Sunday, 10 April 2016

'An imaginative solution': the axe falls - Barnet Tories vote to destroy our library service


Before the deed was done: protest outside the Town Hall

Leaving the Town Hall last Monday night, I noted, on the stairs just below me, the portly figure of Reuben Thompstone, the Tory councillor responsible for libraries, walking down with two very senior Barnet council officers. 

They briefly stood together, and smiled at each other: Tomorrow, whispered one of the officers, as they nodded discreetly, still smiling, then moving apart, towards the main door, and out into the night.

No reason why they shouldn't be pleased with themselves. 

They had, after all, all three of them, just seen the completion of their task. 

That is to say, the approval of proposals to cut our once magnificent library service to shreds, sack half of the library workforce, cull the book stock, and impose a system of unstaffed DIY, shrunken 'libraries', dependent on 'technology enabled' automatic entry - and a ban on all children under 15 years old from those soon to be dehumanised, hollowed out branches.

I felt appalled, as I watched them, to see such ill judged self-satisfaction. 

Do they know what they have done? 

Do they care what they have done? 

I wondered exactly what tomorrow meant. Would they be sending in the men with tape measures, straight away, ready to get the libraries cut down to nominal size, and install automatic doors and pin machines in the new, Capita run buildings?



Library cutter Councillor Reuben Thompstone

Preparations have already been made, of course. Of the sort favoured by those whose interests are best served by a rapid implementation of the destruction of our library service. 

Not the sort of preparations that properly assess the full risks, practically and financially, of going ahead with such mad proposals.

The book stock, which is to be mercilessly slashed, has already been in the process of 'rationalisation'. Moves to recruit volunteers to replace qualified staff have reportedly been underway for some time. Who knows what else is under wraps, waiting to be actioned, now that the axe has fallen? 

It is no exaggeration to say this is a dreadful, dreadful decision, for Barnet's residents: another benchmark in the relentless assault on our local services, actions claimed in the name of savings which never appear, but are really pursued through a motivation of hatred for the very ideal of public services on the part of the Tory administration, and promoted by a senior management team determined to turn Barnet into a marketplace of opportunity for more and more privatisation.

There was never any chance it would turn out differently, of course. 

The library committee referred the Tory cuts proposals to Full Council in order to deflect the blame on to the wider group, where their collective shame could be shared out, and - they hoped - ignored. 

Argument, reasoned debate or otherwise, is always a waste of time, with Barnet Tories. 



The future for Barnet libraries, courtesy of your Tory councillors: children barred from unstaffed 'libraries' ...

Claiming not to be whipped at CELS, they certainly were on Monday night, and none of them would ever have the courage act in response to the doubts we know that many of them secretly have about the imposition of unstaffed libraries, or indeed the whole set of proposals, in the light of the catastrophic IT crash.

Ah yes: the IT crash.

As mentioned in the previous post, Mrs Angry discovered at the end of last week, to her astonishment, and no little fury, that the Labour group was under the impression that the IT crisis was over, and the system back to normal. They had been told so by officers, she heard, and they did not challenge this assertion: believable, as the culture of deference to officers prevails amongst the opposition, as much as it does in the Tory group - often with fatal consequences.  

And the amendment that Labour submitted to Council was therefore based on this misapprehension, not raising as is should have, the need to delay the decision in the light of the continuing crisis, and unresolved problems, which was unfortunate, was it not? 

On Monday night Tory members also tried, with little success, to convince those present that there were no continuing issues raised by the IT crash, or implications that related to the proposals under consideration. 

Quite astounding to hear this, for the staff members present, half of whom lost their jobs that night, and are continuing to deal with the problems caused by the IT failure, which reportedly include a loss of two years worth of data such as stock listing, membership details, and borrowing histories. 

Ah: and then from all the confusion, it emerged that they were talking about the pilot scheme at Edgware being now back and running. Not the library system as a whole.

Were Labour members misled, or did they misunderstand?

The truth is that nothing would have made any difference to the outcome. 



Your Tory councillors, unanimously voting for library cuts

Not the extent of repercussions from the catastrophic IT failure.

No careful deconstruction of the myth, as we have seen, that unstaffed libraries are proven to be successful anywhere, in any context comparable to the one proposed here. 

No detailed analysis of the so called business plan, based on so many 'assumptions', and demanding a capital investment of £6 million, in order to make 'savings'. 

No report from Unison, nor protest from residents: nothing. 

Nothing stands in the way of privatisation, in Broken Barnet. 

And be in no doubt: the splurging of £6 million in capital on the 'modification' of our libraries, the shrinkage of space, the fitting up of self entry technology, was done on the pretext of making 'savings', but is just a step in the process of preparing the management of libraries to be dropped by the council, and handed over to some other concern, as they have done with so many other services.

The 'debate' about the library proposals at the meeting itself was of course not a debate at all, and disregarded all the serious questions that should have been addressed, not just the plans as they were, but in the light of the continuing IT crisis, and the unanswered questions which this crash presents. 

The Tories' ploy was to say smoothly that this, as far as the pilot scheme was concerned, was fine now, so there were no other implications for the proposals. Really? Let's see. More of this in the next post.

Labour had by now caught up with the truth, and realised the system itself was still in trouble, and tried suggesting verbally, if not in their amendment, that the plans be (oh dear) 'shelved', at least until the IT crisis had been resolved. 

Library spokeswoman Anne Hutton tried reasoning with the unreasonable, as deputy Tory leader and Assembly candidate Dan Thomas sat yawning. 



Tory deputy leader Dan Thomas, in praise of library cuts

In the public gallery, resident Bob Jacobson held up a poster recommending the election of  'Dan Thomas for Dog Catcher'. 

The concern with which Tories regarded the library vote was illustrated by the full turnout of Conservative councillors. Tory leader, Richard Cornelius, had attended the meeting even though, very sadly, his elderly father had died earlier that day. 

As he told us now that the plans his administration wanted to impose were 'an imaginative solution', it was hard not to recall the interesting fact that he had originally entered local politics because of his fury over the closure of his own local library in the affluent Tory stronghold of Totteridge.

But then, as Labour's Kath McGuirk pointed out, the Tories in Barnet have always been the party of library closures, and former Labour leader Alison Moore reminded us all of their attempts, ten years ago, before the concept of 'austerity' had been even the smallest twinkle in the eye of any Tory chancellor, to shut all but SEVEN of the borough's libraries.

Tory veteran John Marshall, who lost his seat in Westminster to Labour's Andrew Dismore, now local Assembly Member, represents the Tories' most favoured ward of Hampstead Garden Suburb, with residents who number some of the wealthiest people in the UK: including billionaires, press barons, porn barons, arms dealers, exiled dictators ... 



Veteran Tory John Marshall

Hampstead Garden Suburb, declared Marshall, piping up in his peevish, pseudo-parliamentary drawl, as the public gallery jeered, had the most vibrant community library ...

Utter tosh: the tiny, twee little library in a shop which still exists in the Suburb, caught in a moment of time, circa 1939, (daringly modern, for Cllr Marshall) was always top of the list for closure, but the truth was that the Tories never dared do this, because of the political damage it would cause them. 

And so whereas the poorest children in this borough must now be refused entry to their local library, for much of the time, the toy town faux library in the Suburb, staffed by a handful of retired magistrates and local dowagers volunteering their time for good works, will continue, generously subsidised by the tax payers of Broken Barnet, the parents of those children barred from library access, whose own branches must be radically cut, losing their professional staff, and seeing them replaced by DIY branches, shrunken to the size of ... in some cases, not much bigger than HGS.

Libdem Jack Cohen, whose library in Childs Hill is badly affected by the new plans, noted with contempt the 'concession' latterly made to upgrade the CCTV replacement for librarians in the unstaffed libraries from one of recorded filming, to that of (sometimes, at least) live monitoring - from a distance.



West Hendon Lab cllr Devra Kay and Childs Hill Libdem cllr Jack Cohen

Why is that, he wondered? Are libraries going to be dangerous places? Are they no longer going to be a public space, but a place of surveillance?

The vote? 

The Tories approved the library plans, of course, as we knew they would. 

Libraries are a matter of total indifference to these craven Tory members, masquerading as representatives of their local community. None of them are regular library users, and very few indeed show any interest in reading, or cultural activities of any sort. Where is the profit in that? 

Councillor John Hart, who fondly imagines himself to be a man of letters, and an intellectual, informed Mrs Angry in an argument outside the chamber, in the break, that children could simply access reading through 'digital libraries'. My children read books, and visited libraries, as I did, when I was a child, was the response: children need books ... Good, he said, good. What he meant was - yes, for people 'like us', books are the thing. For the rest: who cares?

As is traditional in Broken Barnet, the Full Council meeting began with an address by the Mayor's Chaplain, an office currently held by Dayan Abrahams, who made a heartfelt, sincere and eloquent plea, as almost every chaplain ever has, while the campaigners' brass band outside played a eulogy for Barnet libraries, for mutual respect in debate, and that we should see the common ground, and work constructively for the common good. 



Chaplain Dayan Abrahams, watched by Mayor Mark Shooter

Never let us see the weaknesses of others, he urged, but only their strengths.

He slipped out, and who could blame him, before the heckling began, and the howls of protest, not just from residents campaigning in defence of their libraries, but those suffering the indignity and injustice of the Council's destruction of their homes, and their community, in West Hendon.

If people have no respect, Dayan Abrahams, in the public gallery of their local Town Hall, for their elected representatives, sadly, it is because their elected representatives have demonstrated, over and over again, that they have no respect for the opinions, or the best interests, of the residents of this borough. 

From a position of unassailable strength, they exploit the weaknesses of others, and glory in their triumph.



Jasmin Parsons objects to dismissive comments about the West Hendon 'regeneration', by Tory councillor and aspiring AM Dan Thomas, standing at the back

To watch Jasmin Parsons surrounded by security staff, for daring to voice her fury at the casual indifference, or blatant ridicule of Tory councillors to the loss of her home, and the betrayal of the people of West Hendon, while deputy leader and Tory Assembly candidate Dan Thomas, declares she and her evicted neighbours should be grateful because the new residents that displace them will be given a 'new school and a new church', and as he complains about his portrayal in the BBC documentary about that development, is to understand, or should be, the depth of hurt that these people feel. 

Being obliged to observe Reuben Thompstone turn his back to the residents of this borough, and speak to the Mayor in self congratulatory manner of his plans to destroy our library service, in denial of all the deficiencies in the case put before members, and in clear defiance of the enormous opposition from residents, expressed in months of consultation, is to understand, if you have eyes to see, and ears to listen, why there is not, as the Mayor's chaplain so much wants to believe, a 'wonderful democracy' enacted in the chamber of this Town Hall, but a failure of the democratic purpose: an inversion of the very principles of democracy, where the interests of profit and political dogma take precedence over respect for public service, truth, equality, justice - and community.

There is no mutual 'respect' in relationships of inequality, only an abuse of power.

This is Broken Barnet, and that was the week where your Tory councillors took an axe to your library service.

Next month you have a chance to thank them at the ballot box, and remember, when the Tory candidate for Barnet and Camden asks for your vote, what he did with his, last Monday.


Labour Assembly member Andrew Dismore, supporting Barnet libraries, residents, and staff.

Sunday, 3 April 2016

The eve of destruction: act now, or wave goodbye to your local library ... and remember to thank your Tory councillors at the ballot box


Updated Monday: a comment by Assembly Member Andrew Dismore:


The Conservative London Assembly candidate Dan Thomas and his fellow Barnet Conservatives are rushing into an untested self-service library system that has performed badly at the only other council where it’s been tried for the whole library service.

“It would be irresponsible to go ahead with the vote for self-service libraries tonight when at the very same time the technology that is supposed to make them work has crashed.

“The pilot self-service library at Edgware hasn’t worked since 6 March and is taking far longer than promised to be fixed. It would be beyond belief for the Conservatives to vote to spend £1.4 million to install this failed system in Barnet’s 13 other libraries.
“The Conservatives are taking unacceptable risks with Barnet’s libraries based on using suspect technology instead of tried and tested human librarians, who also happen to be popular and good at helping people.


“The same system in Peterborough has caused a rapid decline in the number of people borrowing books, which is what libraries are supposed to be for. Even the Barnet Conservatives must know this. It is not too late for them to pull back from the brink of disaster and delay the decision.”

                                                          -----------------------------------

April Fools' day 2016 has come and gone, and this year no jokes from Mrs Angry - she was away, anyway, but had come to the rueful conclusion that there was nothing left, in Broken Barnet, that might offer the opportunity for parody: the state in which we now find ourselves is beyond the measurable scale of absurdity, living as we do, under the rule of Crapita.

In the past, Mrs Angry has railed against the relentless march of privatisation, in our borough's services, and suggested that soon enough, the very air we breathe, and the grass that we walk upon, will be subject to the laws of profit.

Soon enough, satire falls down under the weight of reality, and only weeks ago, for example, Labour councillor Dr Devra Kay had to fight a recommendation put to committee that there should now be a charge for anyone wanting to take a photograph of a wedding group in any of our public parks ...

The other day some online chancer was advertising bottles of Shoreditch air for sale: we can only hope and pray that the business enterprise consultants working for Barnet/Capita didn't spot the advert. The foetid air of Broken Barnet is bound to have some sort of perverse, fetish market value for collectors of corporate atmosphere: a uniquely sulphurous, rotten egg smell, flavoured by the unstoppable process of change and decay, in all around we see.

Earth, air and water: the elemental conquest of Barnet continues - although thanks to this blog, and the tactless questioning of Labour's Cllr Arjun Mittra, Crapita have now been forced to step away from their scurrilous attempt to deprive residents of the most basic means of sustaining something resembling a life in this wretched place. Yes, the removal, now, of water, from residents in the public gallery at council meetings, as revealed in the last post. 

In response to Cllr Mittra, it was admitted that Capita had requested that savings be made on bottled water, and therefore removed all such portable units meant for the use of the public from the Town Hall, and 'installed a mains water machine as an alternative'. 

Let Mrs Angry translate: 'a tap'. 

Which was already in the kitchen, and jealously guarded by Capita, so as to prevent the plebs gaining access. The response claimed jugs of water had been available at public meetings. Not true, at either Full Council, or CELS.

And in its way, this dispute over such a small but essential provision is the perfect metaphor for everything Capita is doing in the course of their invasion of this borough: demanding trophies of war, from the water you drink, to the grass you stand on, with as much gleeful pleasure as the rather greater devastation caused by the heap of profit being mined from their control of our local services. 

Take a look at this question and answer published before tomorrow's crucial Full Council meeting, on the balance of payments of just one of the two massive Capita contracts:

Q6, from Labour's Cllr Phil Cohen:

For each year of the CSG contract so far: 

a) how have Capita performed against the core contract savings target?
b) what penalty payments have been imposed on Capita for under-performance? 

c) what additional payments outside the core contract have been made to Capita for work not included in the core contract? 

d) what additional payments have been made as a result of contract variations?

Response, from Tory leader Richard Cornelius:

a) The savings on the core contract, £69.6 million in total over the ten years, are on track to be achieved. Savings to date, including an estimate to 31 March 2016 are £10.7 million. 

b) Since contract commencement, Capita have paid £387k for underperformance 

c) The council has commissioned work outside the core contract up to 31 December 2015 to a value of £26.1m. 

d) Since contract commencement, contract variation payments have totalled £3.2m. This includes inflation and contract true up post contract commencement.

Well, then. Mrs Angry is not awfully good at maths, you know, but even she can see the ... how would they put it, in Barnet corporate speak ... the direction of travel indicated by these figures.

We are promised around £70 million in savings over 10 years.

That would be, Mrs Angry thinks, counting on her fingers, about £7 million a year handed over by Crapita, in order to be 'on track', no? So by now we should have at least £21 million in savings, or thereabouts.

In three years, though ... we have received only £10 million. 

Ah.

Oh, and then: hang on. 

As well as apparently being behind by £11 million by now, we have also given Crapita payments outside the core contract, worth £26 million. That right?

And ... contract variations of £3 million? 

So, erm: they've given us about £10 million, in three years, but they've taken nearly £30 million? And incrementally, over the full ten years ... No. That can't be right, can it?

Mrs Angry, being so numerically challenged, has commissioned a report on these figures from a private consultancy (and is now paying herself a six figure gainshare payment as a reward, of course). Barnet's favourite advisers at iMPOWER weren't available, sadly, so she had to look elsewhere.



And the conclusion of mICAWBER & Co, Plc:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

Yep. More or less in line with Mrs Angry's assessment. Thank you. Cheque for £19, 19s and 6d, in the post.

Ah, but, Mrs Angry, Cllr Cornelius may be right. We may be 'on track', with the savings & all. It may be that most of those savings will be presented further into the contract. You know: what with cost savings initiatives like ... cutting down on the supply of water to residents, and so on. 

Oh dear. Oh no.

NOW LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE, Mrs Angry. 

Singlehandedly, with your unquenchable thirst, and your impertinent provocation, you have brought the Crapita contract into the red, and knocked the whole One Barnet outsourcing programme (are we still allowed to call it that?) off track.

And you are being grossly unfair to Capita. They have, after all, handed back £387,000 for what is coyly referred to as 'underperformance'.

Underperformance. Always disappointing, isn't it, ladies? And it is only fair that we, the residents of Broken Barnet are allowed to give Capita these nominal slaps on the wrist, even if grossly outweighed by the balance of payments going in the other direction.

One must assume that the 'underperformance' is related to KPIs - 'Key Performance Indicators' - that have been breached. Now then: are these KPIs fair and accurate assessments of the general standard of performance? Well: Mrs Angry's suspicions on this score (ha) are raised by one rather surprising admission, also in the Q&A for tomorrow's Full Council: from Labour's Cllr Alon Or-Bach, Q 56:

Has Capita failed any Key Performance Indicators by the recent Barnet Library IT server failures?

Reply from Tory leader Richard Cornelius:

The Key Performance Indicator covers the availability of whole council systems and systems critical to the council’s safeguarding duties, rather than those which operate in an individual service. Capita have not failed a KPI but other contractual remedies are in place that allows the council to seek compensation for any costs associated with bringing the system back into operation and losses incurred by the council.

Quite extraordinary: a failure on the scale of the IT crash, a month old and still continuing, with two years of data lost, a loss of revenue, and incurring untold problems which can only even begin to be assessed if and when a new system is working - none of this qualifies as a failure of performance?

Oh, and incidentally, here is a mystery: it seems Labour members were apparently informed at the beginning of last week, that the system was back, and that data not irretrievably lost anyway! Perhaps it was Barnet Council's idea for an April Fool, because clearly this news has not reached the branches where staff are still struggling without access to data, and have reportedly been told the system would not be back until the 18th of the month, at best, as attempts are made to install an updated version of Vubis...

Capita may cough up some money to pay for, for example, the use of the agency staff that will be necessary over the next few months, to make good the damage this crash has caused: (they'll need to use expensive agency staff, of course, because the council will have sacked half the workforce by then) but no doubt we, the long suffering taxpayers will hand it back in some other new hidden charge. 

What is important here is the issue of the contract itself, and what this failure says about the state of the 'partnership', or rather the ten year bondage into which our clueless Tory councillors have sold us, and our local services.

If an IT failure of this proportion can occur, and data put at risk so easily, as well as causing so much disruption, and loss of income, what reliance can we put on Capita's handling of all their other responsibilities? The possible risks are enormous, and potentially catastrophic.

As to the library issue: ah, yes: the significance of tomorrow night's Full Council is that this is where the terrible library proposals are due to be rubber stamped by our Tory members, despite the unforeseen crisis currently engulfing the library service, the lessons of which cannot even begin to be calculated while it still continues, especially the enormous risk level posed by the planned introduction of the so called 'open' libraries which will effectively be rooms in Capita managed buildings, with some books and a few PCs - but no staff on the premises. 

The pilot scheme for this system came to a crashing halt, of course, when the system failed: underlying the problems and potential consequences of an entire service dependent on such technology, in the place of the 46% of library staff who will be sacked if these plans are passed.

The dangers of such a cockeyed scheme have been written about endlessly, here and elsewhere. Mrs Angry has demonstrated, as reported in the previous post, that the evidence put before members in regard to this model being an alleged 'standard approach' and so popular in 'Scandinavia' was wrong, and this ought to have struck a warning note for any sensible authority about to endorse a system that has never been used in any context comparable to the one proposed here.

A popular Scandinavian model: unlike the 'open' library

Apart from this research by Mrs Angry and her contacts, Barnet Unison have this week issued a press release once more highlighting the high level of risk posed by adopting a programme that has not been shown to be safe, or appropriate for use in the context proposed in our borough: 


Unstaffed Libraries – Unsafe and Unproven



 Barnet Council has used the examples of Denmark, Leeds and Peterborough to support their plan to replace Library workers with unstaffed libraries (Open+). Barnet UNISON exposed how the Danish use of unstaffed library opening differed from the Barnet plan.



The UK precedents also do not support the Council. In Leeds, Farsley Library uses Open+ technology to enable unstaffed opening hours. Unlike Barnet no cuts were made to staffed hours.  Farsley is in a quiet and leafy part of Leeds. Under 18s as well as adults with a record of anti-social behaviour in libraries could not in theory enter the building during unstaffed hours.  Less than 10% of local users availed themselves of the unstaffed opening hours and there were problems with the technology which prevented access to the site. After running the experiment for over a year no decision has been made. This is hardly an endorsement of unstaffed libraries.

In Peterborough the introduction of Open+ was used to cut staff hours.  But Peterborough seems to have paid more attention to public safety as

“A decision was made to recruit four open+ assistants to maintain a presence in four library sites where it was felt that extra safeguarding measures were needed during open+ hours”


The job description for the post states

“The primary role of this post is to oversee the use of the library during unstaffed hours”


This raises the following questions: When is an unstaffed library not an unstaffed library?  And why not have kept existing staff on site who could have provided in depth and wider service?

Barnet Council’s response to concerns over safety in unstaffed libraries is for a

 “CCTV operator able to mobilise roving security to respond to any incident with the aim of a response time of 30 minutes”

 (Barnet’s Future Library Service – Appendix A: Future of Barnet Libraries p35)

 This is an inadequate measure, unable to provide swift and sufficient reaction to situations such as:

·        Medical emergencies

·        Electrical failures

·        Burst water pipes

·        Verbal and physical assault

·        Emergency evacuations

It is hoped that the Council’s continuing desire to press on with unstaffed opening is due to a lack of information rather than disregard for the safety of library users. Barnet UNISON calls on the Council to reconsider this plan and to engage in meaningful discussion on the issues with all stakeholders in our Library Service.

Will our Tory councillors read this, and stop to think? Are they capable of thinking for themselves, or will they just do as they are told by their own senior management team, and as advised by the private consultants who lurk in the shadows, following their own agenda, unaccountable to no one, but acting at the expense of Barnet residents?

No, as usual the Tories will stick their fingers in their ears, and repeat the same mantra about the need for savings, and obediently vote through the cuts, even though as another Unison report that they will ignore explains, the economic argument simply does not stack up: 


Flawed economics



The reconfiguration costs are likely to exceed the estimated costs and the rental
income is likely to be less than that forecast, causing serious a financial problem for
Library services. The £6.7m cost is likely to rise to £7.25m if the Council continues
the search for an alternative management provider. Only £0.400m has been spent
on Phase 1, leaving about £6.8m yet to be spent, which could be used to
enhance Library services.

It is also noted that: 


"28 of the 39 risks identified in the risk register relate to technology-enabled opening

risks".

This report is reasoned and evidence based, like every carefully compiled document put before Barnet Council by the union throughout the entire history of the outsourcing process. Almost every major prediction has proven accurate, but on every occasion such reports are presented to a committee, it is rejected out of hand. 

Ok. Now is the time, readers, if ever there was a time, a last chance, for you to contact the Tory members and tell them, before tomorrow night's meeting, and before it is too late to save Barnet Libraries. 

If our Tory members had any sense, they would, in the light of the recent IT failure, at the very least postpone the decision on the library plans.

To go ahead now will expose them to a real risk of legal challenge, on several grounds, which for tactical reasons Mrs Angry will not expound upon here. In addition, one might question the advisability of the authority which closed down Residents Forums on the pretext of a potential breach of purdah, proceeding with the endorsement of such controversial plans, at this point ...

Time to let the Conservative members know how you feel about your library service: you can email them now, simply by checking their addresses here

Here is the email address for Tory leader Richard Cornelius:  cllr.r.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk

Chair of the Library committee, Tory Reuben Thompstone: 

 cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk

Oh, and do be sure to contact Councillor Daniel Thomas, who is not only deputy Leader, but a member of the library committee, and yet has dismissed opposition to his party's cuts on the grounds that libraries are not used by most residents. You might have something to say about that, readers. His contact details are below.

The True Blue Tory councillor, and would be Assembly Member, said at the last CELS meeting that he thought the library cuts plans were good, apparently thrilled by the concession that it will now be any child under 15 who will be banned from the new unstaffed libraries, rather than any child under the age, that is to say all children under the age of 16. 

Do let Cllr Thomas know what you think about all this, especially as he is standing for election to the London Assembly, and will be very interested to know your voting intentions next month.

And you can come tomorrow to a lobby at the Town Hall, in the Burroughs, at 6.20 pm, before and probably during the meeting, in order to exercise your democratic right - while it still exists - to protest against these iniquitous plans.




Monday, 28 March 2016

Anyone but a fool, or: is that really what you want? Barnet Tory cuts, as the Open Library shuts ...


Mrs Angry tries very hard not to attend council meetings, if at all possible, very often, unless it is absolutely necessary, having run out of patience with what passes for the democratic process, in Broken Barnet: but sometimes turning up to the Town Hall is unavoidable, and last week's library committee was one of those unmissable events.

Wandering into the meeting room, it was immediately clear that something was wrong. 

Something was very wrong. 

As is usual these days, the public gallery was already graced with the presence of a number of senior officers from Capita, staking out the territory, but ... gone was the habitual, self evident sense of complacency and indifference that exudes from these people. No jokes, no eye contact, with Mrs Angry: they sat sulking in their places, silently, and, oh dear: thin lipped, and uncommunicative. 

Hmm. Well, the room was soon packed with members of the public, many of whom had attended the lobby outside the Town Hall, to show their fury at the library plans about to be 'debated' in the meeting.

Mrs Angry sat down at the front, checked through her papers, and then, feeling rather dehydrated, looked about, as usual, for the water dispenser. There wasn't one. 

There wasn't one at the last meeting, either. Odd. 

Well, then. The explanation for this, apparently, is that Capita has withdrawn the provision of water to members of the public, at meetings - to cut costs. No, really. 

It seems the endless payment of millions of pounds each month to Capita is not enough to cover the £6 cost of the water dispenser that has always been available at all meetings. 

Councillors and senior officers have lovely glass pitchers of water, on their table, but the residents of Broken Barnet, who pay for everything in the room, on the table, and rather a lot besides,, may not even have this basic provision. 

And in its small way, this gesture perfectly expresses the state of things here, in Broken Barnet: the grip that Capita has over the borough, the extraction of every last penny of profit from any opportunity: and the extent of indifference, bordering on contempt, for the residents who are paying the price of this contractual bondage. 

Water, water, everywhere, friends, but not a drop to drink, except for the senior officers of Broken Barnet, and a few councillors.

Funnily enough, although Capita now have their sweaty palms on just about every council service going, in Broken Barnet, they have  become awfully modest about their involvement here. In fact, the relationship with Capita has become the love that must not be named. The Barnet Vice, that dark, secret love between outsourcerer and the outsourced, the dominant partner, and the submissive one, is such to which no overt reference may be made. 

It was noticeable in the meeting that officers preferred to speak coyly of CSG, or the council, or other contractors like Vubis, or Infor, but sshh, nobody wanted to utter the name of ... Capita. 

Back to Library Cutter in Chief, Cllr Reuben Thompstone, who was still sporting a (non hipster) little twirly moustache, and that customary demeanour of his which inevitably reminds Mrs Angry of, well: a stuffed owl. 



Cllr Reuben Thompstone

And. He. Was. Speaking. In. Very. Clipped. Antipodean. Tones, As. Usual; chairing the meeting, attended by a cohort of supine Tory councillors, who barely spoke, and more or less refused to engage with members of the public who came to question the committee. 

Thompstone laid down his vision as to how the meeting was going to progress. There were 191 written public questions (the impertinence, but, look, only ten from Mrs Angry, ok?) and several people wanting to speak. Including Mrs Angry. We were given stern warnings about how this would be regulated. Mrs Angry was awfully scared.

First up: Barbara Jacobson, who hoped that all councillors had, like her, read all 600 pages of the report. She asked that every councillor present, who should have done this, to demonstrate their understanding of the implications of the contents by asking at least two intelligent questions. Intelligent questions? From a Tory councillor?

The Tory councillors looked at her as if she were deranged. Read all of the report? What on earth for? No need. Their decisions, after all, had already been written for them, hadn't they? Oh: no - no, Mrs Angry, not so - they stated at the meeting that they had not been whipped, and of course we believed them.

In truth, their craven silence, and uncomfortable shifting in their seats, throughout the meeting, might have given the impression that they had indeed had been subject to firm discipline, and that thought gave Mrs Angry a fleeting moment of unwholesome pleasure, until she woke up from her reverie, and remembered that there may really be no need to threaten a Tory councillor with punishment, as they are so institutionalised, they will do as they are told without any persuasion, or flick of the whip.

Still, it's a happy thought, isn't it readers?

Shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet ...

Resident and campaigner Keith Martin tried to punish them in another way now, with his rendition of a song: not by the Velvet Underground, but from the rather more decorous 'Iolanthe', specifically the following lines:

When in that House M.P.'s divide, 
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too, 
They’ve got to leave that brain outside, 

And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

Wasted on them, Keith, muttered Mrs Angry, with a sigh, as he began his recital. 



Tory members preparing for Full Council, in Broken Barnet, as imagined by Gilbert O'Sullivan

Our culture averse Tories, sadly, none of whom show any signs of owning a brain, with or without a cerebellum, wouldn't know the difference between Gilbert & Sullivan, Gilbert O'Sullivan, and/or Gilbert & George.

Councilllor Dan Thomas, who labours, if that is the appropriate term, under the grave misapprehension that the voters of Broken Barnet, longing for the good old days when his pal Brian Coleman was the Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, will rush to the ballot box in May and vote for him, rather than Andrew Dismore, sat upright throughout most of the proceedings, like a waxwork, unblinking, rigid with fear that he might accidentally say something memorable, which Mrs Angry would hear, and write down in her notebook. Shame. No need to worry, John Thomas: nothing identifiable as an intelligible comment issued forth, according to the notes taken.

Resident Maria Nash, who uses a wheelchair, came to the table now, and attempted to explain to the committee the terrible impact on her, and all other disabled users, if they impose the so called 'technology enabled library' system on our service. 

'Technology Enabled Library', or TEO, also refers to 'Tory Emasculated (Non) Library': a building with a few books in, that used to be a library, but now runs with no members of staff present - at all. At least until falling attendance gives the council the chance to shut it completely, and sell off the freehold.

The model that Barnet wants to use is 'Open+™', run by a company called Bibliotheca. (Not sure why they have put my initials on the copyright, although obviously the fees will be very welcome). 

What is open about the open library, Mrs Angry, you may be asking? 

Erm, well: not much.

In fact these 'libraries' are 'open', only in the sense of being ... well, you know .... 'shut'.

Shut to every adult without a pin number to operate the doors, or in need of assistance to gain access, and shut to every child. Every child, under 15. 

Or: open in the sense too of 'Paris, Open City': giving up all opposition to an invading enemy, and letting them enter, in the hope of limiting casualties, in the war against public services.

You must let yourself in to the unstaffed library, through electronically operated doors, and a pin number. 

You must rely for your security on a CCTV camera. 

You must answer your own questions, at the unstaffed counter. 

And if you need to use the loo, hard luck. There won't be one. 

Oh dear: this may well lead to the sort of 'unpleasantness' on the carpet that so horrifies Cllr Helena Hart, but there you, go: serves her right.

Maria patiently pointed out the effect all this would have on those with physical or learning disabilities - or both. 

Physical access will be difficult for anyone with such needs, and once in the library, without staff present, many learning disabled residents, perhaps with autism, or similar difficulties, will struggle to use the facilities provided - such as they will be, in the new Tory library era.

Mrs Angry's turn to speak. Of course Cllr Thompstone, whenever Mrs Angry addresses a committee in such circumstances, sits there bristling with impatience, looking forward to interrupting her, and hoping to try to cut her off as soon as possible, but unluckily for him this time, Mrs Angry made sure her most aggravating points were ticked off early on, and the speech timed to end before the standard Thompstonian measurement of freedom of expression (ie so grudging as to be barely calculable) ran out.

Over the last few years, it’s become increasingly obvious that the policies of Barnet Council are driven not by our elected representatives, in the course of an open democratic process, but by an unaccountable administration led by senior officers, and the legions of private consultants and agencies whose fees you so happily endorse, whilst lecturing us on the need for ‘austerity’, and endless cuts in local services.

Anyone but a fool now sees that the massive range of outsourcing of the One Barnet programme was a costly mistake, meant to bring savings, but leeching away millions of pounds in extra charges.

You were so easily persuaded there was no other choice but to become a commissioning council, and an in house option for the One Barnet process unthinkable, because we needed an upfront £16 million investment in IT from Capita.

You then discovered that we, the taxpayers of Barnet, would have to give Capita £16 million for IT. 

Here we are, three years into the contractual agreement with Capita, and in the middle of a catastrophic systems crash which has brought our library service to its knees, and lost more than two years’ worth of data. There appears to be no sign of any independent investigation of this, which is grossly irresponsible.

The IT crash has of course shut down your ‘open’ library pilot, and exposed the disastrous level of risk to all Capita run systems which such a cockeyed scheme would present. 

Some questions:

Why was the open library pilot scheme risk assessment not put before you last year, when you were first considering the options for consultation? 

Why are you yet again sanctioning a huge expenditure of capital on implementing your officers’ plans, in the pretext of making ‘savings’?

Why did reports put before this council continue to assert, despite repeated denial, that unstaffed libraries are the ‘standard approach’ in ‘Scandinavia’? 

The reply to my question today proves that this is a latterday Nordic myth, unsubstantiated by evidence, created by those with interests in selling this system to a rightfully sceptical market. 

The truth is that unstaffed libraries have never been used in any context comparable to that proposed by your officers. 

For good reason.

You are determined to replace library staff with volunteers, tell residents to look after their own parks, and vulnerable people to beg charities to provide them with meals on wheels, rather than the council. 

You’ve handed over control of council services to a private contractor, sat back with your feet up, and effectively made yourselves redundant.

Yet rather than take a cut in your own allowances, and volunteer your own services, you continue to rake in incomes, from us, the residents you represent - for what exactly? 

To rubber stamp the decisions made by officers and consultants, based on recommendations whose evidence passes without challenge, or proper scrutiny? 

You seem blissfully unaware of the political damage you are doing to the (admittedly minimal) chance of electing Cllr Thomas and Zac Goldsmith in May, and naturally I don’t give a damn about that, although you should.

But if you have any sense, or conscience, you need to stop here, now, each of you, and think very carefully: what is my duty to the residents of this borough? 

And who is in charge of Barnet, you, or the officers you employ, on our behalf? 

And if you have any concerns at all, you have only one option: throw out these recommendations, and act in the interests of the people of Barnet, and not the interests of private profit, or the secret agenda of your own senior management team: leave our libraries alone …  or live with the consequences.


Applause from a mirthful, public gallery, packed out to the back of the room, but - not one question from a councillor.

It was a waste of time, of course, to try to appeal to a Tory member, and his or her sense of duty to the residents they allegedly represent. Their first loyalty: their only loyalty, is to themselves, and their group.

Next up was the best speech of all, from eleven year old Heval, who attends Fortismere school, in East Finchley. He sat at the committee table with his mum, and tried to explain to the dull witted Tories why libraries are so vital for the well being of school children and young students. He has been taking his seven year old sister to the library: if the Tory plans are approved, he and his sister will both be barred from the unstaffed libraries. We won't be able to go and get books to read, he said. 

Is that really what you want, I ask?

They stared at him, across the table.

The Chair, Reuben Thompstone, having been too scared to ask any sensible questions of the adult speakers, now decided to pick on an eleven year old boy. 

He observed that Heval attended Fortismere. They had a school library, had they not?

Yes, said Heval. Which now has reduced hours too.

Ah. 

(Note to Reuben Thompstone. Don't try to patronise the children of Broken Barnet, son: and never ask a question, in committee, as in court, to which you do not already know the answer to be supportive to your own agenda ...)



Public questions next: you can see the written responses here: and unfortunately for the Tory councillors and their senior officers, there was time for some supplementary questions based on some of the very interesting information that had been provided, or, in the tradition of Broken Barnet, not provided, but forming a telling negative shape, and the faintest hint of a dog in the night that did not bark - or a failing library system that (apparently) did not alert those tasked with maintaining the IT management ...

Mrs Angry's questions were on two subjects, which are of course inextricably linked: in regard to the 'open', unstaffed library model, and the calamitous, library IT crash, under the management of Capita, an event which has, in one fell swoop, shut down the pilot 'open' scheme, as well as lost two years worth of data.

The library plan now under consideration is based on many assumptions - unproven assumptions - and in some cases: false assumptions. 

One of the latter category is this: an enthusiastic support for the unstaffed library model, based on a claim, repeated in the earlier reports that went to councillors, that it is the 'standard approach' for libraries in Scandinavia.

Mrs Angry has always been suspicious of this assertion, and has recently conducted her own research into the subject, aided by contacts in the library profession, before asking the Barnet officers who present the reports to the library committee to provide evidence of this claim. (Note to Reuben Thompstone: this is how to ask questions, see? Do your homework.

They could not provide such evidence, as you will read.

There is no evidence of a 'standard approach' of this sort, in 'Scandinavia', as of course - there is no such thing.

In the latest version of reports to committee, it is now stated, Appendix F, 'Context':

Whilst use of the system is relatively new in the UK, Open+™ has been widely adopted throughout Scandinavia to extend library opening hours beyond those that can be staffed.

Widely adopted? 

And look: here is the response to Mrs Angry's question, demanding evidence: letting the cat out of the bag. The background information on 'open libraries' was provided, as as Mrs Angry had already worked out, by a company wanting to seal the deal, ie Bibliotheca.

And the claims in the reports going to members, written by senior officers in a flight of fantasy based on that information, are as firmly based on reality ... as any Nordic myth. Less so, possibly. More of a Nordic Noir work of fiction, in fact. Fact? Let's see what Barnet/Capita's spin is: 

According to Bibliotheca ... 'the company has installed 205 open+ libraries in Scandinavia'.

Denmark has around 180 'open libraries'. 125 supplied by Bibliotheca.

Sweden, according to Barnet, has 41 public libraries. (presumably they mean with 'open technology').

Finland: 25 public libraries.

Norway: 14 libraries. 

Hmm. Well, are you only relying on one company's information? Are there any others? Hard to identify, if so.

Now let's look at Mrs Angry's evidence.

Denmark has some 'technology enabled libraries' in what even Bibliotheca admits are largely 'remote and rural communities'. Got that, Tory councillors? Of course Denmark also has a completely different culture, and a notably low crime rate. 

And it seems that the reason for the deployment of these 'technology enabled' village branches is largely related to the concerns that Danish politicians have about the depopulation of such isolated communities. 

Danish libraries, however, also have experimented with what is known as 'staff intensive' libraries: the absolute reverse of the TEOs deployed in remote areas. This was a very interesting programme, which saw an increase in library membership. 

And recently a Danish librarians' representative pointed out in a statement to library staff in Barnet that any use of 'open' libraries in their country was only as an enhancement of a well resourced service, NOT a replacement.

Sweden: again, as in all of Scandinavia, here we have a rural context absolutely not comparable to a highly populated metropolitan area of London. 

Sweden has a total of  1300 public libraries. Bibliotheca, according to Barnet's officers, although the requested evidence was not supplied, claims to have only 41 - a very small number. So when Councillor Reuben Thompstone told the press last year that 'open libraries' were being successfully used in Sweden, he might perhaps have been more 'open' himself, and added 'on a small scale, and in an utterly different context ...'

Norway? Odd: the response from Barnet says there are 14. No evidence or details. Mrs Angry believes there are 800 libraries in the country as a whole. We may note the response markedly does not use the term 'public' here, so one might guess these are perhaps university libraries, or similar?

Oh, and Finland: 

Finland? According to Barnet, Bibliotheca claims there are 25 'open' branches here. No evidence or details were provided, and Mrs Angry could only find references to three small 'open' libraries.

The total number of public libraries in Finland is 898, so, again: a minimal number. Probably because the public library system in Finland holds a place of great significance in that country's culture: with very high rates of use, and excellent standards of service, which undoubtedly is directly connected to the fact that Finland has the second highest literacy rates in the world (the UK is only 44th, in the same list) ... 

Where public library use is encouraged, supported, and properly funded and staffed, literacy thrives.

In a carefully worded departure to the claims made in the previous reports -(repeated despite contradiction from campaigners) - it was admitted in the papers put to this committee that the 'open' model is only 'a feature' of libraries in 'Scandinavia'. 

As Mrs Angry pointed out, a feature of a library might be anything, from the installation of Swedish pine shelving, to a lovely rug from IKEA: hardly the same as implying unstaffed libraries have been used as a 'standard approach' throughout the entire Nordic area, is it?


Another feature of Scandinavian libraries, apparently - (or what turns up if you foolishly google 'Swedish Librarian' ...)

Mrs Angry asked the senior officer present to explain the repeated use of inaccurate information previously put before councillors tasked with making a decision of such immense significance. She would not, or could not, give a response. 

There is a very worrying trend in Barnet now of information that is inaccurate, or incomplete, being put before elected members, or not put before councillors, when making decisions, or even making decisions instead of the elected members. The presentation of inaccurate information may not be deliberate, but it is certainly misleading.

Consider the example of the Abbotts Depot issue, when information on the purchase price was withheld from members; the failure to brief councillors on Capita's 'Project Chicago'; and of course the very interesting matter, mentioned earlier, of the £16 million 'upfront' capital investment, that members thought was coming from, rather than to, Capita. Oh, and remember the decision made by senior management to change the model of one of the massive Capita contracts to a Joint Venture, without consulting the Tory leader?

We have now seen that the entire basis on which the unstaffed library model was promoted is false. There has been no comparable use of unstaffed libraries in any metropolitan context similar to Barnet, on anything like the scale and scope of this mad proposal. 

To launch a scheme of this sort knowing so little of the true level of risk is grossly irresponsible.

To proceed with the launch of a scheme of this sort in circumstances such as we have now in Barnet, in a library service brought to the point of breakdown by such a serious systems fail, is lunacy.

It was admitted at the CELS committee meeting that the full impact of the IT crash, in terms of the implications of level of risk to the unstaffed model, had not yet been properly assessed. 

Only in Tory Barnet would councillors hear this, and still approve the deployment of this idiotic idea. 



From right, Tory members Helena Hart, Alison Cornelius, Dan Thomas, and Bridget Perry

And although they kept as quiet as possible, then passed the buck and referred the vote to Full Council, they did so knowing that the group as a whole will do as they are told and pass the proposals, avoiding personal responsibility in favour of a collective guilt, which they hope will be forgotten by their residents.

One thing Mrs Angry can promise you, Councillors, is this - they won't forget, and we will remind residents at every opportunity of what you have done, and failed to do, in response to the planned destruction of our library service.

As for the other issue, the IT crash: well, what an interesting story lies beneath this one ...

Early on in the meeting, Mr John Hooton, currently Barnet's Chief Operating Officer, and Director of Finance, sat at the table and in a demonstration of masterly understatement, observed that the library system's backups were 'not as robust as they could have been ...'

Yep. That is certainly true.

And whose fault was that?

Also sitting at the table, readers, was a nice, fresh faced young man, looking rather like one of those clean cut Mormon missionaries who knock on your door, keen to invite you to join them in prayer. Who was he? 

Oh: the new head of IT for Capita/Barnet? 

New? Yes. He told Mrs Angry in the corridor, when she trapped him by the gents, and he had no option but to say something, anything, in order to escape, that he had only been in the job for about three weeks.

Oh again. Mrs Angry tried to think of anything significant that had happened, about three weeks ago, that might have coincided with his arrival in Broken Barnet, but could only call to mind the library IT fail, which of course could have no connection at all. Could it?

Anyway, the line from officers at the table was - oh, the library thing? Meh. Old system, you know, bound to happen. Nothing to do with us. And they were 'very confident' that the system (or 'a' system) would be back up, after a month, on April Fool's Day. Most appropriate.

The irreplaceable data from the last two years appears to have disappeared without trace, but, you know ... these things happen, and anyway, it must have been someone else's fault.

Erm: you sure about that?

We pay you to monitor the system, and ensure that the proper backups were in place. Don't we? Can you prove you did this? Come on: let's see the evidence, then.

What's that? You think the proof is lost in the corruption of two years worth of data? Goodness me, how unfortunate.

One of Mrs Angry's readers has made the following observations in regard to the IT fail:

"Capita, as I understand it, are basically being paid to host the service,  for which the costs are: housing and powering the machines it runs on, and the admin surrounding managing it, i.e.

  • performing backups
  • monitoring disk and memory usage to make sure it’s all within limits
  • detecting and responding to alerts or anomalies

They have failed spectacularly in these admin tasks, begging the question what exactly are they are being paid for?"

A reasonable question, you might think: as is another point he makes:

"If the changes performed on the system had such disastrous consequences, why were they not first trialled in a pre-production environment?"

One would hope that the Labour leadership, if not the dopey Tory group, would push for these and other fundamental questions to be answered, in a 'robust' and independent investigation. 

Over to you, then, councillors. No, Mrs Angry isn't holding her breath.

Still, there was some good news, in the light of the crash. The new IT head let slip that, in view of the IT 'problem' for which they appear to be responsible anyway, Capita had graciously updated Barnet to 'Platinum Level' security.

You what? 

You can imagine the chortling in the public gallery, and the bemused expressions of the Tory councillors, and the strained look on the face of Mr Hooton, as it was explained that (Capita, sshh) ran a multi-tiered level of response to such crises: Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze. 

What level were we on before, at the time of the IT crash? Base metal of some sort, it would seem. But in the process of some sort of outsourced alchemy, the wizards at Capita have now successfully transmuted a handful of secret elements, wrapped up in the commercially sensitive papers of the 8,000 page contract into, no, not precious gold, but the purest Platinum.

It is clear is that Capita do not intend to shoulder the blame for what has happened.

But apart from the implications for the library proposals, lost in this mess somewhere is the question of costs, and penalties. 

Will Capita be allowed to escape without penalty, if they deny full responsibility for this crash? 

Who will pay for the upgrade in IT systems, lost revenue, and for the replacement of any stock that may go missing during this period, and the cost of replicating, or trying to, the data lost, a process we are told will take up to six months?

Even if Capita accepts some of the burden, will that ultimately be raked back from us, the residents of Broken Barnet?

What are the implications for the management of other systems? What would happen if say, the council tax collection system failed? Or social care data irretrievably corrupted?

Is there going to be an independent, forensic investigation of the cause of the crash, or are our Tory councillors, as usual, going to accept the word of officers, and do nothing?

It's been a particularly bad week for Capita, in Barnet. 

Not just the library thing - a story in the local Times highlighting the conflict of interest evident in this company running the planning department, and at the same time assisting would be developers with their applications, alleging that:

'The firm’s architects sit just yards away from colleagues who rubber-stamp the decisions'. 

You can see for yourself exactly how much of a problem there might be in dealing with the extent of such potential risks, if you cast your eye over this Capita Conflicts of Interest Register from 2015 ...

Barnet claims that there are 'walls' in place to ensure probity throughout the process of planning applications. Whether you find that assurance convincing ... is up to you.

When making the three minute speech, and stating that the Tories knew now that the Capita contracts were a costly mistake, Mrs Angry was acutely aware of the lack of any sense of denial emanating from the Conservative end of the table. 

They know they've been had, but now the problem is that they think they cannot admit it, because of the political damage that would be done. 

What they fail to see is the political and financial disaster that will ensue if they fail to act now, to hold Capita to account, and allow them to continue, unchecked, screwing every penny out of us as our services are outsourced into a state of terminal decline, and fall. 

Sanctioning the approval of the library plans, in the aftermath of the IT crash, at this stage, with no full assessment of the implications, would be utter folly, and grossly irresponsible - irrational, even, and laying them open to legal challenge.

It will also, from a political view, be high risk, from the point of view of Tory aspirations in the May elections, as the impact of the library cuts - and the dramatic failure of the library IT system - will be fresh on the minds of voters. 

If the Tories had any sense at all, they would seize the opportunity, and use the pretext of the IT crash to stall the adoption of the proposals. 

They might even use the penalties they should impose on Capita, in the light of any proof of responsibility for the crash, to avoid the proposed changes, and win back some support from the electorate. 

The alternative will be, whatever spin they put on it, the virtual destruction of our library system, and the removal of the right to access to libraries, and information, and professional support, from the least advantaged children and the most vulnerable residents of this borough.

So if you are a Tory councillor, and you are reading this, please stop and think. As young Heval asked you last week: 

Is that really what you want?