Crawling naked up the Edgware Road: full council, part two

Good news: some Olympic events are to be held in Broken Barnet after all - read on

*Update June 2012: Brian's naked crawl, see below:

*Update on the park hire scheme, see below:

When a full council meeting begins in Broken Barnet, apart from a lot of jiggery pokery with golden maces and velvet robes, bowing, and standing up, or not standing up, for the Mayor, we are then expected to stand again, and listen to a prayer from the Mayor's chaplain.

At this point on Tuesday's meeting, Mrs Angry stood in amusement watching Councillor Coleman as the Greek Orthodox priest gave the usual address, asking for God's blessing, and entreating the blackhearted councillors of Broken Barnet to come together in peace, love and understanding. Brian, who is of course a devout Methodist, bowed his head in touching reverence and spiritual reflection as the priest spoke. AMEN, he barked at the end of the prayer.

Yes: amen to all that.

Straight to councillors' questions and answers: 67 of them, in twenty five pages. There were so many, in fact that the time limit allowed only about half of the supplementary questions to be raised.

Now here is an interesting thing: of the 67 questions, 39 of them were answered by Brian Coleman, and only 6 by the alleged leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius. A small number of other queries were addressed by one or two Cabinet members.

Why is it, Mrs Angry, you may be asking, that so many answers were provided by one Cabinet member?

It is because Brian Coleman, effectively, is the de facto leader of the council. All the contentious issues which are currently dominating the scene here in Broken Barnet - parking, the hire of our parks, and so on, are under his cabinet portfolio for environment, and therefore provoke the most questions, but he also exerts a domineering influence on the control of the council, and does exactly as he pleases, and he has taken over almost every function of the leadership. Leadership without reponsibility, or accountability.

As we have seen in recent weeks, if Coleman is asked to attend a committee meeting or a Forum, to answer questions from colleagues or residents, he does not. If he does not agree with a statement the leader makes in public, he over rules him and says with a shrug 'the leader can say what he likes'.

Nestling amongst the genuine queries are the usual nauseating dummy questions by helpful councillors. Brian Gordon is a master of these: this time it was the turn of Coleman's no 1 fan Rowan Turner:

'Will the Cabinet Member thank the many staff based at Mill Hill depot who worked normally on November 30th and ignored calls to strike?'

Answer: ( I must tell you, Brian, btw, that you do not need spaces before and after every punctuation mark, and Inappropriate Capital Letters are just a form of Shouting and Look a Bit Mad, to be quite honest ...)

Answer, verbatim:

'Yes , I am delighted that the Refuse service operated as normal and that street cleaning also took place despite intimidation on the picket line from the GMB Union . The vast majority of Barnet Council staff worked normally and ignored the premature and pointless action of certain Trade Unions in striking whilst in the middle of negotiations with the Government . I am sure Councillors and residents will not forget the actions of the staff '

Yes. Mrs Angry is confident that councillors will be lined up with Cheery Words and a Warm Handshake when waving goodbye to all loyal staff as they pick up their Redundancy notices, or shove off to a private company with a loss of Job Security beyond twelve months, thanks to the One Barnet outsourcing scam.

Incidentally, Mrs Angry is interested in Cllr Coleman's allegation of intimidation on the picket line, and imagines he must have proof of this which he will be presenting to the GMB?

Another statement which needs challenging is in response to Q38 from Labour's Pauline Coakley Webb:

'Before imposing the cashless parking service, did the Cabinet Member seek advice from the Police on personal security implications for users and potential users of the new system?'

Answer: 'No, this was not necessary as the system is inherently safer . It has operated in many other Boroughs ( with higher street crime rates than Barnet for a number of years '

Another typical Coleman reply, delivered with complete certainty and absolutely no evidence: worse still, this reply directly contradicts what we were told at last November's Forum by our friend, the senior officer in charge of parking, Mr John McArdle.

Mr McArdle appears to be operating on a different wavelength to the rest of the council, and his responses to Forums are very interesting: earlier this week he told Mrs Angry that she may not raise an issue of boroughwide significance at a Forum, even if dealing with 'public works', which appears to be a new decision and not sanctioned by constitutional change, and now we have his Cabinet member telling us the police were not consulted over the new parking scheme, when we were previously told by McArdle that Commander Basu himself was in approval of the change, a statement which Mrs Angry challenged, as she did not believe it at the time.

Which statement is the truth? Another email on its way to you, Mr Mc Ardle: two for you now to answer, when you get round to it. Thanks.

Oh: hang on. Make that three emails.

Question 42, from Labour's Alan Schneiderman:

'How many pay and display machinese have been completely removed to date and at what cost? When will the removal programme be completed?'

Answer from Coleman:

'At the time of writing 234 machines have been completely removed and the footway reinstated at a total cost of £29,952. the programme will be completed within a month.'

Hmm. Compare that answer with this, from Mr McArdle a few days ago:

'... I can confirm that RM Countryside has been paid only for those machines actually removed and that the payment is far less than £80,000. I had planned to use this contractor for the entire job, but the Council’s procedures prevent this so another is being found. This will take time to organise.'

If you recall, after local bloggers caught Barnet yet again using a DPR to award business to a company with whom it had one of the many non compliant 'contracts' that have been exposed after the MetPro scandal, they were shamed into halting the deal, and instead of all machines being removed by the end of November, most of them are still there. Don't believe them when they say they cannot bring them back into service: they can, but they won't, because saving face for Brian Coleman is more important than saving the livelihoods of Barnet's shopkeepers.

So are Barnet going through the correct procurement process of tendering for the work of the meters' removal, and will this really be done in the space of a month?

Question 16 was from Libdem Jack Cohen to our Brian:

'Why didn't you attend the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum on the 23rd of November?'

Coleman: 'Because my Ward ... ' (again, no need for a capital letter, Brian, even though it is Your ward) ' ... is in the Chipping Barnet Constituency.'

Oh dear, the poor old boy has temporarily, and uncharacteristically, forgotten that he is Cabinet Member for Environment for the WHOLE borough, and had been asked to attend on that basis. Jack Cohen reminded him of this fact, and asked again why he had refused to come.

Because, heckled Mrs Angry, he is TOO SCARED ... CHICKEN!

Coleman stood up in a fury. He blurted out that he had not attended BECAUSE OF THE APPALLING BEHAVIOUR OF RESIDENTS ... There was much raucous laughter at this point in in the public gallery, where sat not only Mrs Angry, who is one of these RESIDENTS, but also Mr P, who provides so much entertainment, and some spectacular displays of disrespect to his elected representatives, at these otherwise inflexibly controlled council events.

Coleman is right to fear what might happen if he attended one of these Forums: he would never survive. Like any specimen under scientific scrutiny, the Cabinet Member for the Environment can only thrive in a properly controlled Environment - as Cllr Tierney described later in the evening, one that is hermetically sealed, and removed as far as possible from reality.

Mrs Angry's fellow SMOG, (St Michael's Old Girls) Kath McGuirk had submitted the most important question of the evening. One of the significant and lasting legacies of our convent education is, of course, an uncompromising intolerance to matters of morality in public life, and a becoming maidenly aversion to unneccessary displays of nudity by short fat Tory councillors, and so:

Q24:

'Would the leader confirm what he is doing to lobby and ensure that the Olympics are delivered on budget and on time so that Councillor Coleman's pledge to crawl naked up the Edgware Road does not come to pass?'

Cornelius' response, sadly, revealed no visible signs of a sense of humour, which is in itself rather amusing, as usually he is guilty of grinning at the most inappropriate moments in council meetings, and takes everything in the most lighthearted, whimsical way, in order to pretend it is not really happening. His written answer here said: 'we lobby hard to maintain robust controls'. Hold on, was that a joke? Is the thought of our beloved councillor doing a spot of naked grovelling on a public highway a bit of a turn on for some Tories? Probably. In Broken Barnet, especially. In this case, however, Mrs Angry suspects he was too scared a. to think about Brian Coleman with no clothes on, and b. to make a joke about it.

In fact, Cllr McGuirk had to retract the scurillous suggestion in her question.

It was not the Edgware Road: apparently the route of Councillor Coleman's naked crawl will be along the Finchley Road, which is much more respectable. Whether or not this event will take place at the same time as the Olympic Torch procession is unclear, but don't say you haven't been warned. *see below for an awful update, and a warning for all residents in the Golders Green/Childs Hill areas:

Councillor Mc Guirk had another very important item on the agenda at this meeting, and many of the residents in the public gallery had come to see this issue, ha ha 'debated' by councillors.

Item 3.2: Barnet's Parks are not for sale.

Kath described the overwhelming opposition of residents to the indefensible proposal by Coleman to hire out a number of our parks and openspaces to anyone willing to pay the council for a private event. She listed the number of serious concerns over the withdrawal of access to residents, the potential damage, the litter, the noise. She pointed out that the projected fee cost were prohibitively expensive for ordinary families, thus giving the lie that the scheme was for family events, rather than corporate hospitality or for those privileged few wealthy enough to afford it. Yet again, she said, the Tories were helping those with means to get a better deal from services meant for all.

She pointed out that Victoria Park, created to mark the Diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria by providing grounds for the people of Finchley, will, in the year celebrating the Diamond jubilee of our present queen, be snatched away from the local community to be used as a commercial enterprise by the council.

And what is all this for? Only £30,000 a year, by the council's own estimate. So much upheaval, for so little return - and without even considering the hidden costs of implementing the changes.

Coleman stood to respond. Mr P heckled from the public gallery: Coleman addressed him by name and told him to listen to 'the facts'. These facts, in fact, were somewhat incoherent, and hard to follow.

He said we can do this already, if we want to, we are just 'formalising' our ability to do so .... er yeah ... we should remember that residents with small gardens need somewhere to hold events (could they afford to?) we should 'wake up and smell the coffee', he is 'listening to residents' who want this scheme, and he has a 'duty of care' to such residents - er, what?

DECEIVER AND SCOUNDREL! shouted a member of the public.

IDIOT! shouted another, amongst outrage in the gallery.

The Mayor intervened: May we remind members of the public that in this chamber we respect councillors ...'

WE DON'T RESPECT HIM!

Jack Cohen spoke next. He also questioned the projected revenue being unaccompanied by details of the hidden costs. He remarked that Coleman's references to large venues in other boroughs and the royal parks were ridiculous comparisons: he then observed, tellingly, that he had observed that Councillor Coleman had a curious habit of promoting such grandiose ideas. Hmm.

Councillor Jim Tierney politely thanked residents for their correspondence, including those who had sent him some very interesting information about the history of ours parks (yes, you can tell he is a Labour councillor).

These parks, he said, to cheers from the gallery, belong to the community. There is unanimous opposition to Coleman's proposals. He remarked that, as in the words of dear Oscar, the Barnet Tories could be said to know the price of everything, and the value of nothing - but in fact the truth is that they know the price of nothing, and the value of nothing. This hare brained schemed is not worth the £30,00o we are told it will generate, and he doubts if such a total ever materialises anyway. The Tories were unfeeling, uncaring and unconcerned, but it is the wish of residents that our parks must remain free for all.

There was a prolonged outburst of applause from the public gallery. That's enough, said the Mayor. No it isn't, said one of the residents, and another prolonged outburst ensued.

None of the Tories would speak up in defence of our parks and open spaces. Like the parking issue, another betrayal of their constituents, despite the boroughwide opposition to the proposals. Why do they close ranks on these issues? What are they afraid of? There is no explanation other than that they put their own self interest and ambitions for petty political success within their party group, and the possibility of reward by a nice committee chair appointment, before the duty they have to the people they have been elected to represent. The shamelessness, cowardice and their lack of integrity is truly quite disgusting to observe.

Which leaves us with the item about Barnet Football Club. Now, as you know, not only is Mrs Angry a fully qualified accountant and globally renowned auditor, she is a famous football pundit. Her enthusiasm for all forms of sport is boundless, in fact. Yawn.

But she does sympathise with the fans of Barnet FC in the awful predicament the local club now finds itself.

By the way, Mrs Angry was once persuaded to attend Underhill to sit through a women's football final. Her male companion had shown an unhealthy, and, as it turned out, misguided interest in this event. Sadly, the teamplayers all appeared to be very cross PE teachers who spat a lot and fouled more often than, you know that famous player who fouls a lot, what's his name, can't be bothered to look it up.

Anyway, she hasn't been back since. But she feels that all those blokes who should be a. at home doing the ironing, b. fixing the leaking tap in the bathrooom, or c. out shopping with their wives, girlfriends, or mistresses on a Saturday afternoon, in Brent Cross, (where there is free parking), but prefer to be sat in the cold watching the Bees, should be able to continue to do so.

It is clear that between the lack of interest from Barnet Council, and the decisions of the owner, the fate of the football ground is falling nicely into the lap of would be developers, and in the finest tradition of sports, leisure, and cultural facilities in Broken Barnet, will be sold to the highest bidder as soon as possible.

Labour leader Alison Moore's spoke to her item on the future of the club. She reminded the Tory councillors looking on blankly that it should be a source of pride to the borough, and mentioned the wider benefits to the community, the outreach schemes that are so vital in providing positive activities for disadvantaged young people, and she urged members from all parties to come together to support the club. She was wasting her breath, of course.

Tory Brian Salinger also wanted all members to come together over this. Fat chance. He talked about the pointlessness of megaphone diplomacy and the threat of development - something which is usually denied by Tory councillors.

Aha, local Underhill Tory councillor Andrew Strongolou stood to make a rare speech: long, pointless and tedious. Strongolou appears to have been trying to assume a disguise since his appearance in Mrs Angry's post the other day, in regard to councillors' interests -(he was one of several councillors featured who spent the evening eyeing Mrs Angry with sulky expressions, for some reason). He has a new hairdo which, unfortunately, makes him look like Borat, but perhaps he is growing it for an acting role. Mrs Angry hopes so, anyway. Good luck to him. Maybe avoid a moustache, though, Andrew, and don't give in to the temptation of wearing a mankini, if you can help it.

And did the Tories drop their party politics in favour of supporting the local football team, or did they yet again, do as they were told and put 'loyalty' to each other before the best interests of the community?

This is Broken Barnet: what do you think?

*Update - a response to questions about the park hire scheme:

Mrs Angry submitted the following questions to this week's Finchley & Golders Green Residents Forum, but despite the fact that they clearly do refer to 'public works' issues, as defined by the ridiculously restrictive new rules enforced by an 'amendment' to the constitution, these questions were banned. She was kindly allowed to have the issues referred to an officer, who has replied as follows: Mrs Angry's comments in green.

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

The Events in Parks consultation was to formally categorise existing types of events that are held in the parks and to consult on the potential of extending this service to include private events.

Why on earth would the council need help from residents to 'categorise' existing types of events? This is just the council's attempt to obtain endorsement for a policy of commercialisation that no one wants.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

In relation to the hiring of parks for private events no decision has been taken at this time, we are awaiting confirmation as to which decision making body a report containing the results of the consultation and recommendations with regards to the events in parks policy should be presented to, where any decisions will be taken.

So the decision has not been authorised, and no one knows who will authorise it, because no one in Corporate Governance can remember how the council works anymore. Dear me. How standards have fallen.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

The total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme is not estimated to be in the region of £30,000. The figure of £30,000 as noted within the councils recent budget relates to an increase on the target for income from all events in Parks and Open Spaces.

Yes ... which will be coming from the estimated revenue from the park hire scheme. Even the Cabinet Member does not dispute this figure. Please do not insult Mrs Angry's intelligence by making such a ridiculous statement.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?

Should the decision be taken to permit Private Events in parks this will be administered by the existing team and procedures in place for Greenspaces so no additional costs are anticipated. The particular items you raised above are borne by the event hirer as per the current procedures.

Absolute codswallop: 'no additional costs are anticipated'? There should be a clear business plan which has already calculated the budget necessary for implementing such a scheme, and it is complete nonsense to say that the existing team and procedures will be sufficient to cover an unknown number of potential events of varying sizes.

The 'consultation' exercise has taken place, and the response from residents is that they are universally opposed to any commercialisation of our parks and open spaces. If this were not Broken Barnet, that would be the end of the matter, and the proposals would be dropped. Only a fool would continue to push this idiotic plan through in the face of such animosity. I think we all know who that fool is, and what he will do next.

*Update: 13th June 2012 -

Oh dear me.

According to a story on the BBC news website, the government has just announced that in fact the Olympic costs WILL be under budget by a whopping £476 million ... Mrs Angry must warn readers that this means Councillor Coleman's naked crawl along the Finchley Road must now take place. We are hoping that this event may be combined with the arrival of the Olympic Torch in Broken Barnet: our local firefighters have promised to attend with extended hoses and buckets of cold water to prevent any unfortunate consequences.

Sometime Barnet blogger David Miller, 'Don't Call me Dave', of 'Not the Barnet Times', also the former chair of Chipping Barnet Conservatives, has been moved by today's news to write to Councillor Coleman with a question:

"Dear Brian

I am sure you will be delighted as I am at the news that the Olympics will come in at £476 million under budget. Details are on the BBC website here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18421211

You will no doubt recall your previous pledge to walk naked down the Finchley Road in such an eventuality. Please could you announce the date that you will be honouring your pledge as I am sure that the great and good of the Borough would wish to come out to cheer you along.

Let us hope that the weather warms up a little, otherwise the Barnet Bugle might have to invest in a zoom lens.

Kind regards

David"

And miracle of miracles: look - Brian has already replied - speedily, and with no rudeness:

"But this ignores the hundreds of millions of hidden costs within other public budgets."

Dear me. Mrs Angry imagines that Brian hasn't got much else to do but answer emails these days, but really ... one might almost wish for the days when his response would have been rather more spirited. Blimey.

Come back, Brian, all is forgiven.

I miss you.

x Mrs Angry.

PS. Joking, joking. Save me a seat near the finishing line.

Mrs Angry's theory of relativity: full council meeting

Einstein and Mrs Angry debate the relative merits, or otherwise, of Councillor Coleman's controversial park hire scheme


Last night's full council was preceded by an 'extraordinary' meeting, called last year -yes, last year, five weeks ago, by the Labour group to try to force the Tory cabinet to grant a pre Christmas amnesty from the crippling new parking charges. The new cashless parking scheme has caused widespread damage to shops and small businesses all round the borough, and their owners are seeing a loss in trade of up to 40% in some of our town centres.

With touching regard for the problems faced by traders, the Tory administration has delayed this meeting until nearly the end of January. All the same, it gave an opportunity for Labour's Kath McGurk to present some sort of debate on the issue.

Waiting downstairs before we entered the public gallery, Mrs Angry fell into conversation with Helen Michael, the cafe owner from North Finchley who has been admirably vociferous in her opposition to the idiotic new scheme. Mrs Angry drew her attention to the later meeting's questions from councillors, which included the following from Labour leader Alison Moore;

'Some local businesses are citing the cashless parking service and huge parking charge increases as a major reason for a reduction in trade, and even for shops and businesses closing down - when will the Cabinet member listen to local people and reverse the enormous and unfair parking charge increases that he imposed last year?

The answer by Councillor Brian Coleman says that businesses everywhere are calling in the receivers due to 'booming' internet sales, and even poor old Tescos are reporting 'relatively poor trading', even though most of their shops have free car parking.

Er: yes. Councillor Coleman appears not to have realised that internet shopping has been around for some time, and was not invented last winter, around the same time that our parking machines were withdrawn from use. Using the example of a national fall in sales by Tesco, in competition with other supermarkets, is idiotic even by his standards, as there is no evidence to suggest that the Tesco in Finchley has suffered any particular loss in trade: the fact that it offers the only free parking in the area has more probably bumped up sales significantly in the last few weeks.

He rabbits on about needing to help the High Street with 'more flexibility on change of use' and er 'support for the nighttime economy', 'more intelligent Planning decisions' (might need to find some more intelligent councillors, then, Brian). Yes, no doubt this is the case, but if residents are unwilling to visit the High Street in the first place due to your stupid parking scheme, these changes will make no difference.

His last comment is simply incredible. (His lack of punctuation, not mine).

'Quality retail businesses that are flexible will always survive those that are not will go to the wall. The lazy cop out is to blame the council.'

Helen Michael's reaction to this was I imagine a fair representation of how every shopkeeper in the borough would feel on reading this: complete and absolute fury.

The contempt that Coleman demonstrates here for the opinions of local business owners is truly staggering: here is a man who has spent most of his adult life as a councillor and then Assembly member, supported by publicly funded posts, and has never had the responsibilities or experience of running a successful small business, criticising those who are doing so, in the face of a major recession, and now facing immediate ruin as a direct result of the local Tory council's parking policy, of which Coleman is the architect.

In Finchley Central today, two different shop owners told Mrs Angry how furious and anxious they are over the impact of the parking changes on their business. The first was the manager of a charity shop who said that some days there is almost no trade, but worst of all is the dramatic loss of donations as people are no longer willing to stop and park in order to drop them off. Last week we heard Leader Cornelius speak disdainfully of our high streets being full of pound shops and charity shops: he needn't worry because soon they will all be closed, and nothing will replace them.

The other shop owner runs two businesses in the area, one in Finchley Central, the other in North Finchley. He is a very unhappy man, and says he has lost 40% of his usual level of business, and those customers who do call are spending less, as they have parked in a supermarket with time limited free parking.

Mrs Michael and her fellow traders are not - or were not - political agitators. They are local business owners, naturally inclined to expect support from a Conservative council. They do not expect to be put out of business by a Conservative council, or insulted by sneering remarks from the likes of Brian Coleman.

But Coleman is not solely to blame for this mess: the so called Leader, Richard Cornelius, is almost equally responsible. Either he has completely misunderstood the situation, in which case he is a fool, or he does understand, and is too frightened to stand up to Coleman, admit publicly that his administration has got this badly wrong, and put things right, and if that is so, he should be ashamed of himself.

Also culpable are the rest of the Tory group who as we saw last night, and despite the many councillors who privately state their condemnation of the parking changes, do not have the guts or integrity to stand up for what they know to be right, and vote against the continuation of this policy. Shame on you all, then.

And how very stupid they are. Mrs Angry hears that Boris Johnson has expressed his support for the traders of Barnet in their fight against the scheme, and, as she predicted last week, he will be taking a close interest in this issue, with perhaps some interesting developments to follow. Boris is no fool, and could see on his visit last week, just before the results of the Yougov poll which showed how close he is to losing to Ken, the damage being done to the Tory vote in this area.

Some damage is irreversible: there have been so many high profile issues here in Barnet in the last two years which have upset the Tories' own electoral base. Boris is in danger, Brian certainly is in danger, and the next local elections here in our borough will see a loss of marginal and previously safe Conservative seats in several wards.

During last night's 'extraordinary' meeting, Brian Coleman sat sniggering through the entire motion moved by Labour, whispering to his cabinet chum Andrew Harper. Kath made the case again about the new system discriminating against older residents, to no avail. He simply does not care. He stood to make his reply, screeching in that comical, petulant tone, delivering his usual music hall act, to a more than usually hostile reception from the cheap seats in the public gallery.

The old cash payment system required twelve men to go round all the meters: and they were all men, he told us, mystifyingly, because he had taken the trouble to check (why, Brian, why?). Is this really how we want to run things in the twenty first century?

YES! Everyone yelled at him.

Thousands of residents had already registered for the scheme.

THEY HAVE NO CHOICE!

And let's talk about the Labour party's agenda here ...

WHAT'S YOURS, COLEMAN?

Elderly drivers going out without a mobile phone were frankly somewhat foolish ...

DON'T PATRONISE OLDER RESIDENTS

When he finished his rant, he sat down to applause from his fellow Tories, including, I should add, one or two who really ought to know better and don't think Mrs Angry didn't see you. This was totally unneccessary, and shows you what a bunch of trembling sycophants they all are in his presence - with almost all of them queuing up to badmouth him behind his back to anyone who will listen.

The Libdem's Jack Cohen spoke next, telling us that the health food shop in North Finchley is closing, after many years of trading. When he asked the owner why, the answer was: Barnet Council. This process, he said, is being multiplied the length and breadth of the borough, destroying local business. Why don't the Tory councillors stand up to Coleman BECAUSE yelled someone, (well, ok: it was me) THEY ARE A BUNCH OF COWARDS.

Jack Cohen winked in Mrs Angry's direction, having warned her in the lobby he was going to allude to this blog. He said the Tory cabinet members were happy enought to fleece the local tradesmen but were strangely reluctant to residents' forums when invited to address them about the parking issue, eh Councillor Coleman, who was invited to November's forum but failed to appear. Jack referred to a blogger's comparison of the leadership of the council to a certain Captain Pugwash: Coleman being the pirate, and Cornelius playing the part of Tom the cabin boy who always smiled, and said nothing, although to be fair, that could be said of the Tory group as a whole.
Cap'n Coleman and Richard Cornelius, getting ready to jettison the parking scheme, but not yet

The deadly boring Coleman acolyte Rowan Turner spoke movingly of the dreadful hurt caused by Jack Cohen's 'personal slurs'. Mrs Angry thought in fact that Jack was very restrained in not bowing to pressure from the public gallery to allocate the roles of two other apocryphal members of Cap'n Pugwash's crew, messrs Bates and Staines, but there is no pleasing some people, is there? Turner wanted us to remember the hard work they all do.

WHAT HARD WORK? demanded the gallery.

They still get paid, whatever they do, said Mrs Michael to Mrs Angry, shaking her head in disgust: 'I've worked for nothing for the last two months ...'

As predicted, the Tories voted against the opposition motion. When Labour insisted on a division, which compels each member to be named as to the vote they are making, a Tory councillor tweeted to complain, saying what a waste of time it was. Mrs Angry tweeted back that in fact it informed local residents and traders which Tory councillors had decided not to support local business. He didn't reply.

The full meeting began now, after more pointless flouncing about in lace edged gowns, velvet knickerbockers and tricorn hats by the Mayor and her bearers. Mrs Angry refuses to stand up at this point now, in protest at the assault on our local democracy by these town hall tyrants, and this incurs dark looks from certain councillors and council officers. Mrs Angry does not give a shit.

Any hope of mention of any issues of real importance to the community, such as the hugely contentious matter of Coleman's proposed prostitution of our public parks and greenspaces, had now to be postponed for an interminable length of time as the Mayor announced, in the rather amusingly regal voice she has adopted for what is clearly a role she relishes, plans to tell the Queen how absolutely thrilled we all are at her forthcoming diamond jubilee. This was explained to us at some length. And then it was explained to us that we would also be telling the Duke of Edinburgh how thrilled we were at the Queen's forthcoming diamond jubilee. Fabulous news.

All the party leaders had to tell everyone how thrilled they were too, also at great length. Richard Cornelius talked about her reign spanning the eras of both Churchill and Cameron. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, that was a rare reference to the present Tory leader: in Broken Barnet we barely acknowledge the hurtful truth that Margaret Thatcher has turned into Meryl Streep and no longer spends every election night in Broken Barnet, sat in the Town Hall, with a gin clutching Denis in the Mayor's parlour. In this borough, Tories live in their own little twilight world, thirty years behind the times, long before Eric Pickles started wearing braces, let alone conceive the dangerous idea of localism, and everything our councillors fear from a world gone mad for transparency and accountability.

Royal bowing and scraping finished, now time for a change of tone from obsequious to solemn. There were three recently deceased local figures to remember. One was 99, the other 101, so frankly it was not entirely unexpected. One had been a councillor whom all parties recognised had been a man of integrity and devotion to public office. This was an example to emulate, you might think, but the irony floated over the heads of our elected representatives and out of the window of Hendon Town Hall.

The third was a younger man, Karl Ruge, who had played a prominent role in the community, and clearly had had an interesting life. Mrs Angry's ears pricked up when Jack Cohen spoke about him and mentioned his friendship with Albert Einstein. Apparently on one visit to the great man, he took the trouble to try to explain to Ruge's sister his theory of relativity. He said if she sat on the kitchen stove for one minute, it would seem like one hour, but if they were to walk hand in hand in the garden for one hour, to him, it would seem like one minute ... (have I got that right, Jack, you know, rivets, Bunuel, etc?)

Mrs Angry thought she had almost understood what the old boy was banging on about at last. One minute in the council chamber of Broken Barnet certainly seems like an eternity. And yet the evening had only just begun. Can you bear to read anymore? Not sure I can bear to write it.

continued later, maybe ...

Painting the flowers red, Part Two

Last night's Forum was well attended, with most residents there present in order to protest about the outrageous new scheme by, you know who, Brian Coleman, Cabinet Member for the Environment, in which our parks and greenspaces will be hired out for private use, and may even be closed to residents for such purposes in the future.

Yes, I know it sounds unbelievable, even by the base standards that apply here in Broken Barnet, but it has been agreed, by whom we do not know, and the 'consultation process' that has just come to an end was not, in fact, as many residents thought, an exercise to seek their views on the principle of pimping our parks to private customers, but merely a PR stunt pretending to solicit their opinions on the type of events that be encouraged in such locations.

There was an attending cohort of councillors: Tories John Marshall and Dean Cohen, both of whom looked very uncomfortable throughout, Labour members Jim Tierney, Alan Schneiderman, Anne Hutton, Ross Houston, Lib Dem Jack Cohen.

When Mrs Angry arrived, she sat at the front, just in front of Cllr Marshall, just to keep him company. Of course he only turns up at these events to see Mrs Angry, to save himself from hours of lingering next to the nut counter in Waitrose in the hope of some light conversation, and misplaced sympathy from her daughter.

Cllr Marshall and Mrs Angry had an interesting discussion on the subject of the censorship of the Forums. Cllr Marshall is an intelligent man, and an experienced politician, and is clearly uncomfortable with the constitutional changes which have facilitated this assault on the process of 'engagement' with the electorate. When asked how he could reconcile the changes with the government's principle of localism and transparency, well: he could offer no response. He pointed out he had not taken part in the constitution committee which sanctioned such changes. Mrs Angry remarked, with some amusement, that she had bothered to sit through the meeting where the amendments had been passed and wondered why the Tory councillors who wish to disassociate themselves from such undemocratic developments remained silent, and did not seek to take an active interest in the proposals or to influence their colleagues when taking such decisions.

Sitting on the panel were the Chair, Reuben Thompstone, vice chair, Graham Old, and three officers, one from Governance, one from Highways, and Mr John McArdle from parking.

The Chair announced that he would not be reading his way through the rules.This came as a great relief, as a ten minute lecture on the subjects which are now forbidden from inclusion at a public forum is guaranteed to enrage an already mutinous audience, and makes Mrs Angry inclined to want to grab Cllr Thompstone by the tie and give him a well, a good talking to, shall we say?

Ah. First item: Mrs Angry's question about the parks. Here we go again:

1. The council has just announced plans to hire out parts of some of our local parks for private functions and other events. I would like to know:

a. Is it the intention of the council to allow any of these parks to be fully closed to the public for any event?

b. Has external legal advice been taken on the grounds for allowing such use of the parks?

c. Has an equalities impact assessment study been carried out?

d. Why has Friary Park been missed off the list of parks intended for the scheme? Has the Cabinet member for the Environment withheld it from the scheme and if so why?

e. The scheme includes Scratchwood greenspace. Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment aware that this location is known for its use by 'dogging' enthusiasts, and does the council really think this is a suitable venue for weddings and other such events?

Before Mrs Angry began her supplementary questions, she took the opportunity to protest about the fact that her other questions, mostly on public works issues as decreed by the new regulations, had been rejected, and that she had been informed by Mr McArdle that now public works issues that were boroughwide may not be raised, which is why her further question about park hire, had been excluded:

2. For further clarification in regard to the park hire scheme:

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?

Why is it that the first question was allowed, but not the second?

Mrs Angry asked the Chair the same question she had posed to his colleague John Marshall: how exactly was such censorship and repression of debate compatible with his own government's policy on localism and transparency?

Councillor Reuben Thompstone shifted uncomfortably in his seat and stared back at Mrs Angry without speaking. She gestured encouragingly to him to respond to the point she was making. He refused, and said he would not reply. Mrs Angry can only assume, Councillor Thompstone, that you would not reply because you know that you are completely in the wrong, and that what you and your Tory colleagues are doing is utterly inexcusable.

A resident who Mrs Angry will call Mr P was sitting at the front, glowering with ill contained fury. He had been the man who caused a riot at a previous Forum and ended up sitting at the table in front of the Chair, on a chair pulled to with in inches of Thompstone's face, where he remained for the rest of the evening. Really funny, but in a tragic sort of way.

Mr P stood up now and yelled, in some detail, and with some force, his deeply held objections to the contraints of the Forum.

'Censorship,' he pointed out, 'is not democracy!'

Libdem Jack Cohen intervened. He had been present at a recent meeting where the definition of 'public works', and what may or may now be raised at our forums had been formalised by the council, but he could not remember any mention of the exclusion of 'boroughwide' issues. Ah. How very interesting, thought Mrs Angry. It made no difference, though, as far as the Chair was concerned.

On with supplementary questions then, as the written answers to her question were so evasive.

a. please confirm that parks will be entirely closed to residents during a private event if requested, and tell us how often this will be allowed.

b. have you taken external legal advice?

c.can I have a copy of the document detailing the decision not to hold an equalities impact assessment?

d and e: please answer the question, in both cases specifically referring to Brian Coleman, the Cabinet member for environment - did he withhold Friary Park from the list of suitable park venues and if so is there not a conflict of interest when his company holds a summer show in this park at a reduced level of charge and secondly (and I am afraid this is where Mrs Angry disgraced herself and, provoked by the expressions on the faces of the panel members in front of her, started laughing uncontrollably, shamefully, like a silly schoolgirl) - was he asked whether he was aware that Scratchwoods is an area notorious for 'dogging' enthusiasts, and if he considered this was a suitable location for weddings and family events?

Mr P jumped up again. He had been having correspondance with an officer on this issue, which is one he feels very strongly about. He had been told the parks may close entirely for such events, perhaps as many as ten times a year.

The chair yelled back: Mr P, you are disrupting the meeting!

No, he replied: you are disrupting our lives!

Mr P referred to 'Coleman and his minions' who claim that this scheme will rake in revenue for the council, but pointed out that the figures supplied suggest that less than £30,000 per annumn will be made from such hire, and we do not know how much extra cost must be balanced against any such minimal profit.

Mr P reminded the Chair that our parks were created by Victorian philanthropists for the benefit of the community, not to be used as commercial enterprises. To hire out our public parks and openspaces is a major deviation of use, will lose money, and for what? In order to paint the flowers red for Councillor Coleman.

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, musing on the Alice in Wonderland reference. Painting the flowers red, a suitable metaphor for the way in which everything must be forced to comply with the lunatic policies of our Town Hall tyrants.

Other residents made very good points about the proposals. Tirza Waisel asked about the future status of Finchley Community Festival, which was crushed by a demand from Cllr Coleman for a hire charge of around £3,000 while the Summer Show he runs in Friary Park was given rather more favourable terms.

Mr P was not happy with the anwers being given to residents' queries and remarked that proper answers were being withheld, and the 'mechanical approach' of the chair was obstructing the 'debate'.

Another resident voiced the daring suggestion that community events should be free of charge, and a lady by the name of Mrs Read made important points baout the hidden costs of the scheme, the 'lack of positive feeling' towards it, the coming election and the risk of antagonising the electorate. She also reiterated the feelings of most of us by reminding the Chair that in fact, the parks and greenspaces belong to us.

It was clear from the response of the officer that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the parks scheme. Mrs Angry doubts whether the legal case for what is proposed has been properly researched: not that this is a major concern to ourTory council, until a mistake costs them, or rather us, an enormous amount of money.

One very interesting remark was made by the officer: in contradiction of what many residents have recently been told, that in fact the decision to hire out the parks has been agreed, he claimed 'no decision has been made'. Is this more confusion, and spin, or the truth? Hard to tell, in Broken Barnet.

Mr P was becoming very cross. Pandemonium ensued in the time honoured tradition of this Forum. The chair, who had repeatedly told him to shut up, said if he carried on he would have to leave. Mr P carried on.

I am going to ask you to leave for this continual interruption, snapped Cllr Thompstone

And I am going too ask you to leave for being a jackass, replied Mr P

Then there can be no meeting, said Thompstone, airily. Mrs Angry disputed this point, thinking we might very well do much better if he were not present.

I am now asking you to leave, said Thompstone to Mr P.

I am now asking you to leave, said Mr P.

The meeting, said Thompstone, is now suspended. He folded his arms. You are holding us all to ransom, he remarked, smugly.

Hypocrite, said Mr P.

Some residents became very frustrated at this point. Mr P commented that such a state of affairs was the thin end of the wedge, and the mark of a totalitarian government. He is right.

Shall we move on? suggested Mrs Angry, who also thoughtfully pointed out to the Chair that such arguments would not occur if he and his Tory colleageagues had not enraged the community with their determination to censor all public debate. Councillor Thompstone may not have taken Mrs Angry's observation entirely to heart, and indeed looked very cross. Oh well. The truth hurts, Councillor Thompstone, doesn't it?

There is a motion on this issue at tonight's full council meeting, which itself is preceded by an 'extraordinary' meeting of the council to er consider Labour's proposal for a parking amnesty before Christmas. Next Christmas, we must suppose. Better late than never, eh?

Bearing in mind the huge resentment felt by residents over the parking and the parks issue, it promises to be an interesting night. Mrs Angry is this week frankly sick to death of Barnet council and all its works, public or otherwise, but will probably be in attendance.

Funnily enough, by the way, still no response to further emails in regard to visiting the council offices tomorrow to inspect the register of councillors' interests. Not very impressive, is it?

Oh, nearly forgot: here to cheer us all up as we contemplate the council's planned commercial exploitation of our parks is a salutory tale, courtesy of Fascinating Aida.

This is dedicated to the councillor I overheard at last night's meeting asking what dogging was all about.

Avoid if you are easily offended (and if so what are you doing reading this blog?) or are frightened by references to sexual activities involving someone called Brian.

Oh, and just for a regular reader who enjoys retro references to the rozzers ... Enjoy.

Painting the flowers red: another residents forum, Part One

'Would you tell me,' said Alice, a little timidly, 'why you are painting those roses?' Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began in a low voice, 'Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So you see, Miss, we're doing our best, afore she comes, to — ' At this moment Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out 'The Queen! The Queen!' and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces ...

'Who are you talking to?' said the King, going up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

'It's a friend of mine — a Cheshire Cat,' said Alice: 'allow me to introduce it.'

'I don't like the look of it at all,' said the King: 'however, it may kiss my hand if it likes.'

'I'd rather not,' the Cat remarked.

'Don't be impertinent,' said the King, 'and don't look at me like that!' He got behind Alice as he spoke.

'A cat may look at a king,' said Alice. 'I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where.'

'Well, it must be removed,' said the King very decidedly, and he called the Queen, who was passing at the moment, 'My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!'

So, yes: another Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum. Let us set the scene, before the main act ...

The senior management team did their best to keep last night's meeting secret,by not advertising it and emailing reminders to a privileged few residents at the very last moment, and made it almost impossible to submit any issues for what passes for discussion at these events, but Mrs Angry is an optimist and continues to attend the forums and attempt to ask questions, in the hope that it at least causes some inconvenience to the coalition of knaves and fools who run our borough.

At the last Forum, the Chair Reuben Thompstone had closed the meeting just as it was time for Mrs Angry's issues to be raised: wasn't that a coincidence? This meant that her question about the scandalous new park hire scheme was held over to last night's meeting.

1. The council has just announced plans to hire out parts of some of our local parks for private functions and other events. I would like to know:

a. Is it the intention of the council to allow any of these parks to be fully closed to the public for any event?

b. Has external legal advice been taken on the grounds for allowing such use of the parks?

c. Has an equalities impact assessment study been carried out?

d. Why has Friary Park been missed off the list of parks intended for the scheme? Has the Cabinet member for the Environment withheld it from the scheme and if so why?

e. The scheme includes Scratchwood greenspace. Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment aware that this location is known for its use by 'dogging' enthusiasts, and does the council really think this is a suitable venue for weddings and other such events?

In addition to this question, Mrs Angry added the following:

2. For further clarification in regard to the park hire scheme:

a. Please confirm that the consultation exercise carried out in relation to the park hire scheme is not, as many residents falsely believe, over the principle of hiring the parks out, but to 'consult' users about the variation of uses that the scheme may involve.

b. Please confirm exactly when the decision to hire parks out in his way was made, and by whom.

c. Please confirm that the total estimated revenue from the park hire scheme will be in the region of £30,000.

d. What are the estimated extra budget costs required in order to implement and maintain this scheme, for example in the use of extra supervisory staff, litter removal, insurance?


3. At a recent business meeting in Finchley, the Council Leader allegedly reported that Barnet Museum has been 'saved from closure' and is now being run by volunteers. Please confirm that in fact the museum has always been run by volunteers, and that the Museum is still facing an uncertain future as no agreement has been reached.

4. Church Farmhouse Museum and the surrounding grounds have now been put up for sale. Does the council intend to protect the grounds of this historic building from development and preserve them as a greenspace for residents, or will they be sold off for development?

6. Is it possible to review the level of lighting in Chaville Way, the approach to Finchley Central underground station? The lighting is totally inadequate, and is potentially a risk for the security of women and vulnerable travellers using the station late at night, Bearing in mind the determination to remove staff from ticket offices, and the frequency of muggings in the immediate vicinity of tube stations, it would seem a good idea to improve at least the perception of personal safety.

7. Can you tell us why, despite a payment of £80,000 to a company with whom Barnet has a non compliant contract for the work, the parking meters in our borough are still in place? They were supposed to have been removed by the end of November, 2011.

Have we paid the company in question for work left unfinished?

Surely it is more sensible to retain the machines and reintroduce the cash payment system?

8. Why has so little publicity been given to the latest Forum meetings? The reminder about the meetings sent by email is the only notification I am aware of, and does not give sufficient time for questions to be considered and submitted, and must cause inconvenience for council officers attempting to deal with the questions in such a short time.

After submitting these issues for the meeting, Mrs Angry was rather annoyed to receive the following response:

Thank you for below email. The previous questions were accepted for the last meeting and are on the Issues List for this meeting. Please note that answers have been provided (attached).

For the new questions only Question 6 (highlighted) will be placed on the Issues List as all the other questions are not public works issues and/or local issues specific to Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum. The questions will be better directed to the relevant Service Areas and I have copied in the relevant Services so that they may respond to you directly
.

Qs 2 & 3 – Matt Gunyon, Leisure Contracts Manager

Q4 – Suzanna Ellis, Property Services

Q7 – John McArdle, Parking Manager, Environment, Planning and Regeneration

Q8 – Governance Service

Mrs Angry received a response yesterday from Mr John McArdle, in which he stated:

Dear Mrs Angry,

I understand that you submitted a question on the removal of pay and display machines for the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum, but this was determined to be a borough-wide issue therefore not a matter for that meeting.

This question has now been passed to me, and I can confirm that RM Countryside has been paid only for those machines actually removed and that the payment is far less than £80,000. I had planned to use this contractor for the entire job, but the Council’s procedures prevent this so another is being found. This will take time to organise.

These machines were decommissioned as part of the move to cashless parking and the internal structures for maintaining them and collecting cash dismantled to deliver savings. It would not, therefore, be practicable to bring them back into service as the Council no longer has the capacity to deliver such activity.

I trust that these comments are helpful to you.

John McArdle

Interim Parking Manager | Environment, Planning and Regeneration

Hmm. Mrs Angry has now replied to Mr McArdle:


Dear Mr McArdle,

Thank you for your email.

I have to confess to being rather amused by your response. The only reason the removal programme has been halted is because local bloggers discovered that the payment to RMCountryside was in breach of regulations, being made by the means of a delegated powers report to a company already acknowledged to have a non compliant 'contract' with the authority.

I imagine that you, Ms Pam Wharfe, and Councillor Brian Coleman would like to thank us for pointing out your rather unfortunate breach of the rules, and I am sure that we are all happy to continue to advise the council on the management of procurement and contractual obligations.

In return, it would be nice if we, and all other residents, might be allowed to raise such issues of concern at our Forums and not be censored on the spurious grounds you present in your response. It is simply ridiculous that you were obliged to attend last night's meeting, yet remained silent throughout as my perfectly reasonable questions in regard to parking was not allowed to be raised in open debate.

To inform me that we may now not even discuss issues that do fit the new definition of 'public works' if they are 'boroughwide' is outrageous, and I simply do not accept that this is the case. I would ask you to tell me where in the council constitution this new definition exists, or who has told you that this new rule must apply.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

To be continued ...

Nothing to declare? Our Tory councillors' interesting interests

Sins of omission? The infant Mrs Angry at prayer

So ... Mrs Angry is not welcome at North London Business Park, it seems. The senior management team is very scared of letting the wicked witch of Broken Barnet loose on the withheld interests of our Tory councillors, and reluctant to let her see the updated interests and gifts and hospitality too.

Why would that be, do you think?

Is it something she said?

Or could it be that some naughty councillors have forgotten to update their declarations, or to make a full and open disclosure of all the interests which must be disclosed by law?

No. Mrs Angry does not believe that to be possible.

Perhaps one or two of them have forgotten that they own that particular property, or have that undeclared post ... I do that all the time, you know, misplacing things, don't worry: where are my reading glasses? You're wearing them, Mrs Angry. Ah yes - all the better to see you with, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

We have no reason to believe that our Tory councillors have any reason to be anything but open, transparent, and eager to be scrutinised by the armchair auditors of Broken Barnet. Do we?

The interests listed online on the Barnet Council website are from June 2010. There are thirty three listed, and six withheld. For the purposes of this post I will refer only to those online, excluding former leader Lynne Hillan, who is unwell.

Now, Mrs Angry was under the impression that these forms are meant to be re-submitted every year, but perhaps that is not so. Certainly it is a requirement that any changes, or additional gifts and hospitality, must be updated within 28 days. The rules, as dictated by the local Code of Prractice, and of course the statutory requirements of section 81(1) of the Local Government Act 2000, are very clear about the duties of councillors to be open and honest in their declarations: to omit information, or to provide false information, or to fail to give further notices of additional details, is clearly a breach of the regulations.

Mrs Angry is not fully confident that all councillors have entirely understood their responsibilities in this respect, despite the clear instructions on the forms they have signed. It may also be possible that the council has been negligent in not updating information received. In either case, Mrs Angry would argue that the failure to provide clear and open and easily accessible information in regard to their elected representatives' interests signifies that the residents of Broken Barnet are yet again being wilfully obstructed from a proper process of scrutiny of the authority's actions and policies.

And about half of the councillors have, since June 2010, made additional declarations, either a new position on a committee, or an attendance at a charity dinner or similar, but almost all of these entries are very brief, and few in number. The other councillors, poor old loves, have apparently received no gifts or hospitality at all, and many have apparently not taken any additional roles either in business or in the community which ought to be declared.

Sadder than the number of councillors that no one likes enough to buy a present worth more than £25, or to invite out to dinner, are the number of them who - sorry, Mrs Angry is reaching for her hankie - are seemingly homeless.

In section 10, there is a requirement for members 'to declare land in the borough which you have a beneficial interest (that is, in which you have some property interest for your own use) ...'

Most councillors have declared a home address, but not all of them. Councillors Maureen Braun, Tom Davey, David 'Goldenarse' Longstaff, Wendy Prentice, the current Mayor Lisa Rutter, Andrew Strongolou, and Reuben Thompstone, have nothing to declare.

This must mean, presumably, that they are all tenants - or living with their mum and dad?


Well, perhaps not the latter explanation for Maureen Braun, above. Her declaration is very short in detail, in fact: the word NONE is scrawled repeatedly over every section, in what looks, Maureen, to be frank, like rather bad tempered handwriting. Mrs Braun lives in a nice road in Mill Hill, but her home there is not listed as a beneficial interest, therefore it must be owned by someone else.

Ah: hang on, according to land registry records, there is a house at the same address owned by a Mr and Mrs Braun. Mrs Angry is confused. She is sure there is some perfectly satisfactory explanation for this and is happy to publish any such explanation, but on the face of it there does appear to be a rather puzzling contradiction of the facts as listed on the declaration, doesn't there? Perhaps Maureen did update this omission at some point, and the senior officers in charge of the register have forgotten to update the register?

Wendy Prentice, as we have remarked before, has given no address but written cryptically 'about three acres of Hadley Green' in response to this section. There is of course a requirement in the declaration form that states: 'You should give the address or a brief description which is sufficient to identify a location' Hmm. Mrs Angry can only conclude that Councillor Prentice is being a bit of a tease. Mrs Angry can be a bit of a tease, too, and nothing wrong with that, but there is a time and a place, you know,as it can lead to unfortunate misunderstanding.

About three acres of Hadley Green ... let's see ... according to a potted history on Barnet online, historic Hadley Green is 24 acres in size, so, erm, 1/8 of the green is owned by Councillor Prentice, but we have to guess which ones. Or, as we have previously speculated, perhaps she is, like some of Mrs Angry's forebears, a member of a gypsy/travelling community, and moves about a bit?

As there is, rather disgracefully, no provision for gypsies and travellers in the London Borough of Broken Barnet, Mrs Angry wonders how Mrs Prentice has managed to escape the beady eye of the Old Bill and her fellow Barnet councillor Rowan Turner, who has a great interest in this issue, and pitch her tent on Hadley Green without being spotted. Is she engaged in some sort of Tory #Occupy protest? (She is rather new age in her appearance: Mrs Angry observed at a council meeting last week that Mrs Prentice, who is a woman of, well, mature years, has adopted a surprising new hairdo: a sort of Glasto granny look - blonde crop with flamingo pink edged fringe. Very courageous. Miss Angry wants to do something similar with her hair, Wendy, but I won't let her.)


At last weeks Boris bash, Tory Leader Richard Cornelius expressed his concern about the high number of young people in the borough who are unemployed: it is a very serious problem, and clearly one not unknown amongst our councillors too.

Andrew Strongolou, pictured above, not only has no home listed, he has nothing listed under employment. Andrew, like his colleague David Longstaff, was rumoured to have aspirations (there you go, that can only be a good thing, can't it?) to be an Actor. He has in the past had some extra work, and been listed on a casting agency. Since Mrs Angry took an interest in Councillor Longstaff's golden arse, as revealed in a promo film on his own agency listing, Councillor Strongolou's own details on the Lynchmob Agency appear to have disappeared from the internet. Shame.

Why his former acting career is not declared on his form, Mrs Angry does not know. Perhaps he is shy. Not a good thing if you want to be on the stage, darling, one would have thought. Or perhaps he has jacked it in. Must be hard living on just the pittance he receives as a councillor, though. Still, he seems to keep himself busy: he is involved in the Cypriot charity Rizokarpasson Association, listed here as a committee member, and on Linkedin described as 'Hospitality Secretary'. He has also had an interest in a company called Sunlight Productions Ltd, which is a non-trading company. Whatever that means.

Ironic, perhaps, that Councillor Tom Davey, who is now the stern faced young Cabinet member responsible for housing, has no property interest of his own to declare. Presumably he must be in rented accommodation too, or maybe with Mum & Dad. His form, Mrs Angry notes, is dated from 2008, with a couple of amendments scribbled in in 2010.

Tom Davey, who works as a finance analyst for British American Tobacco, has strong views on many issues. He is very keen, for example, to wean the undeserving poor from their dependence on social housing, and in his new role is overseeing the introduction of wonderful Victorian values of self help and aspiration to respectability.



Would be council tenants who wish to have any real chance of one day being housed in Broken Barnet now have to demonstrate a 'positive contribution to the community' and will only be granted a tenancy for a limited number of years, in order to prevent stability of tenure, sentimental attachment to their homes, or demanding too much in the way of subsidised housing, a concept only allowed in the real world of Broken Barnet for Tory cabinet colleagues of Councillor Davey who might be in need of a charity owned flat, and whose Mum & Dad cannot accommodate them. For the majority of non property owning residents of this borough, this means living in privately owned housing, paying rapidly increasing rentals, which those in need of benefits are finding it impossible to afford.

Councillor Reuben Thompstone, who will yet again have the pleasure of Mrs Angry's company tonight at our local residents forum, where Mrs Angry will upset him by trying to ask questions, and he will upset Mrs Angry by refusing to allow her to speak, has declared his home to be leasehold, but given no details of where this is. Another tease. Or perhaps he is worried Mrs Angry might come round and peer through his letter box. She might.


The Mayor of Barnet: no declarations since July? ... it's a mystery

Lisa Rutter, the current Mayor, above, also states that she has no beneficial property interest in the borough. She seems to be a nice enough woman, and Mrs Angry is sure that she is entirely honest in her declarations. Perhaps she does not live in the borough, or own any property here.

Ah: hold on - according to land registry records, a Mr Mark and Mrs Litsa Rutter do have a property in N20 - again, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this being omitted from the declaration, and Mrs Angry is happy to clarify this if so. Perhaps it is another case of details not being updated?

It must be noted, however, that as regards the list of gifts & hospitality received, the declarations here end in July. Mrs Angry imagines that Mrs Rutter has continued to declare all her gifts and hospitality, but that these entries have not been updated online. This would be typical of the way we do things in this borough, and reminds us that transparency is not held in the highest regard by our senior officers or our councillors. Council staff are under great pressure of work, of course, and making redundant, last year, the officers most experienced in this area would appear to have had a significant impact on the Governance department's ability to cope with certain aspects of their responsibilities ...

The declaration form comes in two parts: Form 1, General Notice, the -ha -compulsory section, and then a second part, 'Additional Voluntary Declarations', in which the council 'asks' that members give details of membership of organisations or directorships -oh, and shareholdings -not registered under the previous section.

To be fair, some Tory councillors have decided to do the right thing and made some declarations in this section. Mrs Angry commends councillors John Hart, Graham Old, Andrew Harper, Helena Hart, and David Longstaff for doing so.

Mrs Angry confesses to being amused by Councillor Longstaffe's declaration of shares in three companies, and their total value (at the time of signing in 2010) - he tells us rather crossly: 'WHICH IS A LOT LESS THAN I PAID FOR THEM.)

Please remember, Councillor Longstaff, that the price of stocks and shares can go down, as well as up. Market forces, darling: don't complain.

Oh dear, Reuben Thompstone. Not only does he not want us to know where he lives, he has objected to being asked about his stocks and shares, and has written: 'I do not wish to declare'.

It seems that only 13 of our Tory members have been offered any gifts or hospitality. Mrs Angry finds this rather a poignant fact to contemplate. Perhaps the Barnet bloggers should club together and buy presents for those whom nobody likes enough to bother with? Deputy Leader Daniel 'John' Thomas: nothing. Admittedly Mrs Angry would leave the country rather than have to sit through dinner with him, due to the risk of falling asleep with her head in the soup, but all the same. Brian Gordon: ah, well, ditto. Rowan Turner - oh, hold on, something of a pattern forming here.

Those councillors who have made declarations of gifts or hospitality are a bit more lively.

Leader Richard Cornelius, the cheeky monkey, sneaked off from his duties here in Broken Barnet on a trip to Morphou, in Cyprus, 7-10th October, and got £745 worth of accommodation and flights from the local municipality so he could attend, erm, hold, on what is the phrase ... 'a peace demonstration'. Good man.

Oh look: Councillor Joanna Tambourides has also been to Morphou. In 2010 and 2011. She paid her own air fares, she tells us. She is also keen to point out, in both entries, that she shared her bedroom with her husband. Why she should worry about any doubt on this point is unclear.

Mr and Mrs Tambourides: shocking declaration reveals they shared room in Morphou hotel

(*Note to any municipalities reading this: Mrs Angry is also available, at very short notice, to attend any 'peace demonstrations' at your expense providing it is somewhere sunny, warm, with a nice room, and free.)

Not only that, But Richard was given a glass paperweight, and a bottle of wine. You know: the sort of thing you normally get on a demo. You should see the cut glass decanter and key ring I got for my attendance at a poll tax riot in 1990. Worth a few quid now. See, Cllr Longstaff: invest wisely, like Mrs Angry, in socialist activism, and you'll be quids in.

Oh look: here comes Councillor Andrew Harper. Now, interestingly, Andrew, according to the online form, has not updated his change of role. He was of course Deputy Leader of the council until this summer, but has not altered his description in the declaration, holding on with determination to the full extent of his portfolio. Funnily enough, Cllr Harper has updated a change in his role as member of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute council around the same time.
Former Deputy Leader Andrew Harper has been recycled, but is still coming to terms with it

Andrew has had a few good dinners in his time: likes going to the Guildhall, and had some fun at the Tory conference too, entertained by Localis, who have worked with Barnet over some Big Society type balls, and hello, dining with two lady MPs, Penny Mordaunt and Sarah Newton so as to er 'discuss social care and health issues'. Hmm. The old devil. Oh, and what's this? Dinner & full English breakfast at the Sandbanks Hotel, Poole, with Mrs Angry, 14th February 2011, 'to discuss the new localism bill, especially the extension of transparency, accountability and the empowerment of the local blogosphere'. You fecking liar, Councillor Harper. We stayed at the Haven, if you remember ... yes, yes: a joke. It was the Sandbanks, but another councillor entirely. He's promised to take me to Morphou in October.

Now stop joking, Mrs Angry, and make a serious point.

Q: Why does it matter in the slightest, what our Tory councillors declare, and that this information is regularly updated and put in the public domain?

A: It matters because, apart from the fact that there is a legal requirement to declare such information, councillors have control over an enormous budget, paid for by our hard earned money, and must be seen to be acting at all times without being subject to personal or commercial interest. At the moment, scrupulous attention to such declarations of interest, gifts and hospitality is of the most vital importance as we are going through the process of giving away £1 billion worth of business contracts (maybe, you never can tell in this borough) to the private sector.

It is regrettable that so many councillors do not feel moved to declare their stocks and shares, as it would be most unfortunate if, say, some of the members had shares in one of the short listed companies currently vying for one of the enormous outsourcing packages on offer, wouldn't it?

If you haven't got shares in one of the short listed companies currently vying for one of the enormous outsourcing packages on offer, btw, citizens, now might be the time to buy (see: more investment advce from Mrs Angry). Mrs Angry can think of at least two companies who are about to see profits rise considerably, and it might be one way of offsetting the enormous rise iin charges in council services about to come our way.

Finally, and thanks be to God for that: Mrs Angry has still had no response to her request to see the withheld and any updated interests so she and Mr Mustard have informed the relevant officers of their intention to arrive on Wednesday afternoon to exercise their right to do so. If the Director of Corporate Governance sees fit to bar them from exercising their right to do so, Mrs Angry will be obliged to make a formal complaint to the Monitoring Officer. Who is ... er let me check ... the Director of Corporate Governance. Ah. Oh dear.

And to night: the Residents Forums. Mrs Angry has had six of her eight questions banned, despite the fact that they are about parks and other public works issues. She has been informed by the officer in charge of parking that we may now not discuss issues even if they fit the criteria of public works if they are 'boroughwide' issues. This is of course absolutely outrageous, and an act of incendiary provocation, as far as Mrs Angry is concerned.

This is Broken Barnet: have you noticed?