undemocratic decisions and policies of our elected representatives.

You may recall that last year blogger Mr Mustard was the victim of a frankly deranged attempt by Barnet to have him prosecuted under the pretext of the Data Protection Act, in a desperate move to try to shut down a vociferous critic of council incompetence.

Think back even further to the MetPro scandal, and the use of illegally operating, unlicensed black shirted bouncers to bar residents from a council meeting and illicitly film me and others present with hidden cameras.

Remember the intimidatory Big Brother posters that appeared at council offices on the day of strike action?

Consider all the many, many examples of the refusal to answer Freedom of Information requests, or to publish open data which should already be in the public domain, remember the questions over conflicts of interest, and the declaration of interests by senior officers and members alike.

Look at the blatantly manipulative amendments to the consitution aimed at shutting down the process of engagement with residents and non executive members, the censoring of residents forums, the abolition of scrutiny committees, the cynical planting of One Barnet friendly 'ideas' on Barnet 'consultation' websites.

Ask yourselves this: is this how a democratically elected administration is supposed to behave?

Is this localism in action, Eric?

And now, just when you think things can't get any worse, and the recent downfall of Brian Coleman had marked the emergence of a new era, and a new direction for the future of Broken Barnet, look what is happening.

As reported in earlier posts, one of the leading activists in the campaign which was largely responsible for the defeat of Coleman in the GLA election is Helen Michael, the cafe owner from North Finchley who refused to stand by and see her business, and so many others in the area, face ruin as a direct result of the idiotic parking rules introduced by Coleman.

All around the borough, within a week or so of the new rules and charges being introduced, high street traders were reporting up to 40% loss in business. The clear evidence of the catastrophic impact on local businesses was ignored by Coleman, and ignored by the leader of Barnet, Richard Cornelius, and ignored by all the Tory backbenchers. Cornelius and all his Tory colleagues knew perfectly well that the scheme was a disaster, but chose to remain silent.

Why?

Because they are all a bunch of snivelling, hypocritical cowards, with not a backbone amongst them. They said nothing, but waited until after Coleman's defeat, accomplished by a determined campaign of opposition led by the blogosphere, local traders, and residents' groups.

celebrating the election of Andrew Dismore AM - and the defeat of Brian Coleman

Only then did they - oh, and our local Tory MPS - begin to fall over themselves with a sudden desperate need to convince us that they had always really been against the parking scheme, you know. Leader Cornelius even apologised in a local paper - he was sorry. Sorry!

After Coleman's political demise and two humiliating by election defeats, the parking scheme has been effectively abandoned and will be reviewed. And at what cost? How many businesses, in the meanwhile, have gone under? Will the damage to our high streets ever be undone? Can it be undone?

If it were not for the courage, resilience and determination of Helen Michael, the campaign against the parking madness would never have been won. Tory leader Cornelius was so impressed by her he even had the gall to invite her to stand as a Tory councillor. Guess what, she refused - even though she was a former Tory voter.

Helen had, as part of her efforts to oppose the parking scheme, created, published and distributed a poster directly linking Coleman to the damage to high street trade. It was a hugely popular poster, for obvious reasons, with traders and residents alike, all of whom were badly affected by the impact of the scheme, both financially, and in terms of restricted accessability.

pic courtesy Times Series Helen & the poster:

please note - if the thought police object to the publication of the publication of this poster, do let Mrs Angry and the local press know & we will censor it immediately ... oh and you might want a word with a few hundred traders for the same reason

She was visited by the police in Cafe Buzz, apparently after a complaint from the council, who pointed out politely that the only thing wrong with it was that she had failed to put her details as publisher on the poster as required by law. She immediately agreed to amend the poster, and did so.

The police told her that there would be no further action.

And there was no further action. Until now.

On the night before the election, residents in Finchley and elsewhere in the borough, as well as elsewhere in the capital, reported seeing an organised team of flyposters arriving in the streets and plastering bus stops and empty shop windows with Back Boris posters. It would appear that this co ordinated event, in apparent breach of the law, has not been investigated by the police.

During the Brunswick Park election, the local tory party issued a series of leaflets with some very creative and interesting claims. One of these reported that they had successfully won the retraction of parking charges for the area's previously free car parks. This was in breach of the purdah rules that regulate the conduct of elections. When the Labour agent complained, the CEO of Barnet, Nick Walkley was obliged to admit this was a breach, but merely asked the Tories to 'withdraw the leaflet'. It would appear that no further action has resulted from this, either.

A question for you, Mr Walkley: why is Ms Michael being investigated, and no action taken in regard to the other two cases?

Because out of the blue last week - and blue does seem to be the appropriate colour -Helen Michael was contacted by police and told that she would be obliged to attend a local police station for an interview in regard to the Coleman poster.

She was asked for her 'co operation' - failure to show such 'co operation', one imagines, might have led to her being arrested. Taking legal advice, she sent a statement to the DPP, putting her version of the matter.

Yesterday Helen spent two hours at Barnet Police Station, not arrested, but under caution, being interviewed - a recorded interview - by two detectives from what she was told is Scotland Yard's 'Special Investigation Unit' - whatever that means.

There is a Specialist Operations branch which deals with various security issues, including counter terrorism, but one would imagine that only a complete idiot would think it likely that a cafe owner from North Finchley worried about the drop in sales of her tuna mayo baguettes was a threat to national security, or even the security of a tedious minor local politician - or indeed think it a justifiable use of public resources, especially at a time of such need for counter terrorist scrutiny in the preparation for the Olympic Games.

Even without this unprecedented time of security, which already is causing an enormous strain on the capability and resources of the Met police in London - with the level of criminal activity in this borough, in our city, can we really afford the time, money and energy to interrogate a woman over a months old poster relating to a local parking scheme?

Mrs Angry has seen a transcript of some of the questions asked at this interview, and frankly the nature of these questions is just incredible: not technical questions, but in a deeply worrying line of exploration, actually probing the thought processes behind the production of the poster.

What were the reasons behind the poster?

Were these her own ideas?

Was it just the local traders who were involved in the production of the poster?

Was there any political input or intention in production of the poster?

Helen believes that the official instigator of the complaint is the council. If so, then this is simply outrageous: another example of the dysfunctional, Orwellian mind set of the deluded Tory administration and its senior management - a sign of the desperate, blatant need they have to control not only what we do, but how we think, and what we say.

And what possible justification there can be for police intervention into the thoughts and opinions of ordinary residents, who are, after all, doing nothing but acting within their democratic right to freedom of expression, and attempting to exert some sort of control over a disaffected council elected to represent their interests, but clearly acting with every intention of serving their own self interests, and the interests of a wider commercial sector, encircling this borough, and waiting to grab any opportunity for profit at our expense.

But then of course: how could we forget?

This is not a local community, empowered by the principles of localism: transparency, scrutiny, and accountability, the natural home of the Tory values of liberty, freedom and choice, but the inversion of everything that those qualities represent, the ultimate suburban dystopia, where thinking and speaking out against injustice is subversive and dangerous, and must be controlled.

This is Broken Barnet.

Exclusive: new poster prosecution threat to Finchley parking campaigner

Yes: believe it or not, Mrs Angry has heard that Helen Michael, the courageous Finchley trader and leading activist in the fight against the disastrous Barnet parking scheme, has again been threatened with action over the poster she published regarding the instigator of this scheme, our tedious former Assembly member and Cabinet member, Councillor Brian Coleman.

Helen, who runs Cafe Buzz in North Finchley, produced the poster, and distributed it in the area to other shops and businesses, who displayed it in protest at the new parking rules and charges that Coleman insisted on imposing on the residents of this borough, and refused to retract, despite the devastating consequences for traders and residents alike.

Ms Michael was visited by the police soon after the poster appeared, and was asked to amend them so that they were compliant with the requirement to give details of the publisher. She did so immediately, and the police told her there would be no further action.

Why then, we must ask, was she visited again this week by the police who informed her that they want her to attend an interview in regard to the poster. An allegation has been made, but they refuse to tell her the identity of the complainant. She has been told that they intend to proceed 'with your co operation, if possible'. The implication, one must suppose, is that if she does not 'co operate' she may be arrested.

After taking legal advice, she has responded by sending a statement to them, and requesting them to send it to the DPP. This would appear not to have been done.

This new and anonymous complaint about the poster, after the police had already informed Helen that there would no further action, is very interesting, isn't it? One wonders who on earth would make such a complaint? And why?

Clearly pressure has been exerted on the police for them to take up the issue again, after being satisfied previously that there was no problem with the poster. Indeed, the fact that they informed Ms Michael as much itself was reason to continue with the distribution and it might be argued that they are therefore responsible for this situation. One expects the police to be rather better informed than a resident on the legalities of such matters.

Mrs Angry has been told this morning by a local police representative that there have been no prosecutions for flyposting in Barnet in recent years, and that it is anyway the role of the council to prosecute. In which case, why is valuable police time being engaged in the pursuance of an allegation in relation to this poster, an allegation whose origin they refuse to disclose, when this borough is fraught with a record number of burglaries and robberies and no doubt other even more serious criminal activities?

Is the complaint about fly posting, in which case is the council, whose responsibility it is, going to prosecute the Mayor of London for the Boris posters splattered all over local bus stops and shop windows by highly organised teams the night before the election? Or is it about alleged inaccuracies in the poster - in which case, when will the council be prosecuting the local Tory party over the leaflet distributed in Brunswick Park making claims about the parking issue, in a period of purdah?

Does the complaint come not from the council but from the subject of the poster? If so, what offence is Ms Michael alleged to have committed? And why is it being investigated now, rather than when the poster was on display throughout the borough? Would that not anyway be a private, civil matter, rather than a matter for the police?

Now that Councillor Coleman has been so roundly trounced in the GLA election, lost his post as Chair of the Fire authority and has faced the further humiliation of losing his position of power in Barnet, the snivelling, cowardly Tories who dared not speak out against his policies previously, are now falling over themselves to declare that they always really opposed these dreadful proposals. Luckily they were not obliged to do anything about it, as the Barnet bloggers, activists, and enfuriated residents did it for them.

Wouldn't it be nice to see these Tories now rushing to the defence of Helen Michael, who has done more than anyone to fight the catastrophic parking scheme, while they all sat on their hands and did nothing?

Only in Broken Barnet would a woman who showed such courage and determination in standing up for what was right, and opposing a man who was so clearly wrong, now be subjected to petty bullying over what - a f*cking poster.

Mrs Angry hopes that everyone who opposes the parking madness will support Helen, and continue to resist the thuggish tactics of this administration's obsession with silencing all dissension or quashing any resistence to its dangerously lunatic policies.

By the rivers of Babylon, sit down and weep: the background to the Coleman hearing

On Monday morning, Tory councillor Brian Coleman will attend a meeting of Barnet Council's Standards sub committee, which will consider the findings of a report into two complaints by local residents Dr Charlotte Jago, and Mr Ron Cohen, relating to remarks made in emails sent to them by the member last year.

The investigator has found that, in his view, Coleman has breached two separate paragraphs of the code of conduct for members, in both cases for failing to share respect, and also for bringing his office or authority into disrepute.

Mrs Angry reported on Wednesday that she has been sent information suggesting that, at the request of certain parties, an invitation has been sent to some protestors to lobby the hearing in an attempt to 'take on' what the organiser has provocatively and insultingly labelled 'the Forces of Darkness', that is to say the complainants, one of whom is Jewish, and an Israeli.

Mrs Angry has forwarded this information to the council, because in her view, such agitation is clearly meant to intimidate the complainants, and possibly the members of the committee, and smear the reputation of the complainants. Worse still, it is an attempt to divert attention from the real issue, which is not a matter of debate over the issue of the state of Israel, or the policies of its government, but an issue of the behaviour of an elected representative of this council.

Let's take a closer look at the report, and what it has to say about the impact of this behaviour on the individuals concerned.

The background to this story is that more than a year ago, four residents wrote to Councillor Coleman in regard to the involvement of a company, Veolia, with a tender process run by the North London Waste Authority. Coleman is one of our representatives on the NLWA. The residents objected to Veolia being accepted as a bidder in this process on a basis of what they see as the unethical status of the company, which has been associated with transport ventures in occupied territories in Israel.

At the beginning of the report, the investigator, Keith Stevens, makes the following statement:

"I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate as part of the whole local authority standards process for value judgements on political, religious or other controversies around the world to be made as part of that process."

What is the issue in this case is not the wider political context, but whether or not Councillor Brian Coleman has breached the code of conduct for members. As it happens, the complainants themselves have happily discussed the subject of their original complaint, so as to refute the remarks made in the emails that have caused such offence.

Four complaints were considered by the investigator, and two, those of Dr Charlotte Jago and Mr Ron Cohen, have been forwarded to this hearing for consideration, but the subject matter of all emails, the contents of which have not been challenged by the respondant, are discussed by the investigator, and help to explain the context of the complaints by Dr Jago and Mr Cohen.

In all cases, the investigator describes the emails sent to Brian Coleman as courteous, carefully argued, and which he or she was perfectly entitled to send.

In the case of Mark Stuart-Smith, his reply had been what the complainant put as a' single curt and abusive sentence, which he found 'rude and dismissive' - Coleman told him his email was 'another cut and paste anti - Israel nonsense'. In his statement Mr Stuart-Smith said 'I am not anti- Israel'.

The investigator decided that Coleman's remarks in this email gave the impression of being 'intemperate' but had not crossed over the line into being directly or personally offensive.

To Mr Roger Higginson's email, Coleman had stated 'I shall not be taking the slightest notice of your views'.

Mr Stevens took the view that it is a duty of a councillor to take into account all relevant matters in regard to consultation on issues: this remark gave no explanation why the councillor here considered that Mr Higginson's views were irrelevant.

After complaining to Coleman that he expected a more professional and polite response, Mr Higginson was told 'Please don't bother, your emails will be blocked' and that 'In my view, anti Zionism is the same as anti semitism' ...

As he explains in his carefully reasoned statement, Mr Higginson is a civil servant who has worked in two government ministries, including the Export desk for Israel and the Palestinian territories. In his job he deals with UN agencies. 'I was not taking a view on Israel, whether it was good, bad, or indifferent ... I hadn't even mentioned Zionism ... Every time I look at it, (the email response) I find it less and less possible to believe or understand ...'

The investigator found that in this case, the mitigating circumstances for not finding a breach were ultimately that Coleman had not directed the accusation of anti semitism personally at Mr Higginson.

Now we come to the case of Dr Charlotte Jago. Again, her email is described as perfectly polite and one which she had every right to send. In response, Coleman accused her of sending a 'cut and paste' job, which was 'anti Israel', and would be 'duly ignored'. She complained about his reply to the Chair of the GLA, the NLWA and the leader of Barnet Council. The chair of the NLWA apologised to her.

In a further email Councillor Coleman made the most outrageous statement:

'And I will continue to ignore this campaign from you and other anti Zionists. In my book, anti Zionism is just a modern form of anti Semitisim, i suppose 70 years ago you would have been in the black shirts.'

In her statement, Dr Jago said that she found these remarks 'deeply unprofessional, abusive and insulting'.

Furthermore, she said: 'I find it particularly offensive and upsetting because 70 years ago, my grandparents' friends were being persecuted and murdered by the Nazis. Her grandmother had personal experience of Germany before the war, had smuggled property belonging to Jewish friends out of the country, and her family was all too painfully aware of the terrible fate of German Jews at the hands of the Nazis.

'... to be actually accused of being a fascist was just ... to be honest it's one of the most horrible things anyone has ever said to me. In fact, probably the most horrible.'

'I was shocked. I was really really offended. To call someone a fascist is just absolutely beyond the pale.'

'It has got such emotional hatred behind it ... something that emotionally loaded, something that is such a terrible accusation, I think it is absolutely abuse.'

In regard to the accusation of being 'anti Israel', Dr Jago observed:

' ... you can't really let it go because you think, 'Well, I'm not anti Israel ... I'm not anti Israel. I oppose some of Israel's policies, but then, to be honest, I oppose some of the UK's policies - that doesn't make me anti-British. I know many Jewish people oppose some actions of the Israeli government too ...'

As to the acusation of being an 'anti-Zionist', Dr Jago made it absolutely clear that this was completely untrue:

'I think it was the disconnect as well. 'Where have you got that I'm an anti- Zionist? As I understand it, Zionism is wanting a Jewish homeland, which I agree with. I have studied enough medieval history to know that it was a terrible situation for the Jews: they got kicked out of absolutely everywhere, persecuted, murdered. Of course they want a homeland, as I would hope for and want one if I were in their place. In fact, that's the point, I have a homeland: it's Britain. I bleieve that Jews deserve one just as I have one. I totally agree with the Zionist principle. I just think that some of Israel's policies need tweaking. So to be called an anti-Zionist is just so far off the mark, it is absurd, without even going into the 'black shirt' aspect ...'

Finally, let's look at the case of Ron Cohen, an Israeli now resident in the borough, who describes himself as a peace activist for about the last forty years.

To his email about Veolia, Coleman had responded: 'I am afraid I will not entertain this anti Israel nonsense'.

Mr Cohen replied: 'But I am sure you will entertain an illegal occupation and by the way I'm an Israeli ...'

Coleman: 'A disloyal one at that'.

The investigator comments that Mr Cohen tried to continue a political discussion without being personal or abusive, unlike Coleman who then remarked:

'Doesn't take much to flush you out.'

Mr Cohen stopped there, and did not respond because, as he states, he felt very insulted, and that he had been referred to 'as if he were vermin'.

The investigator comments here that it is clear that Coleman had 'crossed the line into deliberately personal, offensive and insulting abuse'.

In his statement, Mr Cohen makes some very interesting observations. From a personal perspective, he says:

'As an Israeli who has spent a lifetime campaigning for a just peace and human rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, accusing me of disloyalty is as insulting as it can possibly be.

Councillor Coleman has every right to disagree with my views, but as an elected official, he must do so on a respectful manner, especially when he is acting in his capacity as a member of the council.'

Mr Cohen addresses the issue of the occupied territories in Israel, and in particular the case of East Jerusalem:

'I approach it from a pro peace position, in order to secure the ongoing acceptance of the State of Israel ... I am an Israeli who believes in peace and the continued existence of Israel. This is not anti Israel, it is for Israel and Councillor Coleman's insinuation otherwise is very insulting.'

Restating his objection to the accusation of 'disloyalty', Mr Cohen points out that, for example, he does not belong or take part in the boycotting activities organised by the BDS campaign.

And anyway, it must be said, reading this report, and I'm afraid I can't keep up my attempt at objective reporting much longer: who the hell is Brian Coleman to force Mr Cohen, an Israeli born Jew, to defend himself against accusations of 'disloyalty', anti Zionism, and even, ridiculously, insultingly, stupidly, of anti semitism? By what right does Coleman see himself in a position of authority on such issues? He says he is a great supporter of the State of Israel: but whose state of Israel is he speaking on behalf of? And what section of the Jewish community?

The subject of Zionism is a very complex and sensitive one: as an Israeli Jew, Mr Cohen is perhaps better placed to define what this is or may be, than Brian Coleman, who is neither, and yet so often purports to be some sort of spokesman for all Jewish people, whether they like it or not.

Many non Jews simply do not know what Zionism means, or that it can mean different things to different people, or that within the Jewish community there is a wide range of views on the subject, and indeed a broad range of political positions on almost every aspect of Israeli government policy.

In his statement, Ron Cohen says that Zionism has many variations, from extremists, to liberal Zionists, central Zionists, post Zionists. To say that anti-Zionism equals anti semitism is 'quite stupid'. It is an idea generally promoted by right wing Zionists, and the right wing political parties in Israel.

He objects to Coleman's 'crude stereotyping' and says: '... do not put all Jews in the same basket ... there are many streams in the Jewish community ... and here is a very significant point - he draws our attention to the EUNIC working definition of anti semitism, and the last point which refers to 'holding Jews to be collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel'.

Mr Cohen feels that 'This is actually what Councillor Coleman is doing: saying that since I am Israeli, I must be responsible for what Israel is doing or is not doing.'

He concludes: 'To summarise, this exchange with my elected representative left me feeling insulted. I was insulted, personally and also on behalf of the Jewish community.'

In the interests of balance, it would be best to give a represention of the arguments put forward by Councillor Coleman in defence of the complaints against him. Unfortunately, the report documents available do not include either of the following: Enclosure D, Pre hearing forms, and Enclosure E: skeleton argument of the subject member.

This may or may not be connected to Councillor Coleman's apparent reluctance to engage with the investigation process, as the investigator informs us in the report, and as is required by the code of conduct which he last signed in May last year.

The report includes an email sent by Coleman's solicitor, Stephen Hocking, who has yet again accepted the challenge of defending a Barnet councillor at a Standards hearing - he was used by Tory Andreas Tambourides recently, when his colleague Kate Salinger successfully took him to the committee, and also unsuccessfully defended Coleman when Barnet Eye blogger Roger Tichborne made a complaint to the committee a couple of years ago.

In this email Hocking states that the complainants 'were asking Cllr Coleman to interfere in a procurement process.made accusations of war crimes, and made several alegations concerning a lawfully constituted democratic state with which the UK enjoys good diplomatic relations.'

The email sent by Hocking expresses surprise that Coleman is not going to be interviewed. The reply from the investigator points out that the respondant has had since 7th June to cooperate with his inquiry, and so he had no points that he could follow up by telephone interview. He also comments: 'I do not need any lessons from you in this and nor am I interested in whether or not you are surprised'.

Hocking replies : 'Many thanks for your email. Both its substantive content and its unnecessarily offensive tone are noted.'

This spat follows two exchanges on the same day by the investigator with Coleman, who has apparently ignored previous requests for responses and then, when given an ultimatum, declared that 'I now consider that you are harassing and bullying in this matter' and that he, Brian, is being subjected to 'a denial of any form of natural justice and extroadinary (sic) behaviour'.

Hmm. Well: this report will be presented to the committe tomorrow, and they will decide whether or not to accept its findings.

In the meanwhile, let's finish with a reminder of the investigator's findings and comments, shall we?

On the part of the complaint by Dr Jago, and the reference to blackshirts, he states that Coleman's reply was:

'personally offensive, abusive, demeaning, and designed to cause hurt and distress to the recipient'

As regards the replies to Ron Cohen, Coleman is described as crossing the line into 'deliberately personal, offensive and insulting abuse'.

Further more the investigator states that Coleman 'would have known that the language of his replies would cause hurt and distress to an Israeli and that he was being personally offensive, abusive and demeaning.'

Oh, and here is the investigator's comment on the attitude of Councillor Coleman to the investigation itself:

'The respondent has shown no insight into the effect his conduct has had, no recognition, no contrition, no apology and no likelihood that he would not do the same sort of thing again if he wanted to.'

Earlier this week Mrs Angry reported that an extremist group, who refer to the complainants as ' the Forces of Darkness' was planning, in response to a 'request', to demonstrate outside the Town Hall before the hearing. There were consequently assurances given that this protest will be dropped, but Mrs Angry has been told that the individual responsible for the original invitation has ignored the demand that his demonstration not take place, and intends to attend as planned. You may wish to speculate as to the motives of anyone wanting to encourage any such protest. You may also wonder at the lack of intelligence and integrity demonstrated by such motivation.

Mrs Angry will attend tomorrow's hearing, and report the proceedings.


Battle of Cable Street

Broken Barnet's Night of the Long Knives - Part One: "That's discipline for you..."

Councillor Kate Salinger

Councillors Kate and Brian Salinger and a public show of support from Eric Pickles, shortly after the Allowancegate scandal


On Thursday morning, at 10 am, there will be a meeting of Barnet Council's standards' sub-committee.

This meeting will formally consider the findings of a report by an officer appointed to investigate a complaint made by a Conservative councillor, Kate Salinger, member for Coppetts Ward, that her fellow Conservative councillor, Andreas Tambourides, allegedly breached the code of conduct for members of the council, on several grounds, in July last year. She claims that he forwarded an inaccurate news article from an online newspaper, The London Daily News, about the allowance rise voted for by Tory councillors -except Kate Salinger - to all Conservative Councillors on Barnet Council, and to at least one member of the general public.

Councillor Kate Salinger alleges that 'the article was forwarded in its entirety in order to denigrate and ridicule her to other Conservative councillors and anyone else the email may have been forwarded (to) ...'

The official investigator has in his report concluded that in his view there is evidence to support the complaint by Councillor Salinger on two grounds. It will be the responsibility of the committee on Thursday to decide whether to accept these findings: further details to follow in a separate post.

If you are unfamiliar with the long dark history of the Conservative party in Broken Barnet, you may well be wondering what all this is about. In this post, Mrs Angry will explain the background, as it is an incredible tale, well worth revisiting, and says so much about the qualities of the Tory party in Barnet: the machiavellian intrigue, the lack of moral compass, the cowardice of the backbenchers, and an institutionalised regime of intimidation, used to maintain a blind obedience to the will of certain self serving malign forces within the party leadership.

Let us travel back in time to a full council meeting held at the Town Hall on July 13th, 2010.

Mrs Angry was present, along with most of the Barnet bloggers, and she remembers this meeting vividly, as it represented an unforgettable introduction to the truly breathtaking extent of greed, venality, cowardice, moral corruption, and the merciless culture of bullying that exists within the ranks of the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

If you think that I am exaggerating, take a look at the minutes of the meeting contained within the report going to committee on Thursday. You can also read the post I wrote about the evening here, if you wish:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2010/07/animal-farm.html

Item 10 on the agenda was a motion moved in the name of the then leader, Lynne Hillan, which welcomed the new Coalition's emergency budget, and castigated the spending of the previous Labour government, which 'lavished money on bureacracy, put nothing aside for a rainy day, and left the UK with a staggering legacy of debts that will affect generations to come' .... (I say in the name of, as Mrs Angry detects the tell tale sign of Capital Letters in Inappropriate Places, which is the mark of a certain other leading Barnet Tory).

The motion stated, with solemn regret, that although the budget will be tough, it is necessary to put the country back on a sound economic footing. Barnet Cabinet members were accordingly asked to work within the new financial constraints when setting Barnet Council's budget in the coming year, a radical budget which we were told would inevitably include staff losses - and drastic cuts to services for residents.

Shortly following this sternly worded motion was an urgent item.

Item 18: Scheme of Members' Allowances.

This was a bare faced, shamelessly self indulgent attempt by the same Tory councillors, in the middle of lecturing us all on the need for painful economies, redundancies and service cuts, to award themselves a range of whopping pay rises.

Why was it an urgent item? Officially, we were told, by senior Tory councillors barely bothering to try to keep a straight face, that there had been 'IT problems' which meant that this item had had to be slipped quietly onto the agenda late at night, just before the meeting - when they hoped no one was looking.

Unfortunately for the councillors, an eagle eyed blogger had spotted the last minute addition, and uncovered their outrageous plot.

The publicity which we drew to the proposal meant that drastic measures had to be taken by the Tory leadership to force the motion through. Every Conservative councillor was ordered to vote for the pay rise, or face the consequences. With one notable exception, they did as they were told, with barely a whimper.

Let us name and shame the quivering councillors who did as they were told, as recorded in the minutes:

Antony Finn
Lisa Rutter
Maureen Braun
Dean Cohen
Melvin Cohen
Brian Coleman
Alison Cornelius
Richard Cornelius
Tom Davey
Barry Evangeli
Brian Gordon
Eva Greenspan
Andrew Harper
John Hart
Helena Hart
LynneHillan
Suri Khatri
David Longstaff
John Marshall
Graham Old
Bridget Perry
Wendy Prentice
Sachin Rajput
Robert Rams
Hugh Rayner
Joan Scannell
Brian Schama
Daniel Seal
Mark Shooter
Stephen Sowerby
Andrew Strongolou
Andreas Tambourides
Joannna Tambourides
Daniel Thomas
Reuben Thompstone
Rowan Turner
Darryl Yawitch

Only one Tory councillor dared not to support the proposal: Councillor Kate Salinger, who abstained.

In Kate Salinger's interview with the investigating officer who dealt with her complaint to the Standards' Committee (page 38) she explains why she refused to vote with her colleagues:

"This vote increased the sums paid to some members by very large percentages and I found this indefensible, immoral, obscene and unsupportable in the current economic climate."

Kate Salinger was not the only Tory member to realise that such a proposal was totally unacceptable: she was simply the only one to have the courage and integrity to abide by her conscience, and vote accordingly.

What happened next was described to Mrs Angry by a senior council officer who was present throughout the meeting as completely unprecedented, something not seen in many years of service in Barnet, 'a truly shocking display of ruthless, instant revenge, carefully calculated and carried out with nauseating efficiency'.

On the nod from Tory whip and Cabinet member Brian Coleman, group secretary Councillor Joan Scannell 'from the floor' (where the integrity of the Tory group was lying in a pool of blood) moved a series of changes in committee membership, stripping Kate Salinger of all but one of her five positions - the only one that remained being impossible to take way for technical reasons. One by one they were announced, and her Tory colleagues moved in to take her place:

Councillor Wendy Prentice took her seat on the Policy and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Sury Khatri replaced her on the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Maureen Braun replaced her on the Appeals Committee

Councillor Alison Cornelius took her place on Licensing

Councillor Barry Evangeli replaced her in the Chipping Barnet Residents Forum

More punishment was to follow. After this was voted through, the public stoning continued.

Councillor Scannell moved the following changes to external boards:

Kate Salinger's place on a religious advisory committee SACRE was given to - ha - Councillor Brian Gordon

The Friends of Barnet Borough Libraries: step forward, oh dear, Councillor Robert Rams

Friern Park Management Centre: subsitute Councillor Stephen Sowerby

Adoption and Permanency panel: make way for Councillor Wendy Prentice

By this point, Mrs Angry had left the public gallery in utter disgust. She was told that after this public ritual of humiliation by her gutless, shameless Conservative colleagues, Kate Salinger left the chamber in tears.

Who could blame her?

A couple of weeks after the meeting, Mrs Angry went to her local Residents Forum. This was in olden times, when Broken Barnet still had the last vestiges of democracy, and the Tory dictators had not censored the forums so as to prevent awkward questions about their activities being raised by well, you know, residents, local voters, tax payers, and other troublemakers.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2010/07/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-forum.html

By this point, the publicity given by bloggers and then the local press to the gobsmacking arrogance and greed of the councillors' self awarded payrise had provoked a massive reaction of outrage amongst residents. In fact the damage caused by the pay rise vote was so great that Hillan and her Cabinet chums were obliged to resort to a graceless u turn, and partially retract the rises, although all committee chairs still received a massive 54% increase, in some cases for a committee which meets only twice a year.

By now, a few Tory councillors were feeling deeply embarrassed at their participation in the vote, as well as - rather belatedly- somewhat ashamed by the exposure of their own spineless behaviour towards colleague Kate Salinger.

At the forum Mrs Angry asked Councillor Graham Old how he felt about the way in which Councillor Salinger had been treated. To her surprise, he blurted out a confession that he thought she was in fact 'a great heroine'. Mrs Angry found it difficult to understand why Councillor Old or any other Tory councillor with any conscience had therefore acted as they did, and betray their colleague in this way, merely for acting in accordance with her principles.

Reading through the report yesterday, however, Mrs Angry noted that Councillor Old had at least supported Kate Salinger in her complaint to the Standards committee by confirming that he had received a copy of the email in question, which he had deleted because he had felt the contents were a slur: you are therefore partially redeemed in Mrs Angry's eyes, Councillor Old, and Mrs Angry would hope that Lessons Have Been Learned, One Barnet style.

Of course there is one Barnet councillor and Cabinet member who is unlikely to have learnt anything at all from this shameful episode. Yes, we are talking about Councillor Brian Coleman. After the infamous council meeting, and even as poor Kate Salinger was stumbling down the stairs of the Town Hall, the Tory whip was telling the local press who had dared to question the vitriolic punishment handed out to her:

"That's discipline for you. It's the democratic process in action."

Councillor Coleman is of course a keen advocate of discipline - for others. Self discipline is another matter.

And this night of the long knives was not the first act of conspiracy and betrayal that has involved the Salingers and the Tory leadership.

Kate Salinger and her councillor husband Brian are both known as decent, liberally minded Conservatives, and well respected by - almost - everyone. Brian, who was absent on the night of the allowance vote, was once leader of the party. In 2006, shortly after delivering electoral victory for the Tories, he was deposed by a coup engineered by a group led by kingmaker and arch meddler Brian Coleman, and Mike Freer, now a local MP, took over as leader. Since then, the predominance of a certain dark element in the Tory party has set it on the course to self destruction it is now following, with fatal dedication.

Coleman was right in one thing, however, in his statement to the press on the night of the allowance vote, and act of remorseless revenge on Kate Salinger: this was the perfect example of democracy in action - at least it is true to say democracy in action as we do it so well, in the ugly, brutal world of Tory politics, here in Broken Barnet.