Ey up. There's trouble ahead, according to t' dark satanic rumour mills of Broken Barnet.
Sorry: I've been reading 'South Riding', the 1930s novel written by Winifred Holtby, currently being dramatised by t'BBC of a Sunday night. I have to admit I only picked up a copy of the book in order to skip to the end and find out if the plucky heroine, played by Anna Maxwell Martin, gets off with the brooding, grumpy David Morrissey character (described, rather disconcertingly, ladies, in the book, as looking like Adolf Hitler, but with a nice smile) or the fair, gentler, but consumptive socialist Douglas Henshall. Once I had started the introduction, though, by the BBC's brilliant dramatist, Andrew Davies, it seemed worth reading properly, with many parallels to what is happening here in our southern softy borough, right here, right now, eighty years after the book was first published.
The setting for 'South Riding' is er, oh dear - local government. Hmm. I know, but bear with me. As Davies says, it is a timely dramatisation, written as it was in a period of recession and forced austerity, and with huge challenges for government, both local and national. The choices they faced, he describes thus:
"How do we deal with a recession? Do we cut public spending, slash welfare, and in general batten down the hatches, repeating the mantra that 'we're all in this together'? Or do we embrace the alternative of bold programmes of public works, creating employment and stimulating the economy in that way? Rather thrillingly, in this book, the South Riding Council embarks on the latter course ... '
Consider the characters too: the former revolutionary socialist Astell, who believes he can now make more impact by slogging away on endless committees, and making 'unlikely alliances' with 'hardfaced businessmen' to get better roads, education and housing for his constituents. Now there's a thought. Or how about the larger than life Councillor Huggins, sermonising chapel goer and preacher, whose hypocrisy and sexual transgressions fatally compromise his career? Great stuff.
The book opens from the point of view of an inexperienced reporter in the press galley of the Town Hall: ha - most amusing, don't you think? He peers down into the council chamber:
"He saw below him bald heads, grey heads, brown heads, black heads, above oddly foreshortened bodies, moving like fish in an aquarium tank. He saw the semi-circle of desks facing the chairman's panoplied throne; he saw the stuffed horsehair seats, the blotting paper, the quill pens, the bundles of printed documents on the clerk's table, the polished fire dogs in the empty grates, the frosted glass tulips shading the unignited gas jets, the gleaming inkwells ...'
I defy anyone who has ever attended a council meeting at Hendon Town Hall not to recognise this as a pretty accurate description of the place, and the atmosphere of moth-eaten municipal torpor, unchanged from the pre-war era.
As you walk up the stairs, and reach the landing and corridors of our Town Hall you are assailed by the sight of rows of photographs of bearded lady councillors in their Arthur Askey spectacles (and no, I'm not just describing the current intake ) - peering in disgust at the hoi polloi now trespassing in the rooms that once witnessed their acts of patronising governance and good works. You then enter oak lined committee rooms with faded Indian carpets, old gas lighting, the only gesture to the twentieth century being a crap microphone system which rarely works efficiently, partly because none of them can be bothered to turn it on when they speak. Why would anyone want to hear what they say?
In the council chamber itself, you will find the same archaic set up, with every full meeting preceded by the comical Trumpton parade of town Mayor and mace bearers dressed in frock coats, frilly cravats, breeches and tricorn hats. You must stand up, and sit down, and stand up again while the chaplain preaches and beseeches the Almighty for his intervention. For some reason the Almighty usually fails to send a thunderbolt crashing through the roof in the direction of Councillor Coleman, everyone sits down, and the pantomime continues. Are you stuck in a black and white Will Hay film from the 1930s? Yes, you are.
The only real change to the council chamber is a telling detail. There is now a thick glass panel that largely separates the councillors from the public seating area. This protects our fearful representatives from the projection of rotten eggs and tomatoes which they so richly deserve, and neatly serves to underline the separation of council and the community it is supposed to serve.
Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that despite the clear instructions last week by ministers at the department for Communities and Local Government, the Tory leader Lynne Hillan has announced that no resident may film Tuesday's council meeting, and that she regards the citizen journalists and bloggers that Eric Pickles wishes to empower as not worthy of respect. You will note that although residents may not avail themselves of twenty first century technology in order to bring council proceedings to a wider section of the community, it is perfectly acceptable for councillors to use their blackberries during council meetings. In fact, citizens, I have sat in the public area of one committee meeting and watched over the shoulder of one Cabinet member texting the dear leader herself. Until he realised Mrs Angry was breathing down his neck, of course, and moved away. Spoilsport.
In short, dear readers, as usual in our borough, there is one rule for them, and one rule for us. They do not consider themselves accountable to the people they represent, and the people who pay their over generous allowances. They are nothing less than a bunch of greedy, self serving little Town Hall tyrants who deserve to be thrown out of office and into the real world, where they would stand as much chance of surving in the wild as one of local Mp Matthew Offord's newly hatched tropical fish.
In the twenties and thirties, when talking pictures first took off, a whole generation of old school silent film stars saw their careers ruined over night when their creakey performances and luvvie voices were revealed to their fans, often to much hilarity in the cinemas. Exposure is obviously an undesirable thing to those with a lot to lose. If the greater public were to see film of our Tory councillors in action, it would astound them: the childishness with which they behave, the sniggering, the ranting, the laughing at women speakers - and worse. The public would see how debate is stifled, and councillors meekly allow the cabal that runs their party to walk all over them.
In short, there would be a revolution, and like the poor old movie stars, their careers would be over in an instant. Singing in the Rain, & all that. I think it is rather amusing that our senior councillors have spent so much of our money on elocution lessons, don't you? The Rain in Spain Falls Mostly Down the Drain, doesn't it, Mr Travers? Along with local tax payers hard earned cash. But they at least recognise that one has to be media savvy, and communicate effectively. I think there will have been some heated discussion between senior officers and councillors on the issue of filming and the new Pickles guidelines, and as usual the Tory leadership most likely has chosen to go its own way to perdition.
Last night Barnet Eye blogger Roger Tichborne slipped into a committee meeting and tried to film some of it for a disabled resident who was unable to attend:
http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/02/barnet-council-vs-people-hugh-rayner.html
Do watch it and witness the Chair, Hugh 'NO YOU MAY NOT' Rayner, shouting down Rog's perfectly reasonable comment that legal advice has informed us that there is nothing in the council's constitution to prevent filming, and that to do so may be in breach of our human rights.
Tonight at the council meeting many residents will attend and will decide for themselves how best our elected representatives should be accountable to the people who out them in office and who pay the local taxes that not only pay their allowances but foot the bill for the same budget they will be discussing.
How have we got to this sorry state? Is this really how things should be? Let's go back to South Riding, and read what Winfred Holtby thought local government was all about, way back in 1935:
" I began to see how it was in essence the first-line defence thrown up by the community against our common enemies - poverty, sickness, ignorance, isolation, mental derangement and social maladjustment ... the war is, I believe, worth fighting, and this corporate action is at least based upon recognition of one fundamental truth about human nature - we are not single individuals, each face to face with eternity and our separate spirits: we are members one of another."
How very different to the way we do things here, in 2011, in Broken Barnet
*Update: ha - see the 'Tory Councils Defy Pickles On Bloggers' Access' story link on Guido Fawkes' blog, in the 'Seen Elsewhere' section : http://order-order.com/
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Monday, 28 February 2011
R.E.S.P.E.C.T- find out what it means to Lynne Hillan
And updated pm: see below.
Dear Mr Pickles:
I write a blog in the London Borough of Barnet, and was last week very pleased to read that you had issued new guidelines which support the efforts of myself and other citizen journalists to report and record council meetings, using a variety of new media. Personally I prefer to use notebook and shorthand, but I support the right of those who wish to film or record the meetings using such methods, especially as here in Barnet our council refuses, in contrast to the open policies of surrounding boroughs, to film meetings for the benefit of residents.
I am sure you will understand my fury this morning to read the following story in the online local paper:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8877552.Leader_rules_out_public_filming_of_meeting/
Not only has the leader, Lynne Hillan, banned filming, she has insulted the citizen journalists and bloggers of this borough by stating that they are not 'respectable'. This article surely demonstrates yet again that this maverick Conservative council acts without real committment to the values and policies of the central party, and has no intention of obeying your instructions. Surely you realise the damage that is being done to the reputation of the Conservative party both here and nationally by the behaviour of this administration?
In the letter sent by Bob Neill last week, it was stated that to suppress filming, tweeting etc would be 'at odds with the fundamentals of democracy'. It is up to you now to defend the democratic process here in Barnet and take urgent action to deal with the disaffected leadership which seems so intent on defying your wishes.
Yours sincerely,
'Mrs Angry'
cllr.l.hillan@barnet.gov.uk, nick.walkley@barnet.gov.uk, cllr.a.moore@barnet.gov.uk, eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk
From: mrs angry
Dear Ms Hillan,
I have noted with amusement the remarks made by you in the local Times group newspaper this morning on the issue of residents reporting council meetings by the use of filming, tweeting and other new media sources.
You claim in this article not to have discussed the matter with party colleagues or officers, which would seem most remiss of you, if true.
It may perhaps be the case that, oh dear, you have also forgotten to read the letter sent to all local authorities last week by Bob Neill in which he clearly states:
"There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate. I do hope that you and your colleagues will do your utmost to maximise the transparency and openness of your council."
I realise that a committment to the fundamentals of democracy is not something we neccessarily associate with the leadership of the present Conservative administration here in Broken Barnet, but I would have thought that you might wish to comply with the clearly stated instructions of Eric Pickles and Bob Neill in this matter, and desist from trying to prevent the filming of council meetings by any resident who wishes, in the absence of any council organised initiative, to extend the accessibilty and scrutiny of the democratic process. I believe that such accountability is a prerequisite of any move towards the oft mentioned Conservative principle of 'localism' and that no sensible Tory could possibly raise any objections to such a move. Admittedly the shortage of sensible Tories in Barnet may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle in this respect.
In your entertaining comments to the press, you have distinguished between 'respectable' journalists, and bloggers. I am of course very glad to see that you consider yourself qualified to be the ultimate judge of respectabilty. I cannot speak for my fellow bloggers, but I am able to assure you that I am indeed a NCTJ trained journalist, and as such prefer to report meetings by the use of notebook and teeline, but if I choose to abandon such 'respectable' methods and film or tweet I am pleased to note that I will be able to do so without fear of one of your black suited security men whispering in my ear.
Yours sincerely,
'Mrs Angry'
(Haven't had a reply, yet, sadly.)
* and now blogger Vicki Morris reports a challenge on grounds including the Human Rights Act has been made in the form of a letter to the Leader: see her blog for further information:
http://vickim57.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-lynne-hillan-infringing-my-human.html
** 10 pm : rumour has it on twitter that blogger Rog T has tried filming at a committee meeting tonight, was loudly told three times to stop at once, and then left.
Update: see film on his blog - http://tinyurl.com/6jqkrjv marvel at Chair Hugh Rayner trying to shout him down. This is democracy, as we do it in our borough. Eric and Bob must be so proud.
Dear Mr Pickles:
I write a blog in the London Borough of Barnet, and was last week very pleased to read that you had issued new guidelines which support the efforts of myself and other citizen journalists to report and record council meetings, using a variety of new media. Personally I prefer to use notebook and shorthand, but I support the right of those who wish to film or record the meetings using such methods, especially as here in Barnet our council refuses, in contrast to the open policies of surrounding boroughs, to film meetings for the benefit of residents.
I am sure you will understand my fury this morning to read the following story in the online local paper:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8877552.Leader_rules_out_public_filming_of_meeting/
Not only has the leader, Lynne Hillan, banned filming, she has insulted the citizen journalists and bloggers of this borough by stating that they are not 'respectable'. This article surely demonstrates yet again that this maverick Conservative council acts without real committment to the values and policies of the central party, and has no intention of obeying your instructions. Surely you realise the damage that is being done to the reputation of the Conservative party both here and nationally by the behaviour of this administration?
In the letter sent by Bob Neill last week, it was stated that to suppress filming, tweeting etc would be 'at odds with the fundamentals of democracy'. It is up to you now to defend the democratic process here in Barnet and take urgent action to deal with the disaffected leadership which seems so intent on defying your wishes.
Yours sincerely,
'Mrs Angry'
cllr.l.hillan@barnet.gov.uk, nick.walkley@barnet.gov.uk, cllr.a.moore@barnet.gov.uk, eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk
From: mrs angry
Dear Ms Hillan,
I have noted with amusement the remarks made by you in the local Times group newspaper this morning on the issue of residents reporting council meetings by the use of filming, tweeting and other new media sources.
You claim in this article not to have discussed the matter with party colleagues or officers, which would seem most remiss of you, if true.
It may perhaps be the case that, oh dear, you have also forgotten to read the letter sent to all local authorities last week by Bob Neill in which he clearly states:
"There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate. I do hope that you and your colleagues will do your utmost to maximise the transparency and openness of your council."
I realise that a committment to the fundamentals of democracy is not something we neccessarily associate with the leadership of the present Conservative administration here in Broken Barnet, but I would have thought that you might wish to comply with the clearly stated instructions of Eric Pickles and Bob Neill in this matter, and desist from trying to prevent the filming of council meetings by any resident who wishes, in the absence of any council organised initiative, to extend the accessibilty and scrutiny of the democratic process. I believe that such accountability is a prerequisite of any move towards the oft mentioned Conservative principle of 'localism' and that no sensible Tory could possibly raise any objections to such a move. Admittedly the shortage of sensible Tories in Barnet may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle in this respect.
In your entertaining comments to the press, you have distinguished between 'respectable' journalists, and bloggers. I am of course very glad to see that you consider yourself qualified to be the ultimate judge of respectabilty. I cannot speak for my fellow bloggers, but I am able to assure you that I am indeed a NCTJ trained journalist, and as such prefer to report meetings by the use of notebook and teeline, but if I choose to abandon such 'respectable' methods and film or tweet I am pleased to note that I will be able to do so without fear of one of your black suited security men whispering in my ear.
Yours sincerely,
'Mrs Angry'
(Haven't had a reply, yet, sadly.)
Oh, and by the way, Queen Canute: the tide is rolling in ...
http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/praise-be-pickles-pity-about-your-party-activists/* and now blogger Vicki Morris reports a challenge on grounds including the Human Rights Act has been made in the form of a letter to the Leader: see her blog for further information:
http://vickim57.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-lynne-hillan-infringing-my-human.html
** 10 pm : rumour has it on twitter that blogger Rog T has tried filming at a committee meeting tonight, was loudly told three times to stop at once, and then left.
Update: see film on his blog - http://tinyurl.com/6jqkrjv marvel at Chair Hugh Rayner trying to shout him down. This is democracy, as we do it in our borough. Eric and Bob must be so proud.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Avenue House Update
On Thursday evening there was a meeting at Avenue House attended by around forty or more local residents, the manager of the estate, and three other trustees, including the Chairman of the Trust. Mrs Angry sent her trusty sidekick, Mrs X, to attend, and report back.
Unfortunately, she tells me, there were no other members of the board, or any of the local councillors present. This is very surprising. Avenue House is an enormously important local resource, and much loved by the local community. Apart from the historic house and outbuildings, including the controversially unused Bothy, the grounds, gardens, and play areas are a vital - and under appreciated - feature of the estate. One might expect the local councillors, Conservatives Eva Greenspan, Graham Old, and Daniel Thomas, to show some sort of interest in its welfare. Perhaps they did not receive an invitation. To be fair, we hear that Graham Old at least has done some leafleting on behalf of the appeal for funds from local residents.
It was clear from the start of the meeting that there was a lack of rapport between the management of the Estate and the majority of the residents present. The estate representatives were there to ask for money, and for fund raising ideas, but many residents were there to express their sense of disappointment with aspects of the way in which the estate is run, and to ask for a greater involvement in the management by the wider community.
At times the mood of the meeting, which took place in the large Victorian drawing room, watched over by a wary looking portrait of old Inky Stephens himself, threatened to crack through the very English veneer of barely repressed animosity into something a little less civilised, rather like a more than usually surreal episode of Midsomer Murder, or Rosemary & Thyme, an impression enhanced by the presence, amongst the residents, of a couple of locals who happen to be tv actors, with oddly familiar faces. Happily, the evening passed without bloodshed, or the discovery of a body in the shrubbery, but it was a close run thing.
After questioning one of the board about the involvement of the council in negotiations for extra funding: (apparently refused, in no uncertain terms), it became apparent to Mrs X that there has been an element of scaremongering in certain quarters. The council does not want to take back the estate and be lumbered with the responsibility. And guess what, dear readers? A naughty councillor was alleged to have stated at a social function, no doubt with a plate of canapes in one hand, that 'private schools were queuing up' to move in to the building.
This is a load of codswallop.
Yes, it is true that if funding is not urgently secured, the estate could end up reverting to the council. And we all know, don't we, that our shameless Tory council would be happy to flog off any of our heritage that isn't nailed down? But for such a major Grade 2 listed building and grounds, left by bequest to the people of Finchley, to be sold, and then allowed to become used as a school is a nonsense, and I do not believe for one moment that such an eventuality would be allowed. It may close, however, and could become a boarded up building, surrounded by inaccessible grounds. The truth is that our philistine council does not want to reclaim the estate, and will do what it can to evade any responsibility, other than give the financial help it needs.
What has happened at Avenue House is a perfect example of why the Big Society claptrap is such a fantasy, and totally impractical: you cannot expect well meaning amateurs to perform a professional function and take responsibility for such enormous projects, especially without any support or funding, in this case, from the local authority. It is unfair, and on a scale of this size, quite unreasonable.
That said, we all need now to support the management of the estate in the current crisis, and ensure that emergency funding is found from any available source. Pressure should be put on the council to assist: if there is no money available from local budgets then they can still be involved by helping the estate management to identify alternative sources, whether from local businesses, Lottery funding, or from some private foundation. Some of the trust members are under the impression that most local residents can easily afford regularly to donate large sums of money to solve the situation: if you can, then do so, and do it quickly, but most of us can't, and should not be expected to, especially in the current economic situation. It should also be said that the local community will expect greater openness and accountability for any financial support it is able to offer.
Despite the criticisms raised at the meeting by local residents, it must be acknowledged that the current administration has worked with little support to keep Avenue House going since 2002. It can't have been easy, and it is easy to criticise, and those that do must be prepared to help turn things around.
It was evident that everyone present really cared about the future of the house and grounds, and wanted to help secure the future of this unique historical property. The Friends of Avenue House group has been relaunched, and many of those present have volunteered to join and do their bit to help. This estate is our legacy, and we must all work to try to preserve and protect it : that's what Inky Stephens intended, and it is our responsibilty to make sure that we pass his legacy on to future generations.
Unfortunately, she tells me, there were no other members of the board, or any of the local councillors present. This is very surprising. Avenue House is an enormously important local resource, and much loved by the local community. Apart from the historic house and outbuildings, including the controversially unused Bothy, the grounds, gardens, and play areas are a vital - and under appreciated - feature of the estate. One might expect the local councillors, Conservatives Eva Greenspan, Graham Old, and Daniel Thomas, to show some sort of interest in its welfare. Perhaps they did not receive an invitation. To be fair, we hear that Graham Old at least has done some leafleting on behalf of the appeal for funds from local residents.
It was clear from the start of the meeting that there was a lack of rapport between the management of the Estate and the majority of the residents present. The estate representatives were there to ask for money, and for fund raising ideas, but many residents were there to express their sense of disappointment with aspects of the way in which the estate is run, and to ask for a greater involvement in the management by the wider community.
At times the mood of the meeting, which took place in the large Victorian drawing room, watched over by a wary looking portrait of old Inky Stephens himself, threatened to crack through the very English veneer of barely repressed animosity into something a little less civilised, rather like a more than usually surreal episode of Midsomer Murder, or Rosemary & Thyme, an impression enhanced by the presence, amongst the residents, of a couple of locals who happen to be tv actors, with oddly familiar faces. Happily, the evening passed without bloodshed, or the discovery of a body in the shrubbery, but it was a close run thing.
After questioning one of the board about the involvement of the council in negotiations for extra funding: (apparently refused, in no uncertain terms), it became apparent to Mrs X that there has been an element of scaremongering in certain quarters. The council does not want to take back the estate and be lumbered with the responsibility. And guess what, dear readers? A naughty councillor was alleged to have stated at a social function, no doubt with a plate of canapes in one hand, that 'private schools were queuing up' to move in to the building.
This is a load of codswallop.
Yes, it is true that if funding is not urgently secured, the estate could end up reverting to the council. And we all know, don't we, that our shameless Tory council would be happy to flog off any of our heritage that isn't nailed down? But for such a major Grade 2 listed building and grounds, left by bequest to the people of Finchley, to be sold, and then allowed to become used as a school is a nonsense, and I do not believe for one moment that such an eventuality would be allowed. It may close, however, and could become a boarded up building, surrounded by inaccessible grounds. The truth is that our philistine council does not want to reclaim the estate, and will do what it can to evade any responsibility, other than give the financial help it needs.
What has happened at Avenue House is a perfect example of why the Big Society claptrap is such a fantasy, and totally impractical: you cannot expect well meaning amateurs to perform a professional function and take responsibility for such enormous projects, especially without any support or funding, in this case, from the local authority. It is unfair, and on a scale of this size, quite unreasonable.
That said, we all need now to support the management of the estate in the current crisis, and ensure that emergency funding is found from any available source. Pressure should be put on the council to assist: if there is no money available from local budgets then they can still be involved by helping the estate management to identify alternative sources, whether from local businesses, Lottery funding, or from some private foundation. Some of the trust members are under the impression that most local residents can easily afford regularly to donate large sums of money to solve the situation: if you can, then do so, and do it quickly, but most of us can't, and should not be expected to, especially in the current economic situation. It should also be said that the local community will expect greater openness and accountability for any financial support it is able to offer.
Despite the criticisms raised at the meeting by local residents, it must be acknowledged that the current administration has worked with little support to keep Avenue House going since 2002. It can't have been easy, and it is easy to criticise, and those that do must be prepared to help turn things around.
It was evident that everyone present really cared about the future of the house and grounds, and wanted to help secure the future of this unique historical property. The Friends of Avenue House group has been relaunched, and many of those present have volunteered to join and do their bit to help. This estate is our legacy, and we must all work to try to preserve and protect it : that's what Inky Stephens intended, and it is our responsibilty to make sure that we pass his legacy on to future generations.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Uprising: updated
Mrs Angry's special agent 'Mr D' eventually returned from the pub - with a slight headache, I imagine - and submitted to her his formal report from the Chipping Barnet Residents' Forum.
Mr D has the great misfortune to live in a CPZ zone, so is obviously very interested in the issue of the charge increases, as are the rest of the inhabitants of his road, of whom almost a quarter made the effort to attend this week's Forum. He tells me that most of those who attended were doing so for the first time and were truly appalled at the complete lack of democracy in the way in which the proceedings were handled, not to mention the apparent lack of knowledge by the Barnet Tory councillors on so many issues.
The residents of another road affected by the increases had submitted a petition, signed by the overwhelming majority of the householders. The organiser asked a council officer a very naughty question, as Mr D puts it:
" Which budgets will suffer if these CPZ increases are not voted through?
'Education', said the officer.
Oh dear. 'No more questions', said the resident, very happy with the answer which shot the Council in the foot. He stood up again to ask Cllr Rutter to minute that answer. I don't think it will survive editing."
Because of course, citizens, parking revenue is strictly ringfenced to revert to the highways budget, and government guidelines make it absolutely clear that parking may not be used for income generation for other purposes. Ah, but hang on: is there not already a huge surplus in the parking account? Oh, and er: why has the Highways budget itself just been dramatically slashed, by the way, does anyone know? Anyone?
Further questions were asked about the comparators used to set the parking charges: no one knew the answer. Ah. Funny, that. Could it have any connection with the fact that government guidelines, as quoted by an official at the Department replying to an enquiry, originally to Grant Shapps, by Mr D also clearly state:
“Charges should be set at levels that encourage compliance with parking restrictions. If charges are set too high they could encourage drivers to risk non-compliance or to park in unsuitable areas, possibly in contravention of parking restrictions. In certain cases they could encourage motorists to park in a neighbouring local authority area which may not have the capacity to handle the extra vehicles. In commercial districts this may have a negative impact on business in the area”
The official who answered this letter recommended that Mr D take the matter up further with the Leader of Barnet Council. Mmm. Good luck with that, then.
Back to Mr D's account:
"More questions about why 5% of residents had to pay to repair potholes for 100% of the residents. Mr D stood up again. He is becoming a thorough nuisance. He said I have an idea. Why not spread the £2.5m increases across all the residents of the Borough and call it something like, oh I don't know, lets say Council Tax ..."
Ah ... He continues:
"Mr B had slowly been fizzing and then he came up to the boil. No one knows anything, he said, what's the point of these forums if you can't have your say, and if the people on the panel don't know anything? Why don't we have a vote on who is in favour of the increases, and who isn't, and then we can get on to other matters? Oh no, that's not on the agenda, says Cllr Rutter hastily moving on to the next item. The poster says you can: "Have your say" shouted out Mr D - oh no you can't, was the unsaid response. "
Amongst the long list of other issues raised Mr D noted the following:
"There was another question about wasted money. The cost of Pledgebank. The answer carefully fails to mention the actual cost of Pledgebank which was of course "excellent value for money" and hopefully the answer will come out in due course. Don't hold your breath."
Ah yes: Pledgebank, from the same insightful team who brought us the marvellous Barnet 'Ideas' website, admitted by the council, eventually, to be sneakily planted with One Barnet friendly suggestions by the council itself. Now then: how many pledges have we got? Er ... one, two, three ... four. And all still waiting to get enough support to get them off and running. Well: four potential pledges? Result. Another wonderful use of our money, wouldn't you say, citizens?
Now, do you really think that the sort of people who went to the Barnet Forum and were so disgusted by the whole performance are really the type of residents whose support the Barnet Tories can afford to lose? No: they can't. And the damage done is not just by the effects of the charge increases but by the attitude of the councillors to their electorate in the handling of the whole business. Well, no: their attitude to the electorate, full stop. They are completely out of touch with reality, and setting fire to their own political careers. Most of them are too stupid to realise, and the rest of them don't give a shit anyway.
Look what the admirably forthright Barnet Press says in this week's editorial:
"Increasingly, Britain's politics is dominated by pathetic specimens who, if they have an independent thought in their head, have evolved an incredibly effective system of repressing it to follow their master's voice.
The almost total lack of accountability to constituents for the vast majority of councillors in Barnet, as witnessed by those who packed into the cabinet meeting last Monday and also expressed their letters on this page, show that local democracy is fading into a farce."
If the Tory councillors read this, and the many similarly toned letters and comments from residents, and not feel a rising sense of panic, then they are even more idiotic than we imagine. And they should not just be worrying about the strength of feeling here in Broken Barnet. damage they are causing is not just to their own parochial political chances, but to the greater detriment of the Conservative party as a whole.
A couple of weeks ago a reader of this blog contacted the Department for Communities and Local Government to express his fury at the proposed 'reforms' to the constitution that the Tories are trying to sneak past our noses, and which, if passed, will effectively prevent the discussion in council meetings of any major issues by the vast majority of councillors, and reduce what should be the process of democracy in this borough to a totalitarian rubber stamping machine almost entirely powered by the political flatulance emitted by the likes of Brian Coleman.
This reader mentioned that he had only read about the proposals by following the local blogs. There was much chortling down the phone at this point: the political assistant who had taken his call assured him that they were all very well acquainted with the Barnet blogs.
The same department last week received more than one complaint about the ludicrous treatment of residents present at the Barnet Cabinet meeting who had tried to use their phones to tweet or film the proceedings.
And now, as we know, this week, the department for Communities and Local Authorities, in the guise of Eric Pickles and Bob Neill, have taken the unprecedented step of issuing all local authorities with lengthy instructions intended to force them to show some respect for citizen journalists, bloggers, and tweeters who attend council meetings. The new guidelines clearly oblige local authorities to assist residents to engage in the democratic process using the methods of their choice.
This was the greatest slap in the face that the petty Tory dictators of Barnet Council could possibly have had from the big boys in their own party. It was a deliberate act intended to send a clear message to the lunatic fringe here in Barnet who are dragging their party into the gutter, and trying to take us with them. The Conservative party sees the damage caused by the antics of such maverick councils, and wants to put a stop to their pantomime performance.
In trying to persuade local authorities that they should open up their black hearts, and shower we bloggers and tweeters with new love, Pickles' letter tried to invoke the memory of Margaret Thatcher, blessing her sainted memory as the woman responsible for making council meetings acessible to the general public. To most of us, of course, the idea of Margaret Thatcher as some sort of folk hero dedicated to the rights of the common man is a difficult concept to accommodate.
I think Frances O'Grady, the Deputy Secretary of the TUC, put things in a better perspective. When she attended the anti-cuts rally at the Artsdepot here in Finchley recently, she commented in her speech that Barnet was a window on Cameron's Britain. This is the birthplace of Thatcherism, she said: let it be the place where Thatcherism is finally put to rest.
Here in Broken Barnet we have the last survivors of the glory days of Thatcherism, rounded up into a genetic outpost like the last few Neanderthals, outdated, outnumbered, and doomed. It's not just a question of greater intellect, but an ability to organise and build a society: instead of a superior ability with flint tools, we network, and use social media.
It's only a matter of time until they are extinct, and the rest of us take over.
Mr D has the great misfortune to live in a CPZ zone, so is obviously very interested in the issue of the charge increases, as are the rest of the inhabitants of his road, of whom almost a quarter made the effort to attend this week's Forum. He tells me that most of those who attended were doing so for the first time and were truly appalled at the complete lack of democracy in the way in which the proceedings were handled, not to mention the apparent lack of knowledge by the Barnet Tory councillors on so many issues.
The residents of another road affected by the increases had submitted a petition, signed by the overwhelming majority of the householders. The organiser asked a council officer a very naughty question, as Mr D puts it:
" Which budgets will suffer if these CPZ increases are not voted through?
'Education', said the officer.
Oh dear. 'No more questions', said the resident, very happy with the answer which shot the Council in the foot. He stood up again to ask Cllr Rutter to minute that answer. I don't think it will survive editing."
Because of course, citizens, parking revenue is strictly ringfenced to revert to the highways budget, and government guidelines make it absolutely clear that parking may not be used for income generation for other purposes. Ah, but hang on: is there not already a huge surplus in the parking account? Oh, and er: why has the Highways budget itself just been dramatically slashed, by the way, does anyone know? Anyone?
Further questions were asked about the comparators used to set the parking charges: no one knew the answer. Ah. Funny, that. Could it have any connection with the fact that government guidelines, as quoted by an official at the Department replying to an enquiry, originally to Grant Shapps, by Mr D also clearly state:
“Charges should be set at levels that encourage compliance with parking restrictions. If charges are set too high they could encourage drivers to risk non-compliance or to park in unsuitable areas, possibly in contravention of parking restrictions. In certain cases they could encourage motorists to park in a neighbouring local authority area which may not have the capacity to handle the extra vehicles. In commercial districts this may have a negative impact on business in the area”
The official who answered this letter recommended that Mr D take the matter up further with the Leader of Barnet Council. Mmm. Good luck with that, then.
Back to Mr D's account:
"More questions about why 5% of residents had to pay to repair potholes for 100% of the residents. Mr D stood up again. He is becoming a thorough nuisance. He said I have an idea. Why not spread the £2.5m increases across all the residents of the Borough and call it something like, oh I don't know, lets say Council Tax ..."
Ah ... He continues:
"Mr B had slowly been fizzing and then he came up to the boil. No one knows anything, he said, what's the point of these forums if you can't have your say, and if the people on the panel don't know anything? Why don't we have a vote on who is in favour of the increases, and who isn't, and then we can get on to other matters? Oh no, that's not on the agenda, says Cllr Rutter hastily moving on to the next item. The poster says you can: "Have your say" shouted out Mr D - oh no you can't, was the unsaid response. "
Amongst the long list of other issues raised Mr D noted the following:
"There was another question about wasted money. The cost of Pledgebank. The answer carefully fails to mention the actual cost of Pledgebank which was of course "excellent value for money" and hopefully the answer will come out in due course. Don't hold your breath."
Ah yes: Pledgebank, from the same insightful team who brought us the marvellous Barnet 'Ideas' website, admitted by the council, eventually, to be sneakily planted with One Barnet friendly suggestions by the council itself. Now then: how many pledges have we got? Er ... one, two, three ... four. And all still waiting to get enough support to get them off and running. Well: four potential pledges? Result. Another wonderful use of our money, wouldn't you say, citizens?
Now, do you really think that the sort of people who went to the Barnet Forum and were so disgusted by the whole performance are really the type of residents whose support the Barnet Tories can afford to lose? No: they can't. And the damage done is not just by the effects of the charge increases but by the attitude of the councillors to their electorate in the handling of the whole business. Well, no: their attitude to the electorate, full stop. They are completely out of touch with reality, and setting fire to their own political careers. Most of them are too stupid to realise, and the rest of them don't give a shit anyway.
Look what the admirably forthright Barnet Press says in this week's editorial:
"Increasingly, Britain's politics is dominated by pathetic specimens who, if they have an independent thought in their head, have evolved an incredibly effective system of repressing it to follow their master's voice.
The almost total lack of accountability to constituents for the vast majority of councillors in Barnet, as witnessed by those who packed into the cabinet meeting last Monday and also expressed their letters on this page, show that local democracy is fading into a farce."
If the Tory councillors read this, and the many similarly toned letters and comments from residents, and not feel a rising sense of panic, then they are even more idiotic than we imagine. And they should not just be worrying about the strength of feeling here in Broken Barnet. damage they are causing is not just to their own parochial political chances, but to the greater detriment of the Conservative party as a whole.
A couple of weeks ago a reader of this blog contacted the Department for Communities and Local Government to express his fury at the proposed 'reforms' to the constitution that the Tories are trying to sneak past our noses, and which, if passed, will effectively prevent the discussion in council meetings of any major issues by the vast majority of councillors, and reduce what should be the process of democracy in this borough to a totalitarian rubber stamping machine almost entirely powered by the political flatulance emitted by the likes of Brian Coleman.
This reader mentioned that he had only read about the proposals by following the local blogs. There was much chortling down the phone at this point: the political assistant who had taken his call assured him that they were all very well acquainted with the Barnet blogs.
The same department last week received more than one complaint about the ludicrous treatment of residents present at the Barnet Cabinet meeting who had tried to use their phones to tweet or film the proceedings.
And now, as we know, this week, the department for Communities and Local Authorities, in the guise of Eric Pickles and Bob Neill, have taken the unprecedented step of issuing all local authorities with lengthy instructions intended to force them to show some respect for citizen journalists, bloggers, and tweeters who attend council meetings. The new guidelines clearly oblige local authorities to assist residents to engage in the democratic process using the methods of their choice.
This was the greatest slap in the face that the petty Tory dictators of Barnet Council could possibly have had from the big boys in their own party. It was a deliberate act intended to send a clear message to the lunatic fringe here in Barnet who are dragging their party into the gutter, and trying to take us with them. The Conservative party sees the damage caused by the antics of such maverick councils, and wants to put a stop to their pantomime performance.
In trying to persuade local authorities that they should open up their black hearts, and shower we bloggers and tweeters with new love, Pickles' letter tried to invoke the memory of Margaret Thatcher, blessing her sainted memory as the woman responsible for making council meetings acessible to the general public. To most of us, of course, the idea of Margaret Thatcher as some sort of folk hero dedicated to the rights of the common man is a difficult concept to accommodate.
I think Frances O'Grady, the Deputy Secretary of the TUC, put things in a better perspective. When she attended the anti-cuts rally at the Artsdepot here in Finchley recently, she commented in her speech that Barnet was a window on Cameron's Britain. This is the birthplace of Thatcherism, she said: let it be the place where Thatcherism is finally put to rest.
Here in Broken Barnet we have the last survivors of the glory days of Thatcherism, rounded up into a genetic outpost like the last few Neanderthals, outdated, outnumbered, and doomed. It's not just a question of greater intellect, but an ability to organise and build a society: instead of a superior ability with flint tools, we network, and use social media.
It's only a matter of time until they are extinct, and the rest of us take over.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
The People's Uprising, Broken Barnet style
Last weekend saw the inaugural annual conference, at the four star Sandbanks Hotel in Poole, of Forums Unlimited (FU), - a Broken Barnet initiative dedicated to encouraging residents' engagement with their local community representatives, created with the aim of fully embracing the council's stated desire to forge a new relation with their electors. This new relationship is, on the side of residents at least, going to be challenging and rigorous in its relentless drive for greater efficiency, and committed to delivering better opposition - at no expense whatsoever. Well, not that much.
Mrs Angry was obviously too busy to engage in much of the conference activity, spending all her time in the bar, or in calming aromatherapy sessions in the hotel spa, but for those who could be a**ed, there were plenary sessions, and workshops, helping residents to acquire new skills in suburban warfare: civil disobedience for the downtrodden masses of Hampstead Garden Suburb, 'heckling with confidence' voice training for council meetings, and a self help group for residents who have emailed Councillor Brian Coleman - and received a reply. All in all, a useful and inspiring weekend, and the £1,000,000 grant we hope to receive in funding from Councillor Ramsbottom's new Big Society Fund will be greatly appreciated.
Last night, in fact, some of FU's star pupils attended the Barnet area Residents' Forum, seizing the opportunity to test some of their new found skills. Rumours abounded that certain Cabinet members were refusing to attend unless guaranteed a police escort, or that Forum chairs had been told to take a hard line with any troublesome question makers. And as the evening progressed, it seems, from the reports given by her spies at the debriefing session, that many of the residents who had packed out the meeting became infuriated by the lack of direct response to perfectly straightforward questions, and eventually left in disgust. (Mrs Angry hopes that this was not just an excuse to clear off down the pub, and will be asking questions later.)
Never mind. Today marks something of a watershed in the history of the residents' resistance movement, and help has arrived courtesy of the kindness of strangers: a Mr Eric Pickles, no less.
At last week's tumultuous Cabinet meeting, Mrs Angry had noted a councillor monitoring the activities of residents in the public area. At one point, senior officers were alerted to something, and shortly afterwards, a member of the public was approached in relation to his use of a mobile phone.
He was allegedly threatened with expulsion from the public gallery at the Barnet cabinet meeting, for attempting to make a short film of proceedings on the phone. Mrs Angry believes that a complaint was made to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and now look: a very interesting development this morning ...
According to a statement, Eric Pickles has announced ( and please note this will be the only instance where the name of Margaret Thatcher will be allowed in this blog with no accompanying insult):
"Fifty years ago, Margaret Thatcher changed the law to make councils open their meetings to the press and public. This principle of openness needs to be updated for the 21st Century. More and more local news comes from bloggers or citizen journalists telling us what is happening at their local council.
"Many councils are internet-savvy and stream meetings online, but some don't seem to have caught up with the times and are refusing to let bloggers or hyper-local news sites in. With local authorities in the process of setting next year's budget this is more important than ever.
"Opening the door to new media costs nothing and will help improve public scrutiny. The greater powers and freedoms that we are giving local councils must be accompanied by stronger local accountability.
"We are in the digital age and this analogue interpretation of the press access rules is holding back a new wave of local scrutiny, accountability and armchair auditors."
Ha bloody ha, Ms Hillan, Mr Coleman and all the rest. Well ... here's one citizen journalist looking forward to her reserved seat, and free One Barnet novelty biro, at the next council meeting, anyway.
But there is more: Hugh Muir in the Guardian Diary has a rather amusing item today.
He comments:
'Revolution in Egypt, unrest in Bahrain, and citizens rise up in Libya. People have had enough. 'Tis the spirit of our times. "If the downtrodden citizens of Egypt can rise up against an appalling dictator, why cannot we downtrodden citizens of the borough of Barnet rise up against our appalling dictator and get rid of Brian Coleman forthwith?" writes resident and would-be revolutionary Larry Ross, in the Barnet Times. "I and thousands of others would be happy to join in any demonstration outside his house." But Larry, don't you know that Brian, the free-spending municipal Tory they all love to hate, would merely make good his escape by taxi – all the way, perhaps, to the Conservative safe haven of Hammersmith and Fulham. You, poor Larry, would foot the bill.'
Well, if someone is thinking of purchasing a one way ticket to Venzuela right now, Mrs Angry is more than happy to chip in: how about you, citizens?
Mrs Angry was obviously too busy to engage in much of the conference activity, spending all her time in the bar, or in calming aromatherapy sessions in the hotel spa, but for those who could be a**ed, there were plenary sessions, and workshops, helping residents to acquire new skills in suburban warfare: civil disobedience for the downtrodden masses of Hampstead Garden Suburb, 'heckling with confidence' voice training for council meetings, and a self help group for residents who have emailed Councillor Brian Coleman - and received a reply. All in all, a useful and inspiring weekend, and the £1,000,000 grant we hope to receive in funding from Councillor Ramsbottom's new Big Society Fund will be greatly appreciated.
Last night, in fact, some of FU's star pupils attended the Barnet area Residents' Forum, seizing the opportunity to test some of their new found skills. Rumours abounded that certain Cabinet members were refusing to attend unless guaranteed a police escort, or that Forum chairs had been told to take a hard line with any troublesome question makers. And as the evening progressed, it seems, from the reports given by her spies at the debriefing session, that many of the residents who had packed out the meeting became infuriated by the lack of direct response to perfectly straightforward questions, and eventually left in disgust. (Mrs Angry hopes that this was not just an excuse to clear off down the pub, and will be asking questions later.)
Never mind. Today marks something of a watershed in the history of the residents' resistance movement, and help has arrived courtesy of the kindness of strangers: a Mr Eric Pickles, no less.
At last week's tumultuous Cabinet meeting, Mrs Angry had noted a councillor monitoring the activities of residents in the public area. At one point, senior officers were alerted to something, and shortly afterwards, a member of the public was approached in relation to his use of a mobile phone.
He was allegedly threatened with expulsion from the public gallery at the Barnet cabinet meeting, for attempting to make a short film of proceedings on the phone. Mrs Angry believes that a complaint was made to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and now look: a very interesting development this morning ...
According to a statement, Eric Pickles has announced ( and please note this will be the only instance where the name of Margaret Thatcher will be allowed in this blog with no accompanying insult):
"Fifty years ago, Margaret Thatcher changed the law to make councils open their meetings to the press and public. This principle of openness needs to be updated for the 21st Century. More and more local news comes from bloggers or citizen journalists telling us what is happening at their local council.
"Many councils are internet-savvy and stream meetings online, but some don't seem to have caught up with the times and are refusing to let bloggers or hyper-local news sites in. With local authorities in the process of setting next year's budget this is more important than ever.
"Opening the door to new media costs nothing and will help improve public scrutiny. The greater powers and freedoms that we are giving local councils must be accompanied by stronger local accountability.
"We are in the digital age and this analogue interpretation of the press access rules is holding back a new wave of local scrutiny, accountability and armchair auditors."
Ha bloody ha, Ms Hillan, Mr Coleman and all the rest. Well ... here's one citizen journalist looking forward to her reserved seat, and free One Barnet novelty biro, at the next council meeting, anyway.
But there is more: Hugh Muir in the Guardian Diary has a rather amusing item today.
He comments:
'Revolution in Egypt, unrest in Bahrain, and citizens rise up in Libya. People have had enough. 'Tis the spirit of our times. "If the downtrodden citizens of Egypt can rise up against an appalling dictator, why cannot we downtrodden citizens of the borough of Barnet rise up against our appalling dictator and get rid of Brian Coleman forthwith?" writes resident and would-be revolutionary Larry Ross, in the Barnet Times. "I and thousands of others would be happy to join in any demonstration outside his house." But Larry, don't you know that Brian, the free-spending municipal Tory they all love to hate, would merely make good his escape by taxi – all the way, perhaps, to the Conservative safe haven of Hammersmith and Fulham. You, poor Larry, would foot the bill.'
Well, if someone is thinking of purchasing a one way ticket to Venzuela right now, Mrs Angry is more than happy to chip in: how about you, citizens?
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Couldn't care less: Growing Old in Broken Barnet update
There are certain blogposts in the Broken Barnet archives which still have a particularly high number of reads, many months after they were published. One of these is 'Growing Old in Broken Barnet', http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2010/06/growing-old-in-broken-barnet.html - dealing with the distressing issue of the standard of care in this borough for elderly people who require residential accommodation - and in particular, elderly residents with dementia. It was extremely difficult to write about, as it was based on my own experience of my late father's time in hell - in one of the homes used by Barnet. And I think the reason so many people read this post is because so many of us have elderly relatives who may be in need of residential care and we all worry, and we are right to worry, about their vulnerability should they placed in a home with less than adequate standards of care. I suppose many worry about their own futures too.
I've been intending to write this post for a while now because of the latest developments relating to the home I was writing about. I've put it off, frankly, because I hate thinking about it.
The care home in which my father was treated so appallingly is now owned by a large international company. Although the company had not then taken it over, members of management staff and others present during his time there were taken on with the home, and the prevailing standards continued, throughout several inspections by the body then responsible, the CSCI. The manager who had been so antagonistic to my brother and myself, when we tried to raise concerns about our father's awful care, was promoted within the new company.
The inspection reports, still available online to read, clearly show that despite constant criticism of the same failings in care and the state of the home itself, no real action was taken to protect the well being of the wretched residents, many of whom have severe stage dementia. Even the repeated flouting of statutory requirements was allowed to continue. Why?
Because the councils which use this home for placements, ie Harrow and Barnet, were apparently happy, despite years of such reports, to allow their most vulnerable residents to be left in such conditions, and perhaps were more worried about losing the ability to find placements than pursuing a more rigorous scrutiny of conditions within such places - until such time as Harrow was obliged to launch their investigation.
A couple of years ago we raised concerns with MPs John Mc Donnell and Andrew Dismore, in relation to the continuing poor standards in this home. Mr Mc Donnell was already involved in the issue, and had raised in parliament the concerns his own constituents had brought to his attention, and Dismore was then the local MP. I have to say that this was an example of Andrew Dismore's virtue as a constituency representative: he certainly took our concerns seriously and followed through by trying to do something about it.
I have discovered that after such concerns were raised, Harrow Social Services launched a Safeguarding Adults investigation into this home. The home then offered a voluntary embargo on further placements, for a limited period, anyway.
I consequently made enquiries about the investigation, and was told that local councils were about to resume placements in the home following an inspection by the new body, the CSQ, last year, which had rather surprisingly, resulted in a two star rating. This is despite the fact that the report is full of criticisms and still with outstanding statutory requirements, and as the inspectors themselves point out, the home had such a low rate of occupancy at the time of their visit, the assessment was made in articial circumstances and is therefore arguably misleading.
The inspection was based on visits which although unannounced, were expected, and on feedback from a pitifully few number of residents and relatives. Obviously due to the nature of the residents' dementia, they are largely unable to contribute, and only four questionnaires from relatives were obtained. From their comments there was evident disatisfaction with the state of the home, still not redecorated despite agreement to do so, and criticisms also about interaction from staff. The report highlights problems with the poor maintenance and decoration of the home and grounds, administration of medicines, the management of pressure care, gaps in training of staff, including first aid, the management of laundry, the cleanliness of carpets, the impersonal state of bedrooms, the lack of suitable tvs for residents etcetera etcetera: all issues which were raised by us years ago, and still recurring.
Private Eye magazine, incidentally, has featured a number of articles on this very issue, and suggested that there may well have been pressures on the new inspecting board which might explain the haste to award a rating which would enable further placements.
Last summer, however, our shiny new Coalition government decided to stop awarding quality ratings. There will apparently be, eventually, a different way of monitoring the standards of care in these homes. If you look, you will see there is no report on the home where my father was incarcerated published after April of last year, despite the recent history of concerns. That is nearly a year ago. What has happened in the meanwhile? Well, the home is open once more to new residents. That's all I can tell you.
I would like to think that a new inspection system might mean a far more rigorous set of minimum standards and, more importantly, a truly effective system for enforcing compliance. I wish I didn't think that the companies who run the largest number of homes will use their influence to minimise the impact on their profits. I truly hope that no elderly person will ever again have to undergo the horrific experience that my father had to suffer, but I don't believe that is true.
A few days ago I had to walk past the home where my father spent the last, worst, year and a half of his life. I could hardly bear to look up at the windows. I still feel so distressed at the thought of what he had to endure. I can't bear to think that there are still people in there living in more or less the same conditions that he did, but I fear that there are. And when I sit in council meetings and listen to Sachin Rajput and his Tory Cabinet colleagues pontificating about the need to make savings from the services that are meant to protect our elderly relatives from such indignities, I feel nauseated, and wonder how they will feel if ever their own parents have to suffer in this way.
Last week, the subject of our borough's use of residential homes was in the news again.
Traces of the potentially lethal Legionella bacteria has been detected in the water supplies for two care homes in Barnet, prompting calls for a full inquiry from local trade unions. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to the effects of legionella, and of course many members of staff have been put at risk as well.
Staff and residents in Apthorpe Lodge in Nurserymans Road, New Southgate, and Dell Field Court in Etchingham Park Road, Finchley, were sent letters last week explaining the situation. Both facilities are run by Freemantle Trust, who were subcontracted by Catalyst Homes, whom Barnet Council are due to pay an enormous sum of around £6m following arbitration after a dispute about their care contract.
You might wonder how legionella has managed to get into the water supply in any council used facility: there should, you might think, be a system in place to prevent any such contamination, and it must be established as a matter of urgency how any such system failed in these two cases, and if there are any more cases waiting to be detected.
This issue raises serious questions, yet again, about the ability of the borough to maintain control over the management of care when it is transferred into the private sector. When our most vulnerable citizens are handed over to the care of contracted services, who is going to make sure their best interests are being served? Who is going to ensure that the standard of care comes before the profit margin, and the need to cut costs?
The current Tory administration in Barnet likes to claim that the present agenda of savage cuts in spending is necessary in order to target resources at those who need it most. The placement and monitoring of the standards of care given to a large number of elderly citizens in residential homes might be expected to qualify as a priority of concern, in the list of those who need it most. If you believe this is the case in Broken Barnet, I think that you are mistaken, and probably living in the wrong borough.
Because this is how we do things now, in Broken Barnet. And if you don't like it: get out now, while you can.
I've been intending to write this post for a while now because of the latest developments relating to the home I was writing about. I've put it off, frankly, because I hate thinking about it.
The care home in which my father was treated so appallingly is now owned by a large international company. Although the company had not then taken it over, members of management staff and others present during his time there were taken on with the home, and the prevailing standards continued, throughout several inspections by the body then responsible, the CSCI. The manager who had been so antagonistic to my brother and myself, when we tried to raise concerns about our father's awful care, was promoted within the new company.
The inspection reports, still available online to read, clearly show that despite constant criticism of the same failings in care and the state of the home itself, no real action was taken to protect the well being of the wretched residents, many of whom have severe stage dementia. Even the repeated flouting of statutory requirements was allowed to continue. Why?
Because the councils which use this home for placements, ie Harrow and Barnet, were apparently happy, despite years of such reports, to allow their most vulnerable residents to be left in such conditions, and perhaps were more worried about losing the ability to find placements than pursuing a more rigorous scrutiny of conditions within such places - until such time as Harrow was obliged to launch their investigation.
A couple of years ago we raised concerns with MPs John Mc Donnell and Andrew Dismore, in relation to the continuing poor standards in this home. Mr Mc Donnell was already involved in the issue, and had raised in parliament the concerns his own constituents had brought to his attention, and Dismore was then the local MP. I have to say that this was an example of Andrew Dismore's virtue as a constituency representative: he certainly took our concerns seriously and followed through by trying to do something about it.
I have discovered that after such concerns were raised, Harrow Social Services launched a Safeguarding Adults investigation into this home. The home then offered a voluntary embargo on further placements, for a limited period, anyway.
I consequently made enquiries about the investigation, and was told that local councils were about to resume placements in the home following an inspection by the new body, the CSQ, last year, which had rather surprisingly, resulted in a two star rating. This is despite the fact that the report is full of criticisms and still with outstanding statutory requirements, and as the inspectors themselves point out, the home had such a low rate of occupancy at the time of their visit, the assessment was made in articial circumstances and is therefore arguably misleading.
The inspection was based on visits which although unannounced, were expected, and on feedback from a pitifully few number of residents and relatives. Obviously due to the nature of the residents' dementia, they are largely unable to contribute, and only four questionnaires from relatives were obtained. From their comments there was evident disatisfaction with the state of the home, still not redecorated despite agreement to do so, and criticisms also about interaction from staff. The report highlights problems with the poor maintenance and decoration of the home and grounds, administration of medicines, the management of pressure care, gaps in training of staff, including first aid, the management of laundry, the cleanliness of carpets, the impersonal state of bedrooms, the lack of suitable tvs for residents etcetera etcetera: all issues which were raised by us years ago, and still recurring.
Private Eye magazine, incidentally, has featured a number of articles on this very issue, and suggested that there may well have been pressures on the new inspecting board which might explain the haste to award a rating which would enable further placements.
Last summer, however, our shiny new Coalition government decided to stop awarding quality ratings. There will apparently be, eventually, a different way of monitoring the standards of care in these homes. If you look, you will see there is no report on the home where my father was incarcerated published after April of last year, despite the recent history of concerns. That is nearly a year ago. What has happened in the meanwhile? Well, the home is open once more to new residents. That's all I can tell you.
I would like to think that a new inspection system might mean a far more rigorous set of minimum standards and, more importantly, a truly effective system for enforcing compliance. I wish I didn't think that the companies who run the largest number of homes will use their influence to minimise the impact on their profits. I truly hope that no elderly person will ever again have to undergo the horrific experience that my father had to suffer, but I don't believe that is true.
A few days ago I had to walk past the home where my father spent the last, worst, year and a half of his life. I could hardly bear to look up at the windows. I still feel so distressed at the thought of what he had to endure. I can't bear to think that there are still people in there living in more or less the same conditions that he did, but I fear that there are. And when I sit in council meetings and listen to Sachin Rajput and his Tory Cabinet colleagues pontificating about the need to make savings from the services that are meant to protect our elderly relatives from such indignities, I feel nauseated, and wonder how they will feel if ever their own parents have to suffer in this way.
Last week, the subject of our borough's use of residential homes was in the news again.
Traces of the potentially lethal Legionella bacteria has been detected in the water supplies for two care homes in Barnet, prompting calls for a full inquiry from local trade unions. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to the effects of legionella, and of course many members of staff have been put at risk as well.
Staff and residents in Apthorpe Lodge in Nurserymans Road, New Southgate, and Dell Field Court in Etchingham Park Road, Finchley, were sent letters last week explaining the situation. Both facilities are run by Freemantle Trust, who were subcontracted by Catalyst Homes, whom Barnet Council are due to pay an enormous sum of around £6m following arbitration after a dispute about their care contract.
You might wonder how legionella has managed to get into the water supply in any council used facility: there should, you might think, be a system in place to prevent any such contamination, and it must be established as a matter of urgency how any such system failed in these two cases, and if there are any more cases waiting to be detected.
This issue raises serious questions, yet again, about the ability of the borough to maintain control over the management of care when it is transferred into the private sector. When our most vulnerable citizens are handed over to the care of contracted services, who is going to make sure their best interests are being served? Who is going to ensure that the standard of care comes before the profit margin, and the need to cut costs?
The current Tory administration in Barnet likes to claim that the present agenda of savage cuts in spending is necessary in order to target resources at those who need it most. The placement and monitoring of the standards of care given to a large number of elderly citizens in residential homes might be expected to qualify as a priority of concern, in the list of those who need it most. If you believe this is the case in Broken Barnet, I think that you are mistaken, and probably living in the wrong borough.
Because this is how we do things now, in Broken Barnet. And if you don't like it: get out now, while you can.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Inky Stephens and a blot on the Big Society Landscape
*Updated 26th February: see later blog
When I was a child, and yes, this was long, long ago, in the antedeluvian, Janet and John days, when we made our own entertainment, I had a toy post office, which I absolutely loved: with a little red enamelled post box, toy town stamps, envelopes, forms, rubber stamps - and a miniature bottle of Stephens ink, all packed into a cardboard mock up of an old fashioned village post office. I loved this set so much, in fact, that - oh dear, this is sad - I didn't want to open it up, use it, and spoil its pristine condition.
Unfortunately, my older brother decided one day to vandalise the box, rip it open, steal the ink and use it for his John Bull printing set. I think he was printing messages to throw out of his bedroom window: Help: I am a prisoner in a post war nuclear family, in the suburban wilderness of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, and I want someone to remove my little sister, so that I can resume my blissful previous existance as an only child ... Or something.
My brother then threw the bottle on the fire to see if it would explode, or melt. He denied doing it, as he still does, as recently as last Sunday, even though, readers, I saw him do it. My parents didn't believe he had done it, of course, because he was so well behaved, unlike Mrs Angry. He is still very well behaved, which is why he doesn't read this blog, (or so he claims) ...
Anyway: I was vividly reminded of this scandalous event one day, a year or so ago, when, on impulse, and frankly, to get out of the rain, I nipped into Avenue House, here in Finchley, and found myself wandering around what must surely be the only ink museum in the world, tucked away in the recesses of one of the dark Victorian rooms. Bottles of Stephens ink, pens, blotters, more bottles of Stephens ink. (Not my tiny bottle, please note). And more pens. Don't get me wrong, I love pens: I still write with a fountain pen, in fact, so that people can read my scrawl, and because I love the process of writing with ink flowing out of a nib. And I love weird little museums that celebrate the offbeat interests and obsessions of our eccentric nation.
Why is there an ink museum in Finchley? Because, of course, Avenue House was once owned by Inky Stephens, of the Stephens Ink family. When he died, he left the house and gardens to the people of Finchley. The Grade 2 listed house is a large, rambling building, with many rooms decorated with heavy, late Victorian detail, and the grounds include a unique collection of exotic trees planted in the nineteenth century, gathered from around the world, and a rounded landscape of little hills, allegedly the landscaped deposits of earth dug for the nearby LNER railway. There is an old gardeners' bothy, and a secret walled garden, dragged back from the wild, but still annoyingly unaccessible. The site has a curious earlier history as a property held by the Knights Templars, in fact: like the former Manor House just down the road, relics of Finchley's distant past, much more ancient than many realise.
In 2002, the Avenue House estate was handed over to a body of local people, who were then made responsible for maintaining the house and grounds, letting the rooms for meetings, events and so on: you can hold weddings and parties in some of the rooms. Lots of local bodies and societies use the house for events, in fact, including, from time to time, our entertaining local Residents' Forum.
Since the estate was handed over to a local voluntary body, a trust, there have been some serious issues which have caused controversy and ill feeling, and doubts about the suitability of the new arrangement. There was, notably, a bitter dispute between the Avenue House board and the Finchley Arts Centre Trust over an abandoned use of the Bothy, left unresolved in 2008, and after a ten year restoration project. Last year, a loss of funding to some of the bodies who use the house resulted in a statement from the estate that it faced grave financial problems. And then, suddenly last week, rumours began to circulate that Avenue House was going to close.
Some local residents have now received flyers from the trustees saying that if they do not receive donations from them, the house will close at the end of March, and the property handed back to the council, which will result in the house being boarded up, and the grounds given only minimal maintenance in order that some access can continue. What a shame.
I wandered around the grounds today, to see how things were. As you enter the park, you are confronted with a large noticeboard, informing you that in 1918, the house and gardens were left by old Inky Stephens for "the use and enjoyment always of the public". Underneath this is a notice from the trust telling you you may quietly enjoy the grounds, and then three pages of A4 pieces of paper listing grumpy regulations controlling what sort of fun you may have, including eleven different types of nuisance you may not cause. I couldn't see anything about indecency in the bushes or peeing on the roses, so there might be some scope for antisocial behaviour, if you are so minded, and ladies, you might have to pee on the roses, (I was tempted) as the loos were all locked, and a terse note left on the shut up cafe tells you you can only use the indoor loos in certain circumstances: probably with written permission from Inky Stephens. The Bothy is all boarded up and covered with DANGEROUS STRUCTURE notices, the secret garden too. Elsewhere, ugly orange netted plastic fencing is ringing off abandoned areas of the grounds and casts a jarring visual note. The fabric of the house shows visible signs of crumbling at the front, and there is a general air of decline and fall. What a waste.
But let's think about this more carefully.
The Tories want us to believe that as part of the Big Society, funding should be withdrawn from social and cultural activities, and the running of such services given over to the voluntary sector. Here in Barnet, we are going to lose the Church Farmhouse Museum, and the Barnet Museum, because the philistines in the Tory cabinet would rather sell the buildings for development, and cut all funding, than support the only two borough venues which are dedicated to preserving and exhibiting our local heritage. They tell us that in Big Society style, volunteers can easily take over the running of these museums, and manage them without support from the council.
I think it is quite clear from what has happened at Avenue House that this is simply not possible. It is too heavy a burden. Whatever the good intentions of the people who have given their efforts and energies to keeping the estate going since 2002, the hard truth is that it cannot survive without professional administration, and, more crucially, proper funding. It can generate revenue, but not enough to be completely self sufficient.
If the trustees of Avenue House give the lease back to the council, this will be a shame. It need not be the end of the story, however. With support, and careful management, the financial health of the estate could improve, and perhaps it might even provide an opportunity to expand the use of the buildings. Why not move the Barnet Museum to the house, and expand the museum so as to present a more ambitious presentation of the history of the borough? Some of the material in storage, and some of the borough's unseen artworks, now languishing in the archives, could be on permanent view. You might even, sshh, charge a small entrance fee to generate income ... it wouldn't replace the excitement of the ink museum, of course, but even so ...
When Inky Stephens left his house and gardens to the people of Finchley, he must have expected the local borough to take responsibility for his estate: it is surely their moral duty to step in now and take an active interest once more. I do realise that morality is a difficult concept for some of our councillors, so let's approach it from a purely pragmatic direction. This issue is right at the core of the dilemma of the Big Society: if you want it to succeed, you have to continue to help people help themselves, and this includes giving the appropriate financial support, rather than implementing ideological spending cuts and pretending you are empowering the community you claim to serve.
When I was a child, and yes, this was long, long ago, in the antedeluvian, Janet and John days, when we made our own entertainment, I had a toy post office, which I absolutely loved: with a little red enamelled post box, toy town stamps, envelopes, forms, rubber stamps - and a miniature bottle of Stephens ink, all packed into a cardboard mock up of an old fashioned village post office. I loved this set so much, in fact, that - oh dear, this is sad - I didn't want to open it up, use it, and spoil its pristine condition.
Unfortunately, my older brother decided one day to vandalise the box, rip it open, steal the ink and use it for his John Bull printing set. I think he was printing messages to throw out of his bedroom window: Help: I am a prisoner in a post war nuclear family, in the suburban wilderness of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, and I want someone to remove my little sister, so that I can resume my blissful previous existance as an only child ... Or something.
My brother then threw the bottle on the fire to see if it would explode, or melt. He denied doing it, as he still does, as recently as last Sunday, even though, readers, I saw him do it. My parents didn't believe he had done it, of course, because he was so well behaved, unlike Mrs Angry. He is still very well behaved, which is why he doesn't read this blog, (or so he claims) ...
Anyway: I was vividly reminded of this scandalous event one day, a year or so ago, when, on impulse, and frankly, to get out of the rain, I nipped into Avenue House, here in Finchley, and found myself wandering around what must surely be the only ink museum in the world, tucked away in the recesses of one of the dark Victorian rooms. Bottles of Stephens ink, pens, blotters, more bottles of Stephens ink. (Not my tiny bottle, please note). And more pens. Don't get me wrong, I love pens: I still write with a fountain pen, in fact, so that people can read my scrawl, and because I love the process of writing with ink flowing out of a nib. And I love weird little museums that celebrate the offbeat interests and obsessions of our eccentric nation.
Why is there an ink museum in Finchley? Because, of course, Avenue House was once owned by Inky Stephens, of the Stephens Ink family. When he died, he left the house and gardens to the people of Finchley. The Grade 2 listed house is a large, rambling building, with many rooms decorated with heavy, late Victorian detail, and the grounds include a unique collection of exotic trees planted in the nineteenth century, gathered from around the world, and a rounded landscape of little hills, allegedly the landscaped deposits of earth dug for the nearby LNER railway. There is an old gardeners' bothy, and a secret walled garden, dragged back from the wild, but still annoyingly unaccessible. The site has a curious earlier history as a property held by the Knights Templars, in fact: like the former Manor House just down the road, relics of Finchley's distant past, much more ancient than many realise.
In 2002, the Avenue House estate was handed over to a body of local people, who were then made responsible for maintaining the house and grounds, letting the rooms for meetings, events and so on: you can hold weddings and parties in some of the rooms. Lots of local bodies and societies use the house for events, in fact, including, from time to time, our entertaining local Residents' Forum.
Since the estate was handed over to a local voluntary body, a trust, there have been some serious issues which have caused controversy and ill feeling, and doubts about the suitability of the new arrangement. There was, notably, a bitter dispute between the Avenue House board and the Finchley Arts Centre Trust over an abandoned use of the Bothy, left unresolved in 2008, and after a ten year restoration project. Last year, a loss of funding to some of the bodies who use the house resulted in a statement from the estate that it faced grave financial problems. And then, suddenly last week, rumours began to circulate that Avenue House was going to close.
Some local residents have now received flyers from the trustees saying that if they do not receive donations from them, the house will close at the end of March, and the property handed back to the council, which will result in the house being boarded up, and the grounds given only minimal maintenance in order that some access can continue. What a shame.
I wandered around the grounds today, to see how things were. As you enter the park, you are confronted with a large noticeboard, informing you that in 1918, the house and gardens were left by old Inky Stephens for "the use and enjoyment always of the public". Underneath this is a notice from the trust telling you you may quietly enjoy the grounds, and then three pages of A4 pieces of paper listing grumpy regulations controlling what sort of fun you may have, including eleven different types of nuisance you may not cause. I couldn't see anything about indecency in the bushes or peeing on the roses, so there might be some scope for antisocial behaviour, if you are so minded, and ladies, you might have to pee on the roses, (I was tempted) as the loos were all locked, and a terse note left on the shut up cafe tells you you can only use the indoor loos in certain circumstances: probably with written permission from Inky Stephens. The Bothy is all boarded up and covered with DANGEROUS STRUCTURE notices, the secret garden too. Elsewhere, ugly orange netted plastic fencing is ringing off abandoned areas of the grounds and casts a jarring visual note. The fabric of the house shows visible signs of crumbling at the front, and there is a general air of decline and fall. What a waste.
But let's think about this more carefully.
The Tories want us to believe that as part of the Big Society, funding should be withdrawn from social and cultural activities, and the running of such services given over to the voluntary sector. Here in Barnet, we are going to lose the Church Farmhouse Museum, and the Barnet Museum, because the philistines in the Tory cabinet would rather sell the buildings for development, and cut all funding, than support the only two borough venues which are dedicated to preserving and exhibiting our local heritage. They tell us that in Big Society style, volunteers can easily take over the running of these museums, and manage them without support from the council.
I think it is quite clear from what has happened at Avenue House that this is simply not possible. It is too heavy a burden. Whatever the good intentions of the people who have given their efforts and energies to keeping the estate going since 2002, the hard truth is that it cannot survive without professional administration, and, more crucially, proper funding. It can generate revenue, but not enough to be completely self sufficient.
If the trustees of Avenue House give the lease back to the council, this will be a shame. It need not be the end of the story, however. With support, and careful management, the financial health of the estate could improve, and perhaps it might even provide an opportunity to expand the use of the buildings. Why not move the Barnet Museum to the house, and expand the museum so as to present a more ambitious presentation of the history of the borough? Some of the material in storage, and some of the borough's unseen artworks, now languishing in the archives, could be on permanent view. You might even, sshh, charge a small entrance fee to generate income ... it wouldn't replace the excitement of the ink museum, of course, but even so ...
When Inky Stephens left his house and gardens to the people of Finchley, he must have expected the local borough to take responsibility for his estate: it is surely their moral duty to step in now and take an active interest once more. I do realise that morality is a difficult concept for some of our councillors, so let's approach it from a purely pragmatic direction. This issue is right at the core of the dilemma of the Big Society: if you want it to succeed, you have to continue to help people help themselves, and this includes giving the appropriate financial support, rather than implementing ideological spending cuts and pretending you are empowering the community you claim to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)