Showing posts with label karma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label karma. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Church Farmhouse: closed by Tory councillors, ransacked, left to rot - now robbed and vandalised




Updated below: Barnet Council shuts the gate, after the horse has bolted ...

Apart from the election, Mrs Angry, is there anything much going on in Broken Barnet, this week? 

Well, yes: Finchley Literary Festival, which will run from the 24th May, to the 31st. 

 http://greenacrewriters.blogspot.co.uk/p/finchley-literary-festival.html

Rather foolishly, Mrs Angry has agreed to take part, and is giving a talk, on the 28th, on what is supposed to be about Charles Dickens and his associations with the borough, but has got a bit sidetracked by related stories of bodysnatching, Dracula, slaveowning vicars, death in the workhouse,  demon postmen ... and an Irish bootmaker who asked Dickens for a loan of £1500 to buy the manor house, and - and  if you want to know more, you will have to come along.

So, doing some research in the British Library yesterday, by chance Mrs Angry found herself reading a biography of Mark Lemon, the first editor of Punch, very good friend of Dickens, and who spent what he considered to be an idyllic childhood living with his grandparents at Church Farmhouse, in Hendon. 

In later life Lemon often remembered Hendon with great fondness, and wrote about his memories of life in what was then a rural area, his grandfather farming 200 acres, and living next door to the old Greyhound inn, still there, of course, and the ancient church of St Mary's. 


Mark Lemon

Funnily enough, Tory leader Richard Cornelius has always struck Mrs Angry as bearing a notable facial resemblance to Mr Punch.  

But perhaps the satirical allusion is one which springs too easily to the eye, to those of us living here, in Broken Barnet.




 Totteridge, May 2010

The seventeenth century, Grade II* listed Farmhouse was bought by the local council in 1944, and became a museum in 1954.

In May 2014, the building stands empty, and decaying, having been closed three years ago, in order for our Tory councillors to flog it off for development. With great glee they ransacked the Museum's collection of local historical artefacts, threw some in a skip, gave others away, and auctioned the rest off in a church hall in the midlands.

Their enthusiasm for selling the Farmhouse, however, was misguided, and buyers for a delicate, protected building of this rarity have, unsurprisingly, proven too few. The joke is, of course, that our would be true blue entrepreneurs and property speculators have no business sense at all, which is why they allowed themselves to be so easily led by the nose over so many financial cock ups, especially the Capita contracts, swallowing such stories as the one about £16 million capital investment, and spending £80 million to make £160 million savings. In truth none of them could run a jellied eel stall and make a penny of profit, let alone an authority of this size. No wonder they wanted to delegate everything to the private sector.

The Museum now stands forlorn, abandoned, empty, and neglected, to such an extent that English Heritage have listed its status now as vulnerable. 

It was only the fear of occupation by squatters, as in the case of Friern Barnet Library, moved the council - eventually - to take on any security precautions to protect the building. A company ominously named 'Ad Hoc' supplied a 'live-in' guardian, for whom the council has just installed a shower room, with no regard for the sensitivity and integrity of the listed building's features.

It may be that the guardian in question is spending too much time in his new shower, sadly, as it has been reported that some time on Sunday night/Monday morning, around ten of the old yorkstone paving flags around the Farmhouse were dug up, and stolen. As local GLA member Andrew Dismore commented today:

"This is the inevitable consequence of the Conservative Council’s closure of the museum, and after over 3 years, their inability to find someone to take it on. Their so-called negotiations with Middlesex University are going nowhere, as it is clear they are not really interested in taking over this historic listed building because its uses are so limited. 

An empty unused building like this is an open invitation for thieves. 

The Council has been and is spending thousands on security at the former Museum, for little good it does; and Boris Johnson’s cuts in the police service haven’t helped either. 

The Council should be ashamed of themselves. they will have to replace the missing flags at no doubt considerable expense to the council taxpayers of Barnet, but it is difficult to see how new stones will be able to replicate the appearance of the stolen old ones. Conservative Barnet could not care less about our Borough’s history and historic buildings". 

Andrew Dismore, Labour candidate and former museum curator Gerrard Roots, and Labour councillor Arjun Mittra

During the course of the last four years, the Farmhouse has stood as a permanent indictment, a metaphor in stone, of the moral decay and incompetence of this ghastly, philistine, materialist Tory administration, where nothing is of value unless it can be sold in a market place, and heritage, history, and a sense of community is utterly redundant.

In this week, in which we go to vote for a new administration, it is with perfect timing that we witness the building robbed off part of the very fabric of its own history. It's no worse a crime, in the view of Mrs Angry, than being robbed of the museum, and an intrinsic part of the story of Hendon, and this borough, by councillors elected to protect our best interests, not sell our heritage to the highest bidder - or rather try to, but fail ingloriously even at their own intentions.

The plaque commemorating Mark Lemon's connection with Church Farmhouse is still there, on the empty building. It will mean nothing to the Tory councillors who closed it, and who won't have heard of Lemon, or care. 

But then again, after Thursday, some of the leading Tory councillors who were responsible for closing Church Farmhouse, standing in marginal wards, will themselves be history.

Updated:

According to Mrs Angry's spies, Barnet Council, with a typical display of masterly timing, has now acted to secure the gate to the Farmhouse ...
At some point this afternoon Barnet council chained and padlocked shut the front gates to the Museum, because of the theft of Yorkstone flags from the Museum's paths last Sunday. This will not deter thieves- they'll just bring along a pair of bolt-cutters. However, it will needlessly inconvenience residents and visitors who rightly expect to be able to access a much-used public right of way through a public garden set in a designated conservation area.

Friday, 28 June 2013

Mrs Angry predicts: Gimme Shelter/A storm is threatening ...

Well, here we are, at the end of a heavy week, and so time for a Friday joke, perhaps. Well, a sort of a joke: Mrs Angry certainly has a smile on her face.

Look: Mrs Angry feels the spirit moving her to make a prediction. 

A weather forecast, in fact, as we look forward to the delights of Glastonbury. 

Oh dear: dark clouds in the sky, the sound of thunder, and a lightening strike hovering over the rooftops of Broken Barnet, if not the muddy fields of Somerset ...

What do you mean, Mrs Angry? Ah, well: wait and see.

There may be trouble ahead ... 

Do you believe in karma, readers? Mrs Angry does.

This is for anyone who, like Mrs Angry, is waiting for someone to get their well deserved come uppance, someone who will shortly be needing more than an umbrella to shelter from this particular storm ...

Wonder if the Stones'll be doing this one? A particular favourite of Mrs Angry's, in fact:



Have a good weekend, wherever you are.

Mrs Angry x

Friday, 24 August 2012

Exclusive: the latest excuse for the One Barnet Joint Venture fiasco

Mrs Angry has just received the following statement sent by Pam Wharfe, the 'interim' director at Barnet who sent staff, last week, an apparently rather premature notification of the sudden transformation of a £275 million package of DRS council services from a strategic partnership into a 'Joint Venture'.

Mrs Angry's cynical commentary in red.

On Behalf Of Wharfe, Pam (dictated by Nick Walkley?)
Sent: 24 August 2012 16:37


DRS Joint Venture proposal – Staff Update

Following my DRS fortnightly email last week I have set out further details on the joint venture below:- hold on, it's not a fortnight since your last update - something wrong?

What is the decision making process around the joint venture?

The Senior Management Team consults our consultants, who consult our bidders, we pay the consultants an awful lot of money, and then we tell the elected members what to do. In this case, we forgot to tell the elected members what to do before we told anyone else.

The joint venture has been an option considered by the project Board over the last 2 years and has featured in the options appraisal and business case. Although initially our preference was for a Strategic Partnership, the JV has developed as a progressively more attractive option following detailed discussions with bidders.

This is like, say, when you've been sitting in the pub all night & are completely pissed, and no decent looking bloke has looked at you, you end up going home with the one at the bar with sweaty armpits, who suddenly seems more interesting. Or so Mrs Angry imagines. Mrs Angry is more fussy, clearly.


As a result the project Board recommended to Corporate Directors Group that this be formally advanced in discussions with bidders and indeed is currently our preferred option.

AHA! So: the mysterious, obsessively secretive, undemocratically comprised & totally unaccountable project One Barnet Board recommended this brilliant new idea to the senior officers! Now we are getting somewhere ...

Following evaluation the final option, along with the preferred bidder, will be presented as a recommendation to Cabinet in the New Year.

Aha again, in tandem with the preferred bidder - a tailor made option then? Neat.

Cabinet will then take the final decision on whether to award the contract, the preferred bidder and the joint venture approach. Awfully kind of you to pretend to allow the Cabinet a say in the matter.

What does the joint venture approach mean in practice?

It means you are all still going to be f*cked by privatisation, but in a different way. Bend over.


A new organisation would be formed by the Council and the successful bidder. The Council would have a minority interest in this organisation and would appoint a small number of individuals to the senior management team of the new organisation.

Would appoint a small number of individuals ... anyone we know?


This organisation would then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.

Does this reduce any of my TUPE rights?

No. In scope staff would TUPE into the joint venture organisation, and this would be on the same conditions as have been previously set out. The obligations of the joint venture organisation would be backed up by the successful bidder’s parent company.

Who would my employer be?

The joint venture organisation.

Bidders have made reference to potential career opportunities in their organisations, does the joint venture limit these?

LOL. Potential career opportunities in the bidders' organisations? Of course. There are already marvellous opportunities, and we have already seen the interchange of staff from private companies to the council, and vice versa, with absolutely no conflict of interest.

No. The joint venture organisation would operate in many ways like any other organisation in the successful bidder’s group of companies. There is no reason why the use of a joint venture company would limit the opportunities this could provide to staff.

Why use a joint venture approach for DRS?

Because Barnet's Tory leadership and senior management is desperate to sustain a failing £1 billion commercial project, and will do anything that enables them to cling on to the wreckage, right up until someones prises their slippery hands off the sinking ship.

As a result of being a part owner of the joint venture organisation and through having representation within the senior management team the Council would have more say in the organisation. In addition the joint venture would allow us to share more easily in any commercial success the organisation has. This is important to us as the DRS bidders and ourselves are confident that there are significant commercial opportunities in the delivery of DRS services both within Barnet and outside of the Borough.

Why have you always denied that there is inadequate control and profit in the strategic partnership, and why does the same argument not apply to the even larger £750 million customer service tender?

What if the joint venture organisation is unsuccessful and becomes insolvent


We are f*cked all over again, and will have to pay for the privilege too.

The joint venture organisation will have a contract with the Council for the provision of DRS services, and, as with a non joint venture approach this contract will be backed up by a ‘parent company guarantee’ which provides a legally binding obligation on the commercial parent company to fulfil the performance of the DRS contract. It is likely - IT IS LIKELY - who are you kidding? ... that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract. Such a situation could reduce the value of any investment by the Council in the joint venture company however the Council is only intending to invest a nominal sum (which could just be £1) (phew, what a relief, only £1 of tax payers money at risk then. Mind you, if you spent another quid, Pam, maybe you could have got some fire engines too ...) and it is not obliged to provide any further assistance in the event of failure, unlike the commercial parent company which would be obliged to deliver the DRS contract.

Kind regards,

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration


Hmm. Ah: and as it happens, Mrs Angry asked Ms Wharfe yesterday for an explanation of her statement to staff, in the light of not one but two denials from the Leader of the council that such a move had been decided:

Dear Ms Wharfe

Please could you explain to me the apparent contradiction in your recent statement to staff regarding the decision you said had been taken to change the One Barnet strategic partnership planned for the DRS tender into a Joint Venture, and the fact that leader Cllr Cornelius stated twice yesterday that no such decision has been taken?

I look forward to your early response.

Mrs Angry


This afternoon a reply arrived:

Dear Mrs Angry,

The original options appraisal and business case taken by the council included the option of a joint venture. I have copied in Martin Cowie who will detail the dates of the decision making process.

Pam Wharfe

Oh dear: not good enough:

Dear Ms Wharfe

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, the orginal options appraisal and business case did indeed include the option of a joint venture. They also included several other options and all but the strategic partnership were discounted. That is irrelevant to the question I asked you, which I would be very grateful if you would answer: why did you tell staff that the decision to move to a join venture had been taken, when the Leader states that it has not?

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry


More later.

*Later .... Update 6.45pm:

Hello: more to update already ... just received this email from Ms Wharfe:

Dear Mrs Angry,

I think the Deputy Leader has clarified this in the local press? http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=29165&searchword=thomas
Pam Wharfe
Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

and Mrs Angry has replied:

Dear Ms Wharfe

Thank you, I am aware of the story in the Barnet Press, which simply suggests that a Joint Venture is now a possible option, and indeed Cllr Thomas has told me:

"The Council is considering running its DRS services as a joint venture. We have always had the option of running a JV as made clear in a report to the Cabinet Resources Committee last December. The final decision of whether or not to proceed with one will be taken when the preferred bidder is confirmed further down the process."

Clearly he believes that the final decision has not been made, whereas last week you told staff that the Joint Venture was already agreed:

'As a result we have decided to form a joint venture'

Really, there could not be a clearer contradiction, and no amount of denial can alter the truth. You have exposed something we have always suspected: that the important decisions which drive this council are made not through the recognised democratic process, but behind closed doors, by unelected and unaccountable officers and highly paid consultants.

Have a nice weekend,

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

Thursday, 7 July 2011

Breaking: it's official - Eric Pickles loves Mrs Angry

... before the injunctions start flying - a tweet has just appeared from James Sillman, Local Government Chronicle reporter at the CIPFA conference where Eric Pickles has been speaking:

"Pickles slams easycouncil barnet for procurement fiasco and praises local bloggers for helping expose it "

Think it might have something to do with the photo of you in your shorts in 'Mr Pickles puts it about a bit', posted 30th June, Eric - am I right?

to be updated ...

yes, well, apparently it's true: Mrs Angry has been endorsed by Eric Pickles. Well and truly.

Full details to follow.

But how was it for you Mrs Angry?

Didn't feel a thing. Except a sense of shame, after it was all over.

Mr Mustard, and Barnet Eye: also named and shamed. Our credibility is compromised, as well as our virtue.

But seriously: not been a good week, has it for Barnet Council? Private Eye yesterday, Eric Pickles today ... dear, dear ... naughty naughty London Borough of Broken Barnet ...

Message for Barnet Leader Richard Cornelius, dear Brian Coleman, Andrew Harper, & all Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, plus Nick 'Non-Stick' Walkley, and Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers.

You may kiss Mrs Angry's derrière, at your earliest convenience.

* Updated 4.20pm - excerpt of Eric Pickles comment, courtesy James Sillman, Local Government Chronicle:

“I was shocked by a recent case in Barnet.

The council had hired a private security firm, MetPro, which included “keeping an eye” on the local armchair auditors and activist bloggers - at a cost of over a million pounds.

The contract had been awarded without a tendering exercise, without a written contract, and no proper invoicing.

An internal audit showed there “serious deficiencies in current procurement arrangements”, and there were no guarantees that against a repeat of such practices.

Irony of ironies - this misuse of public money was uncovered thanks to the determination of local bloggers and activists…

Including Barnet Eye. Mr Mustard. And Mrs Angry. (As she had every right to be)

Exactly the same people MetPro snooped upon.

I’ve got news for Barnet. Liveblogging from council meetings. Microjournalism. Call it what you like.

It’s here to stay.”


Couldn't have put it better myself, Mr Pickles. Thanks.

Oh, and here is Patrick Butler's latest cuts' blog on the issue in the Guardian: 'Eric Pickles praises armchair auditors':

Update: Patrick Butler's Guardian blog has a statement now from Barnet Council:

Update: Thursday 7 July, 18.56pm

Barnet council has issued a statement in response to Eric Pickles's comments on the MetPro scandal:

Leader of Barnet Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius, said: "Something seems to have got lost in translation here. At no point has Barnet Council ever paid £1 million to "snoop" on anyone. We will be in contact with Eric Pickles' office."

Mrs Angry is responding to Councillor Cornelius with her own statement:


Leader of Barnet Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius, knows perfectly well that Barnet's failure to monitor the casual arrangement they had with the illegally operating company allowed this filming to take place. The council's unregulated relationship with this company exposed residents to risk and led to serious breaches of the data protection act which are currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner, who on the 23rd June gave the LBBarnet 28 days to reply to the complaints made in relation to the filming. The authority spent £1.3 million on MetPro's services over a five year period in circumstances fully documented and heavily criticised by the findings of the council's own audit report presented by Lord Palmer last month.

Mrs Angry suggests that instead of taking action to criticise the Secretary of State, Mr Cornelius should apologise to the residents who were covertly and illicitly filmed by the council's security employees and express his thanks to the Barnet bloggers for their role in uncovering a scandalous misuse of public funds, and for revealing a culture of financial incompetence and mismanagement in his council's administration.