Park Life

One Barnet teddy bears' picnic in Scratchwoods (names redacted under section 40(2)FOIA, for data protection purposes - oh, hold on: can I do that? Am I registered as a data controller, Mr Lustig? What? Freedom of expression? Human Rights Act? Doesn't apply in Broken Barnet, does it? It does. Goodness me. Yes: I do have a cat. )

Updates 1 and 2 below:

So, anyway: you are a One Barnet high priest, and the gods of commerce have demanded another sacrifice, their appetites unsated by all the offerings already made, the services being laid out for the vultures, entrails spilling everywhere, ready for divination by the prophets of doom/Barnet bloggers, the council properties cut free of community ties and given up as gifts to the property developers ... what is left to satisfy the immortal tyrants lying in their lair, roaring for food?

All that is left in Broken Barnet are the elemental forces: earth, wind, water and fire. Councillor Coleman, wearing his GLA top hat, has already dealt with most of the fire service. Only the Museum to get rid of now, yes why not: as he says, seen one helmet, seen them all.

Water? Well, Dollis Brook has been bought up by Mayor Boris Johnson for a photo opportunity in April.

Wind? The wind that blows through Broken Barnet is soon to be tainted by the outpourings of the Pinkham Way waste plant ... so all that is left are a few undeveloped patches of scorched earth, scattered here and there about our beloved borough.

Let's sell off our parks, then.

Oh: we can't, entirely , as we need to retain them, according to Councillor Tom Davey, as the only suitable subsidised venue for poor people to have their half an hour of free weekly leisure in, in between all that voluntary work they need to undertake in order to score enough points to get on his new approved list, for what will now only be temporary accommodation in social housing.

Never mind. Oh: can we charge the poor for walking or jogging in the park? No, damn it: apparently not. These scroungers always want something for free, don't they?

Ah, but: here is a brilliant idea - we can't sell our parks to someone else, but in traditional One Barnet fashion, we can pimp them out to anyone who fancies a bit of fun. A twenty first century pleasure garden, for al fresco celebrations, public events and private functions.

What, exactly, will happen when we are expected to hire out our parks to these events? Will they be closed to residents? If not, what about the risk to er stakeholders like, oh, children who want to play football, or you know, be children in a park? And why are park keepers losing their jobs: won't we need even more now?

In fact, Mrs Angry understands that although events will be in a defined area within the greenspaces, a certain Tory councillor, overcome with enthusiasm for outdoor activities, wanted the parks to close entirely when hired out in this way. Yes: tell your little girl to stop sobbing, madam: the swings are off limits today: look, there is a corporate celebration for former employees of the London Borough of Broken Barnet now working at BT. Hard to find a park big enough, as it happens.

Mrs Angry calls upon all residents' associations and Friends of Open Spaces, Parks and so on to oppose this shameful commercialisation of our greenspaces. She imagines there are plenty of grounds (ha) for doing so: have there been full equalities impact assessments? Studies of the potential environmental impact? Are there not restrictive covenants on the use of some of these parks for such events? Oh look: a flurry of activity has suddenly erupted in the legal department of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, which will require an afternoon's respite from trying to report bloggers to the ICO for daring to assert the right to freedom of expression, won't it?

Well: a new policy document has helpfully been compiled to inform residents of the marvellous new opportunity for their local environmental access outdoor leisure facility (park), at the same time as notice dressed up as 'consultation' has been sent to those living near the parks and greenspaces in question. Again, in One Barnet tradition, the decision has already been made, so any pretence at consultation is just that: pretence, and nothing more.

Let's see:

"2.3 Private event: An event such as a wedding or private party. In general Private events are
anticipated to have an attendance of up to 499 persons, though depending on location and event
requirements this could be lower. Events that require higher attendance will be considered though would be subject to a Temporary Events Notice (TEN). The following parks have been indentified as pilot sites for private events:

1) Highland Gardens (EN5)
2) Victoria Park (N2)
3) Hendon Park (NW4)
4) Scratchwood (NW7)
5) Edgwarebury Park (HA8)
6) Oak Hill Park (EN4)
7) Lyttleton Playing Fields (N2)
8) Princes Park (NW11)"

You will note that Mrs Angry's local park, Victoria Park, has the wrong postcode, by the way.

And look, can you see, Mrs Angry is beside herself with amusement at the thought of all those wedding parties who will wish to make use of the Scratchwood Open Space for their celebrations.

When Mrs Angry was a little girl, she and her brother used to be taken on bracing walks in their wellies in these ancient woods, to run about, collecting conkers and throwing leaves in innocent fun. These days, sadly, instead of conkers, the ground is scattered with used condoms: Scratchwoods is the dogging capital of Broken Barnet, and unless the bride and groom have a particularly open mind about the theme for their reception, they might be in for something of a shock.*Update: see below ...

Like the Blur song goes:

Confidence is a preference for the habitual voyeur of what is known as (parklife)

A morning suit can be avoided if you take a route straight through what is known as (parklife) John's got brewers droop he gets intimidated by the dirty pigeons they love a bit of it (parklife)

Who's that gut lord marching... you should cut down on your porklife mate... get some exercise (chorus) All the people So many people They all go hand in hand Hand in hand through their parklife

Hmm.

*Update:

Here is an amusing story from the 'Between the lines' column of the local Times paper, 21st September, 2006:

Dogged by worries over green space

"Following Councillor Brian Coleman's visit to well-known dogging location Scratchwood, Between the Lines was intrigued to hear that fellow Conservative councillor Brian Gordon was offering guided tours of the car park, just off the A1 near Stirling Corner, to fellow Barnet Council members.

Dogging, for those not in the know, is the practice of watching strangers have sex in public places, or even participating themselves. Speaking at a council meeting last week, Mr Gordon said: "If any members of the council who have not visited Scratchwood or Moat Mount before would like to pay a visit, my colleagues and I would be very happy to take them on a guided tour."

He helpfully gave his colleagues the address of a popular website used by doggers to arrange meetings', which apparently highlights Scratchwood and Moat Mount as ideal dogging locations.

Should we anticipate a political scandal looming on the horizon? Alas, the offer was made as part of a council motion urging protection of the environment and the safeguarding of Barnet's open and green spaces.

Still, should any councillors wish to take Mr Gordon up on his offer, Between the Lines would be only too happy to accompany them on their visit and report back."

Mrs Angry would love to hear from any councillors who have been to Scratchwood recently, on official fact finding business, or indeed simply for a nice long walk in the fresh air.

*Update 2:

Mrs Angry has been offered a legal opinion on this new venture, based on the council's own byelaws, and which offers an interesting possible challenge to this assault on our greenspaces:

"There appear to be 2 instances where part of the park can be set aside for a specific use - for games (16,17) or maintenance (21).

There is no power to exclude people for other purposes. If they have not given themselves the power it is ultra vires, ie unlawful.

The council can grant a licence for things like marquees or fetes, but there is no power to exclude people from walking round these, except under other statutory provisions (stuff like health & safety, so you may not be allowed close to engines of fairground rides).

So people can have weddings and bar mitzvahs, but we are all invited."

Brian, Brian, and Matthew: and no Sex on the Beach, please, we're from Broken Barnet

Not Mrs Angry or Councillor Brian Gordon

Not Matthew Offord and Mrs Angry thinking fondly of that hotel balcony in Belize

Walter Mitty


Whenever Mrs Angry feels she has had enough of blogging, and life in general, and fantasises about going to bed, sticking her head under a pillow and never coming out ever again, there are two things that stop her:

1. the thought that this would bring a cheerful smile to the faces of Tory councillors and senior officers of Broken Barnet and:

2. she just cannot stop being interested in things she should probably just ignore.

There are just too many infuriating, provoking and amusing things to write about, here in Broken Barnet, and Mrs Angry cannot help herself. So the pillow is on the floor, and here are some updated stories for your entertainment: you decide if they are infuriating, provoking, amusing, or just tedious.

Here is a letter sent to the local press by Andrew Dismore, Brian Coleman's rival in the much anticipated GLA elections next May, in regard to the idiotic remarks about the new residents forums made last week by Nelson Mandela tribute act and Tory Councillor Brian Gordon. Mr Dismore, who made the effort to attend the Alternative Forum, had some interesting points to make about the absurd, Kafkaesque regulations which are now used with such finesse in order to gag the freedom of speech of Barnet's residents and tax payers.

Dear Editor,

Cllr Gordon ( Times 6/10/11) must either be Walter Mitty or have been at a different Hendon Area Forum to me and the other people who attended.

He started by saying that he wanted to let people have their say, but he continually interrupted from the chair throughout the meeting from the very first minute: the business would have progressed much quicker, easier and less confrontationally if he had let people have their say, as happened at the BAPS meeting.

The agenda was ludicrous. On 10^th July, 2 months ahead, I submitted a short list of items , asking if it could be confirmed if they were in order. Reply came there not, despite several reminders, until the start of the meeting. Item 1 on my list was disallowed: how the new standing orders were to be interpreted. It would have been helpful to have this sorted from the beginning.

Yes, we discussed the Edgware War Memorial: but we will not be able to follow up the promises made at the next meeting, if they are not honoured! Yes, the Hendon Park cafe owner was able to raise the duplicity of the Council in its dealings with him.

However, other items of importance to local people could only be raised in a tangental fashion, by putting the English language through Olympic standard gymnastic contortions to bring the subjects within the new rules. We could not discuss the closure of Church Farm Museum, or the future of the Watling Boys Club building or the former Child Guidance Building on North Road estate, but we were allowed to discuss “the implications for local security of the buildings being kept empty”. We were not allowed to discuss the closure of the ticket office at Hendon Thameslink, but we could discuss “the traffic and parking implications” of its removal. We were not allowed to discuss the proposed move of Saracens to Copthall, or the increase in parking charges at all.

It is clear that Barnet Council and Cllr Gordon only believe in democracy if it is them doing the “democing”. They wish to kill off the forums which inconveniently used to raise matters or decisions they were uncomfortable in attempting to explain or defend, by making the forums irrelevant to those who wish to have their say about their local communities.

Andrew Dismore

Labour London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden

And then we have this press release today, reminding us of that trip which Hendon MP Matthew Offord made to Belize in the summer, during the riots, and from which he decided not to return to be with constituents. If you recall, Mr Offord, when tracked down by the local Times, informed their reporter:

“I certainly have not just gone off on holiday. I’m engaging in Parliamentary work in a third world country.

“It’s not the cocktails on the beach that some people like to think it is.”

It later emerged, as we explained in earlier posts such as Action Man Returns that Mr Offord is a member of the AFPS: the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme - a venture which allows MPs to dress up in uniform and prance about on trips to foreign parts, pretending to be really hard, and awarding themselves honorary ranks and even medals, much to the disapproval of serving members of the real armed forces.

As a part of this scheme, Matthew went on some adventure out at sea in a boat, where he had his photo taken, and saw some smugglers dump some alleged cocaine out at sea. It was very exciting, and I think he got a bit wet. Or was that on the hotel balcony? Ah: just checking my notes ... he took part in an exercise to fight narco-terrorism, and apparently that particular load of charlie was definitely on its way to Hendon, so everyone should be very grateful. Not sure how they knew this, but still, we are, aren't we?

Here is the press release from Andrew Dismore:


MP’s Belize trip: no follow up after all!

In attempting to justify his failure to return from his trip to Belize for the recall of Parliament during the Summer’s riots, Hendon Conservative MP Matthew Offord made much of the purpose of the trip, in particular to learn about the drugs trade which he was going to raise with the police here.

In fact, the response to a freedom of information request to the police by Andrew Dismore, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden reveals that the MP has had no obvious contact with the police on the issue in the two months since, nor did he seek a briefing before he went. (Freedom of Information response attached).

Mr Dismore said:

“Yet again the Conservative MP has let down Hendon’s constituents. Having failed to return for the recall of Parliament, he has since not honoured the pledge he made on his return to brief the police on what he found out about the drugs trade and how it affected Hendon. This clearly casts doubt as to the sincerity of his excuses and as to whether he gained any knowledge whatsoever of use to the police or his constituents, while enjoying himself in the Caribbean while London burned.”

For further details call Andrew Dismore 07957 625 813

Response to freedom of information request:

Dear Mr Dismore

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090001739

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 12/09/2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

• Please disclose all correspondence between the Metropolitan police and Matthew Offord MP concerning drugs policy and enforcement recorded on the MetRIC System (the MPS system for logging and managing correspondence) from May 2011 to date.

• Please disclose all notes or other records of meetings between Barnet CID, Barnet Senior Management Team or the MPS Drugs Directorate Senior Management Team and Matthew Offord MP concerning drugs policy and enforcement between May 2011 to date.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted with Barnet Borough Operational Policing, the MPS Drugs Directorate and on the MetRIC system.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request, therefore, the information you have requested is not held by the MPS.

Mrs Angry submitted an FOI to Parliament about this trip, to find out who paid for Mr Offord's expenses.

I would like to make the following request under the Freedom of Information Act:

Hendon MP Matthew Offord is in Belize, Central America, engaged in parliamentary business.

Please give full details of the nature of this parliamentary business, including the following:

• who organised the trip?
• what was the nature of the parliamentary business Mr Offord undertook?
• who paid for the trip: flights, accommodation and any other costs?
• please give a full timetable of the parliamentary work undertaken
• how long was the trip scheduled to last?
• did any other MPs accompany Mr Offord?
• did Mr Offord's wife accompany him, and were her costs covered by parliament or any other body?
• did Mr Offord receive any hospitality while on his trip, and if so, by whom was it provided?
• how many other MPs have visited Belize in the last five years on parliamentary business, or have declared trips to Belize paid for by a third party?

The response was as follows:

In response to your bullet points 1-8, the House of Commons does not hold any of the requested information.

With regard to your last question, I attach an entry from the Register of Members’ Interests. No other information is held.

The only MP listed was William Hague. Make of the rest what you will, but clearly Mr Offord's trip - or some of it - was as part of a voluntary scheme, and not officially organised by Parliament. It seems that activities undertaken by MPs who belong to the AFPS are shrouded in mystery: we do not know exactly how much time was spent on this trip on 'exercises' or if poor Matthew ever got time for the odd spot of Sex on the Beach, or indeed any cocktails at all: we do not know exactly how the AFPS is funded either, although this is believed to be at least in part supported by the defence industry. You might find that there ought to be more transparency in regard to this scheme, and I would most certainly agree.

Finally: you know Mr Mustard, that high maintenance blogger who doesn't get out of his FOI bed for less than, oh at least £40,000 a year ( only takes 50p and a vague promise to get him into it, apparently, and no, I haven't tried): he has just received yet another needlessly delayed response to one of his probing questions about - ah: free parking permits for councillors, MPs (yes, they are eligible) and er, GLA members (something to look forward to, Andrew). Mr Mustard was curious to know if any permit holders have more than one. He has been at last given a response: Mrs Angry's unneccessarily intrusive commentary in red:

"I can confirm that there are members who hold two member’s permit. Those members are:

Councillor Suri Khatri (tut tut)

Councillor Brian Schama – has 1 parking permit against which 2 vehicle registration numbers have been registered (TWO? A big black mark, no, two black marks for you, Mr Schama: Mrs Angry is very disappointed in you. Mill Hill is a bugger for parking, admittedly, but whose fault is that?).

I can confirm that there are MPs who hold a permit. Those MPs are:

Theresa Villiers MP

Matthew Offord MP

* see below

I can confirm that Mike Freer MP holds two permits (TWO? Why does he need one anyway? Or any of them?)

I can confirm that there is one GLA members who hold a permit. That GLA member is: (go on, go on)

Councillor Brian Coleman

PS: A kind reader has reminded Mrs Angry of this article last May in the Hendon Times, here

where the newly elected Mr Offord tells us he travels to work everyday on the tube everyday, and poses for a nice photo in what looks like a new suit, looking as if he is thinking very hard about something important. Well, may be he was - such as do I really need a free parking permit from the London Borough of Broken Barnet?