Barnet County Court usually deals with family cases, small claims cases: routine, personal issues, attended by the plaintiffs and their legal advisers, dealt with quietly, discreetly: no one else's business, unremarked, and unreported.
Today was different. Today was when the very interesting matter of the occupation of Friern Barnet Library - the People's Library - was brought before the judge, to decide whether or not Barnet Council should be granted leave to repossess the building and evict the occupiers and community activists who have installed themselves in the library, reclaiming it for the people of Friern Barnet.
The people of Friern Barnet came to the court in large numbers today to show their support for the occupiers, crowding out the courtroom, and politely taking their turns in sitting in limited space available throughout the hearing. Politeness, and a very British attitude is the prevailing quality of the occupation, in fact, confounding almost everyone's prejudices about squatters, the occupy movement, and direct action initiatives. Here in this most British of environments, a courtroom, where justice is blind, and allocated on the basis of merit, not privilege, or force, there was perhaps the right home for much of what drives the continuing story of this small scale revolution in a library, in the heart of Tory Barnet.
The motives of the residents and activists pursuing this course of action are, in Mrs Angry's eyes anyway absolutely just, and seeking only what is fair. It is the corrupt, illegitimate authority of Barnet Council which is on trial, and called to answer for its immorality and betrayal of the best interests of the people it was elected to represent.
Judge Patricia Pearl spent most of the morning deciding on the proper way to conduct the case, and the outlines of the different arguments to be brought by the council and the defendants who are in occupation of the library. Some of the discussions were rather prolonged, and nitpicking, and the judge herself wondered if members of the public would think they were debating 'the number of angels that could be safely accommodated on the head of a pin'. Eventually proceedings got under way, with four individuals listed as the representatives of the occupiers: Peter Phoenix, Daniel Gardner, Petra Halbert and Keith Martin.
For Barnet the barrister was a Mr Nicholas Grundy, and for the occupiers, Miss Sarah Sackman.
First to take the stand was an officer from property services, Susannah Lewis, who was questioned about such matters as whether or not sleeping in a library, as the occupiers do, constituted a form of residency, and therefore some sort of breach of planning regulations. It appeared that might be the case. She did admit, however, that there had been no impediment to inspection of the premises by the council's representatives by the occupiers.
Bill Murphy, a consultant working as Barnet's Assistant Director of Customer Services, and therefore ultimately responsible for libraries, was sworn in next. Incidentally, there were no Tory councillors present: scared off, no doubt, after last time, when a solitary member,, deputy leader Councillor Dan Thomas had the uncomfortable experience of being surrounded by the dozens of library supporters.
Mr Murphy said that the council had wanted to enter discussions with the occupiers and campaigners 'in good faith'. Rather puzzlingly he claimed that the council had appointed a named officer to deal with residents and campaigners over the library issue. No one in the courtroom had heard of this individual.
Some discussion ensued as to whether or not the occupiers had been informed that they were 'trespassers'. He thought that this was 'implied'.
Mr Grundy suggested that the occupation was an obstruction in the marketing of the library to community bidders, now that the building had been listed, under the new terms of the localism act, as a communtity asset. That was correct, said Mr Murphy.
Mrs Angry tried to understand the point being made here: that the fact that residents had taken steps to get their library building listed in this way was preventing residents from acquiring it for community use?
Mention now was made of the meeting in the occupied library on September 10th, a meeting attended by an assortment of officers, occupiers, residents, campaigners - and bloggers, including Mrs Angry.
Minutes from this meeting had been supplied, and rather bizarrely Mr Grundy, on behalf of the authority, quoted the words of John Dix, blogger Mr Reasonable, saying that the officers present were not authorised to make decisions and asking where were the councillors ... this was represented by Mr Grundy as in some way reinforcing the argument that the meeting was not to be taken as any sort of formal negotation, or recognition of any license to occupy the premises.
It was established now that freelance journalist, Diane Taylor, also present at the 'circle of friends' meeting had asked 'will you enter into a caretaker arrangement'. The answer had been 'we will not enter into any snap decisions'.
This, you might think clearly suggested that a caretaker arrangement was therefore not ruled out as a possibility, and arguably gave legitimacy to the occupation, allied with the absence of any mention of the term 'trespass'.
Mr Murphy thought the confusion arose from the difficulty of the council's position, being 'between a rock and a hard place', and not wishing to 'make the situation worse'. He also commented that they were not dealing with 'amateur squatters' - the implication being they knew the position without it being spelt out.
After lunch, it was time for campaigner Fiona Brickwood to take the stand. Ms Brickwood is a psychotherapist by profession, and a resident of Friern Barnet for sixteen years. Her testimony was measured, convincing and yet forthright. She said she was very upset by the closure of the library, the heart, she said, of Friern Barnet. She had her own campaign group, the Friern Barnet Co-action group, but also helped with the Save Friern Library Group, being involved in protests, attending council meetings, the pop up libraries, all in order to support the community, which had rallied around, brought books, and turned it into a thriving concern. Not just donating books: computers, time, everyone coming together. People got to meet neighbours, and support each other.
Fiona listed some of the many varied activities in the occupied library: children's activities (supervised by CRB checked volunteers) social events, music, yoga, pilates, language lessons. She explained how she felt it was right to protest very strongly about the library being closed, and explained that when asked about the proposal, people had said very strongly 'no, we don't want this'.
The council's barrister made the mistake of mentioning the failure by campaigners to apply for a Judicial Review. Fiona Brickwood pointed out that in fact this was entirely due to the campaigners being misled by officers as to the process of negotiation in which they thought they were involved, which, prolonged as it was, conveniently(for the council) took them beyond what they later discovered was the the three month limit for application for JR. She described this behaviour by the council as 'reprehensible'. Bill Murphy shook his head.
Asked how she felt about the occupation, Fiona said that the campaigners were 'enormously grateful' to them. As to the issue about whether trespass was mentioned, she felt that the council was 'talking through their actions', in other words effectively giving a form of legitimacy to the occupation by their negotiations.
Mr Grundy now tried to put the case that the occupation somehow disadvantaged any other groups who wished to bid to take over the library building now it was listed as a community asset. Fiona refuted this, pointing out the library had been empty for a long time, and as to any potential bids - bring'em on ...
Next up was Phoenix, the spokesperson of the library occupiers. He described himself as a community organiser of some 20 years experience - since the Rio summit of 1992. He described coming to Friern Barnet and being struck by the lack of transparency and lack of communication by the council in its dealings with residents over the library.
He wanted to enable a better dialogue, and bring the council and local community together. In his statement he had described the various activities that have taken place in the occupied library, and added a few more recent examples - the visit and reading from Will Self, an event on climate debate with the new Green Party leader, a talk by a senior Unison officer on 'transition towns'.
Holding these events, he said, demonstrated that it is a vibrant centre for the community. It strengthened the protest, raised massive awareness in the media - and as he later explained he wanted to draw attention to the wider issue of library closures. He saw himself as a facilitator for the local community, who could create a solution.
Mr Grundy wanted to know if he was a 'professional occupier'. Phoenix thought a better term would be an 'experienced occupier'.
Mr Grundy wanted to know if he thought he was good at it. Phoenix thought he was good at 'community projects'.
Mr Grundy asked him about the new listing as a community asset, implying that this meant the building would now be retained for community use. No, said Phoenix, who is no fool: this means only that retaining it is just one option.
Mr Grundy gave up.
Finally came the turn of resident Keith Martin. Keith described himself as a retired chartered accountant, and a resident of Friern Barnet for forty two years. He was involved, he said, to refute the idea that the occupiers were 'fly by nights'. It was important to protest about the library closure because Friern Barnet was not a very well off community, the local children could not easily get to another library in North Finchley, not cross the North Circular to the South Friern branch.
Keith mentioned his six hour occupation of the library on the last day of opening, and the consequent pop up libraries. The judge asked how long these continued - all through the August rain? Yes. After describing the occupation as a well run , happy place, Judge Pearl was offered a cup of tea at the library, by Phoenix, which she declined, albeit with a fair degree of amusement.
After a short break, the hearing resumed on a rather broader level of debate: the question, as raised by the occupiers barrister, of the human rights aspect of the case. And this is where the hearing stopped being about the closure of one library, and about something more intangible, and indefinable.
Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act refer to the freedom of expression, and to the right to peaceful assembly and association with others. Were these rights engaged in the context of the occupied library, and would they be infringed by eviction?
With such rights, said the judge - once they're there, they're there ...
A fascinating discussion then ensued between the two counsels and the judge on previous cases involving occupation, protest, and rights in law. The Occupy movement at St Paul's, the Peace Camp/Democratic Village on Parliament Square Gardens, and even the women's camp at Aldermaston: all these notable precedents raised and compared to the occupation of a small branch library in leafy Friern Barnet.
Would the removal of the protest represent 'an interference' with the rights expressed in law? Is a possession order an interference?
Is it not just a case of whether rights would be infringed, not just in terms of the right to expression and association, but the rights endowed in the manner of the protest itself.
Miss Sackman was now elaborating eloquently on her theme: she maintained that 'the manner and form is the protest itself ' in other words, the medium, in this context, is the message, and should be respected as the act of expression which the Article is meant to protect. An occupation to protest about the occupation of a library should be allowed to be expressed in situ, just as the Aldermaston occupation was allowed to take place in a specific location.
Since the early days of the campaign to save Friern Barnet library it has been apparent that this particular story is more than the tale of one library, or even One Barnet. It has a resonance, a significance beyond the immediate relevance of the closure of a much loved community resource. It is symbolic of something else, something harder to identify, or define. It speaks to some sort of archtypal emotion, a subconscious longing to retain something slipping just out of reach, something precious, and irreplaceable. We don't know what it is, yet, but we will do, once it has gone.
Don't take our library away: don't shut our museums. Don't sell our local services to Capita and tell us it's all for our own good: this is our community, and we want to live there in our own way, without you telling us how, or why, or what we can say, and when.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association: democratic liberties we take for granted, until they are taken away - here in Broken Barnet, we are fighting to take control of our local democracy, and our rights in law, and whatever happens tomorrow, we will continue the fight.
Yes: in the wake of the decision by our Tory councillors to declare Barnet an open city for the marauding hordes of Crapita, the Scrooge like Barnet blogosphere has decided to cancel all festive celebrations, and make you all suffer instead with a week of horrible blogposts all about our new corporate masters. So.
Q:Who is Capita? What is Capita? What does Capita do?
A: It is the UK's biggest provider of BPO: business process outsourcing - back office, front office, private sector -and public sector, the market leader in strategic partnerships with UK local authorities. As well as maintaining huge involvement in private financial and investment companies, Capita has made itself indispensible to every form of public sector initiative, from local authority service provision, to the emergency services, education, the justice system, major infrastructure and regeneration projects, and healthcare.
Capita employs 46,500 people, in more than 350 sites - 68 of them not in the UK but in what they describe coyly as 'specialist business centres' across Europe, and India. Ah. Offshore call centres and related services account for more than 20% of their work locations. That must keep the wage bill down nicely.
And profits from such wise management are very healthy, it seems: turnover for 2011 was £2.9 billion, and profits before tax amounted to £385 million. Half year results for the first six months of 2012 were up between ten to fifteen per cent compared to the previous half year figures. Look at me: Mrs Angry, auditor to Crapita, plc. Eat your heart out, Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton. Yep: let me just sign the accounts off ... no need to look at any of the details, fine, fine, fine: any objections? Really? That'll be £34,000 just for asking. Time is money. Next.
Let's see. The company website has a helpful document with facts and statistics about the many, many services it currently delivers. It takes five pages to list them all, categorised under the following headings:
Customer Management
Life and Pensions
General Insurance
IT services
Secure Information Solutions
Software Services
Revenues & Benefits
Payment Management
Software for schools and childrens services
Investor & banking services
Health solutions
Consulting
Property & Infrastructure consultancy
HR
Business travel
TV licensing
There are some mind boggling statistics in this document: in 2011, for example, Capita supplied ICT products and services to 52 of the 53 police forces in the UK. The company's software services were delivered in partnership with over 70% of all local authorities. Capita was the fourth largest architectural practice, the main supplier of finance systems to the NHS, supported the IT needs of 20% of all schools in the UK.
In other words: Capita does everything, is everywhere, feeds off every part of our public services and yet ... the beast is still hungry for more, its appetite undiminished by an ever increasing diet of market opportunity. Where can it go now? It needs new markets, new opportunities - and these are getting harder and harder to find, in this time of austerity measures and savage cuts in budget.
After a few years of what has been described as a 'frenzy' of public sector outsourcing, and in particular an enthusiasm for large scale partnerships with local authorities, there is now, in the wake of a shift in government policy, a rejection of such large scale programmes, in favour of a more mixed approach, using a variety of in house, voluntary and less over ambitious private sector providers. A more pragmatic solution, with risk spread over a range of suppliers.
Oh: except of course here in Broken Barnet, we are years behind everyone else's thinking, and our Tory councillors are too stupid and lazy to inform themselves of the current political preference for public service provision, finding it easier to listen to the smooth assurances and empty promises of senior officers and private sector consultants, preparing the way for the introduction of a determined seduction by the big outsourcing companies like Capita, and BT.
Our Tory councillors have tried to convince us that the deal with Capita is a marvellous idea, of course. They know this because - well they don't know this at all, because they have not read the contract, or the necessary reports so as to inform themselves of the detail but they assure us that their senior management team and consultants have done all this tedious research for them. There is no need of any independent risk assessment, and everything will be just fine.
Our Tory councillors are very trusting. They also have short memories. Mrs Angry remembers, even as they seem to have forgotten, that not so long ago, this council lost many millions of pounds of tax payers money in the Icelandic bank crash. At the time, the leader of the council was Mr Mike Freer, now Mrs Angry's local MP. Mr Mike Freer said the Icelandic investment fiasco was nothing to do with him, and a senior officer got the blame.
Mr Mike Freer was also the only true begetter of easycouncil, which became Futureshape, which became One Barnet.
And here is a funny thing, citizens, and isn't the world a small place?
Yes: just fancy that: according too this local Times group story from 2009, the financial advisers to Barnet Council at the time of the Icelandic investment were two companies: Butlers, run by former Conservative Party treasurer Michael Spencer ... oh, and also a company known as 'Sector Treasury Services ltd' or STS - which is owned by ... Capita. According to this report:
"A council spokeswoman confirmed Mr Towey failed to cross-check the deposits against credit criteria approved by the council’s financial advisors, Sector Treasury Services Ltd and Butlers Ltd, as outlined in Barnet's treasury management strategy."
Ah: all his fault then. Although quite a few critics may have wanted to put the blame elsewhere: see here
One thing is clear: when the One Barnet outsourcing deals go sour, as they will, it will be
the senior officers, once again who carry the can: if any of them are
still here. Capita will fight any challenge based on alleged failures in contractual obligations, and you and I, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet, will be the ones who pick up the bill.
In truth, Capita now exerts a hugely powerful influence in the provision of public sector services - and might be argued to represent a virtual monopoly in some areas of the market.
Certainly in partnership with its few leading competitors, the market is pretty well set up in their favour, supplying custom to a strictly limited number of giant companies living off the profits to be found in your child's school, or your local hospital, or your council's services.
Is this healthy? Does it ensure best value for money for taxpayers? Or is there not a rapidly increasing risk of conflict of interest when so many different functions are delivered by the same company, and so many links are formed between the company and the public sector markets where it operates?
Crapita Week, in Broken Barnet: more to follow on all the blogs this week.
Cabinet members Robert Rams and Daniel Thomas attend the Scrutiny committee, flanked left by One Barnet consultants John Newton of iMPOWER, and Amardeep Gill, of Trowers & Hamlin: their companies collected more than £1 million in fees from Barnet taxpayers for last month's invaluable 'advice'.
Julian Silverman asked the committee a very good question, to which of course he received no answer. Why, he demanded, were there no residents on the One Barnet partnership board? No students, no homeless people? No representatives of the community whose services were being procured to Capita, without their consent?
No answer, but as we discovered later in the meeting, only one councillor - out of sixty three - is to be allowed on the board. It is already being made perfectly clear that the residents of Broken Barnet, and their elected representatives, will play no major role in the brave new world of Crapita Barnet.
Fiona Brickwood spoke next. She informed the committee that she used to work for Texaco as a risk assessor. Captain Cooper looked suddenly interested. She pointed out that most contracts comprised half a ream of paper, not 8,000 pages, and that the contents of the Capita deal were impossible to assess, shrouded as they were in secrecy, and removed from the proper process of scrutiny. Good points, unanswerable, perhaps, and receiving no questions from councillors, as indeed was the case with previous speakers.
Libdem councillor Lord Palmer now stated his reasons for calling in the Capita decision by Cabinet.
The One Barnet programme, he said, destroyed the purpose of democracy. It was the complete opposite of localism: and he spoke as someone who, in his 'day job', at Westminster was directly involved in the discussions about this policy.
He talked about the loss of democratic control that will follow the transfer of services to Blackburn, Belfast, Southampton, Swindon ... he said the council was acting prematurely, and on too large a scale, and the decision should be sent back to Cabinet for reconsideration.
Oh dear. At this point, Mrs Angry had a bit of a Will Hay moment:
And talking of wasting your time, and classic comedy moments, to the table now came the Dynamic Duo, Councillor Robert Rams and deputy leader Daniel Thomas.
To some extent their double act was outshone by another performance, however - from two old boys sat at the Press table (yet again no representative from any local papers turned up to an important council meeting). Sat on the left, commenting in curmudgeonly fashion throughout the meeting, like Statler and Waldorf, were our friend and veteran agitator Mr Shepherd, and the former Labour councillor Alan Sloam. Mr Shepherd, after last week's storming of the Cabinet committee, detects the scent of revolution in Broken Barnet, and positioned himself in the best seat to view the further undoing of the Tory dictatorship, beaming with pleasure, and taunting the assembled members, greatly annoying former Tory councillor Brian Coleman with his ripostes. Former Councillor Sloam's observations led to his being reminded by the Chair that he is no longer a councillor, and that his comments were superfluous. They carried on regardless.
As little Robert Rams sat at the table, Mrs Angry noticed that the leather soles of his shoes had had non slip rubber stick ons glued to the bottom (Mrs Angry has a particular interest in non slip shoes, at the moment, for good reason). Sadly, thought Mrs Angry, this will not prevent our One Barnet crusader from the slippery slope of a political career on the skids: Rams is no 1 candidate to lose his seat on the council, although, tee hee, he is rumoured to have his sights on a parliamentary nomination. Mmm.
Rams, preposterously, informed the committee that there was widespread admiration for what was happening here in Broken Barnet, what with the flogging off of most of our services to Crapita, and all: the Government, he claimed, has been 'knocking on the door', desperate to find out more about One Barnet, as we are one of the first councils to take this idiotic gamble with local taxpayers' money. Knocking on the door looking for Robert Rams, to grab him by the collar and slap some sense into him, more like, thought Mrs Angry, imagining the scene with no little pleasure. Rams then dared to invoke the name of localism, and claimed One Barnet would better empower residents.
Erm: no, no, it won't.
The Bobster, as Barnet Eye refers to him, gets very vengeful when people object to his wildly inaccurate statements of this nature, where black is white, and wrong is right - he had a hissy fit at the table during the meeting, when he thought either Statler or Waldorf had accused him of lying. 'I won't have the public accuse councillors of lying', he squeaked ... Well then: Mrs Angry would suggest, Robert, if you object to such accusations, that you make more of an effort not to say things which are patently untrue. One Barnet will quite clearly not empower residents, but remove any real democratic control and place it in the sweaty palms of Capita, and it is clearly not compatible with the principles of localism.
John Thomas took his turn: saying nothing at all, at great length, in an interminable stream of platitudes, and as observed by Mrs Angry's son remarked last week, overhearing the footage of the reconvened Cabinet meeting, sounding exactly like Rob Brydon on 'Would I lie to you?' ...
Time for Labour group leader Alison Moore to present her reasons for the call in. She soldiered on, through all the tired arguments, which we have all heard a hundred times, and which are simply the obvious truth, but of no interest to the Tory councillors, who have decided to ignore the truth and support the lie that is One Barnet. Mrs Angry cast a sideway's look at Brian Coleman, who was watching Alison Moore blankly, his mouth hanging open, eyes vacant.
Mr Gill, the representative of One Barnet's legal advisers, Trowers and Hamlin, spoke now, in response to points raised by members. He assured the assembled members of the council, and members of the public, that the authority had fulfilled its obligations in regard to consultation over One Barnet. Good, thought Mrs Angry. That means the Judicial Reviews are entirely unnecessary. Can't think why an eminent team of lawyers are now pursuing this line of action with such great relish. What were they thinking?
Another question for Mr Gill, from Lord Palmer. Is it true that the contract could be broken at any point?
Yes, said Mr Gill.
Ah: but then he qualified his assertion.
With six months notice. And under some circumstances. Erm, which might involve compensation to Crapita. Aha.
What a shame, mused a member of the public, that we no longer have the power to surcharge councillors ...
Chair Hugh Rayner tried to ask the legal adviser a question at this point. Unfortunately, he could not remember the name of the company. Mrs Angry despaired: really? The Chair of the scrutiny committee does not even know the name of the legal advisers on whom the £750 million pound contract depends for verification?
We were then informed that the Capita contract was rather like scripture: it can be translated as you wish. Oh, thought Mrs Angry: scripture, but as written by the devil, perhaps?
Councillor Dan Thomas was talking. Or rather, interestingly, in the eyes of Mrs Angry, anyway, he was stammering, rather than talking: repeating the same words nervously, as if padding out the empty meaning of his sentences, in the empty rhetoric of One Barnet propaganda. The deputy leader's boundless confidence appears to have been dramatically diminished, over the last couple of meetings - since the notification of judicial review application was received.
I can't see much changing, he said, absurdly, of the wholescale handover of all the NSCSO services to Capita. Again: really?
Rams took over now. He listed the many - well, one or two, benefits of this contract ... for example, on a ward by ward basis - it could happen that the data, as provided by Capita, might suggest that a police station should be moved ... Mrs Angry was unable to restrain herself at this point, and pointed out loudly that thanks to Ram's boss Boris, the Mayor of London, all but one police station in Barnet will shortly be closed.
Labour's Kathy Mc Guirk spoke now. Thomas would do well to remember, she suggested, that this is a local authority, providing public services, not Barnet plc.
Daniel Thomas, stammering again, was keen to down play the imminent benefits of One Barnet: he referred to 'teething problems' ... you wouldn't expect it to happen overnight, he asked, Would you?
The man from Trowers and Hamlin was asked if his company has had any previous contract failures with Capita. Mrs Angry leaned forward to watch his response. No, apparently not. Interesting.
All evidence would suggest, however, that in its extremely well rewarded dealings with Broken Barnet, Trowers and Hamlin may just have allied itself to a long and very embarrassing failure, and one which may well be played out very publicly, over a long period of time.
Apart from the two opposition councillors who had called in the Capita decision to the Scrutiny committee last night, none of the members present made any contribution to the meeting. The Tories sat in mute obedience, clearly misunderstanding or perhaps more accurately deliberately ignoring the principle and purpose of scrutiny. Maureen Braun looked on, sleepily. Andrew Strongolou sat sulkily. Even John Marshall, the imperious Tory whip, remained subdued.
All the Tories, except for Brian Salinger, who abstained, voted dutifully to negate the purpose of the call in, but it was clear they knew they are backing a loser. Thomas, as Deputy Leader, must know the whole business is a disaster, and the next election lost.
Only a fool would carry on defending the indefensible. And so: Let me take over, whispered Robert Rams to his Cabinet colleague, as John Thomas was floundering in the face of some awkward questions from Palmer and Alison Moore. Yes, citizens of Broken Barnet: One Barnet, the juggernaut driven by senior officers, and Robert Rams with his hand on the gear stick. We are well and truly f*cked.
Or no: in fact it is our Tory councillors who are hurtling towards oblivion. The struggle to retain control of our borough's future has moved to another battleground now, and the process of legal challenge will decide whether or not the give away of our public services is lawful, and may proceed.
Next week here in the Barnet blogosphere, we will be welcoming our would be new best friends to our borough with a special Crapita Christmas celebration. Do call in for some minced lies, mulled whine, and corporate santa's get out clause ...
Update: speaking of Corporate Santa's get out Clause: let us now launch our Merry Crapita Christmas week with this amusing correspondence Mrs Angry has read between a leading member of Barnet Alliance, and Mr Paul Pindar, CEO of Capita:
Dear Mr Pindar,
We understand that Barnet council's Cabinet have decided to award your company, Capita, a contract worth £750 million, to run some of our services for a period of 10 years.
We are a community organisation in the borough of Barnet, and we would like to meet with you in order to share with you some of our concerns, the concerns of many residents in Barnet, regarding this contract.
We will be grateful if you can meet with us at your HQ on Thursday 20 December from 5 pm on.
Sincerely,
Tirza Waisel, Coordinator
Barnet Alliance for Public Services
Ho ho ho: here came a reply from Mr Pindar himself ... are you shivering, citizens of Broken Barnet? Can you feel the icy chill of Capita's icicle like fingers reaching round your necks?
Mr Pindar sent his regrets:
Dear Tirza
Thank you for your invitation to meet with Barnet Alliance for Public Services on 20 December.
Unfortunately it is not appropriate for us to meet at this stage as we are still in a procurement process with the Council. The Council is best placed to respond to your concerns at this time.
In the run up to submitting our bid proposal to the Council, we undertook extensive consultation with a wide spectrum of local groups and individuals in the borough. Their views helped to inform our proposals and we would anticipate proactively continuing our engagement with local residents regarding their service requirements once the procurement process is complete.
Kind regards.
Paul Pindar
Chief Executive
Capita plc
Tirza replied:
Dear Mr Pindar,
Thanks for your reply, and the information about the consultations you undertook.
This is very interesting, as none of us in Barnet Alliance had heard about your consultations from any of the many thousands of residents we have been talking with in the past year (we have many thousands of signatures on our petition, so I know roughly how many residents our members and activists have spoken with).
We would greatly appreciate it if you would forward to us the names of the groups you consulted and the dates of the consultations, as this may help inform us, as we will become your customers if the contract does indeed go ahead.
I am looking forward to receiving further information about the above mentioned.
Our invitation for a meeting is still standing, so please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Tirza Waisel
Here then, is the first Crapita Christmas story: how interesting ...
... we undertook extensive consultation with a wide spectrum of local groups and individuals in the borough ...
And we look forward to the evidence of this 'extensive consultation' being produced in court.
Merry Xmas, Mr Pindar.
See you on Thursday ... Mrs Angry x
