Broken Barnet

Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us

The Mayor's chaplain had begun the meeting with references to Purim, but Tuesday night, the night before Ash Wednesday, also marked the beginning of Lent, which for guilt ridden catholics everywhere necessarily requires the wearing of ashes, and a sacrifice made as an act of repentance, for the expiation of sin.

A tale of three budgets, then, and a mark of penance, refused.

First of all we were to be given a self congratulatory presentation of the Tory version from leader Richard Cornelius, who launched into a raving attack on 'socialist paradises', piling praise on the 'success' of the Capita contracts, and sneering at 'those who play games in court' - referring to the disabled resident Maria Nash, who dared to question the legality of the Capita deal in the High Court. Far from 'playing games' the evidence of potential wrongdoing was such that courts gave permission for a Judicial Review of the outsourcing process, and then found that Barnet had breached the law by failing to consult, but clearly, in Richard's view, the law is of no consequence, and merely a game.

He reminded us of all the blessings of living in Broken Barnet - the number of marvellous schools (full of pupils from other boroughs, remarked Mrs Angry) and hoped for even more grammar schools. At this point, without looking up from his reading material, Mr Shepherd expressed the passing thought that Councillor Cornelius might benefit from the endorsement of 'six of the best' at one of the borough's grammar schools. This brought Cornelius' flow to a sudden halt, and created a fair amount of mirth in the chamber.

Thank you, Mr Shepherd, replied the Leader, continuing in his list of wonderful achievements: the installation of Saracens rugby team at Copthall (for a peppercorn rent, while they clean up with a multi-million sponsorship deal with Allianz), the building of three council houses - the first in twenty years, and the mending, last year, of 4,542 pot holes.

All in Golders Green, remarked Mr Shepherd. More laughter. This was a jibe at Tory councillor Dean Cohen, in charge of environment, alleged by his former colleague Brian Coleman to have secured £800,000 worth of highways related funding for his own ward, ie Golders Green. See here - and try to ignore the excruciatingly inappropriate choice of phraseology by Coleman:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/10952570.Cabinet_member_in_charge_of_roads_spent__disproportionate_sum__on_his_own_ward__says_predecessor/?ref=rss

Swiftly moving on, with breath taking bravado, we were asked to acknowledge the 'very popular' pay by phone parking system - met, as you might imagine by a certain amount of ribald heckling from the gallery, and then to be grateful for the return, at last, of some of the money from the Icelandic bank fiasco. Heckling about the loss of interest provoked the response that Labour wouldn't have had the money to invest in the first place. Mrs Angry pointed out that the money was borrowed - Cornelius remarked that he could now see why Labour was 'so hostile to payday lenders', a bizarre statement, implying that this was an unfortunate position to take.

He was bursting with pride over the Tory budget, at the one per cent tax cut: Mr Pickles, he said, set us the challenge, and we have met it.

Certainly Barnet Tories have a long way to go before winning back the approval of Eric Pickles: the idea that this trashy gesture is enough to make him forget the enormity of every other embarrassment they have caused the Conservative party over the last four years is delusional.

Cornelius turned now to the Labour alternative budget.

Oh dear.

He quoted the Labour leader Alison Moore, who had previously described the Tory tax cut as 'a cynical election ploy', and deputy leader Barry Rawlings, who had called it 'a political stunt.'

This was highlighted, with gleeful scorn, by Cornelius, because, (to the fury of many Labour activists, supporters, and even Labour councillors), the leadership was now requiring the party to support the one percent cut, the cynical election ploy, and the political stunt.

He pointed out that in her budget, Alison Moore had not suggested any reduction in pay for the leader of the opposition. He said that if she would offer to give up a month's salary, he would.

The Libdems' budget, which does not accept the cut, he described as 'a sensible one you can understand'.

As for the 'independent' member for Totteridge, or as he corrected himself, the 'non aligned member', Brian Coleman, he noted his suggestion of removing the office of Chief Executive - (tactless, and strategically ill judged, from Coleman's precarious position). He thought his proposal to turn off street lighting at night was 'silly', but would give some consideration to looking at the level of subscription to the Local Government Association. Good, thought Mrs Angry.

Time for Alison Moore to present her budget. She attempted to begin, but met with a load of the usual discourteous, mindless jabbering from the Tory seats - usual when any woman is speaking, that is. Shut up and you might learn something, she snapped - a most surprising loss of self control for someone normally so courteous, accommodating and polite - far too polite, in fact, and easy prey for the boorish behaviour of the misogynist Barnet Tories.

And it was an indication of the pressure she was feeling in respect of the tax cut issue, from perhaps an unexpected weight of disapproval from her own ranks and the opinion of many local activists who have become increasingly concerned at the lack of - well, opposition, from the opposition, or at least the leadership of the opposition.

The recent cock-up over the Labour members' apparent endorsement of the Task and Finish group which whitewashed the scandalous failure that is the 'Your Choice Barnet' care service was one step too far for many, but to support the Tory council tax cut, after all the outrage that has been expressed is a decision which has enraged many Labour supporters, and rightly so, in Mrs Angry's view.

The explanation for this move is that, well, you know, you can't change the rate once it has been set, and send letters out to residents telling them they will have to pay the dreadful sum of 23 pence a week more than expected, to support vital services.

Yes, actually you can, and you should, and you must. To do otherwise is morally and tactically wrong.

Endorsing the Conservative tax cut, Labour's current leader Alison Moore, and forefront, deputy leader Barry Rawlings

The Tories have acted cynically and irresponsibly, and it is the duty of an opposition to say so, to act to reverse such a move, and certainly not to endorse it.

In order to have any influence on any financial policy, Labour has actually to win power, and they will not win power unless they convince enough residents that they are going to offer an administration that is radically different to the present bunch of largely self serving, incompetent Tories, who lack any sense of compassion, justice, or respect for the people they represent - unless they live in Bishops Avenue, or Totteridge Lane.

The Labour party, both locally and nationally, is failing to see that in their eagerness to be electable they are failing to respond to the real sense of outrage being felt by ordinary people, disadvantaged people, and even more comfortably placed people, the increasing sense of disillusionment felt at the lack of clear alternative offered by Labour to the iniquitous Tory policies that are falling most heavily on the backs of those who are least able to bear them.

In Barnet we have seen a virtual uprising over the course of the last couple of years, over issues that ought to have been identified and fought by Labour. Instead of taking ownership of these matters, and using them as an opportunity to take on the Tories in a headlong challenge, they have consistently pulled back, and left it to others like Barnet Alliance and the Barnet blogosphere to pursue, while they focus on watered down policies that fail to grab the attention of the wider electorate. Why should the wider electorate turn to Labour, with such a lack of initiative, and fighting spirit? It is a question we must ask honestly, and address, and correct any failings before we get any closer to the election.

As fellow blogger Roger Tichborne asked after the meeting, in an exasperated post of one sentence:

What is the point of Barnet Labour party if they slavishly copy the Barnet Tory tax cutting and service destroying agenda?

And the always reasonable Mr Reasonable commented in an aptly titled post:

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/buying-votes-in-barnet.html

Having read through the details, I have to say that I am disappointed that Labour have chosen to go along with the Council Tax cuts. It is not surprising, I suppose, given that any suggestion they would either freeze or increase Council Tax would be pounced on by the Conservatives, but that doesn't make it right.

Without a doubt, the vast majority of Labour councillors and activists in this borough are good people, genuinely dedicated to making our community a better place. And they will, once they are elected. There is simply no comparison with the selfish, contemptuous, materialist culture of the Conservatives in Barnet. But we must, at this point in the run up to the election be honest and admit that there is a failure in leadership, and need for a change in the direction and presentation of Labour policies.

There is absolutely no doubt either, that Labour must and can win this election, indeed there is no option to fail: we owe it to the forgotten residents of this borough to wrest back control of this council and our local services.

The fact that the party leader is so loathe to commit to challenging the privatisation of those services is a serious mistake: escaping from the Capita contracts may prove to be impossible in the end, or it may not, but the desire to fight for the shaking off of what has been an agreement forged in a process utterly devoid of transparency, consent, or proper scrutiny, is entirely absent, and that is a shameful indictment of the strength of opposition, and a betrayal of the best interests of our borough.

As the Unite union leader reminded us, regrettably in the absence from the platform of the party leader, at last year's conference, Harold Wilson once said:

If Labour is not a moral crusade, then we are nothing ...

Nowhere could there be greater need of a Labour opposition to retain the high moral ground, safe from the hypocrisy, cruelty and self-indulgence of Conservative politics than here, in Broken Barnet.

Mrs Angry spent yesterday out canvassing for Labour in West Hendon, one of those areas of social deprivation the Tories ignore as much as possible, unless there is a gerrymandering opportunity for new non affordable housing developments. More on this in another post, but it was an experience which brought home the urgent need for a council administration which stands up the for the welfare of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents, and stops worrying about the inhabitants of, yes - Bishops Avenue, or Totteridge Lane.

There is a new wave of Labour councillors about to be elected: their arrival will transform the party and give it the new direction it so badly needs, and that is why you, yes you, must vote Labour. Whatever the outcome in May, Mrs Angry confidently predicts there will be radical changes within the party, and a the birth of a new beginning for Labour, as well as the borough.

Back to the meeting, and the presentation of the Labour alternative. We heard a bit about you know, Cameron and Eric Pickles, and all in this together, and Oxford getting a better handout of grants, and Bob Neill admitting those in greatest need were taking the burden of austerity measures.

All true. What is the opposition group in Barnet going to do about it? They are going to take away the Tory councillors' free parking permits. Good. And? And the increases in allowances. Marvellous. Parking: one policy which will most certainly attract the support of many disaffected Tory voters - a bit about affordable housing and, ... that was more or less it.

Not that there are not policy proposals to be proud of, these were just not presented assertively enough, and the issues which should be addressed, simply sidelined or ignored. Don't remember anything about Capita, or Your Choice Barnet, or any really big idea: just a stated commitment to ensuring more 'fairness' ...

At the end of the speech, a sniggering suggestion was made from within the gloating ranks of the Tory councillors that the Labour leader might be about to defect to their party, as one deselected councillor has already done, and good riddance, in a desperate bid to keep a seat on the council. It was an embarrassing moment.

Labour's Ross Houston had been listed to speak to the budget item. For no particular reason, this was not allowed by the Mayor. Funny, as Mr Shepherd remarked, that we have time for prayers, but not democracy.

He would have said:

We acknowledge that times are tough and a Labour administration won't spend it’s first few months re-issuing council tax bills.

The proposed council tax cut although welcome represents less than £14 a year for the average household.

Is it welcome? To whom? When it deprives vital services of funding? Cllr Houston, who is a scrupulously decent man, defended the cut as enabling the council to support the new focus a Labour administration would have on those elusive goals, fairness and transparency.

In Mrs Angry's view, those are principles to be observed without reference to budget, or any other limitation, and endorsing a Tory vote buying gimmick is not the best demonstration of fairness.

Does this all matter? Yes, it matters.

Should it stop anyone voting Labour in the election?

NO - the essential difference between the Labour party and the Conservatives is that we can have this debate in the open, and raise criticism of issues in order to build a stronger bond between us, before the election period properly begins. And when the new intake of Labour councillors are in post, we can begin to put Broken Barnet together again.

Back to the meeting.

Time for Jack Cohen to speak about the Libdem budget.

The Libdems' budget rejected the council tax cut.

Jack reminded us of Richard Cornelius' description of the one percent cut as 'a gesture'. He disagreed. It was not a gesture, it was a gimmick - it was reckless.

He pointed out that the £70 million shortfall that was heading our way makes such a cut simply unsustainable. All for 23 pence a week. He remembered that Councillor Davey, when discussing an increase in some other service had dismissed the extra 55 pence a week as 'absolutely nothing'. And one consequence of this cut would be that anyone who lives, drives, or breathes in the borough would have to shell out for hidden taxes ...

Time for a budget from Brian Coleman. Oh God. His idea was to cut the council tax by three percent, paid for by the poorest residents out of their benefit payments. In fact his budget was unlawful, as some of the funding it required was not available in the same financial year, and really the entire proposal should have been struck out by governance officers, but they clearly decided to humour him, in view of the item at the end of the agenda.

Coleman turned to the subject of parking, the policy he devised that has caused so much damage to the Tory party in Barnet - and wreaked so much havoc on the borough's high streets. Commenting on attempts to undo the impact of this catastrophic scheme he boasted that it was designed by him in such a way as to be 'irreversible'. Despite this cunning plan, he protested, he could exclusively reveal, like an amateur magician at a Rotary Club christmas party producing a toy rabbit out of a hat, rather than a wriggling live one - that: taddah ... A Parking Recovery Plan Was Being Drafted! Just imagine the excitement!

When we had composed ourselves, he continued with his speech. As for the Labour budget, he said, he was staggered that they were accepting the cut. At least, he said, Jack Cohen had moral principles.

Being lectured by someone like Brian Coleman on the issue of a moral principle is a joke, of course, but to be put in such a position, courtesy of the Labour party, is intolerable. Please don't do that again.

And for once the old fool was right: the Libdems had retained their dignity in opposition, and the Labour leadership had thrown theirs in the gutter with the Tories.

Lord Palmer tells it like it is, and delivers an opposition budget, as Labour members look on

Libdem peer Monroe Palmer, who with his wife, fellow Childs Hill councillor Susette Palmer, is standing down in May, gave a scathing speech on the other parties' budget proposal. Alternative budgets, he said, were always pointless: in all the years he could recall, the Tories had never adopted a single item from another party. The Tories did not present a budget in opposition, perhaps because they were unable to formulate one without the help of officers. He said their cut of one percent was an action by a 'morally bankrupt' party.

Palmer raised the scandal of the shameful salary cuts of ten percent being imposed on the already low paid workers employed by 'Your Choice Barnet'. He referred to the ludicrous boasts about potholes, saying he recognised the same ones popping up again, and the risk of tripping up from unmended broken paving slabs, all worth it, of course, for the grand sum of 23 pence a week. And for Cornelius to congratulate himself on the 'success' of the Capita contracts? They've only just begun! He mentioned the capital investment fiasco, and the Icelandic loss, taken not from reserves, but borrowed money. By this time, his fury was such, that Mrs Angry feared for the risk to his blood pressure. But it was at least genuine feeling, passionate, a legitimate fury, and so much more worthy of an opposition member.

Tories and Labour - morally bankrupt: Councillor Lord Palmer socks it to them: a lesson in opposition

Other speakers took their turn: like Tory Dean Cohen, wittering like a third form schoolboy, so boring that his contribution was punctuated by the sound of someone snoring in the public gallery. (Not Mrs Angry, of course).

Unfortunately we also had to listen to a speech by the less than charming Tom Davey, a callow youth who delights in trying to sound as right wing and hard line as it is possible, a peculiar and regrettable tendency in someone in their mid twenties. If he is like this at such a young age, what will he be like in his middle years, or old age, one wonders? In UKIP, probably. Still, as always, Mrs Angry salutes his dedication to such a deeply unpalatable brand of uncompassionate Conservatism.

He claimed that people were 'flocking' to Barnet. Not poor ones, obviously, you know - the subspecies of human beings that Boris Johnson's sister went to visit recently, and found living like 'animals' on £3 a day.

Our Tory councillors wants none of that, of course. Davey said that he wanted to encourage only well off people to live in this borough - he has previously said he wants to see Russian oligarchs moving in, rather than people who are 'dependent on council services'.

Obviously Cllr Davey uses no council services, as his f*cking feet never touch the pavement, he has no rubbish to be recyled, other than his half baked political ideas, and judging by the content of his contributions in debate, has failed to take full advantage of the benefit of our marvellous local education system, so highly praised by Richard Cornelius.

Enjoy the sight of Councillors Greenspan and Coleman revelling in Davey's puerile remarks about welcoming the well off to Barnet

Davey made rather a foolish blunder, in his speech. He talked about a conversation he had had about the budget with a reporter from a local paper, and repeated comments he alleged the unnamed reporter had made. This was unfair, in breach of all protocols, and pretty stupid, in the run up to an election.

He also made an inexcusably low comment about the Labour housing spokesperson not bothering to turn up. Her husband stood up and demanded an apology, as she has been very unwell. Davey slunk into his seat, muttering that he didn't know that. If he apologised, Mrs Angry did not hear it.

Watch how our Tory councillors behave: Tom Davey and a baying audience

Deputy leader Daniel Thomas - is he standing as a PPC anywhere this time? Last election he stood in Neil Kinnock's old constituency, on an anti-immigration ticket. Here in culturally diverse Barnet, he is more discreet. Kind of. He claimed that Labour now realises that cutting tax is exactly what residents want. He thought that the 'fairness commissions' suggested by Alison Moore were the 'socialist version of consultants'. Oh, thought Mrs Angry, wondering why Barnet Tories will keep banging on about Barnet Labour being socialists, an interesting admission that, as Mrs Angry knows he really knows, the spending on One Barnet consultants is utterly outrageous.

He had an announcement. He guarantees not to sell Friern Barnet library. For four years. Wonder who might be lined up for Year Five?

When are you selling Church Farmhouse Museum? asked Mrs Angry, who was sitting next to the former curator, Gerrard Roots, beside himself with contempt at the debacle in the chamber, just as he is enraged by the Tories' treatment of the now vulnerable, closed, ransacked, decaying Grade II* listed building. Still, as we hear, Barnet has now gone and shoved a shower room in it for the security man, possibly without permission from English Heritage.

They took a vote on the budgets. Obviously the Tory one was approved. Not Labour, or the Libdems. Oh: you are wondering about Brian Coleman's? He almost forgot to vote for himself, but managed a last minute signal, rallying all his supporters (ie one) just in time.

Against? Only 56 votes. Close, commented Mrs Angry.

Even Councillor Harper laughed.

Mr Shepherd called for a recount.

And then at this point, the non aligned, independent member for Totteridge quickly gathered up his papers, and left the chamber.

Where are you going, Brian, asked Mrs Angry? Gone to look for your laptop?

Which will bring us to the last, rather perplexing part of this meeting, in the next post.

The reason why Brian Coleman left the council chamber in such an undignified rush on Tuesday evening was that he was due to be formally censured by the full council - again - this time for his actions in regard to a council laptop which he claims to have 'disposed of' in the summer of 2012, with the knowledge of a council officer, who has contradicted his account.

Coleman pulled the same stunt at the time of his last reprimand, leaving the room just before the disciplinary measure, such as it is. By such a tactic he imagines the sanction is rendered entirely pointless, but in fact it serves to underline his now complete isolation from the political process he once sought to dominate. Now he spends his time on the margins, looking in from the outside. It's been a long time coming, this end to his career, and it's still got one last depth to reach, in May, when he attempts to retain a seat in Totteridge as an 'independent Tory'.

In truth, Pickles demolition of the Standards regime has shown the glaring contradiction in his approach to localism : residents will never be properly empowered until there is an effective system that deals with elected representatives like Brian Coleman, who continue to flout the rules, year on year, and behave in the most obnoxious way to the very people he is supposed to represent, but may now escape any punishment, unless a serious financial misdeameanour is proven.

The message from Tory Barnet's disciplinary process is this: a councillor like Coleman may attack a female resident, and be found guilty in court, and escape any censure at all - yet if he 'loses' a piece of council owned equipment, he is formerly sanctioned. And of course, thanks to Eric Pickles, he can only face legal proceedings if he is accused of a serious financial irregularity.

Property, and money, are of course, in the Tory agenda, always of more value than the safety of a woman on a public street.

And a criminal conviction for violence does not prevent the individual from continuing in public office, nor from standing again for election, or requiring that individual to make that conviction known to the electorate who may vote for him. This is quite clearly wrong, on so many levels.

Coleman's former colleagues, now that he has broken the spell he had cast over them, by the publishing of a list of embarrassing revelations in his scurrilous blog, are becoming awfully brave - and when he was not present in the chamber, were very daring, and said really bad things about him, behind his back.

Things got so out of hand, it was rather like a scene from Lord of the Flies - the usually submissive boys letting rip when the bully is out of the way.

Fellow Totteridge councillor Richard Cornelius launched into an oblique trashing of his former colleague. Let it be remembered, however, that during the Helen Michael saga, weeks after her assault in the street by Coleman, Cornelius continually refused to supend him, or condemn him, rejecting Helen Michael's claims, bleating 'I know and like Brian' ... Only now it has become personal, with Coleman's ire turned on him and his wife for failing to give unswerving loyalty to him after CCHQ had him thrown out of the Conservative party.

After the trial, Cornelius and his colleagues continued to defend him, and Coleman was only suspended and then removed from the party, in the face of their obstinate refusal to do so, after the intervention of Conservative Central Office.

The truth, the shameful truth, is that they cared nothing about their colleague's abuse of a woman especially a woman who had had the courage to stand up to them and organise opposition to their insane policies, specifically the parking madness, Coleman's idiotic scheme, which has so enraged residents, traders, and fatally, their own core voters.

Who is more worthy of contempt, a man who clearly has no control of his own behaviour, or his former colleagues who failed to stand up to him when it mattered, supported him in his policies, backed him up when he was convicted of assault, and never once uttered one word of criticism of his actions?

Councillor Kate Salinger had amused us all, earlier in the meeting, with her eulogy for Mayor Elect Hugh Rayner, complaining that some took gender equality too far, and that chivalry, and good manners, and opening doors for ladies were admirable qualities. Perhaps they are, in their eyes, at least: but beating up a woman in the street, for daring to record his boundless hypocrisy in ignoring his own hated parking policy, might also be said, in the absence of any equality in the ranks of our misogynistic Tory councillors, to fall marginally outside the limits of their chivalric code - yet it provoked no condemnation from any Barnet Conservative councillor, male or female.

Even after the court case in which the footage of the incident showed quite clearly the full impact of Coleman's thuggish attack on a slight, defenceless woman, in full daylight, on a public street, none of them spoke out, or apologised to Helen, whom many of them had said was making it all up. It was an abject failure in common decency.

The reason why they were all such a bunch of quivering cowards is that they feared he would dig up all their embarrassing secrets, and tell the world, in an act of petty revenge: and that is exactly what he did, in September, writing a truly shameful blogpost in which he outed two of his reportedly gay colleagues, and made allegations about several others: it was a calculated act of betrayal from someone who confuses loyalty with 'discipline', and withdraws his own support as soon as it fails to benefit his own purposes - as in his u-turn over One Barnet.

At the Full Council meeting, after he hurried out of the chamber, Tory leader Richard Cornelius stood up and made it clear, from his assumed expression, rather in the manner, as always, of the butler of a stately hom, in the twilight era of the Edwardian age, being asked to empty a chamber pot, that he was having to deal with a most distasteful matter, although it became apparent that he could not give the full background to the tale of how and why the loss of the laptop had come to light.

It was, he said, a very serious issue - and he was obliged to admit that when he and his collegues had drawn up the new 'disciplinary' arrangements they had overlooked the possibility that the need to censure an independent member would create difficulty, as the panel which carries out this function is comprised of party leaders, and clearly an independent member is likely to be his own leader.

In fact this failure was avoidable: Mrs Angry was present at meetings of the committee which discussed the new soft touch regime, and Libdem Jack Cohen and others had highlighted this potential risk. Nothing came of such considerations.

Tory Brian Salinger, who is the former leader once deposed by a coup organised by Coleman, in favour of Mike Freer, now MP for Finchley and Golders Green, stood up to speak to the motion to censure. He is a decent man, and genuinely appalled at aspects of the case which would appear, by implication, to raise questions that must, in the public interest, be addressed as soon as possible.

He spoke with contempt of the countless number of times Brian Coleman has been sanctioned by this council. This sudden sense of outrage amongst the previously silent Tories was all too much for Mrs Angry, who yelled:

Why didn't you all stand up to him then?

Coleman, said Salinger, had persistently flouted the Code of Conduct, and his behaviour over recent years has done nothing but harm to the interests of local government, not just in Barnet but across London and probably beyond.

One misdeameanour, he said, might justify a slap across the wrists, but there comes a point where anything short of suspension or removal from office altogether is the only way of dealing with persistent and unapologetic miscreants.

Councillor Salinger complained about the lack of detail in the report, and said there were a large number of questions that demanded answers before the point of censure.

One question that occurs is the matter of the risk to personal data.

Salinger was right to raise this - there is very little information on how Barnet is or is not acting to identify what level of risk there has been. This is simply inadequate: especially as it will not be the first time that the authority has lost this sort of personal information.

The Information Commissioner has itself censured Barnet for such losses: has the ICO been informed? What has Coleman said about the laptop: did he destroy the hard drive before 'disposing' of it? If so, why? And if not, why not?

All councillors are data controllers: is he therefore liable to proceedings for failing to ensure the security of the data on a council owned laptop? All these questions and more should and must be answered.

All these questions, and more.

Salinger's allotted time ran out before he finished his speech, but Mrs Angry has a copy, and has seen what else he intended to ask. They allude to deeply worrying concerns, which the council has failed to address.

He wanted to know if there are further enquiries that have been, or will be, taking place by any other bodies.

He wanted to know if this mysterious case raises any issues about such matters as safeguarding.

Councillor Danny Seal stood up to speak. He is a young Tory member who has recently been the butt of Coleman's needling, who tweets about his reportedly high absences from council meetings and trips abroad, sometimes taunting him with the tag #sealhunt.

Seal is not the brightest button in the box, or an articulate speaker, but he was clearly keen to vent his anger. Coleman should be censured, he thought, because ... 'we should respect the taxpayer' ....

That'll be a first, retorted Mrs Angry.

Councillor Seal wanted to tell us that it was the Tory group that removed 'the individual'who is, we must note, a convicted criminal ... Just staggeringly untrue - they backed him to the hilt right up until the very last moment, when central party threats forced their hand.

You didn't remove him, it was Conservative Central Office!

He is no longer a part of the of the Conservative Party, said Seal.

True: and no thanks to you, or your leader, or any of his gutless former colleagues.

It was pressure from outraged residents, bloggers and the press that brought that about, and the overwhelming fury of senior Conservative party officials.

Why, Seal continued, do people throw a laptop away, unless there is something on there they don't want people to see?

Quite. But it would have been better to see such comments coming not from two speakers with - understandably - personal grievances, but from some of those one-time apologists, some of whom have continued to associate with this man, even though he has been removed from the Tory party - and who have always refused to condemn his objectionable behaviour in public.

Cornelius stood up to speak again.

He spoke carefully. He told us he was being 'very cautious'. There were - there are... other matters that have been considered. 'Those matters' are not proven, and there was no case to censure him on those. Of course, he said, enigmatically: one's imagination can run riot about this kind of thing, but he ... was not being charged on the basis of innuendo and wild rumour.

I regret very much that I can't be more fulsome in my explanation tonight, but I think the law of the land has to be respected in this, and I am sorry in many ways that this report that this is an unsatisfactory report to the council.

The Mayor read out the formal censure, supported by 53 votes. Three less than the vote against Coleman's preposterous budget. Who abstained? It demonstrates that misplaced sympathies still linger, even now, in the heart of the Tory party in Barnet, as we saw from the slap on the back he got from Eva Greenspan, as he exited the chamber.

Remember all this, when you vote in May- do these people, who en masse, until their own reputations were at stake, were determined to defend a man like Coleman, really deserve your support?

Coleman has always acted as a totemic representation of the soul of the Barnet Tories: an embodiment of their darkest, worst impulses. Whatever he has done, whatever he has failed to do, he has done it because they allowed him to become what he was: he is what they are, in essence, and that is why, ultimately, they have never tried to stop him. Merciless, lacking in empathy, uncultured, uneducated, materialist, self indulgent: incapable of respect for the people they represent: he is out of their hands now, and out of control: and they have only themselves to blame, and so will you, if you vote them back into power in a few weeks time.

Labour councillors canvassing in Tyrrel Way, with the new Barratt Homes development in the background.

At the last general election, many Tory candidates used a carefully crafted template of phrases to create their electoral literature. One favourite phrase of 2010, you might recall, was a boast that your Conservative candidate had strong feelings of sympathy for 'the great ignored'.

Finchley and Golders Green MP Mike Freer was rather keen on this line of approach, and so was our now deputy leader here in Barnet, Daniel Thomas, standing, rather forlornly, in Neil Kinnock's old seat of Islwyn. Thomas was also concerned, incidentally, about setting a limit on immigration, which he said had got 'out of control' (in South Wales?), and promised that a Tory government would make sure that 7 out of 10 people would be better off. That went well, Councillor Thomas, didn't it?

The 'great ignored', though, in Broken Barnet: who are they? I think you know, don't you, if you have been reading this blog? By Tory definition, they are the silent but disproportionately influential minority, the comfortably off residents, whom Richard Cornelius and his friends imagine will be thrilled at the pre-election 'gesture' of a 23 pence a week cut in council tax. They are the people he really cares about, who must be protected from the terrifying prospect of a fair level of council tax, according to their means, regardless of their ability to pay, even if they live in the deserted mansions of Bishops Avenue, or, he, feared, their lives would be 'ruined'.

Well, then. Come with Mrs Angry now, and see the people who really are the 'great ignored', in our borough: the less privileged residents, who live in some of the worst areas of social deprivation, abandoned, forgotten, and about to be unceremonioulsy moved on, to who knows where, representing, as they do, an obstruction to the gentrification and gerrymandering development of West Hendon.

Yes: this is Broken Barnet, remember? We don't want poor people here, as Tom Davey, the Tory member responsible for housing, reminded us at the full council meeting last week: we want only 'well off' people.

In West Hendon, he hopes for a resettlement of Russian oligarchs, in the new Barratt homes development, overlooking the Welsh Harp. This is because the young Councillor Davey has firm views on the undeserving poor. We do not want people here who are too dependent on council services. And in Broken Barnet, everything has a material value, and only wealthy people should be allowed access to a view of such rare beauty, in the midst of an otherwise urban landscape, access paid for by virtue of the price of a penthouse flat, and not seen through the rotting window frame of a home in a forgotten estate that is part of a social housing scheme.

Mrs Angry has been out canvassing a couple of times in the last week in this area of West Hendon, right on the edge of the Welsh Harp reservoir, in Tyrrell Way and Marsh Drive, an area of social housing run by 'Barnet Homes', the council's ALMO, with a mixture of tenants and private leaseholders, a scandalously neglected estate, due for demolition at some point in the very near future, while the residents' lives are left on hold.

Councillor Julie Johnson, standing down at the election, and new candidate Dr Devra Kay

At the last election this Labour stronghold returned three councillors: Julie Johnson, Agnes Slocombe, and Ansuya Sodha. Ah, Ansuya Sodha.

Mrs Sodha was not selected to stand this time, competing as she was with a particularly strong panel of new candidates, and now she has rather peculiarly decided that in order to try to retain a position as councillor, she must defect to the Tories, who promised to nominate her if she switched sides (being rather embarrassingly short of real Tory candidates in the Hendon constituency ....)

After fifteen years as a Labour councillor, castigating the Tory government, describing them as a bunch of spoilt Etonians, (yes, Cllr Sodha, you really should have removed those embarrassing tweets rather sooner than you did) and castigating local Conservatives in Barnet for the iniquitous effects of the bedroom tax on the residents of West Hendon , she has now thrown in her lot with her former opponents, the same crowing councillors who used to laugh at her every time she spoke in the chamber.

Good luck to her - and good riddance, says Mrs Angry.

The new candidates, Devra Kay and Adam Langleben will make outstandingly good representives for West Hendon, and are extremely bright, hardworking, compassionate. and deeply committed to the principles of social justice, following in the example of Agnes Slocombe, the formidable, long serving councillor, and her colleague Julie Johnson, who is standing down.

Watching Julie in action on the doorstepping trail is something of a humbling experience, in truth. She really does know every one, and who lives where, and every one we passed seemed to know her, greeting her warmly. Her detailed knowledge of her constituents, and their particular circumstances, was quite extraordinary.

Most residents, it must be said, were out at work, thus proving the lie to Tory prejudices about tenants in social housing being lazy scroungers who make no contribution to society: most in receipt of benefit being in work, and struggling on low wages is of no interest to someone like Tom Davey who likes to consider his own employment for a tobacco company as somehow morally superior to those who eke out a living on the margins of Broken Barnet, and who dare to rely on the support of council services.

Our Tory councillors' views on the undeserving poor and this is no simplification of the way in which they view such residents - means that Barnet's housing policy is deliberately directed in order to punish those who they feel are not worthy of their approval. Like the English plantation of Ireland, with Protestant settlers being granted lands and rights over the native Irish people, in order to correct their moral failings, their tendency to rebellion and heretic faith, Conservative social engineering in this borough is transforming the landscape, both literally and symbolically.

People in Tyrrel Way and Marsh Drive are living, through no fault of their own, in often pretty squalid conditions, in buildings where the very fabric of the structure is breaking down, or subject to damp, or flooding, or infestation by rats - and in some cases still harbouring asbestos. It is as a result of years of uncertainty and neglect and lack of investment by Barnet's housing service.

One of the many rat traps lying about the estate, in areas where children play

The whole estate is clearly in urgent need of maintenance: peeling paint, rotting woodwork, including firedoors, evidence of persistent damp: this is prevalent throughout the blocks of flats:

The effect of living in such an environment is hard to escape: dehumanising, a constant challenge.

Many of the tenants have small children, and it is worrying to think of the impact on their health and well being.

One tenant we spoke to has an eight year old child, has lived on the estate for many years, and is still without a secure tenancy. In the meanwhile, her flat was blighted by damp from constant leaks, and when asbestos was moved from a neighbouring flat, she says she was left unprotected and at risk of exposure.

She had tried to interest her local Tory MP, Matthew Offord, in her plight, and he said he would help, but ... nothing happened. She wanted to know if we knew why the little garden she had made at the back of her flat had just been ripped up by council workmen. We guessed it was to do with the new development: she was very upset. Her daughter will now have to cross over to the other side of the Welsh Harp to find a green space in which to play: this side is earmarked for those who can afford to pay fro the privilege.

Many tenants here are in the same dilemma: the council does not want too many secure tenants, and to be weighed down with the responsibilities that might bring. So children are growing up in these flats, with no security, no assurance that they will be able to continue their education at the same schools, or even remain in their own homes. That will be decided on the suitable timing for redevelopment.

It's called regeneration, but in Barnet, that is no promise of new life for a community, only a promise of social cleansing, and making way for a better class of resident. Gerrymandering, in effect, moving the poor Labour voters out of the borough, and welcoming in the middle classes, who may just still be stupid enough to vote Tory.

The new Welsh Harp development, so warmly supported by our Tory council, along with its 29 floor storey blocks, is now underway, despite protests from campaigners objecting to the impact on a site of such ecological sensitivity.

There will be limited provision for a few lucky secure tenants - but from further afield, and decanted into the rather less well placed, Edgware Road side of the development. None of the tenants in Tyrrel Way or Marsh Drive will be able to move there. They have no idea if they will even be allowed to stay in the borough.

In the meanwhile, therefore, those living on the estate remain in uncertainty, and rapidly deteriorating conditions, while a Berlin Wall separates them from the luxurious new homes being built on the other side. 'Hendon Waterside', it is called: look andadmire , and try not to laugh at the sales pitch, encouraging would be buyers to think they will be socialising in Hampstead and Belsize Park, rather than walking home past possibly one of the most depressed areas in the borough, marked by the terminal decline of this part of the Edgware Road.

On the other side of the divide: an exciting new Barratt Homes development: exciting, if you can afford to live there, and backed, as it says, by Mayor for (carefully chosen parts of) London

Several tenants we saw spoke of the difficulty in getting Barnet Homes to deal with problems, and for those residents who are not tenants, but leaseholders, there is an even more pressing concern.

Despite the fact that Tyrrel Way and Marsh Drive are due for demolition, as reported

here in the local Times, Barnet Homes have sent residents each a bill for a staggering £10,000 for 'renovations', even though their homes are under a compulsory purchase order, and they could be continuing to pay off these demands long after the buildings have been bulldozed.

Much of the work for which this money is being demanded is for dealing with matters such as asbestos removal, and electrical improvements, which should have been carried out by the landlords years ago: it really is nothing short of outrageous to try to extort this money from residents now, and at a point where they have such a short time remaining in their homes.

Just before leaving the estate, Councillor Julie Johnson took us into the Hanuman centre, to meet members of the Tamil community who worship there. Slipping off our shoes, we went inside the unprepossessing building to find the most amazing, surprising sight: a tiny Hindu temple, dedicated to the monkey faced god Hanuman.

Around the room were several small shrines, lovingly decorated with offerings of fruit and flowers, and accompanied by the flickering light of tiny votive oil lamps - to a sometime Catholic like Mrs Angry, a curiously familiar practice. A woman wandered from shrine to shrine, hands clasped in prayer, and then a bare chested priest, with painted markings on his body chanted in front of Hanuman, the god who is the embodiment of courage, and selfless service.

It was perhaps after all a fitting place to end the day, and a reminder that those qualities,courage, and selflessness, in the best of people, who really do care about their community, just might make a difference to the lives who most need their support.

Will the temple, a spiritual centre, in an awkward spot, right next to the development, survive the 'regeneration' of this area?

Sadly, Mrs Angry rather doubts that it will. Spiritual regeneration is of no significance in Broken Barnet, when in the way of the pursuit of profit, as we know. But while it remains, and while there are still local residents still in occupation in Tyrrel Way, and Marsh Drive, there is still hope that West Hendon can retain some claim to a diverse community, and not an artifically planted development for wealthy outsiders.

So back to the Adelphi Hotel, and the teddy bears' picnic, and why the infant Mrs Angry was in Liverpool, aged four, waiting for a ship to take the family across to Ireland. (And terrified of this prospect, having been told that the family car would be winched by crane up in the air, from the quayside onto the ship, in a giant net, and so it was: unfortunately my father had omitted to explain that we would not be in the car at the time, which was a cause of no little anxiety to me, as you might imagine).

The reason we were off to Ireland was that my mother had a fancy to go and see the place where her grandmother Mary Ann was from, a formidable woman whose own mother's life began in the shadow of the Famine years, somewhere on the Mayo/Sligo borders. Mary Ann and had been a central part of my mother's young life, throughout the hardest of times, caught in the continual fight to survive on what was then a miner's pittance, then through the depression, the miners' strike and general strike, and worst of all, the loss of a brother and sister in one of several epidemics that hovered, as my aunt once put it, like the angel of death over every slum terrace in the village, taking young victims from almost every family. Two generations on, and the family driven from Ireland by poverty and famine were still on the borderline between life and death.

They survived, supported by the bonds of family, and good neighbours: if one family in the street was struggling, the other women would help them with food, and housework, and look after their children, as a matter of course. How odd that we should have to explain what was once a normal way of life, for working class communities everywhere. And they survived because they were genetically programmed, like all refugees, to be pioneers in a foreign land, and adapt to a new way of life. And that, in truth, is the real luck of the Irish.

Arriving in Mayo, all those years ago, we ended up in the small market town of Louisburgh, in a rough and ready hotel looking onto a street where, in the early hours, bachelor farmers would come in from their farms, way out in the wilds, to buy and sell their livestock, and then be off to the bars for a drink, and the craic.

I sat one morning in the bar cum shop at the front of the hotel, and watched with fascination one of these old boys singing tunelessly, and playing a terrible version of It's a long way to Tipperary with spoons on his knees. As I did so, my mother was talking to the woman behind the bar, who told her about her sister, Mary, who had more children than you could imagine, and lived out in the middle of nowhere, on a small farm, at the bottom of Croagh Patrick. My mother, who had grown up in want, and understood the challenge of managing a large family, asked if she perhaps needed any spare clothing for them, and wondered if her sister might be able to use the clothes my brother and I grew out of, rather than see them go to waste.

That conversation, with a complete stranger, was the beginning of a relationship between my mother, and Mary, that lasted for the rest of their lives.

Several times a year, clothes would be parcelled up, in a box covered in brown paper and lashed with string, taken to the post office, its contents declared to a bureacracy suspicious of packages going to Ireland, and probably even more suspicious of the ones that returned, full of unpredictable gifts, including, once, a dead turkey, still with all its feathers, fresh from the farm, a source of sheer horror to me, glad to see the thing carried away to the butcher, for plucking and who knows what else. To my horror, the Thing returned naked, bald, and scrawny, barely the size of a large sparrow, or so it seemed.

Best of all, though, were the letters that passed between the two families: Mary's unpunctuated stream of consciousness, with her tales of life in rural Ireland, and my mother's prim and proper missives, giving what must have been a mystifying insight into our stilted suburban English domesticity.

When I heard Mary had died, just before Christmas, I felt truly bereft, not to receive any more of those letters, from Bouris, near Kilsallagh, near Westport, at the edge of the world.

When I was a teenager, we went at last to visit her at home, on another visit to the west of Ireland. This was after I had spent a week with my godmother in Tipperary (it was a long way), the place of her birth, which her family had fled because her father had been in the hated Black and Tans. In the seventies, she had thought it might be safe to come home, all being forgiven. In that she was misguided, and she returned to England, eventually.

Time, in Ireland, runs at a different rate to other places, and what happened sixty years ago, and even a hundred and sixty years ago, still has the power to cause painful memories, and even conflict.

Two of Mary's eleven children came to meet us at our hotel in Westport, to direct us to the farm, which would otherwise have been impossible to find, in a patchwork landscape of fields and peat bogs, lying in the shadow of Patrick's mountain, with no roads other than mud tracks to follow. When we got there, the whole family came running out to meet us, dressed with a certain amount of eclectic style, in a collection of familiar garments.

They lived in a three roomed cottage: eleven children, the parents and a grandmother, with no electricity, no running water, no bathroom. The only heat and cooking facilities were from the peat fuelled iron range, and the only light from oil lamps. There was no bathroom, and the toilet facilities ... were some sort of mysterious arrangement to the side of the cow shed, which I decided not to investigate.

Off we went, the girls and I into the fields, to walk about the lanes, the boreens, in the spring sunshine, smelling the peach-like, honeyed scent of the yellow gorse in flower everywhere. We sat on a stone wall, looking out onto the islands of Clew Bay, talking about Granuaile, the pirate queen Grace O'Malley, who had her stronghold there, and who once came to the court of Elizabeth I, and made it clear she was not impressed by her English rival, refusing to bow before her, as she did not recognise her as the Queen of Ireland.

Over the fields, along another track, in the distance, right on cue, and in perfect cinematic order, appeared a May procession, led by the local priest, saying the Rosary, heading past the one roomed village school towards the church. They stopped when they reached us. The girls greeted them, introducing me. She is from London, they announced, with great solemnity, and a dramatic flourish. The procession of parishioners stared at me with a cool eyed curiosity, as if I were from outer space, or a sort of mythological creature.

Then they moved on, and we moved on, in search of a holy well, a spring at the side of one of the fields, associated with one of the local saints and the ancient pilgrimage route. I managed to slip into it and get my feet wet, and we went back then, to dry my socks by the stove, fired by the peat the father had shown us how to cut, and stack, with a special spade. We sat drinking strong tea made with sweet, warm milk straight from one of the cows, and as we sat, me worrying about Louis Pasteur, I realised I was experiencing a lifestyle from another time, and one that would not last much longer.

Years later, when I had children of my own, and we were in Westport, we went back to visit Mary. Apart from one son living nearby, and working the farm for her, most of the children were far away, in England, or Dublin. The Celtic Tiger had not quite retracted its claws. And there were other changes, of course.

Since the last visit, subsidies from the EU had made life a little easier. Electricity, water, some made up roads, at last. A bathroom had been built on the back of the cottage. Otherwise, little had changed, surprisingly.

Mary was keen to show us the wider countryside, and took us on a tour: she directed us on a drive through the Maumturk, the wilderness at the back of Croagh Patrick, leading into Galway. A woman of limited education, but great intelligence, and faith, she had a purpose to the route she wanted to take.

On her instructions we stopped in Doolough Valley, and got out of the car, to see the mountains gathered around us in a hostile embrace, looking down on a dark lake: an ominous setting.

Look up, she said: up into the hills. Do you see those ridges, those lines running horizontally across, right far up? We looked, and saw the clearly discernible markings, like scars in the half scrubland area, far above us. That, she said, is where people were living, during the Famine, moving further and further up, more and more desperate, crowded out, from over population and continual blighted harvests. The ridges were the ghostly traces of the potato beds they hacked out of the hillside, a hundred and sixty years ago.

It was impossible to see how human existence could be sustained at such extremes, beyond even the reach of the sheep and goats that live still wander about freely there.

And then she pointed to something else. A stone marker in the valley, a monument commemorating the Doolough tragedy of 1849.

This terrible incident occurred during the long years of famine in Mayo, when two local officials, Colonel Hogrove and Captain Primrose, from the Westport Poor Law Union, compelled a group of hundreds of starving applicants asking for relief to walk twelve miles overnight, in dreadful weather, from Louisburgh to Delphi Lodge in order to be seen at 7 am the next morning, and granted some help. When they got there, the officials kept them waiting outside while they lunched, and then refused them any further assistance.

By the time the wretched group of people returned to Louisburgh, many of them, including women and children, had died, their bodies left lying by the side of the road, some, it is said, with their mouths still stuffed with grass, in a futile attempt to stay alive.

They were expendable: the dependent poor, and Catholic poor at that: such a fate was the judgement of God - the Anglican God, and the God of the British government.

Every year there is a walk through the valley to remember the victims of Famine, past and present. People come from all over the world to take part: Desmond Tutu, she told us, had been one year. Mary would complete the walk, even in her later years, just as she did the annual pilgrimage to the summit of Croagh Patrick.

On the monument there is a quotation from Mahatma Ghandi:

"How can men feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings?"

This is a question which increasingly becomes relevant once again, does it not, as we witness the impact of the iniquitous policies adopted by our present government?

It is of course ironic that the Cabinet is stuffed full of the descendants of those in power during so many previous eras of injustice, directed at punishing the poor for being poor - amongst the ranks of Etonians and inherited privilege sits our local Barnet MP, now Northern Ireland Secretary, Theresa Villiers, whose forebear Lord Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the famine years, when government policy, by design or default, instigated a virtual act of genocide on the Irish people.

And humiliating the poor, and punishing them for their moral weakness, and starving them into submission - that's all back in fashion, of course, through the medium of agents like ATOS, and the degrading treatment of disabled citizens; the terror of job centre sanctions handed out without mercy in order to meet targets, and the burden of financial hardship, via the imposition of taxes on those unable to leave their homes when someone decides they may not have the luxury of one bedroom too many.

The Poor Law that guided the merciless hands of the commissioners dining in Delphi Lodge was an English law, introduced in the 1830s, which created a new system of social 'care', meant to terrify the lower orders into self-reliance, by means such as the infamous workhouses, all part of a move to stigmatise those in need, and enshrine the idea of the deserving and undeserving poor. Whereas support for the elderly, infirm and paupers had been the responsibility of the charitable organisation of parishes, the state now took control. The compassion of christian values no longer applied: the assumption now was that if you were poor, it was your fault, a moral failing.

Who would have thought, that in the era of the new Coalition poor law, that the politics of hunger would be revived as a way of controlling the masses?

In one family's journey, over generations, from the indigestible pap handed out to famine victims, earned by pointless labour, building roads leading to nowhere, by men and women half dead from starvation, to the soup kitchens of the striking miners - and after the reforms of the post war welfare state, would any of us have thought to see a time when a woman has to do without food in order to feed her child, or depend upon the generosity of a foodbank to keep from hunger when she cannot afford to buy enough to eat? Yet here we are again, at the mercy of the authorities, dictating who deserves to be housed, and when, and where, and who may eat, and when, and why.

There are now at least three foodbanks in Barnet.

On Saturday I went to visit the Finchley foodbank, which opened last month, and deals mostly with the needs of residents of the Strawberry Vale estate, in the borough's worst pocket of social deprivation, just ten minutes away from Bishops Avenue, Billionaires Row, the second most affluent stretch of properties in the country.

Finchley Foodbank was started by Father Terry, the Catholic priest of St Mary's, East Finchley, and the parish volunteers run it in conjunction with other local churches in the area. It is the only foodbank in the borough that does not operate on a voucher system, in which users must be referred by a job centre, or social services, preferring to follow the ideals of compassion and christian charity, rather than bureacracy.

As I arrived, a young man was leaving, furtively, the hood of his gilet drawn over his face, carrying two bags of supplies. Another man, older, confused, was trying to find the door. Pushing it open, we entered and were immediately greeted by helpers. There were a dozen or so people sitting at tables, having a coffee, provided by volunteers: it was a place to sit and be treated not as some sort of nuisance, but as a human being, with a right to dignity, and support.

One of the organisers, Helen, a vicar whose duties are not based at one parish, but focused mainly on Strawberry Vale, showed me the range of supplies that come in from local people, and leave with local people, supply and demand being fairly well matched at the moment, but uptake will inevitably increase as the enterprise becomes better known.

At the moment they are particularly short of tinned meat, tinned fruit, UHT or powdered milk, sugar, coffee, shampoo, deodorant, shaving foam, razors, washing up liquid and washing powder. The opening hours are 12.30 to 2pm on Saturdays, in the Church hall.

From Louisburgh, and Doolough, to East Finchley. A long journey, but a common theme, social injustice and the abuse of law to secure your hold on power, and subjugate the people who might seek to challenge it, by humiliation, by exploitation - or by starvation: the tactics of class war by a government of the privileged, for the privileged, and a desperate flirtation with the politics of hunger.

Lá fhéile Pádraig sona dhaoibh.

The National Famine Monument near Westport, with Croagh Patrick in the background

Mike Freer, MP, and his reception at Westminster for representatives of the evangelical Jesus House church

Poor Mike Freer. It must have come as a long, slow descent into the valley of disappointment, once elected as MP for Finchley and Golders Green, for our Vital Visionary genius to find that his brilliant easycouncil type concepts, and his grave concerns, expressed over and over again, in hundreds of written questions on such arcane subjects as government mobile phone contracts, electronic payment methods, etcetera, his stalwart support for the break up of the NHS, bedroom tax and every other merciless aspect of Coalition policy, were failing to win universal admiration from senior Tory parliamentarians, and to encourage them to reward him with fast track promotion in his new career.

The battle to win approval for equal marriage proved to be a turning point for him, however, and at last he was able to earn respect at least for his efforts in what was, for him, a personal issue, as a gay man with a long term partner, something which, sadly, he had seemingly not felt able to be fully open about at the time of the 2010 election - at least in some of the electoral material sent to potential constituents. It may be that his partner did not wish to take part in his campaign, of course, but if so that was a shame, and an opportunity missed. Since then, to be fair, as expressed in his speech, he has put any hesitation aside, and confronted the prejudices and assumptions that MPs make about their colleagues' sexuality, as he describes here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mike-freer-a-gay-tory-mp-on-why-he-went-public-8484017.html

Freer made an admirable, strong and passionate contribution in debates in defence of the equal marriage, famously clashing with his local colleague, Hendon MP Matthew Offord, who maintained a preposterous objection to the legislation on the grounds that marriage must be for 'procreation', and that to allow same sex marriage was comparable to polygamy, or even incest.

In recognition of his support for the campaign, Pink News and the Spectator gave Mike Freer an award for Parliamentary Speech of the Year, and since then he has raised other important issues relating to the rights of civil partners and pensions, and the use of 'conversion therapy' for gay people. All very good. And then, at last his chugging away in obscurity on the back benches appeared to be rewarded with the offer of a position as a parliamentary private secretary to Mrs Angry's no 1 fan, Eric Pickles.

But let's look a little closer at the new teaboy's activities closer to home, shall we?

Being a constituent of Mr Freer, Mrs Angry receives his email newsletter, and looks forward with great interest to each one, stuffed full, as it is, with exciting stories of her MPs ventures into the community. One item in the latest letter, however, was particularly interesting.

Mike Freer Hosts Event to Thank Jesus House Volunteers

On Monday the 20th of January, Mike Freer MP held an event in Parliament to pay tribute to volunteers from Brent Cross based Jesus House. Over 50 local volunteers based across Barnet and North London were invited to attend the event, where a reception was held. Attendees were also provided with a tour of the House of Commons by Mike Freer.

The organisation’s Christmas on Jesus event, which takes place annually, provides a network of volunteers to distribute hampers to some of the poorest families in the UK.
Speaking after the event, Mike Freer said “I am delighted to welcome volunteers from Jesus House to the House of Commons for a thank you reception. The Christmas Hamper initiative helps so many local people and it is only right that the excellent work of the church and the volunteers is recognised”.

Jesus House, lead by Pastor Agu Irukwu, are an evangelical church who are renowned for their local community work. Further information can be found at www.jesushouse.org.uk.

Jesus House for All Nations is an evangelical Christian organisation, part of the international 'Redeemed Christian Church of God', founded in Nigeria, and in this borough it has a large and very well resourced centre in Brent Cross.

Very well resourced: according to the Charity Commission accounts, with an annual income, in the year ending 2012, of more than £4,666,000, most of it from tithes, 'offerings' and 'thanksgivings', of which a large amount went on salaries, one lucky employee earning between £90-£100K, another receiving more than £60k, and the Chief Operating Officer rewarded handsomely with 'emoluments' worth £85,610, and an unspecified amount as a loan, the balance of which was at the time of declaration was £2,500.

The Church undoubtedly does good work in the community, and clearly has a large and faithful congregation. Like many other evangelical churches, of course, it has seen the opportunities for spreading the Good News via ministry that steps into the vacuum created by a withdrawal of support by government funding, offering services to the community in a way which seems like practical christianity, but, as in the case of bodies like Christians Against Poverty, now hosted by Jesus House, can raise concerns about the risk of such activities being exploited in order to proselytise, and bring unbelievers to their fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, in which God's word is literal, and those who do not believe and become born again in Christ will face eternal damnation.

Also condemned to eternal damnation, according to the evangelical movement, are those who commit the sin of 'homoerotic practice', without resorting to 'repentence'.

The man who leads Jesus House, Pastor Agu Irukwu, is a controversial figure, who has taken a firm position of opposition to equal marriage and legislation designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as you will read.

You might think that a close association with such a body, therefore, with such unflinchingly condemnatory views on gay sexuality, would be unwelcome to a man who has won universal praise for his advocacy for equal marriage, and opposition to homophobic views. Mrs Angry, genuinely curious about Freer's apparent betrayal of his parliamentary stance, thought she might write and ask him about it:

Dear Mr Freer

I hope that you are well.

I have been reading your latest newsletter with, I have to tell you, a certain amount of astonishment.

You tell your constituents that in January you held a reception at parliament for members of Jesus House, which, as you explain, is an evangelical church run by Pastor Agu Irukwu.

You have gained a fair amount of publicity and praise last year - including awards from Pink News and the Spectator - for your efforts in support of the successful campaign for equal marriage, expressing your disgust at those who oppose this legislation on the grounds of unfounded prejudice - such as your Conservative colleague in Hendon, Matthew Offord, with his offensive comparisons to 'incest' and 'polygamy'.

You have also spoken out in parliament against 'so-called conversion therapy' practised by some counsellors, describing it as 'voodoo medicine'.

I cannot believe that you do not know that Jesus House belongs to the Evangelical Alliance, which preaches that equal marriage is wrong: see here - http://www.eauk.org/church/resources/theological-articles/faith-hope-and-homosexuality.cfm

We affirm that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended by God for full sexual relations between people.

This movement has even more extreme views, holding gay relationships to be inherently sinful:

We believe habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance to be inconsistent with faithful church membership. Where someone is publicly promoting homoerotic sexual practice within a congregation, there may be a case for more stringent disciplinary action.

It also overtly supports the move to 'convert' gay people to heterosexuality:

We commend the work of those organisations which seek to help homosexual Christians live a celibate life, and also commend those groups which responsibly assist homosexuals who wish to reorient to a heterosexual lifestyle.

Pastor Agu Irukwu, whom you mention in your newsletter, is famous for his outspoken opposition to equal marriage, and has actively campaigned against it in the past. His stance has been frequently criticised by gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, and other campaigning groups, after Boris Johnson attended one of his events: http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/mayor-boris-embraces-anti-gay-pastor.htm

Pink News, whose award you accepted last year, has pointed to his objection to the sexual orientation regulations which became law in 2007, signing a letter to the Telegraph claiming: "the laws would force churches to “accept and even promote” homosexuality, claiming they were an affront to Christian freedom, and “Christianophobic”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/10/31/divisive-cleric-voted-britains-most-inspirational-black-figure/

Furthermore, according to 'Ekklesia', the Redeemed Christian Church of God, to which Jesus House belongs, has reportedly engaged in 'exorcisms' of gay members - see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10788 - supposedly 'with the calm consent of the person concerned'.

Now please tell me why you, as a gay man, and a member of parliament who has lobbied for equal rights in law, can possibly support a movement that maintains such offensive views as a fundamental principle of their beliefs, without being accused of rank hypocrisy?

On a lesser note, rather than supporting the well publicised one off charitable gesture - and photo opportunities - supplied by the packing up of Jesus House hampers at Christmas, should you not have supported the motion in the house regarding the massive increase in the use of foodbanks, a third of users being children dependent on such support, and bearing in mind that many of your constituents are now being driven to use such services, as the motion reported, and as noted by the Trussell Trust, due to:

"rising living costs and stagnant wages, as well as problems including delays to social security payments and the impact of the under-occupancy penalty"?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

As usual, there came a swift, if somewhat terse and limited response:

Dear Mrs Angry

 
Your continued interest in my work is most gratifying. 
I have a very constructive relationship with Jesus House even if

we disagree on some topics.

Mike Freer MP

Hmm.

Well. Wonder how all those who nominated Freer for his awards in Pink 
News and elsewhere will view this 'constructive relationship'?

Mrs Angry replied:

No, my mistake: whatever political differences we have, I thought at 
 
least you had demonstrated some courage and integrity in appearing to 

stand upon a point of principle, in regard to your position on 
 
equal marriage and homophobia.

Clearly I was wrong. 

Extraordinary.

West Hendon, February 1941

At the very end of last night's debate in West Hendon, an elderly man stood up, and took the microphone. He wanted to mention something that was not really a point of debate, but one of local history.

Earlier in the evening a resident of the doomed estate by the Welsh Harp had revealed that the new development will see the destruction of York Park, created, we heard, as a memorial to those killed in the terrible incident in West Hendon in 1941, in which an experimental bomb dropped by the Luftwaffe flattened three roads, killing around eighty people, injuring many others, and making 1,500 people homeless after destroying 366 houses, damaging hundreds more. He had been a boy then, he told us, and cycled from Burnt Oak to see what happened, coming upon a scene of absolute devastation.

He was upset at the prospect of York Park being destroyed in order to facilitate the development. After all, the park, he said, was a sort of war memorial, and there were laws, weren't there, to protect war memorials?

After a rather desultory discussion about the meaning of democracy, it was clear that the 'regeneration' of West Hendon was the only issue that residents wanted to hear about last night.

Why wouldn't they? Their lives are being torn apart by this scheme, having faced an uncertain future for years now, not knowing where they will be living, the estate falling into a state of neglect, many residents having no secure tenancies, and leaseholders being presented with extortionate demands for £10,000 each for maintenance which should have been done years ago, not now that the buildings are due for demolition.

Residents representatives spoke with great anger about the way in which they are being sidelined in the development of this area.

Derrick Chung criticised Barratt Homes, the council, and the Metropolititan Housing Trust for failing ordinary residents, who would not be given any assurance of a home in the area after development, or any real choice as to where they would go.

We're not residents, we're not leaseholders, we're a community! That was the declaration from the splendid Jasmin Parsons of the Residents Regeneration Group, to thunderous applause.

There was real anger in the room from the local community over the council's failure to recognise their needs, and to prefer to support the development of luxury housing, penthouse flats, and property that seems fated, as in schemes like Beaufort Park, to be the target of speculative overseas investment, rather than present accommodation for local buyers or renters, let alone those who cannot afford to invest in non affordable housing.

Jasmin Parsons, from the Regeneration Residents Group

As Jasmin said, working people are being evicted from West Hendon, and it seems clear that many will end up not only far from West Hendon, but out of the borough. The disruption to their lives has already begun with the beginning of the building work, as one resident described, lorries passing their homes constantly, bringing dirt, smoke, grit, the green spaces around them being closed off and ripped apart.

A vicar from the church of St John the Evangelist, next door to the centre where we were gathered, said that the regeneration was in fact the only issue that really mattered to residents. They are not going to worry about recycling bins, when some of them are having to live in damp flats, and do not know where they are going to be living in two years time, he pointed out. He asked all the political representatives a question: do you support having their right to stay in this community?

In fact Labour has pledged to try to renegotiate so that as many residents affected by the scheme can stay: to do this, of course, they must first be elected as an administration.

Veteran local Labour Councillor Agnes Slocombe had reminded the meeting forcefully that all the problems being encountered were as a result of a Conservative administration, and the only way to make changes is to use their votes, and make them count, and remove them from power.

Cllr Agnes Slocombe urges residents to use their vote and remove the Tory administration pic courtesy of Our West Hendon

The debate and appeal for support for Labour was listened to by the equally long serving local commentator Mr Shepherd, who, with his usual display of remarkable ingenuity, managed to divert the discussion to his favourite topic - the level of failings within the corporation of the City of London - and then announced that he might have voted for Bob Crow's party, but indicated, graciously, and with a certain amount of caution, that he was willing to consider endowing Labour with the not inconsiderable honour of his vote.

Mrs Angry imagines that Labour HQ are already drawing up plans to send a campaign bus down his road, and organising a personal visit from Ed Miliband. Turn the mike off, before you leave, Ed.

The power of feeling amongst the residents at this question time was formidable: Labour representatives looked on, not quite able to focus this anger where it should be, behind their policies, and towards the hated Tories, who as they always do, refused to send any members to defend their own policies at a public meeting.

Some of the residents from West Hendon had put questions regarding Barnet Homes and housing policy to the previous night's Contract Monitoring meeting: careful, well informed questions which, in some cases, such as the rights of tenants in place before changes in the localism act, went unanswered as neither councillors nor officers knew how to reply.

There were 77 public questions, in all. There should not have to be 77 public questions, if councillors are able to scrutinise properly the contracts that the authority now manages.

The entire meeting, in fact, showed exactly what is wrong with scrutiny in this borough. Serious failings in the parking contract are being ignored, as Mr Mustard can explain better than me, but all we saw was an agreement to defer the matter to a future date.

No: not good enough - there is an election on the horizon, and councillors of all parties owe it to all residents to do their job, and hold contractors to account, with more of a sense of urgency.

And think about this: if they are so lax with parking, how on earth will they cope with the massive Capita contracts?

The answer is they certainly are not coping yet. They still fail to question, with the notable exception of Labour's Jeff Cooke, not only the satisfaction levels quoted by Capita, but the way in which the data itself is compiled.

How representative is the sample used to base these figures? We do not know.

The Tories do not care. The Labour group is too easily satisfied, and fearful of any robust challenge of officers and Tory colleagues.

At the question time in West Hendon, Libdem leader Jack Cohen warned again that if the Tories get back into power, on the first morning back in power, they will call in the senior officers, and ask how they can do more of the same, develop and expand all the policies they have begun in the last four years. God help us.

Think you have seen everything that could be privatised, privatised? Think again.

Think you have seen everything that could be sold off, sold off? Think again.

At the Contract meeting, Deputy Leader Daniel Thomas and his cabinet cohorts, Robert Rams and Tom Davey, presented a lovely slideshow of how marvellous everything has been in the last four years, and how even more marvellous it will be in the future.

'Good news all round', he explained. It was early days, but the 'start of a relationship'. Customer satisfaction was at an all time high.

Julian Silverman, behind him in the public seats, pointed out that we are not their customers, we are your employers.

The fact that these councillors sat with their backs to the public, their employers, electors, and taxpayers, said it all really.

We are irrelevant. They are not accountable to us. Only our heckling made any inroads into their complacency and arrogance. Thomas made remarks about 'socialists' - as if we would not be pleased by being recognised as such - and their awful behaviour. 'A noisy minority'.

The Chair told Mrs Angry, aged 12, to go and stand in the corridor. Mrs Angry did not go and stand in the corridor.

Councillor Thomas' interesting view of the Capita contracts was that, even though it is 'early days', it is already a resounding success. His collegue Tom Davey thought the Labour councillors were very disappointing in their questions now that it had been shown that their predictions about an immediate failure had proved wrong.

Oh, but then Labour's Barry Rawlings pointed out that the in house services had deliberately been left to 'wither' before outsourcing, so as to make the case for privatisation and present an apparent level of savings.

And of course nowhere could that be more true than in procurement, which was effectively abandoned - to the point of catastrophic failure in management, making it easy pickings for Capita to come in and take shedloads of profit, with only a minimum of savings for us.

One of the admissions of this presentation was that a report on a list of council assets would now not be forthcoming until later in the year. Wonder why that is?

The contract performance summaries were dismissed with no real debate.

But Jeff Cooke queried the surprisingly high customer satisfaction levels for Barnet Homes. For Barnet Homes, Derek Rust admitted the process for gauging satisfaction was not 'an exact science'.

It's not a science at all, remarked Mrs Angry, who was somewhat distracted, at this point, by Councillor Rayner, sneaking into the seat behind her, and whispering in her ear another invitation to Scratchwood. With or without her wellies.

And Councillor Harper, don't think Mrs Angry didn't spot your nodding at her, and the elaborate build up to the reference to 'fingering individuals' in reports, in the regrettable absence of more portfolio jokes.

You are too aware, now, of your legendary status in my blog. Time to call it a day.

Oh: you have called it a day: standing down, disappointingly.

Shame.

But yes. There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and Barnet council customer satisfaction surveys.

We live in a world of inexactitude, and inequality, here in Broken Barnet, where councillors sit with their backs to their voters, and refuse to enter into a dialogue with the residents who pay their allowances, and rely on them to represent their interests.

Back in West Hendon, the interests of residents who most need representation are ignored by the Tory administration. This administration does not want them to remain in their own homes, in their own community, in this borough. They are surplus to electoral requirements, and are not affluent enough to merit the fawning attention given to the residents of Totteridge of Lane and Bishops Avenue.

The elderly man who cycled down to see what devastation had been wrought on this area in the war is now witnessing the demolition of a community in an attack more destructive than anything launched by the Luftwaffe.

On that night in 1941, 1,500 people were made homeless, by one act of war. But their homes were rebuilt, homes for working people, and the community revived.

In 2014, we are seeing perhaps as many people made homeless by the ideology of profit, a cynical war against the poor: the gerrymandering tactics of a political administration determined to cleanse the least advantaged areas of this borough of those in need and replant them with those with means.

It might be an idea for the Tory councillors to consider the example of history, and reflect on what happened when the second world war was over, and the first election was held, and the people who wanted their voices heard made sure that they put in power a party that would listen.

The story of Church Farmhouse Museum, as Mrs Angry has most recently commented in this post ...

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/consider-very-carefully-broken-barnet.html

.. serves as a fitting metaphor for the nature of the Tory administration here in Broken Barnet.

What was a fine and rare example of our built heritage, a beautiful Grade II* listed seventeenth century house, and a well respected and much loved local museum, was preremptorily closed by our philistine Tory councillors three years, ago, its irreplaceable collection of local history artefacts denigrated, ransacked and flogged at auction - or given away to local museums in neighbouring areas, where history, heritage and culture have not yet been outsourced. So a building that was bought by the council decades ago, in order to preserve it and to provide the borough with a local museum is now regarded by the current Tory run authority as a nuisance, and of value only as in terms of its speculative potential.

Councillors Daniel Thomas and Robert Rams were keen to flog the museum, as well as the collection, as of course it seemed to those who have no concept of the unique value of an historic property, that it was ripe for development.

Wrong, of course, as the demands of a listed building of this nature make it unsuitable for most adaptions that would make it commercially attractive. They thought they had a deal all lined up with Middlesex Uni. Wrong again: Middlesex Uni backed out, seemingly because financial problems, and then, as tenants, arguing over the difficulty and expense of making the delicate fabric of the building sound and suitable for their purposes, whatever that might be. Oh dear.

In the meanwhile, during the long and unnecessary years of closure, the building has deteriorated from neglect, and English Heritage has now listed it as 'vulnerable'. It stands forlorn, and empty, and decaying, representing in perfect form the miserable state of the local Conservative party ethos.

It was not until Mrs Angry suggested the property was open to being targeted by squatters, at the time of the Friern Barnet library occupation, that any moves at all were made to secure Church Farmhouse: a company was immediately engaged to employ a 'live-in' guardian, and he has remained there until recently, and a new development. It appears that the company is liable to legal challenge if their employee is installed in a property without cooking or bath/shower facilities, neither of which existed, unsurprisingly, in the former museum.

(As an aside, may Mrs Angry point out, as observed only this week, on walking past the building, that clearly food is being prepared in the Farmhouse: has this activity been assessed and monitored in terms of fire risk to the building, and does it affect the building's insurance policy?)

It now seems that the council has tackled this problem in the most extraordinary display of contempt for the preservation of this sensitive building - by installing a totally anachronistic shower room in the listed structure - and apparently without seeking consent from English Heritage. Again we must ask: who has authorised this? What risks to the fabric of the structure does this raise, as well as the potential damage to the listed internal features?

Of course we imagine it to be anachronistic: perhaps it is a seventeenth century period style contraption, consisting of a small servant boy and a wooden pail of water from the dewpond in the museum grounds?

Former museum curator Gerrard Roots, who lives yards away from the building, has kept a careful eye on the Farmhouse since the place was summarily shut. No one could be better placed to know the effect of the years of closure and neglect has had on the structure, and he has tried, in face of all the odds, to keep the issue of the building's fate in the public domain, and to ask vital questions about the state of the place, but also about its future.

Former curator Gerrard Roots outside the Church Farmhouse Museum, closed by Barnet Council. pic Times Group

These questions are exactly the sort of questions that Barnet Council does not want to answer. Why? Because they are too acute, and too embarrassing. What can they do to stop the matter being discussed? They resort to the usual Barnet tactics - the ones that prove the complete nonsense ofthe spin put out by some senior officers that the default mode of Barnet Council is 'open government'. Read on, and see what we mean. This is the latest response from an information officer at Barnet to Gerrard Roots, who has attempted to find out if the newly installed facilities were discussed, as surely they should be, with English Heritage: here is his latest request:

Since September 2012 Barnet Council has contracted Ad Hoc Property Services to provide security for Church Farmhouse Museum.

Ad Hoc has provided a 'Guardian' to 'occupy' the premises. On its website Ad Hoc tells prospective Guardians that all the properties it maintains have cooking and shower/bath facilities. Church Farm has neither, and I understand that, at the beginning of this year, Ad Hoc was advised that it could lay itself open to a legal challenge if it continued to require its Guardians to live in the Museum under such conditions. Since then the security for the building has been maintained, not by an Ad Hoc Guardians, but instead by ordinary security staff, from another security company (presumably) acting on behalf of Ad Hoc, who do not live in the building. (I was not given this information in response to an FOI request on security at Church Farm that I made some weeks ago.)

Yesterday (3 February) workmen began constructing a shower-room in the Church Farm building, to enable, it would seem, Ad Hoc's Guardians eventually to resume occupation without any threat of legal action. This work, on a Grade II* listed building categorized by English Heritage as 'vulnerable', commenced without any public statement of intent by Barnet Council, and, indeed, even without any warning to the security staff currently manning the building.

Therefore, I wish to know:

a. at whose behest is this work being done- Barnet Council's or Ad Hoc's;

b. who is paying for the work- Barnet or Ad Hoc;

c. is the work being carried out by approved Barnet contractors;

d. has this work been discussed with English Heritage and, if so, has English Heritage given it its approval;

e. has Middlesex University- still supposedly negotiating leasing the building from Barnet Council- been informed:

f. how much will the work cost;

g. has Barnet continued to pay Ad Hoc £85.00 per day during the period when there has been no Guardian in occupation, merely a rota of security operatives from a different organization;

h. is there any intention of making additional alterations to the building to comply with Ad Hoc's requirements?.

The response from Barnet:

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Response

London Borough of Barnet has determined that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14(1).

In considering whether a request is vexatious under section 14(1) the key question is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. The council must objectively judge the evidence of the impact on the authority and weigh it against the purpose and value of the request, taking into account context and history. There is an emphasis on protecting the authority’s resources from unreasonable requests.

The leading decision on section 14(1) is the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield (ICO v Devon County Council and Dransfield 2012 UKUT 440 (AAC) (28 Jane 2013) which says at para 20:
“section 14 … is concerned with the nature of the request and has the effect of dis-applying the citizen’s right under section 1(1)… the purpose of section 14… must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…”

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance on section 14(1) encourages the use of section 14 in any case where the public authority believes the request is disproportionate or unjustified. It states at para 11 an authority “should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme circumstances or as a last resort”

History and Context

Although the act is applicant blind we believe that the context and history of your requests are of relevance when considering section 14(1).

In his decision on the Dransfield case, Judge Wikeley stated that:

A common theme underpinning section 14(1) as it applies on the basis of a past course of dealings between a public authority and a particular requester, is a lack of proportionality.
First the present or future burden on the public authority may be inextricably linked with the previous course of dealings. Thus the context and history of the particular request, in terms of the previous course of dealings between the individual requester and the public authority in question, must be considered in assessing whether it is properly to be characterised as vexatious. In particular, the number, breadth, pattern and duration of previous requests may be a telling factor

We believe that this is sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence with regard to the historical context of this request and therefore applies to this request.

The council received and responded to 9 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from yourself in 2012/13. In respect of a request received on 11/2/13 the council refused this as vexatious on 13/2/13, which was upheld on Internal Review. You then exercised your right
to complain to the ICO. The ICO investigated and informally indicated that they would uphold the section 14 (1) decision in a decision notice. At this point you withdrew your complaint. Therefore the previous section 14 decision and reasoning that your request concerning Church Farmhouse Museum was vexatious remains in place.

The ICO informally asked the council what approach we would take if you made any future FOI requests regarding Church Farmhouse museum (CFM). We stated that we would deal with these on their individual merits. We have considered the ICO guidance which reminds a local authority that it cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious. This has not occurred in this case. Since the previous section 14 application the council has received and responded to four further FOI requests from you on this exact same topic

All your requests concern Church Farmhouse Museum (CFM). We have no record of you making a FOI request to the council about any subject other than CFM. All the requests concern the same single property and the council’s management of it, particularly repairs and security. This is not a case of a requester asking varied questions across the council’s area of responsibilities, nor even on a single general issue (such as for example social services, or schools policy) but on a single building with which the requester has a personal history and vested interest. A clear analogy can be drawn with Dransfield on this point, especially with respects to the issue of an individual having an ‘idée fixe’.

Volume of requests and burden on the authority

Judge Wikeley stated

“the greater the number of previous FOIA requests that the individual has made to the public authority concerned, the more likely it may be that a further request may properly be found to be vexatious”

A requester who submits 5 requests on the same discrete subject over approx. 15 weeks (following a period of submitting 9 requests over 5 months) can reasonably be seen to have submitted a high number of requests. A total of 14 requests on the same discrete subject have been submitted within less than 18 months.

In his decision on the Dransfield case, Judge Wikeley stated that:

The purpose of section 14 is to protect public authorities and their employees in their everyday business. Thus, consideration of the effect of a request on them is entirely justified. A single abusive and offensive request may well cause distress, and so be vexatious. A torrent of individually benign requests may well cause disruption.

A “torrent” of individual requests, whilst they may not individually, taken out of context, be seen as harmful, can lead to disruption and distress. The number of requests you have submitted which have to be answered by a very small number of officers, are a heavy burden on the authority, taking officers away from other work and disrupting routine work.
The council accepts that if submitted as a stand-alone individual request without the context and history this request would not be regarded as vexatious. Indeed, the council has responded to a number of similar requests since you withdrew your complaint to the ICO. However, the relevant context here is the burden that the volume of requests has had on the council and, in particular, the Principal Valuer who has been involved in the majority of the requests.

The case could reasonably seen as to be analogous with that of Betts (Betts vs ICO, (EA/2007/0109 19 May 2008)), where the request concerned health and safety policies and risk assessments, and there was nothing vexatious in the content of the request itself. However, taking into account the dispute with the council, the FOI requests and correspondence the Tribunal concluded that the request was vexatious when viewed in context. As in Betts, this request is a continuation of a pattern of behaviour and part of an on-going campaign to pressure the council. Our experience is that responding to this request would be very likely to lead to further correspondence, requests and complaints and that, as in Betts, given the wider context and history, the request was harassing, likely to impose a significant burden, and obsessive.

Whilst we acknowledge your right to be interested in this subject, we feel your continued use of the Freedom of Information Act in order to receive information and to push home your point of view shows a lack of reasonable proportionality. It has contributed to a significant and unreasonable burden on council resources and staff, constituting, in the words of the Dransfield ruling, a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate [and] improper use of a formal procedure. The council acknowledges it has a duty to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and we have endeavoured to respond to your second batch of requests.
Whilst you have submitted a high number of requests on one very narrow subject, the council has been prepared to respond to them.

Whether the point had been reached that the pursuit of the issue had become vexatious was considered on receipt of request reference 692965. However, it was considered that although there was a significant burden on the council with attendant disruption, the tipping point had not been reached at that time. That request was responded to and you were given advice on section 14. However we believe that at the receipt of this current request a tipping point has been reached and the burden on the authority has become too onerous to justify.

Distress to staff and burden on the council

In Dransfield Judge Wikeley also noted that vexatiousness may be evidenced “…by obsessive conduct that harasses or distresses staff, uses intemperate language, makes wide-ranging and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour or is in any other respects extremely offensive…”

Whilst this request may not appear, when taken as a single request out of context, to be obsessive, harassing or distressing in tone and scope, it needs to be viewed in context. The numbers of requests over such a short time period, the exceptionally narrow scope of the requests and the tone of many of the emails have been harassing and distressing for staff.
The FOI requests regarding CFM are administered by one council officer and the vast majority of the information requested provided by another officer. The burden on the council in dealing with these requests is concentrated in a small number of individuals, and the time taken is disruptive to their other daily work.

Serious purpose or value

We do not contend that if looked at in isolation this request has no serious purpose or value. We acknowledge your entitlement to make proportionate FOI requests and to engage with the council over the issues surrounding the closure of CFM. Our willingness to do this is evidenced by our responding to four requests following the withdrawal of your complaint to the ICO. However, it is our view that, in submitting the volume of requests on one discrete topic, representing an obsession or ‘idée fixe’ such that resulted in a section 14(1) response, your requests are now disproportionate to any serious purpose or any
value you may gain from this information. There is a strong similarity with Dransfield on this point.

Alternative approaches

The ICO guidance states that it is good practice to consider whether a more conciliatory approach would practically address the issues surrounding potentially vexatious requests. Given your dealings with the council over the FOI requests and general issues over CFM we do not believe that this is a viable option. It is our view that you have, to quote the ICO guidance “take[n] an unreasonably entrenched position, rejecting attempts to assist and advise out of hand and show no willingness to engage with the authority.” You are unwilling to accept responses provided and respond to requests with argumentative and tendentious language. Your response to the advice and assistance over section 14 in the last response supports this view.

Advice and Assistance

We would advise you that the council is fully cognisant of its duties under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other relevant legislation, and any works undertaken at Church Farmhouse Museum will be taken in accordance with those requirements. Not all works require English heritage consent, for example those which do not impact upon the structure of the building, and the self-contained shower cubicle is an example of this. Where English Heritage consent is required the council will obtain this in advance of undertaking works. The council is aware of the need to obtain best value for money in relation to security at Church farmhouse and is acting to reduce security expenses whilst ensuring a continuing suitable level of security at the building.

Well. Where to start?

First of all, this response has clearly had a serious amount of imput by legal services. This is a mark of how worried our Tory councillors are by the glaring scandal that is the Farmhouse issue, and the acute embarrassment caused by Gerrard Roots' questions: acute because they are so well informed.

To try to represent his enquiries as in any way other than made on a subject that is of important public interest to the residents of this borough is contemptible, and indeed risible. Look at the language used: idée fixe, obsession, argumentative and tendentious language, 'a torrent of individually benign requests' which yet are defined within the same response as having a tone that is 'harassing and distressing for staff' - a clear contradiction.

In truth, there has been neither a torrent of requests, nor any obsessive behaviour - we are talking about only 14 careful and considered requests in 18 months. These questions were quite justified, and indeed necessary, in the public interest, to establish exactly what has happened as a course of the actions taken by the authority. That a publicly owned listed building, a museum, part of our heritage should be shut, with no consultation, and put up for sale, was bad enough. To keep it closed for three years, at our expense, and neglect the building to the point where it becomes listed as 'vulnerable' is nothing short of scandalous.

The individuals who are likely to feel harassed, and rightly so, are the Tory councillors who are responsible for this f*ck up.

Thanks to them we have lost our local museum, for no good reason, and they have spectacularly failed to achieve the very purpose of their shabby ambitions in flogging the place off for a quick buck. No wonder they do not want any well informed questions holding them to account.

It is a pity that Mr Roots dropped his original complaint to the ICO. It is clearly not the mark of an unreasoning obsessive to have done so: no one could blame him for not wanting to be bothered with the interminable process. His complaint will now be considered in the wider context of Barnet's history of abusing the FOI process when trying to avoid allowing transparency over politically sensitive issues - see the case of the One Barnet minutes it tried to withhold, until the intervention and determined efforts of the ICO forced them to respond.

In my view there should be an enquiry into the actions of the council in the handling of this matter, and all the negotiations which have been held in secret in regard to the future of the Farmhouse, from the very beginning, should be laid open to public scrutiny.

We were not asked if we wanted to lose our museum, and our local history collection thrown away, given away, or sold to the highest bidder.

We were not asked if we wanted this beautiful building put up for sale, or loaned to Middlesex University.

No efforts were made adequately to secure the building, until its vulnerability was made public by me.

No one has more of a right to ask informed questions about the state of Church Farmhouse than the former curator, who worked there for more than thirty years, and who sees daily the rate of deterioration of the building.

To denigrate his attempts to hold the authority to account for its shameful behaviour in regard to the property is pathetic, cynical, and a deliberate strategy. It is in short, exactly the default mode of this Tory council: not open government, but the absolute inversion of the principle of transparency - a sign of a failing administration, losing its grip, and retreating to a position of pointless attack.

Friern Barnet library was opened exactly eighty years ago today, funded in part by the Carnegie Foundation - and opened by the Earl of Elgin, no less - presumably the grandson of the geezer who helped himself to a few souvenirs from the Parthenon.

So: opened in 1934 by Lord Elgin, closed in 2012 by Barnet Tories, and re-opened in 2012 by squatters, members of the occupy movement, who helped local campaigners negotiate an agreement with the previously intransigent council, who had every intention of pushing through the sale of the site, and the adjoining green, to developers.

Yesterday, the library's eightieth birthday, was celebrated with a party by campaigners, activists, volunteers, speakers, friends and guests at what is now a community enterprise, supported by the council, but staffed by volunteers.

Supported by the council, and now, rather amusingly, even cited by their leader Richard Cornelius, as an achievement for which he and his administration was responsible. So keen on rewriting history, is this Tory administration, that the Mayor was due to come today to grace the event with his corporate seal of approval.

Mrs Angry understands that he is unwell, and was therefore unable to attend, which is regrettable, but frankly it would have been quite inappropriate for the council's figurehead to be there.

That this library lives to serve the community of Friern Barnet is in no way due to anything the Tory council has done for it. Every day it is open, every book it holds, every letter of every word you read there has been fought for by the people who use it, and their friends, in the face of bare faced indifference by the council, until such a time as it became politically expedient for it to adopt of a policy of reconcilation, and compromise.

As it is, only recently Councillor Daniel Thomas made a great deal of promising that he will guarantee the leasehold of the library for the next four years. Mrs Angry, whose innate cynicism in regard to the scheming ambitions of our councillors knows no bounds, ventured a question from the public gallery: what happens in Year Five?

If you cannot guess: let me make it clear. It will join the list of council assets already drawn up for sale, to be activated as soon as - if - the Tories get back into power. And if you believe any promise on the subject of any funded project by a Tory administration in Barnet, you are too naive to breathe the foetid air of Broken Barnet, and should immediately make plans to move elsewhere.

Mrs Angry is easily amused, of course, and few things amuse her more than the capacity of Barnet Tory councillors to engage in acts of rank hypocrisy, right in the face of glaring, uncomfortable truths their limited imaginations simply cannot accommodate. Take a look at this - an election leaflet being distributed by Tory candidates in Coppetts ward:

Now: bad enough that the Mayor was invited to yesterday's celebration. But Kate Salinger was present, and she is a local Tory councillor, along with two Labour members. For some reason Tory councillor David Longstaff also came along. Kate is a nice woman, and has supported the library activists, but ultimately is loyal to her party, but it was her party who closed the library in the first place. And it was the Labour councillors who were first on the scene to start negotiations, as soon as the occupiers moved in ...

To claim the establishment of the community library is an achievement of the Tories is frankly beyond contempt.

The only reason there is a library there now is due to one thing: the occupation of the building by squatters from the occupy movement.

Lest we forget - Petra and Phoenix: the librarians from Occupy

It was rather annoying, yesterday, to hear so many fine speeches in praise of the enterprise, and no mention of the people to whom the library owes its very existence. Phoenix is away, so could not be present, but Petra, one of the original occupiers, and Mordechai were there, more or less unacknowledged. This is how history is rewritten.

And there were some really fine speeches.

When Mrs Angry arrived, long time library campaigner Joanna Fryer was conducting a literary quiz: she then gave a quick address, noting that when the library had held a sixty year anniversary, in 1994, one of the guests was a woman who had attended the library every day, since the library had opened, in 1934.

An extraordinary fact, you might think: or perhaps not, because the relationship between people and their libraries has always been extraordinary, intimate and loyal, long lasting, a contract of love.

Author and library campaigner Alan Gibbons took his turn to address the guests. He remarked first of all on the quiz being the best demonstration of why we need libraries: yes, indeed: where else would you find such a fount of knowledge, except amongst those who read, and read, and read, and fill their heads full of all that stuff?

He talked about his new book, 'Hate', based on the true story of a young woman, Sophie Lancaster, who was kicked to death because she was a goth. She dared to be different, he said. And we are all different, in our own ways.

This is what literature does: it testifies to the human condition. I you lose a library, you lose the right to tell the truth about the human condition.

He talked about a school where the library was removed, in favour of a 'reading room' - a place with books, but no librarian - no gatekeeper. He congratulated the activists who had saved Friern Barnet library as a community library, staffed by volunteers, but, he said: you should not have had to do it. He is right: and sadly, no matter how dedicated the volunteers, they can never replace the posts of professional librarians, and the support of a fully resourced library service.

And of course the government has a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive library service, but, ironically, other than in prison, said Alan Gibbons, this was a duty increasingly ignored.

In fact, touching on the subject of prison was a timely move: ironic perspective duly ignored, Tory minister Chris Grayling is seeking further to punish prisoners by banning them from receiving any books, in a ridiculous new policy which, (along with its refusal to allow women inmates the privilege of wearing their own underwear), seems to be part of the new Coalition Poor Law, designed to dehumanise and humiliate those who fall foul of the law, and end up behind bars. No doubt the treadmill and picking oakum are shortly to be reintroduced as well, but the intent is clear: reading and education are once more the right of the privileged few, and too dangerous in the hands of those on the margins of society.

But to remove access to literature is a dangerous policy, said Gibbons: because reading is one way of teaching empathy. Learn to read, and read well.

What if those feral young men who kicked Sophie Lancaster to death had had the chance to read - and understood - these words in Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mocking Bird'?

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”

Libraries, he said, are temples of learning - temples of hope.Exactly so.

Boyd Tonkin, (above, left) long time literary editor of the Independent, spoke about his love of libraries, and love of this library in particular, in which he spent many hours as a child.

He could remember exactly where he had stood - where two little girls were playing now, amongst the shelves, oblivious to the speechmaking going on around them - reading a book on cricket, and puzzling over the meaning of a word, 'invaluable' ... he could remember the old counter, and the curious shrinking in height in inverse proportion to his own rate of growth. He recalled the speed with which he finished his weekly allocation of books.

After his speech, Mrs Angry was introduced to Mr Tonkin, curtseying, of course, in homage: he said he loved reading the Barnet blogs: a modern day samizdat, he suggested. Who could hope for higher praise?

Mrs Angry commented how well his words resonated with her, her own childhood rooted in weekly visits to Edgware library, and a similar obsession with a counter, and a fines box with a brass slot, and a box with a satisfying clunk when the pennies rolled in, and longing to be fined, so as to have the excuse to drop coins in it, but never having the experience of overdue books because her own allocation would be read in the course of the weekend, and returned as soon as possible, as she read her way through every book on every shelf, and learned that the world of fiction was infinite in possibility, and possibly infinitely more preferable to the real world.

Where would children like us be, without a library? Books may furnish a room, but the children of parents who buy no books must find their own.

No kindle or website can ever replace the feel of a book, the smell of it; the touch of the paper, the presence of the book beside your bed, or on a shelf in the library, inviting you to read it, and enter new realms of imagination, and new ideas, and words, and more words, the colour and rythmn of which rearranges your own way of writing forever, and shapes the way you think.

The last speaker was the least well known, the most modest, a quiet young woman with two very small children, who crowded round her as she read a poem, a poem read before in this library, at the re-opening ceremony: it should be reproduced in full.

She prefaces this with an explanation:

I wrote this poem in anger, when the council tried to close our local library. The library was finally saved, thanks to Occupy squatters, who lived in the building for several months, and local activists. We owe them forever.

Today (23rd March 2014) the community celebrated 80 years of Friern Barnet Library. Here's to 80 more.

To The Book Thief

by Alex Mankowitz

Would you snatch a book from my boy’s hands,
As he sat pulling apart each word, limb from limb,

Stumbling on phonics, cuddled against my breast?

Would you prise his little paws off the cover,
Ignore his baffled screams, my tearful pleas as you
Peel away bendy fingers, made sticky by a day’s play?

Would you snatch it if snatching made it tear,

Left him grasping a crumpled cover, bereft,
While you walk away triumphant, dropping pages like a trail?

Just how far would you go?

How about the books already in his head,
The bedtime stories lovingly tethered to his soul;
Would you steal those too? Why let them be?

Because you know, books are not like bees.
They don’t lie down and die after a single sting, nor fizzle out
like a match that burns to a searing stub at your fingers.

No. When you steal a book you steal it again and again.
You steal it from every child whose face ever pressed up
Against a rainy window pane, bored and poor and trapped.

You lock him in, in a way that no wall ever could.
You set up fences he can’t even see, burn ladders he didn’t know he had.
And you do it to his children and his children’s children.

For eternity.

That is what you are doing to us.

So I say: steal my baby’s books if you dare,
But first look at him, look at his big brown eyes,
And tell him what you’re going to do.

Say to him: Child, I am taking from you this book
that you are reading.

Say: Child, forget these pictures.
Say: Child, snuff out those rhymes.

And tell him: Don’t ask me what happens next.
There are no more pages to turn.
Because: Child, this is the end.

Then sing to him:

Lavender’s blue dilly dilly,
Lavender’s green.
I stole your books, dilly dilly
Cos I am mean.

Sing:

Call up your men, dilly dilly
Call up your crooks,
Some to build pyres, dilly dilly
Some to burn books

Some to break glass, dilly dilly
Some to crush bricks,
While me and mine, dilly dilly
Still get our kicks.

Then take a long look at his big brown eyes.
Just look.
And see, just how much you are taking from us.

See just how much you are taking from us.

The story of Friern Barnet library is not just about a building full of books, that was closed, and emptied, and opened, and refilled with books.

It is about the idea of resisting injustice, an idea you might read about in one of those books, and feel strong enough to carry into your own life, and make it change the world. And that is why our enemies want to shut our libraries and take away our books: to stop us thinking, and thinking we might be strong enought to challenge the things they are doing.

Here in Broken Barnet they are taking away not just books, and libraries, but housing, and carers, and children's centres, and day centres, and so many vital services that support the most dependent residents of this borough.

Don't be fooled by Tory candidates and their election leaflets that tell you they are your friends, and only want to help you.

They are the ones standing with a knife in their hand.

The only way to stop them is to go to the polling station on May 22nd and vote for the people who really do care about those who need help, and stand up to be counted, when it counts.

Cuts in disabled pupils' funding to pay for pre-election tax cut worth 23 pence a week:

Tory leader Richard Cornelius:

“I think the average person in the street thinks this is fair.”

Pupils Liam, Hana and Faye and their carers at Mapledown School: pic Times Group

Sometimes Mrs Angry really does get very angry.

That makes it very difficult to write, without resorting to more than the usual fully saturated content of hyperbole, and foul language.

You'll have to excuse me, if you read on.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

Mapledown School is a secondary school for disabled children, based near Brent Cross shopping centre, situated in a less than ideal environment for any children, edged against the North Circular, on one side, with the A41 rushing by not far away on the other. This school provides vital care and education for 65 young pupils with severe and complex learning disabilities. Some have multiple disabilities, and others are on the autistic spectrum. As well as caring for the children's educational needs, the school offers vital support to them and their carers with after school clubs, and half term play schemes

An astonishing story yesterday in the local Times group newspapers has revealed that due to a cut in funding of £45, 000, by Barnet Council, these ventures will have to be cut by 25%, causing enormous hardship on families relying on the already heavily oversubscribed programme.

If you know anyone with a child with such a degree of disability, you must know how hard it is for their parents to continue, day after day, to support their children, often struggling at the same time to maintain their commitments with work. The respite that after school clubs and holiday schemes offer to such parents are an absolute necessity, in practical terms and emotionally too. Now they are faced with the intolerable choice of finding the financial resources to cover the loss of funding for their child's place, or struggling on without such help. For a child with severe needs, such uncertainty and lack of continuity will be deeply upsetting, and for their families, the burden is unimaginable.

As one parent in the article says:

“We are a group of people who are so overwhelmed with our daily lives that we often don’t say anything - we’re exhausted. We don’t have time to put together huge protest campaigns to fight this - it is tough to be heard.”

When asked about the financial restraints which the authority is offering as the reason for these budget cuts, Tory leader Richard Cornelius seeks to shift the blame to central government, and also attempted once more to justify his pre-election 'gesture' of a one percent cut in council tax, which has deprived the council budget of £1.3 million in revenue, whilst returning the total of 23 pence a week to taxpayers.

“It is not us that has cut the funding and if we were to cover all the cuts from central government we would be looking at doubling council tax.

“It is about striking a balance between spending and taxing. This country is groaning under the level of tax at the moment.”

Asked if he thought the decision to lower council tax at the same time as cutting the school’s budget was fair, he said:

“I think the average person in the street thinks this is fair.”

Do you really, Councillor Cornelius?

What a stupid, shameful, utterly repugnant remark to make.

Today we read that the Tory cabinet member for schools, the ineffable Reuben Thompstone, has never bothered to visit Mapledown, but is happy to endorse the cuts, claiming the council's hands 'were tied' by central government.

This is just not true: the Tory group chose to reduce vital revenue from local tax for political reasons, knowing full well the impact this would have in meeting central funding reductions.

And in this decision we see the real face of Barnet Conservatism. Totally lacking in compassion, or empathy. Utterly driven by political ideology, blinkered by lack of intellectual challenge, or even imagination.

It is the mark of a sociopathic administration, intent on following its own obsessions with no regard for the impact on those who bear the burden of their half baked, bigoted ideas, a swamp of muddled instinct: financial restraint in the form of tax is bad, except for the poor, freedom to do what you want, free of consideration for others, is good. Leave the people at the bottom to sort themselves out, but give a helping hand to those who already have privilege, and power.

Councillor Thompstone did have a useful suggestion, however:

“I would encourage the school to be more creative in some of the ways it raises money."

More creative in the ways it raises money.

Thompstone: I suggest you spend a day and night with the family of a child with such severe needs, and then come back and tell us all exactly how and when the exhausted carers of such children can possibly do any more to support their children, and their children's school.

Until then, friend, I also suggest you keep your big mouth firmly shut, and count down the days to the election, at which time I sincerely hope you and your colleagues will find yourselves unceremoniously kicked out of office, and left with an abundance of time to contemplate the reasons why.

In the meanwhile: one creative way to raise money to cover the cost of the support schemes you are cutting has occurred to Mrs Angry.

The £45,000 you want to withdraw more or less matches the amount of payrise Tory councillors awarded to the Chairs of committees, in addition to the already generous basic allowances, as soon as you all returned to power in 2010.

A mere increase of 54%, from £7,000 to £15,000, and agreed at the same time you were lecturing us, the residents and taxpayers, about the need for painful austerity measures.

Let's see you put the welfare of pupils at Mapledown and their carers before your own interests, and volunteer to return the increases you most certainly have not earned over the last four years.

Or are you not, after all, all in this together with Liam, Hana and Faye?

This is Broken Barnet, 26th March 2014.

Readers: there are fifty six days to go before you can liberate us from the rule of this loathsome, merciless, cowardly Conservative council.

Please use your vote wisely.

Labour Councillor Pauline Coakley Webb opens Friern Barnet Community Library

Barnet Conservative candidates in Coppetts Ward have been distributing an election leaflet claiming the credit for saving Friern Barnet library.

This indefensible attempt to rewrite history is something that cannot go unchallenged.

The Barnet bloggers have followed the story of Friern Barnet in detail, from the moment in 2010 when Councillor Robert Rams launched the strategic library review, making ludicrous suggestions about the possibilities of ‘pop-up’ libraries in Tescos, and Starbucks.

We supported the raising of a petition, gaining over 7,000 signatures, and the lobbying of council meetings, and councillor surgeries. This gave the Tories pause for thought and they relented from their initial plans.

When the review was announced, only two libraries were marked for closure: Hampstead Garden Suburb and Friern Barnet. As Hampstead Garden Suburb was in a staunchly Tory ward, it took little pressure from influential local resident groups for the council to grant a reprieve, and happily agree to subsidise the small branch library in this most affluent area of the borough. This left Friern Barnet library, in a largely Labour voting ward, as the sole victim of Councillor Rams’ axe.

Community campaigners were invited to draw up plans to keep the library open. As later events were to demonstrate, this was a crafty ruse by councillors and senior officers, which meant the campaigners were working on plans in the period where they could have instigated a judicial review. Such time wasting slammed the door on legal remedy. It seemed clear to all involved that the council had acted in bad faith and the invitation to draw up proposals were never a serious proposition.

In April 2012, the council closed the library at short notice. A symbolic occupation of the building by residents took place, to register the sense of injustice felt by the local community. The same afternoon, valuers arrived to assess the building for future development. The library was boarded up, emptied of books, and left to stand until a plan of sale had been made.

The closure of Friern Barnet, as some have forgotten, was justified by Tory members on the basis of a new library to be created in the Arts Depot at North Finchley. This plan came to nothing.

Along with many other supporters and activists, Barnet bloggers were at the forefront of the campaign to reopen Friern Barnet library, helping to launch the People’s ‘pop-up’ library, not in Tesco, or Starbucks, but on the village green next to the building, beneath the cherry trees. It was an act of defiance from local residents and campaigners in response to the removal of a much loved local community centre, and it received an astonishing outpouring of support.

The pop-up library received donations of hundreds of books and kept the protest alive throughout the weeks that followed. The BBC One show came to film the event, the first of a wave of media interest in the issue.

Despite this clear evidence that there was enormous support for the library, Councillor Robert Rams and his colleagues continued to ignore the local community.

Through the summer of 2012, residents came down every Saturday, come rain or shine to swap books on the lawn. As we approached autumn, and weather conditions worsened, it looked as if the Peoples library may become unsustainable: but in September 2012, the Occupy movement took over the Library and the People’s Library moved back into its rightful home.

How did Robert Rams and the rest of the Tories react to this demonstration of "Big Society"? They refused to engage with the local residents, although ironically they were more at ease discussing terms of occupation with Phoenix and his collective of squatters who had re-opened the library on behalf of the community.

Within weeks, the library shelves were full and the library was back in business.

Council officers were despatched to meetings to see if a compromise could be reached, but the elected representatives of the Tory Party ignored residents, and refused to attend talks. The council then launched eviction proceedings against the people of Barnet, who were simply using a public asset in the way it was intended.

Despite spiralling costs, the Tories persisted in the war against their own citizens. When the case finally came to court - supported by legal assistance organised by Labour party councillors - it lasted 2 days.

Barrister and Labour candidate for Finchley & Golders Green, Sarah Sackman, who represented the occupiers in court

The council had originally claimed it was a simple possession case and asked for ten minutes. It was clear to all that despite the judge finding in favour of the council, there were strong grounds for an appeal. The judge herself brokered a deal whereby Occupy would hand over the keys to the community and the library would continue. The council had won the battle but lost the war.

The sad truth is that there is no happy ending.

Does anyone trust the council after their previous tactics? It would appear to be a mistake to do so. The election leaflet implies that the library was saved by the ‘fervent campaign’ within the Conservative party fought by Councillor Kate Salinger. In fact any success was entirely due to the fervent campaigning of local residents, and the occupation of the premises: and the library has not been saved. It still faces an uncertain future.

Barnet Council simply offered the re-named Friern Barnet Community Library a two year lease, to park the problem until after the election.

Time stands still in Friern Barnet library, September 2012

The Council has refused to fund a full time librarian. The Council has refused to allow the Library to access the council book stock. There are even allegations of other Barnet Libraries refusing to allow posters promoting events at FBCL. Most worrying of all, there is no long term lease, and Councillor Daniel Thomas, the deputy leader, has merely guaranteed that the building will not be sold in the next four years. What happens then? And even if the building is not sold, for how long will the community library be allowed to remain?

In truth the local community has preserved the building, and filled it full of books, which is a stunning achievement. It is a wonderful community enterprise, a victory of resistance against injustice, but it is not a public library.

Barnet’s Tory councillors have been outmanoeuvred by residents in their move to close the library and sell the beautiful, eighty year old building for redevelopment as a supermarket or flats. But it is only a temporary victory.

To ensure this library and every other publicly owned property controlled by this council remains in our hands and does not become the target of a ruthless agenda of sale and development, the only course of action is clear: use your vote wisely on May 22^nd, and do not return this Tory administration to power – or we will all live to regret it.

John Dix

Derek Dishman

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

You know what they say, don't you, about a woman's prerogative, changing her mind and all that? The lady bloggers, bless'em: don't you just love their funny little ways? Of course we all know they should be spending their time on more constructive things: cleaning behind the fridge, rearranging the larder, and so on, but Mrs Angry is hopeless at all that sort of thing and is best kept occupied on her little hobby, writing about what passes for political life in Broken Barnet.

And there comes a time in a woman's life, in respectable middle age, when really she ought to stop thinking about politics, and - what was that other thing? There was something else. Knitting? Being kind to small animals? Swinging? Anyway: yes - time to settle down, calm down, and grow up, at last.

With maturity comes reflection.

And, as we approach the election in a few weeks time, Mrs Angry has been reflecting on the course of events covered by this blog in the last four years. And she has come to a startling conclusion.

As you know, Mrs Angry prides herself on always being right about, well, everything. Everything. But sometimes, in the long, dark hours of the night, a horrible thought occurs. What if she was not right about everything, but sometimes ... wrong?

What if she was not just sometimes wrong, but deeply, fundamentally wrong, most - or even all - of the time?

Frankly, in her review of the story of the current Tory administration, Mrs Angry has been forced to confront some unpalatable truths.

Look at the facts.

As soon as our Conservative councillors were returned to power in 2010, they asked, not unreasonably, for a modest increase in the meagre allowances we, the taxpayers of Barnet owe them, as well as a debt of eternal gratitude, for their ceasless efforts on our behalf. They carefully explained that they deserved this pay rise, as they would be even busier than normal in the new term of office, cutting jobs, salaries, services, and grants in response to the demands of the rule of austerity. Was this too much to ask?

One could only admire the tactful and discreet way in which they went about this, slipping the proposals into the agenda at the dead of night, as an 'emergency' motion, not wishing to upset those of us in less fortunate positions, as we contemplated the years of self denial ahead of us.

The rightful public vilification and humiliation of the only Tory member choosing not to support this payrise was a brilliantly orchestrated piece of what Councillor Brian Coleman described as 'discipline'.

And one must admire the complete lack of remorse, and staunch loyalty to the principle of self reward before fairness, that drove this perfectly reasonable act of punishment.

True Blue (former) Tory Brian Coleman, in full rant

At the time, Mrs Angry was rather unkind, and suggested that the self awarded payrise was merely an exercise in rampant hypocrisy and the worst possible example of Tory troughing. Perhaps she was misguided. What do you think, readers?

Another acute example of political acumen presented itself to us within a short time, after the budget meeting, primed with austerity measures for everyone except our councillors, was held under the watchful eye of Metpro, the council's private security contractors, filming bloggers and activists as they attempted to enter the public gallery and witness the meeting.

Oops: did we say contractors? We meant of course a bunch of blackshirted, jackbooted muscle bound eejits acting without licenses, unchecked by Barnet Council, who omitted to employ them through any formal arrangement, simply handing over cash when asked for: an admirable system which myself and fellow bloggers found was in place throughout the authority's procurement and payment strucure, with thousands of non-compliant 'contracts' in place, wasting untold millions of taxpayers' money, unnoted, unmonitored, and unscrutinised.

An outstandingly good example, in short of a true blue Tory commitment to limiting the unspeakable horrors of unwarranted bureacracy, and red tape.

Hoorah for the blackshirts, as the Daily Mail would say. We want none of that democracy nonsense in Broken Barnet, now do we? See: wrong again, Mrs Angry.

And so then, of course, our Tory councillors, inspired by the example of dictators everywhere, stamped on the danger of dissent from residents, and changed the constitution so as to ban discussion of any of its policies in local Forums, while avoiding any consultation over the plans, which were not part of its electoral campaign, to launch a mass privatisation of council services.

Firm, but fair.

Well, firm, but unfair, as the High Court judge ruled in 2013, but too late, so what did it matter? Why so harsh, Mrs Angry?

Let he/she who is without sin, throw the first stone, as the good book says. No need to mention this sort of thing, poised as we are, on the brink of an election.

Say nothing, and move on.

Because we live in Capitaville now, of course: and really there is nothing more to say, anyway. Too late, isn't it? Is it?

Every public service has now been pimped for private profit, and every resident, the living and the dead, have been set on the Capita treadmill, to deliver dividends for its shareholders, at out own expense. In return we are promised, what was it ... ah, yes ... savings. Lots of savings.

These savings will be £275 million, or £320 million, or £160 million, or £165 million, or almost any sum you care to name: hard to say - it depends entirely on the whim of whoever wrote the latest press release, and can never been measured, of course, as there is already a postively badger-like tendency to move the goalposts when any Crapitorial target is questioned.

Oh, and of course you will have to deduct the £82 million we have already spent on preparing for the 'change programme' that will (aspires to) deliver these er ... efficiencies.

Still: who cares?

Not Mrs Angry, whose early scepticism has so easily been bought off with the kind offer from the nice men at Crapita of her blogger discounted pre-used grave, in their new Easy Crem post-life eternal leisure facility at the former Hendon Crematorium. She is comforted by the thought that in death, if not in life, she can benefit from the profits of privatisation.

Let us not dwell on the record of the past four years of Tory misdeeds.

We all make mistakes, after all.

We need not mention, for example:

the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money thrown at, and still being thrown at, private consultants like Agilisys/iMPOWER so that they could foist the privatisation on us

the £16 million of capital investment that was, we were told, the reason we could not possibly consider an in-house alternative to privatisation, which would have retained all savings, and jobs, yet which was revealed to have been paid not by Capita, but by ... us

the number of senior officers who have passed to and from companies and consultants involved in the privatisation bidding process

the £12 million of taxpayers money wasted on lorries and bins for a recycling scheme that may well be non compliant with looming legislation

the disastrous parking scheme which has driven many high street businesses into terminal decline and made life impossible for the majority of drivers in the borough

the closure of Church Farmhouse Museum, ransacked, its collection sold off, left empty and deteriorating

the attempted closure of Barnet Museum,

the attempted closure of two libraries, the eager subsidisation of the branch in the super wealthy Tory ward of Hampstead Garden Suburb, and the refusal to save one in Friern Barnet, until occupied by community squatters

a housing policy directed at encouraging only the 'well off' who are not 'dependent' on council services, and the gerrymandering 'regeneration' of housing estates that excludes the poorest residents of the borough and replaces affordable housing or council tenants with private schemes

the catastrophic business model by One Barnet consultants that created Your Choice Barnet, Barnet's 'trading company' which seeks to make profit from the provision of care to our most vulnerable residents, and has found that ... it can't, so is cutting the wages of already poorly paid staff by up to 26%

Oh, do stop there, Mrs Angry. Rather tactless. Concentrate on the positive.

Erm.

Dum di dum.

Sure there was something. Ah:

Let us not forget #benchgate: an award winning scoop in the local Times, the story of a much loved public seat in a marginal ward that mysteriously disappeared, and after strenuous efforts by Tory councillors reappeared - only for it to be revealed that it was the Tory councillors who had it removed in the first place ...

And then there was the courageous campaign by East Barnet Tory councillors Robert Rams, Joanna Tambourides and Barry Evangeli against the iniquitous new parking charges imposed on their residents, after being voted for by ... councillors Robert Rams, Joanna Tambourides and Barry Evangeli.

Oh, and the touching tale of that library in Friern Barnet, closed by Tories, occupied by squatters, re-opened by squatters, run by campaigners, but now, in a breathtaking re-writing of history, saved by ... Tory councillors.

And, last but not least, let us not forget the greatest achievement of the past four years.

No, not the council tax 'gesture' of 23 pence a week for residents.

The extraction of the money for this pointless pre election bribe from those who are hardly in a position to oppose it: the severely disabled pupils and their parents attending Mapledown School, in Brent Cross.

Instead of depending on taxpayers to subsidise their after school clubs and half term schemes, our Tory councillors have wisely decided to show a bit of tough love, help them become more self reliant, and withdrawn funding.

After all, as Councillor Reuben Thompstone suggested:

“I would encourage the school to be more creative in some of the ways it raises money."

Remember the creative way in which Reuben Thompstone, Richard Cornelius and all our Tory councillors raised their own allowances? Still: so much more worthy recipients of taxpayers money than a disabled child at Mapledown, don't you agree?

And Tory leader Richard Cornelius is quite right: as he stated:

“I think the average person in the street thinks this is fair.”

Of course in the street where Richard Cornelius lives, in a parallel universe far away, residents may well think taking grants from disabled children to pay for a pre-election 'gesture' is fair, so Mrs Angry cannot comment.

Plenty of fools, here in Broken Barnet, this April.

It's up to you, citizens, as to how many will still be in office, this May.

Last night Mrs Angry had the great misfortune to have to sit through a Barnet council cabinet meeting, in the course of which Jasmin Parsons, a representative of residents in West Hendon, made a courageous attempt to hold the Tory councillors to account for the appalling treatment of leaseholders and tenants living on the doomed estates around the Welsh Harp. (Full report in the next post).

These estate buildings are due to be demolished, while Barratt Homes create 'Hendon Waterside' around them, a luxury private development.

Those living on the estate have faced an uncertain future for years, and still face an uncertain future: many are unsecured tenants, and others are leaseholder now faced with an extortionate claim for payment of £10,000 in maintenance costs for a property about to be knocked down, and for work that should have been the responsibility of the authority. The tenants do not know how long they will be living there, or where they will go, or when they will go. Except for a privileged few, who are to be moved into a building in the most polluted, unpleasant part of the site, none of the current residents will be able to stay in their own community.

This is how the Tories have chosen to prioritise their housing policy: the encouragement of private development, and the avoidance of anything other than statutory responsibility to the homeless, the disadvantaged, the poor of this borough, deserving, or undeserving - it's all the same to Cabinet member Tom Davey, and leader Richard Cornelius. As Davey has said: you must live within your means. If you can't afford to live in Barnet - tough. He is happy to see the penthouses of 'Hendon Waterside' filled with Russian oligarchs, because in this borough we want only the 'well off'.

Ah, but it is unfair to say the Tories have completely turned their back on the issue of social housing, Mrs Angry. Just in time for the election, and after a mere twenty two years of waiting, they have managed to build not one, not two, but three new council homes. One is made of brick, one is made of sticks, and one is made of straw.

No room for little piggies, but the lucky tenants who have been decanted into them will be allowed to stay in their new homes for FIVE YEARS! Isn't that kind of Councillor Davey, whose new rules forbid the granting of longer contracts to new tenants? No problem: the children will enjoy the challenge of being thrown out of their homes, faced with changing schools, leaving their friends behind, and managing without any sense of being rooted in a community.

And so today the big bad wolf himself, the Mayor of London, was invited to come to Broken Barnet, to officially open the new houses, and provide a lovely photo opportunity for the philanthropic, visionary Tory councillors who are so desperate for a good news story to distract the ungrateful voters of our borough from their catastrophic record over the last four years.

Oh dear.

Things didn't quite go according to plan, sadly.

Mrs Angry thought she would join some local residents and Labour activists who were going to go to the opening. A protest had been planned: might be fun to watch ... So off she went this morning, with a handful of Labour councillors and candidates, to Alexandra Road, in Muswell Hill: literally on the border line between Barnet and Haringey.

Barnet Homes had thoughtfully laid on a modest reception and buffet in a small community centre - the aptly named 'Freehold Centre' - on the Haringey side of the road. We wandered in, Mrs Angry as usual deploying her try and stop me if you dare smile and cheekily adding her name to the guest list.

Inside a number of Barnet Homes officers stood watching us anxiously, keen to make conversation, but not certain who we were, luckily. They explained that they were keen to start communicating with Barnet Homes tenants. Bit late for the people in West Hendon, isn't it, asked Mrs Angry? It emerged that the two residents groups there were largely unknown to them, which is an astonishing admission, after all the years of campaigning that have taken place. But as we know, consultation, in Barnet, generally takes place after any given event, or decision, if at all.

One rather po faced senior officer from Barnet Homes, who had been at last night's meeting and recognised the infiltrator Mrs Angry, called a policewoman into the room, whispering furiously about her and pointing at the dangerous anarchist hovering by the buffet. Ooh, get you, po faced senior officer: Mrs Angry was AWFULLY scared.

The police officer appeared to have explained to the man from Barnet Homes that - as yet - the law, even in Broken Barnet, does not allow for instant arrest and detention of middle aged bloggers standing around in a community centre with an impertinent grin, and plotting a sequence of embarrassing questions for the Mayor of London. Or does it? Probably. Got away with it this time, anyway.

In the small room where the Mayor was due to arrive, a corporate backdrop had been carefully arranged, with a wobbly stand reminding everyone that we were in the London Borough of Barnet, which we were not, and a marvellous time lapse film of the building of the three houses, lovingly recorded for posterity, as if it were the centuries long creation of the pyramids at Giza, or the erection of a record breakingly high skyscraper in Manhattan. Still, for Barnet Tories, the building of three council houses probably is on the same scale as one of the wonders of the world, or any urban monolith.

Outside the centre a loud group of protestors was gathering, with banners, heckling the Tory leader and councillors as they arrived.

The police presence had increased dramatically, and no one else was being allowed in. Looking round at the self congratulatory Tories and their rather nervous looking housing officers it became clear that we were about to be treated to a nauseating display of Tory hypocrisy and a compulsory endorsement of the now world famous Boris act: a load of regurgitated spin, the recycling of his interminable jokes, presented in a grandstanding performance of what he does best: being Boris Johnson, in a way even he can hardly replicate any longer with any authenticity.

Mrs Angry looked around, and realised, with a sinking feeling, that she was the only one there who might just get away with a modicum of well aimed heckling, to clear the true blue air of smugness that was hanging over that part of Muswell Hill, in a foul miasma far worse than anything caused by the saharan sand and pollution filled smog drifting across from the neighbouring North Circular.

At last Boris arrived and made his way to the front of the small gathering. Richard Cornelius opened proceedings by announcing, in that faux-disingenuous way of his: "It seems counter-intuitive for a Conservative-run council to build council houses ... " and carried on with a short and silly speech which gave Mrs Angry the opportunity to warm up her ripostes - and alerted Boris to the fact that not everyone in the crowd was necessarily a natural born Tory supporter.

The Mayor had chosen one of his off the peg standard rallies for the occasion: he remarked upon the fact that life expectancy in London for men had risen by eighteen months since he had been Mayor, at which point Mrs Angry commented that might be because they are determined to live longer in the hope of seeing him kicked out of office - hello ... he cast a quizzical look in her direction.

He observed that there had also been the biggest baby boom, under his reign, since we won the world cup in 1966, and suggested that the increase in fecundity was entirely due to him, at which point Mrs Angry may have made her own suggestions that are probably better not put in print. All the ladies present, of course, left the occasion worrying about the risk of phantom pregnancies as a result of merely breathing the same foul miasma as our tousle haired Mayor.

Clearly stung by the previous day's criticisms in City Hall of his failure to deliver an acceptable level of affordable housing, he blustered his way through some nonsense defending his record and promising wonders to come. Yeah, yeah. No one believed him, he didn't believe himself, and no one cared.

Speech over, Councillor Cornelius made the fatal error of steering the Mayor in our direction. Whoosh. What did Boris think, asked Mrs Angry, of the fact that Councillors Tom Davey and Richard Cornelius believe that only the 'well off' should be living in Barnet, that if you cannot afford to live here, you should live elsewhere? As she referred to Davey, he was standing just behind Boris, and Mrs Angry imagined this repetition of his puerile views would embarrass him. But no: in fact he seemed thrilled to have his name mentioned, and his idiotic utterances broadcast to the Mayor. Richard Cornelius tried to deny that they had ever said such a thing. Labour candidate for West Hendon, Devra Kay, reminded him that they had, and that it is captured on film.

Blehhhhhhh, said Boris , brrrrhhh, blaaahhhh, grrrrrrhhhhh.

Mrs Angry continued, as Boris hovered by her side, trapped, and surrounded by photographers recording his ordeal, and yet rather intrigued by the barracking he was now getting.

What did he think about the leaseholders and tenants in West Hendon, being moved out of the way for a private development, the leaseholders only having done the right Thatcherite thing, and bought their council homes?

Oh, bleurghhhhhh, blaahhhh, grrhhhh ... who are these people, he demanded of Richard Cornelius, who stood frozen behind his guest, grinning his rictus grin, clearly desperate to move him safely out of the way?

Socialists! pronounced Cornelius, in a breath taking denouement, a sensationalist gesture straight from the stage of Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol.

Socialists? asked Boris, with just the slightest trace of amusement at the Tory leader's vintage world view, written on a loose page from a Conservative Party calendar, circa 1973.

Yes: socialists, Boris ... though to be fair, there were quite a lot of Labour councillors there too ...

Mrs Angry was distracted, at this point, by noting how alarmingly Hanoverian Boris is: in profile remarkably like his Georgian royal forebears - and unequivocally patrician in his demeanour.

Whatever discomfort had been afforded the latter day king of City Hall in the Freehold community centre was a mere forewarning of the spectacle awaiting him outside.

Protesters from West Hendon had a noisy, blisteringly attentive reception of their own for Boris, as he tried to make the short journey from the centre to the three tiny houses across the road. He was clearly shocked by the level of hostility awaiting him, and his only attempt to make another speech was drowned out by the demonstrators:

Thank you, thank you Boris, for the houses, sang a protestor, dancing madly around him.

Whose Mayor? Night Mayor ... £250,000 a year is chicken-feed ...

What about water cannons, Boris?

What about Wonga, Boris?

Housing is a human right,

You don't represent us, Boris ... Go home Boris: we don't want you here ...

And waiting outside patiently, as he hid inside one of the three council houses, were a line of women from the estate Barnet Tories want us all to forget about, where the tenants no one wants were left to rot in damp, rat infested housing, waiting to become the dispossessed, moved out of their homes, out of this borough, in a last act of gerrymandering, social cleansing Tory policy in action, but still, to the last minute, clinging defiantly to their hard won sense of community.

Whose West Hendon?

Their West Hendon.

Take a look, Mr Mayor, then walk on by.

But Mrs Angry suspects you won't be coming back to Broken Barnet any time soon, somehow.

What makes you think you're talking to someone who cares, asks Robert Rams?

F*ck knows, says Mrs Angry.

Come with Mrs Angry, now, to a moment lost in time, the Cabinet and Cabinet Resources meetings that took place on Wednesday night. Yes, I know, doesn't sound very inviting, but bear with me.

A moment lost in time, maybe, but one that must be retrieved. In the course of the two meetings, our Tory Cabinet members excelled themselves in a performance of the utmost contempt for the needs of their residents, just inches away from the starting line of local elections next month. Read on.

Cabinet Resources began with a low key discussion about an uncontroversial subject: preventative healthcare. Not controversial, yet still our Tory members like to approach the issue from the point of cost effectiveness, rather than say, quality of life, or even the noble ambition of keeping residents alive longer, so as to enjoy a longer span of years in this other Eden, the demi-paradise we once called Broken Barnet, now this sceptic isle of Capitaville ...

Lots of mumbled thoughts about whether or not to encourage health checks, or, the subtext went, to leave the feckless poor of Broken Barnet, who have failed in their duty to provide themselves with private healthcare , to kick the bucket earlier than necessary, relieve the council of the burden of their dependency, and generate more fast moving profit for the new Crapita Easycrem eternal leisure facility.

Leader Richard Cornelius thought men might be encouraged to take such healthchecks by the little woman at home, if necessary. A wife, he said, with a tone of uxorious fatalism, sneaking a quick look at Councillor Alison Cornelius, might cajole her husband ...

Mrs Angry shivered, and tried very hard not to think of Councillor Alison Cornelius cajoling Councillor Richard Cornelius, in the dark hours of the night. Back to Eden, perhaps, and Eve, and an apple, and Richard Cornelius with a fig leaf. No. Or maybe Lady Macbeth, and a dagger? Hmm.

Move on, Mrs Angry.

Ah. Parking. Safer ground.Well, no, not really. A minefield, in fact, but one through which our Tory councillors wander like rambling sheep, oblivious to all electoral danger.

Tory Brian Gordon, presently a Hale councillor, but jumping ship to Edgware because he had the sense to see marginal Hale will be taken by Labour in May, was presenting a Task and Finish group report on this, perhaps the most stupid blunder made by his party since re-election - although clearly it is hard to choose, from a very long list.

With the masterly political instinct that Barnet Tories so often indulge, they had easily allowed themselves to be 'persuaded' by their former colleague Brian Coleman that residents of this borough would be happy to be milked of every last drop of their hard earned money through his idiotic parking scheme, which featured the removal of all cash parking facilities.

Of course this had a catastrophic impact on all residents, but especially on our high street traders, who saw an immediate drop in footfall, and who are still battling to preserve their businesses.

The T&F group found that it would not cost that much to bring back cash parking, and theoretically would be fairly easy to implement, however ... Ah. Come on then: let's have it.

No need to rush into anything. The already tinkered with 'improvements' still needed time to 'kick in' ...

Turning the clock back, said Cllr Gordon, can have a lot of adverse consequences ...

They would delay any action until a later date. We mustn't jump on people. Thank God, thought Mrs Angry, casting a baleful eye on some of the more portly Tory members seated at the table. That was too frightening a thought.

In the meanwhile, they would concentrate on 'more and better publicity' ... Better signage.

Yes, thought Mrs Angry: that'll help.

Here is the fatal fault line that runs right the way through the political strategy, if that is what it is, of our Tory councillors.

Take an ideologically based policy. Convince yourself it is a magnificent idea. Do not consult your residents about it, except after you have already agreed upon its adoption, or unless you have created a form of consultation that will produce the outcome you want. Ignore all criticism. Stifle all public debate. Impose the policy. Stand back and wonder why everyone hates you, and write an article in the Guardian about how fantastic you are. Stand for re-election, and lose your seat.

Robert Rams spoke up now. His contributions to any meeting are always the same: childish, point scoring, confrontational, negative. Point scoring and confrontational, but inadequately delivered, so counter productive: he succeeds merely in trivialising all debate in which he takes part, and ends by looking foolish. In the tradition of Barnet Tories, he fails to recognise this and learn from his mistakes, even at this late stage before the election, in which he is about to lose his seat in the highly marginal ward of East Barnet.

He commented now (and Mrs Angry observes that she has written IDIOT! in big red letters next to her notes) that Labour were 'grandstanding' in their opposition to the parking policy, and that they are wrong to think they are 'resonating' with residents. In other words, residents and traders of East Barnet, your councillor thinks the new parking regime is enormously popular and that you will be rushing to the polling station on May 22nd to express your gratitude to him. Oh dear.

Labour's Alan Scheiderman came to the table to present the Labour conclusions to the T&F report. He commented that residents clearly wanted the 'choice' of paying by cash (of course Tory 'choice' is only for Tories, isn't it? Also many of the boroughs the group had studied had returned to cash payment or like Lambeth abandoned plans to remove it. The Tories in the T&F were broadly in agreement over the findings, yet, he said, it would appear that they had been 'sat on'. Mrs Angry wondered which was a worse fate, to be jumped on, sat on, or cajoled by a Tory councillor?

Do the right thing, pleaded Alan, and bring back cash parking ...

Deputy leader Dan Thomas tried knocking the discussion off course by a reference to vouchers, and the unpleasantness of having to rummage around in his glove compartment. Mmm. Mrs Angry could imagine that might be best avoided.

Ah. Now the delightful Tom Davey's turn. Although he is one of the doomed but doesn't know it councillors for Hale, he lives in Mill Hill and claimed the traders there are 'doing well'. The parking places are always full. A delusional Richard Cornelius agreed. No one could say the way the changes were made two years were ideal but there was no immediate need for change. Oh dear again.

The Tories have failed not only to realise the damage this scheme would inflict on residents, they have failed to to understand the politicial consequences of their actions on their own electoral futures.

Like the last days of an ancienrégime, there they sit, hiding behind the shutters, playing cards, while the mob gathers below the balcony ... think 'Carry on, don't lose your head', rather than Danton, though: great tragedy this ain't: knockabout farce, bien sûr.

Cornelius may admit now that the way in which the changes in parking were made was wrong: significantly, and in contrast to most of his own colleagues, he will not admit the principle is at fault - from the perspective of an affluent resident of Totteridge, to whom parking charges are of no consequence.

In truth the vast majority of Tories knew that Coleman's parking programme was disastrous, but did not speak out for the same reason they are only now beginning to dare to criticise him publicly. They were too scared of what he would do. The blogpost he wrote about many of them, exposing their personal vulnerabilities demonstrates exactly the reasons for such cowardice: he knows them all too well, and is happy to share their secrets with the world.

The meeting continued with another policy that needs deconstructing: the refusal of the council, during the règne de la Terreur of Brian Coleman, to allow any road safety measures to be installed, and indeed to remove as many as possible. The legacy, in terms of the number of accidents, is undeniable, and Tory Kate Salinger came now to discuss something which would have been unthinkable in Coleman's time: the approval of 20 mph speed zones in the borough.

Any such policy would never have reached the table in the bad old days, of course. Yet now, approval was given, with no real opposition. Such vital measures, life saving actions, so easily approved, and so long resisted: why? See the above. Shameful.

Next up: empty homes.

This time we had the considered opinion of another Salinger, Kate's husband Brian. He asked 'what is an empty home'? He might be the man to know, because of course he is a landlord himself.

A difficult question for Barnet Tories, generally though, because a house is not a home: it is a property. And poor people are not entitled to homes, because they do not own houses, and are not property owners. They are a burden, and are best removed from the borough, sent over the border like refugees, in search of resettlement in another country, where other poor people live. Come back when you are rich, and can afford a penthouse flat in Hendon Waters.

As usual, the concern about empty properties was not so much due to any consideration for the plight of homeless families in the borough, as the cost for the council of providing those homeless families with accommodation.

As we tried to point out to the Mayor of London the next day, before they abolished the problem of having the longest housing list in the UK by ... abolishing the waiting list ... there were around 18,000 households or applicants that were without a home in this borough.

Brian Salinger thought one way round the problem was that residents should be encouraged to grass up their neighbours, if they thought that their empty homes were unoccupied for too long. In which case, Cllr Salinger, may I whisper in your ear about a dozen or so properties, in an appalling state of neglect, standing vacant for about, oh, 25 years, up the road in Bishops Avenue?

No? Not interested? But then, as the local Tory councillor Andrew Harper observed of the billionaire absentee owners, 'That's their prerogative'.

And, as housing spokesman Tom Davey reminded us:

If you buy a house and want to leave it empty, it's up to you ...

The rich have a prerogative, in Broken Barnet, and the poor have nothing but the hope of dislodging this adminstration of mindless capitalists, and replacing it with elected representatives with a sense of social justice.

Roll on May 22nd.

Musical chairs, now, as the Cabinet meeting ended, and Cabinet Resources began, and members swopped seats.

There was only really one obviously important issue on the agenda: the matter of the 'regeneration' of West Hendon, and the attempt by Barnet Homes to extort £10,000 from all leaseholders for alleged maintenance charges, in respect of work the council's agency claims must be done, even though the buildings are about to be demolished, and even though much of the work listed should have been carried out by the authority many years ago. The council was now proposing the offer of some sort of discount, but will not write off the demand. Not good enough.

Residents' representative Jasmin Parsons had submitted no less than 95 questions on the subject of these issues: careful, detailed, well informed and well focused questions. She has a wide grasp of the subject, and has challenged the council's position with reasoned argument, and now presented her case calmly and courteously, but with insistence, speaking on behalf of all those residents, leaseholders and tenants, who need an articulate spokesperson for them in the terrible uncertainty in which they now find themselves.

That all of this was of no consequence to our Tory cabinet members was perfectly clear to see. Their indifference was expressed in different ways, but the most objectionable response was from Robert Rams, who sat sulkily through Ms Parsons' contribution, ignoring her comments, and openly playing with his phone as she spoke, and as Tom Davey attempted to pretend to address her concerns with a slow, patronising belittling of the points she was trying to raise.

We are both in this together, he pronounced, absurdly.

Mrs Angry called across from the public seating, objecting to Rams' rudeness, and suggesting he stopped tweeting while Jasmin was speaking.

His reaction to this may be observed in the footage below.

I think, he jeered, in an outburst of infantile fury, you mistake me for someone who cares what you think ... ?

Mrs Angry laughed, commenting that he sounded like a small child, and if he was a child of hers, he would be sent to his room at once. But really: Rams' colleagues, and the senior officers around the table stared at him in astonishment.

(In fact Mrs Angry's children, when small, always ignored her when she tried this form of parental discipline, and refused to go: Miss Angry would wobble her lip and cry, and her brother would fold his arms and say, I'm not going, and you can't make me. But still.)

I'm not going, and you can't make me, said Robert Rams, aged six.

Well, no: he didn't, not in so many words.

He might as well have.

The Chair, Daniel Thomas reminded Rams that they had a rule of always ignoring heckling.

Mrs Angry reminded the Chair that it was not acceptable for a councillor to sit playing with his phone rudely while a member of the public was addressing the committee, and Thomas reprimanded his colleague, and told him to pay attention - advice which he ignored.

Jasmin tried to resume her supplementary questions.

When you've finished with your 'twitter', please ... she began, looking at Rams.

I'm just looking you up, to see who you are, he said, grossly disrespectfully.

With great dignity, Jasmin ignored him, but it was clear he was trying to find personal information about her, which was not only discourteous but absolutely inappropriate behaviour at a committee table, to a member of the public.

Can you imagine if a member of the public, sitting at the table, had taken out her phone, and looked up Robert Rams? Plenty of fun to be had, if you do.

It might be hard to tear oneself away from his new blog, for example, all about American wrestling: do take a look. It's a hoot.

Mrs Angry is very broadminded, of course, and frankly, if watching a load of oiled up, muscle bound semi-naked men in lycra pants grunting and grappling with each other is your thing: go for it.

Nothing wrong with a spot of wrestling, with the right sort of man, is there, ladies? Not sure about the lycra pants, mind you.

Anyway, Councillor Rams and his business partner are awfully keen on American wrestling, and this week it was revealed that they have started writing a blog about it on the Huffington Post - 'Royal Ramblings': take a look ... very interesting.

They are worried, for example, about Hulk Hogan's return, after that sex tape thing, hold on - got a picture somewhere ... ooh, maybe not. Please, no.

And then:

With annual rumours that the Undertaker's weakening hips will prevent him from fighting again, some have speculated that he could submit to Lesnar.

Hmm. Wouldn't be surprised.

Back to rather more important matters.

Later on in the meeting Rams questioned Jasmin Parsons about her background, who was she representing? Clearly he was trying to discredit her, for whatever reason, and perhaps portray her as a Labour party activist, which to the best of my knowledge she is not. She is, however, a sensible but passionate advocate of her community, and has undoubtedly contributed more to her community than any of the Tory councillors sitting at that table.

She tried to explain.

She carefully listed the work that Barnet Homes is trying to force leaseholders to pay for, work she claimed was not needed, or not being done, or not being done properly, or that should have been years ago by the authority.

The councillors said, oh surely you realise we have a duty to ensure we comply with health and safety legislation. Jasmin pointed out that they had been happy to allow them to live in these conditions until suddenly now, when it was nearly time to knock everything down.

She talked about the effect of the years of waiting, under notice of demolition, the impact on health, on the children now expected to walk a long distance across busy roads to get to a green space, while York Park, meant as a permanent memorial to the many people of West Hendon who lost their lives in the bombing of 1941, is closed off, and torn apart. And now the people on the estate are about to be pushed out of their homes, but suffering in the long period of uncertainty, the insecurity of their positions.

You made your point very well, acknowledged Cornelius, with his air of gracious condescension. Tom Davey, with a not quite perfectly adopted attempt at smooth reassurance, spoilt the effect by observing coolly, with a cold smile, and that dead-eyed look of his, that the council could not be expected to subsidise private homeowners.

There you go, you see: the Thatcherites, faced with the logical outcome of Margaret's right to buy policy, years down the line: shortage of social housing, and owners dumped with substandard properties they were duped into buying, simply don't give a damn.

The report was nodded through, of course.

And let us not fail to mention something else that was nodded through, on the quiet, with no mention, no discussion, but not unremarked by Labour councillors, who have no intention of allowing this to be the end of the matter, thankfully: the cuts to Mapledown School for disabled children, specifically their after school clubs and half term schemes.

Mrs Angry noted that the schools' Cabinet member Reuben Thompstone has shaved off his beard, and changed his hairstyle. Almost unrecognisable. After his remarks suggesting that the parents of the children at Mapledown, most of whom have profound and highly complex disabilities, find 'more creative' ways to fund their children's activities, you might think that is a wise move.

Only 45 days to go to the elections, citizens of Broken Barnet: are you registered to vote?

Please make sure you are, and do your duty, and rid us of these dangerous fools.

Holly Park School, Friern Barnet

We all have an expectation that our children will be cared for when they are at school, and we rely on our local council to ensure their safety, with a rigorous enforcement of the regulations regarding food hygiene.

Young children are at a higher risk from the consequences of failing to uphold the high standards expected in these areas, and the result of such failures could be devastating for pupils.

On 12 December 2013 Holly Park Primary School kitchen was inspected by an Environmental Health Officer from Barnet Council. They gave the school a zero rating, the lowest possible, citing amongst other things:

· Cobwebs and insects over food preparation areas;

· Flaking paint from the ceiling;

· Windows that do not shut, allowing in rain, leaves and insects;

· Leaking pipe;

· Damaged floor tiles;

· Broken ventilation allowing pests into the kitchen;

· No pest control contract;

· Work surfaces and storage areas which cannot be properly cleaned;

· Mould and condensation to the skylight and ceiling in the dry store where food is stored;

· Kitchen staff using broken electrical sockets and extension leads because other electrical sockets were not working;

· No evidence of a current electrical safety certificate;

· Broken lights;

· Broken and disused kitchen equipment which were difficult to clean behind;

· Kitchen staff WC with holes in the walls and ceiling;

· Leak in the kitchen floor;

· An insecticutor (one of those blue light machines you see in kitchens that zap flies and insects) full of dead insects;

· Inadequate and overflowing bins.

Having read the food hygiene inspection report at Holly Park, as well as the follow up visits report, it is clear that something has gone very badly wrong at this school, and that this matter needs to be brought to public attention.

In total there were 21 contraventions of law listed with timescales for remedy ranging from immediately to 28 days. Bear in mind this inspection took place a week before the school broke up for Christmas but, as far as we are aware, parents were not informed of this situation and food continued to be served from this kitchen.

On 14 January 2014 a follow up visit was made by the Environmental Health Officer. Given that this was more than 28 days after the first visit, all of the contraventions of law should have been remedied. Sadly, that wasn’t the case and the follow up report reveals the following:

· The walls and ceiling had not been cleaned and there were still cobwebs and insects in the kitchen;

· The floor had only been given a temporary repair but the Environmental Health Officer required them to monitor the leak;

· Pests could still get in through the windows because they could not be shut – it was suggested that this was becausethe windows could not take the weight of the roofand had bowed out of shape.

· The work surfaces and shelves that could not be properly cleaned had still not been replaced;

· The electrical safety certificate had still not been produced;

· The flaking paint had not been dealt with.

This visit took place a week after the children had gone back to school and food was still being served out of the kitchen.

What is apparent is that most of these issues are structural and denote a total lack of investment in this school kitchen. Barnet are always ready to claim credit for the excellent standards in schools but this indicates they have completely overlooked essential safety in the kitchen of this school.

We would also note that two there are two other schools in the Borough that achieved inadequate food hygiene ratings, Deansbrook Junior School in Hale Drive which scored just one point (Major improvement necessary) and Underhill Infants School which scored two points (Improvement necessary).

You can read the food hygiene ratings for all Barnet schools here:

http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/

Serious questions about the situation at Holly Park must be addressed.

1. Have the problems now been completely resolved and if not, why not?

2.Were parents fully informed of these problems?

If not, why not? Surely they had a right to know -especially those parents whose children have school dinners?

3.Were the governors of the school, including Cllr Brian Salinger made aware of this report?

If not, why not, and if they were, did they not think parents had a right to be informed of the situation?

4.Why did Barnet Council allow a kitchen in such a poor state of repair continue to operate, and why, when they were given a zero rating, did they fail to remedy so many of the contraventions within the timescale set by the Environmental Health Officer?

5.Were there any conflicts of interest between Re, the council’s contractor who now operates Environmental Health, and the Council over the role of the Environmental Health Officer, given that the Officer now has two employers –Capita, before they enter and after they leave the premises, and the Council, whilst they carry out the inspection?

In the best interests of all families with children at Barnet’s schools, we ask Barnet Council to respond in full to the concerns raised here, as soon as possible, so as to reassure residents that the privatisation of council services and management of statutory roles in the One Barnet programme is not placing children or any other residents at risk.

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any.

Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries ...

Thucydides, The History of the Peleponnesian War

After four years, four long years, Tuesday night's last full council meeting of course marked the end of an era, in Broken Barnet. The last time we would see the same company of characters on the same stage in the pantomime performance that is the norm on these occasions: the knockabout fun, the hissing at the villains, the audience participation, and the complete absence of any meaningful engagement in the process of democracy: how we will miss it. Will we?

Mrs Angry arrived a little early, so as to show her support for the the Your Choice Barnet workers gathered outside the Town Hall, to protest at the outrageous cuts in their already low salaries, imposed because, to the surprise of no one with any sense, the business model based on making profit out of providing care to vulnerable and disabled residents is fundamentally flawed, and the financial disaster which has ensued must be paid for by the workers who carry out this vital service, to such dependent users.

Mrs Angry understands that the six figure salary of Tracey Lees, the Chief Executive of the Barnet Group which controls YCB will not be reduced, of course.

Councillors were arriving for the meeting, and were greeted politely by demonstrators, who offered them leaflets, which clearly the Tories were not keen to accept. Hello: Mrs Angry spotted disgraced former Tory Councillor Coleman slipping in the front door, and greeted him. 'Good evening!'

And then, readers, in front of witnesses, he mouthed: 'OH FUCK OFF' at Mrs Angry?

Wasn't that awfully rude?

Of course Mrs Angry was educated by nuns, you know, at one of the local Grammar schools Brian is always praising, as indeed he did again last night, so she did not reply, as she might have done, if she were not so retiring and genteel: Fuck off yourself, you great eejit.

Up the stairs to the council chamber. The bell tolls mournfully and the councillors trail in. The Mayor processes into the chamber like Cinderella, accompanied by footmen, but no pumpkins. The Rabbi begins his address, the usual forlorn prayer that our wretched, troughing councillors might act to spread God's spirit on earth, 'caring for those less fortunate' which, sadly, our Tory members interpret as 'not caring for those less fortunate'.

Questions and answers from our representatives from and to the Cabinet members. Some cracking examples of idiotic, arrogant responses.

Labour leader Alison Moore had asked a question about tenants struggling with council tax. Here is the stupid reply from Cllr Tom Davery:

Based on HMRC information, there is no such Tax levied in the UK.

Labour's Alan Schneiderman, to Tory 'leader' Richard Cornelius:

Why have Tory councillors not attended any of the 'question time' events organised across the borough despite being regularly invited?

Cornelius: Conservative councillors have not chosen to attend these meetings as they are organised by those with a predetermined view.

Oh, how Mrs Angry chortled to read this response.

She had forgotten that the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet do not subscribe to a predetermined view, on any subject, and retain that perfect curiosity of intellect for which they are now renowned, the length and breadth of the country.

Two very interesting questions from Tory Brian Salinger, in regard to a very interesting matter: the case of the missing council laptop that his former colleague Brian Coleman has admitted he disposed of, sometime last summer, for reasons unknown to us.

Quite how this curious loss was discovered by the council, or why Councillor Coleman felt obliged to rid himself of his laptop is one of the great unsolved mysteries of the twenty first century.

At the last council meeting naughty Brian Coleman was formally censured for disposing of his laptop. He ran out of the room before the Mayor could utter the reprimand, of course.

Salinger asked:

What progress, if any, has been made in investigating the nature of any data loss connected to the censuring of the non-aligned member at the last council meeting?

(Brian Coleman is now so toxic a name in Barnet Tory circles that he must not be directly referred to, nor may any member look him directly in the face, for fear of his Medusa like stare, which would turn them into stone, or members of UKIP - not, of course, that you would be able to tell).

Cornelius replied that Coleman's solicitor 'has no instructions' on this issue. The Monitoring Officer therefore asked Coleman some questions - in order to 'assess the risk'. oh dear.

'Councillor Coleman has stated that he does not consider any direct questions on the matter by the Monitoring Officer to be appropriate'. Ah.

And now the Council has decided that the incident requires to the Information Commissioner so that they may investigate the matter.

Which is interesting, because when Mrs Angry asked the Monitoring Officer a few weeks ago about the risk of data loss, and whether or not it was a matter for the ICO, she replied that the matter appeared to be low risk and implied a referral to the ICO was unlikely.

Councillor Coleman, who for some reason always swivels his chair in meetings so as to face the public gallery, rather than the Mayor, became rather disconcerted during the awkward moments of discussion regarding his laptop, and moved ninety degrees east, to turn his back entirely on the Mayor, and then again another reorientation of ninety degrees, so as to turn his back on the public gallery.

Brian Salinger had another question:

Does the council have proof that Councillor Coleman did destroy his council laptop, and that he did so in a manner which would prevent data being recovered from it?

Cornelius replied that this was confirmed in correspondance from Coleman's solicitor, who however failed to answer, as did his client, questions regarding the way in which he disposed of the laptop. As a result we are unable to confirm whether the data contained on the computer was safeguarded appropriately.

So: how did he dispose of it, do you suppose? Was it at the dead of night, with a sledgehammer? Dropped off the Hungerford Bridge? Recycled, at Summers Lane Dump?

Or did you just get over excited, Brian, and knock your tea over the keyboard? We've all done it. Just turn your laptop upside down, and use a hairdryer. Oh. You probably don't need one.

Brian Salinger, by the way, was most ungentlemanly in his reaction to the news, passed on in the corridor by Mrs Angry, that at last week's demo in honour of her new fan, the Mayor of London, she was mistaken as his wife. In fact, not just mistaken, accused of it.

Mrs Angry is always being mistaken for someone's wife, anyone's wife, endowing herself with this honour by the mere action of standing in the same postcode as any given male resident of Broken Barnet. Must be a body language thing. Theirs, not hers ... Anyway, Councillor Salinger did not stop laughing for at least five minutes, and indeed very nearly suffered an apocalyptic fit. Or do we mean apopleptic? No. Right first time. Rude, thought Mrs Angry.

Brian had one or two questions.

Following revelations that Haringey Council spent £16,000 in Cannes, did Barnet Council have any involvement in MIPIM - or, as he explained, with a commendable grasp of French - Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier - Mrs Angry was not entirely certain he know what it meant, but our Brian was clearly fuming he wasn't asked, as indeed was Mrs Angry, who could do with a trip to Cannes. (Any offers, please DM. Mrs Angry is happy to pretend to be your wife, if necessary. Not yours, Brian, obviously: no offence. Well, actually: yes, a bit).

Anyway, yes, someone from the new Barnet-Crapita Joint Venture 'Re' went - no, not, as you might think, to 'Re'lax in the south of France and drink champagne on a yacht but to ... what was it ... to, dum di dum, where is it ... ah: to publicise the opportunity ... erm, for ... ah, potential partners for the Brent Cross South Development.

Mmm. Bound to be shedloads of those hanging about the Croisette, desperate for a chance to flog a penthouse view of the North Circular, and easy access to Staples Corner.

Oh: the officer from Re was 'supported' by 'a member of Capita who is assisting with the procurement activities for this project'.

We are told: Another Capita representative attended in a business development capacity to promote Re and its service across London.

Why? This was a jolly aimed at property developers, wasn't it?

And then: All costs incurred in undertaking the above were met by Re and Capita. Well, yes: so costs of this trip to the Riviera were at least in part paid for by us, the taxpayers of Broken Barnet.

On to the business items. But first a brief statement from Labour leader Alison Moore about a matter that was exciting the Tory councillors, and of course the non-aligned member, beside himself with glee at the opportunity from distracting attention from the story of the laptop, and all the open speculation that has been swirling around the borough in regard to the circumstances behind the 'disposal'.

A Labour councillor has got into problems over a dispute with the authority over a council tax charge that was incorrectly demanded, now retracted. There have also been several other councillors who were correctly noted as late payers, but are allegedly Tory members. Can you guess, readers, which party is being targeted for attention, and described, wrongly, in a local press article as a 'tax dodger'?

Our delightful Tory housing spokesman Cllr Tom Davey has taken it upon himself to launch a crusade on this false premise, making all sorts of accusations, and absurdly writing to ask the Labour leader if she does not think her position 'untenable'.

This is particularly amusing to Mrs Angry, who suggests Councillor Davey contemplates the great folly of standing in glass houses, and throwing stones.

At this point in the proceedings, the doors to the public gallery opened, and a woman entered with a young boy in a wheelchair. He clearly has severe disabilities, and, as his mother, who sat next to Mrs Angry, explained, he is a pupil at Mapledown School, the school near Brent Cross, which is facing cuts in budget from the council because our Tory councillors prefer to give a 23 pence a week tax cut as a pre-election stunt, rather than support Mapledown's after school and half term schemes, which offer vital respite care to the families of their pupils.

Tory Cabinet member for schools Reuben Thompstone has suggested to parents like Juliet (not her real name) that they are more 'creative' in raising the money taken away by him and his colleagues. And Tory leader Richard Cornelius sees nothing objectionable about cutting tax in order to win votes, even if the burden is carried by the disabled children of Mapledown: he thinks that the ordinary person on the street will think this is 'fair'.

Yesterday Mrs Angry was out on the streets around Brent Cross, that development opportunity in waiting so eagerly pimped in Cannes, talking to 'ordinary people'. One man, she spoke to a homeowner, very articulate and keen to hold his elected representatives to account, was undecided about who to vote for. He was disgusted by the fact that - and interestingly he volunteered the information, without being told - the Tory councillors had voted themselves a big fat pay rise as soon as they got back in 2010. On the other hand, he was not keen on council tax, or any other tax. When Mrs Angry asked him, however, if he thought the 1% cut, and return of 23 pence a week was worth it, when a school for disabled children, just around the corner, was being deprived of vital funding, he was quite clear: the answer was emphatically - no. Result: the retrieval of one Labour vote.

The main business item was a 'debate' about the budget. Painful, pointless, and full of the usual pantomime performances. Mrs Angry, worried that the heckling that inevitably ensues such infuriating spectacles might upset Juliet's son, asked her if he would be disturbed by such a response, which was already starting. Oh no, she said. This is fantastic. Carry on.

She sat quietly, carefully noting the Tory councillors amusing themselves in the chamber and steadfastly failing to acknowledge her presence, although they knew who she was, as the Mayor had been asked by Labour to move an item forward so as not to tire her son by waiting. In the end, she tired of waiting for any mention of Mapledown, other than comments heckled from the public gallery, and she left with her now sleepy son.

While the Tory councillors congratulated themselves on their political record, and headed off for their usual buffet spread in the members room, she was returning to a life of responsibilities unimaginable to anyone who has not had to act as a full time carer to a severely disabled child, and whose burden of care needs exactly the sort of support they have so blithely decided to cut. What a repellent lot they are.

If you would like to show your support for parents at Mapledown School, please sign this petition:

http://betterbarnet.nationbuilder.com/save_after_school_respite_services_for_disabled_children_in_barnet

Amongst the causes for congratulation demanded by the Tory leader in his speech was the marvellous record on housing development and 'regeneration'. He spoke effusively of the visit last week to Broken Barnet by Chancellor George Osborne, who had stood on the roof of Brent Cross Shopping centre, and admired the view.

An opportunity missed, observed Mrs Angry, thinking fondly of that episode of Sherlock, and Benedict Cumberbatch persuaded over the side by Moriarty.

Tweets for George Osborne from the grateful residents of Broken Barnet, courtesy of http://brentcrosscoalition.blogspot.co.uk/

Rather oddly, Councillor Cornelius forgot to mention a similar visit, also last week, by the Mayor of London, to whom Mrs Angry, in the course of an unexpected and not entirely cordial conversation with Boris, had the great honour of being introduced, by the Tory leader, as A Socialist.

Libdem veteran Lord Palmer stood up now and told us that this was a sad moment for him, as the last council meeting of his career as a local councillor for Childs Hill - lasting 28 years.

He quoted Thucydides, who had recorded the history of the Peleponnesian War, and noted how in war, words change their meaning: in the civil war that has run for the last four years in Broken Barnet, this is most certainly true. The rule of One Barnet dictates that privatisation is only a 'change programme'. The Bedroom Tax does not exist. The Ethics and Probity committee exists only in order to disguise the absolute absence of both, within the dark soul of the Tory party. And so on, and so on.

Palmer referred to the abuse of the term 'regeneration'. The development in West Hendon was not what residents wanted. The Tories didn't care about local residents, of course. He suggested people might be lured into visiting Barnet by a 'Come to Barnet for the Parking Experience of Your Life' campaign. Hugh Rayner, who has been in trouble for misusing his free permit, taken by Tory councillors only on the grounds that they are only for 'business' purposes, shook his head disapprovingly. Barnet Tories believe that the parking system which they do not have to use is hugely popular with residents, of course. Councillor Rowan Quigley Turner commented complacently that 'the public trust us'. Ha. No, really.

Labour's Claire Farrier spoke well about the Tories Totteridge tinted spectacles, that enabled them to overlook the realities of life in areas of social deprivation, like Burnt Oak, where working families are £1600 a year worse off, and those in need of benefits, or afflicted by the bedroom tax are suffering real hardship.

Alison Moore said that Barnet residents need a council that listens, not one that awards itself allowance rises, and free permits, whilst imposing huge parking charges on everyone else.

Standing up to speak for all the Tory members living in lalaland, Cllr Dan Thomas said that all opposition to their marvellous policies came from twenty residents, a very vocal minority, and that widespread dissatisfaction with the council does not exist. Mmm.

Libdem leader Jack Cohen was the only councillor that evening to refer to the Mapledown disgrace, and said the Tories should be ashamed of themselves. Of course he knows, and we know, and now Juliet and her son know, that they feel no shame. In a marvellous, scathing invective, Jack referred to the Tories' incompetence, arrogance, and stupidity. He said residents will see through their council tax cut stunt, If there is any justice in the world, he said, to much rejoicing in the public gallery, the Tories will be sent packing in May.

Very good. Not for the first time Mrs Angry wondered what it would be like if Jack Cohen returned to the Labour party, and become leader of the opposition. How about it, Jack?

Tory Anthony Finn mocked the Labour budget, and the proposal of a 'Fairness Commission'. Easy to laugh, as the Labour budget was poorly thought out, but only a Barnet Tory would denigrate the idea of attempting fairness, of course.

Finn: livestreaming for Mr Shepherd

Finn also rubbished the idea of livestreamed filming of council meetings. This would only benefit Mr Shepherd, he claimed, who could leave his bags of clippings at home, and watch the proceedings in comfort.

Councillor Lord Shepherd was not happy with this suggestion, and loudly demanded the right of reply, which was rudely ignored. Like Mrs Angry, he is a sensitive soul, and takes rejection badly, and was clearly unnerved: later on in the proceedings he was driven to open a can of Pimms and sit there sipping it genteelly - and not offering any to Mrs Angry, unfortunately, as by then she was in need of strong drink herself.

As she regarded the Tory councillors disporting themselves in this way, Juliet shook her head. It's insulting, she said. She left shortly afterwards, and who could blame her?

Departing Tory Andrew Harper stood now to make his goodbye speech. It was a long goodbye. Mrs Angry watched and waited, and as always he did not disappoint his number one fan. His portfolio was still very much on his mind, as he prepared to stand down. In fact he seems incapable of standing down, and letting go. Re-lax, don't do it, Cllr Harper. He rabbitted on about education, education, education, and Michael Gove saying there should be no ceiling - no qualified teachers, you mean, commented Mr Shepherd. He told us all a pointless anecdote about the time when he still had his portfolio, and bumped into a young lady in parliament, whom he was very pleased to see, as no doubt she noticed. The End. Move on.

Brian Coleman was given his go. He mentioned Mapledown in passing , commenting he had been to prizegivings there, and yes, yes, all very moving etc - said in an unconvincing tone of voice that somehow lacked any suggestion of being - well: moved - and was spoiled by being followed by a dismissal of anything that smacked of 'mother and apple pie' ...

He pointed out that the role of the LEA is declining, which indeed it is, with all the free schools and that sort of carry on. I remember the days, he began ... nostalgia begins here, for Coleman, at the end of his career, and with only things to look back on, rather than to.

He referred to the failings at Edgware primary school and also noted the number of Barnet schools that are so highly praised, but full of pupils from far beyond, which is something Mrs Angry has pointed out, at every opportunity, but the Tories refuse to acknowledge. Her old school, St Michael's and QE Boys are amongst the worst culprits for this. The previous headteacher of the former school often stated that she did not care how far her pupils came from, as long as they got to school on time, and as long, the subtext went, that the school was able to cream off the highest scoring pupils in the wider London area so as to retain its position at the top of league tables, rather than serve the local community.

Tory Reuben Thompstone, supposed to be the Cabinet member for schools, did refer to this phenomenon in his response. He commented, ridiculously, that on the one hand Coleman moaned about pupils from far beyond Barnet being in Barnet schools, but the school Jack Cohen had been so complimentary about earlier in the discussion, St Agnes, was full of Polish pupils.

Erm ... But they live in Barnet, replied Jack, stunned by Thompstone's lunatic logic.

Perhaps, thought Mrs Angry, Councillor Thompstone imagines the children at St Agnes travel back and forth from Warsaw every day. Or does he mean ... they are not really to be considered residents of Barnet, because they are from Eastern Europe?

Councillor Thompstone is from New Zealand. As far as Mrs Angry is aware, although he was reluctant to put his details on his declaration of interests until asked, he lives in Barnet, and does not commute to the Antipodes. Although some parents at Mapledown may wish to think creatively about finding the money to pay for a one way trip back home.

That was nearly it. Just time for our Tory councillors to show themselves in their true blue colours once again, and refuse to support a motion to extend the lease of the community library - the People's Library, in Friern Barnet for ten years. When they voted against this, Tory Kate Salinger, who caused uproar recently by trying to claim credit for saving the library from erm ... her own party policy of cuts, left the chamber, in an apparent fit of coughing.

The Tories will not extend the lease because the building is too valuable an asset, and they intend to dispose of it if they can, if they are re-elected. No amount of coughing or discreet exits by Kate Salinger will stop this, if they get back. If you live in Coppetts ward, or indeed anywhere in the borough, and you care about this library, saved from closure by campaigners, residents and most of all, by the intervention of occupiers, then please: vote for a Labour administration on May 22nd, or face the reality of more and more cuts and closures, endorsed by you, and signing the fate of this borough's local services.

In the meanwhile ... do come to the Community Library tonight at 7.30, for a fundraising panel event, with Mrs Angry, writer and library campaigner Alan Gibbons, and local lawyer, former library trustee and Labour candidate Reema Patel. Heckling allowed, and indeed welcomed. No extra charge.

Matthew Offord, MP for Hendon, hiding from his own constituents in a police van

Last night Mrs Angry returned to the Community Library in Friern Barnet to take part in a question time event with Reema Patel, local campaigner and former library trustee, local councillor Barry Rawlings, and writer and library campaigner Alan Gibbons, who had also come to the library's 80th birthday celebration a few weeks ago.

It was a genuinely very interesting debate, about books, libraries, the joy of reading, the power of the written word, the danger of the written word, and its exclusion from prisoners now, in the policy of the Condem Government, and Chris Grayling's regime of literary purdah for the inmates of our jails.

Education, in this new world, is for the privileged, and books and knowledge are now become weapons of self defence, in the hands of the underdogs: a risk not worth taking by those in power.

We talked about the stifling of democracy by our local council, and the reversion to a society we thought had been relegated to the past, a nineteenth century world where those at the lowest economic level are subjected to the moral judgement of their betters, and a rule of punishment for the crime of being poor.

We talked about housing, and the iniquitous record of the Tories in Barnet in regard to providing homes for anyone other than the most affluent residents of our borough.

And while we talked, that iniquitous legacy, and the struggle to reclaim our democratic process, over on the other side of the borough, some residents were taking the debate to the streets, and making their voices heard, even though the man they wanted to hear refused to listen.

Although unable to attend, as always the eyes and ears of Mrs Angry are everywhere, and she has had eyewitness accounts, a selection of photos, and footage of the event, so as to report the event.

I've written quite a lot in the last few weeks about the issue of the so called regeneration of West Hendon, and in particular the plight of the residents of the estate over looking the Welsh Harp, where Barratt Homes, with the enthusiastic backing of Barnet's Tory councillors, are creating a private development for those who can afford it, with luxury penthouse flats for the Russian oligarchs housing Cabinet member wants to come and live here, while he pushes the residents who are not so fortunate out of the area, and out of the borough, in many cases.

Canvassing in this area has been an eye opening experience, seeing ordinary families left to cope with substandard housing, neglected for decades, damp, overrun with rats, and left for years in many cases as unsecure tenants, with no idea where they will be living, when the properties they live in now are demolished, as they soon will be.

Those residents who were council tenants, and fell for the Tory offer of buying their homes, are now the leaseholders of unsellable properties, and reeling from shock after being given bills for £10,000 each for work which Barnet Homes insists needs doing, even though the buildings are about to be knocked down, and much of it was the responsibility of the authority, and should have been done many years ago.

Last week Jasmin Parsons, a representive of West Hendon residents' groups, came to a Cabinet meeting at the Town Hall, to try to reason with the councillors about this attempt at extortion. They clearly did not want to listen - and Robert Rams was more interested in playing with his phone.

Tom Davey coolly explained it was not the purpose of the authority to subsidise private homeowners. A discount might be made, but it is unclear how much this will be, and if it will be adjusted to exclude the unnecessary work that residents claim represent much of the maintenance bill for which they are being charged.

Only today we hear that residents are being sent letters that are final demands that they pay for electrical work, and that they now have only 28 days to pay up.

Last night there was a meeting in West Hendon organised by local Tory MP Matthew Offord for his constituents.

Some of the residents of the West Hendon estates, who are his constituents, not unreasonably thought they should attend this meeting, and ask him about the future of their community.

And yes, it is a community.

This West Hendon resident has lived there for forty two years

It is a community, that is, until the bulldozers move in to knock down the buildings in Marsh Drive and Tyrell Way, and the people who live there will be moved out and moved on, to make way for the sort of people our Tory councillors prefer to have here, that is to say the sort of people who will vote for them.

Where will the displaced people from West Hendon go? Who knows.

What will the effect of this dispersal be, on the children of West Hendon, and the elderly residents who have spent their whole lives here? No one cares.

What happens to people when they are uprooted from their homes, and moved on, and moved out? How do their children form a sense of being rooted in their neighbourhood, and 'stakeholders' in their own futures? How deep are the faultlines in society being forged by the deliberate upheaval and dispersal of entire communities?

The people of West Hendon decided they would march to the meeting organised by their MP, in a local church hall. Mums, children, older residents, two local vicars led the way. Mrs Angry commends these ministers, for living the word of the gospels in a practical demonstration of the Christian faith.

And for having a sense of humour.

The residents marched through the streets of West Hendon:

When they got to the church hall, Matthew Offord did not want to see them.

All these constituents of Mr Offord, including a serving local councillor, were barred from a meeting with their MP.

Residents were told that the meeting was now private, and by invitation only.

The police presence outside the church hall was reinforced.

The protestors wanted at least to present their petition. No. Offord hid inside, with about 20 or so residents who had turned up independently of the protest. Eventually he said he would not face the protestors face to face, but two or three of them might be allowed in. They refused this condition, and carried on waiting outside.

The footage below shows you what the residents told their MP, though megaphones, while they were waiting.

Best of all is the amusing commentary from three young local boys, who took to the principle of direct action like ducks to water:

Come on Matthew: this is our invitation

This is our community

Whose MP?

Our MP

Who pays your wages?

We pay your wages

Whose Barnet?

Our Barnet

Don't let us down: please just come out ....

A woman commented to the boys about Offord's failure to respond - I'm sure your mother would tell you it's bad manners ...

Me too, said one of the boys

I agree with that, said his friend, firmly.

No reaction: the MP continued to hide inside the hall. The people of West Hendon waited: for ninety minutes.

As darkness began to fall, the protestors still waited.

Eventually, a police van with flashing blue lights appeared to collect the quivering MP, who was so frightened of a small collection of women, small children, and senior citizens. He slipped out of a back entrance and into the van.

The residents of West Hendon that he does not want to engage with came to stand in front of the police van. He cowered inside, staring straight ahead, too scared even to look at them.

The police arrested and removed some of the protestors.

The police van departed, taking the Conservative MP for Hendon away from the group of constituents who had dared to try to exercise their democratic right to speak to their elected representative.

The police then 'de-arrested' those who had stood in his way.

In a rather curious account of this demonstration in a local paper on Saturday, it is suggested that the crowd of local demonstrators was full of housing activists from 'across London'. Looking at the footage it is perfectly clear that this is simply not true. Of the seventy or so people there, Mrs Angry, who is a seasoned observer of these events, can only recognise five people, and the rest are quite plainly largely local women with children, and ordinary residents.

In the article, however, the reporter accepts without challenge Matthew Offord's description of the residents from West Hendon who tried to see him as 'a ragtag bunch', who only wanted to 'cause trouble'.

Yet again the use of filming and social media proves their worth in reporting the facts, rather than the fiction and spin promoted by interested parties involved in such incidents.

In 2015, the de-arrested demonstrators and residents of Hendon will de-select the Conservative MP for Hendon, and replace him with a Labour MP, Andrew Dismore, who will serve his constituents in the way they deserve.

Next month you will have the opportunity to remove the Tory council which has foisted this housing crisis on our borough.

Luckily the Cabinet member for housing, Tom Davey, is in a marginal ward, and is likely to lose his seat.

The protest made by the people of West Hendon is not just about West Hendon.

Whose West Hendon? Their West Hendon.

Whose community? Our community.

Not One Barnet: our Barnet.

And citizens of Broken Barnet: it's up to you, now.

Falsely accused: Labour councillor Kath Mc Guirk

If you live in Broken Barnet, and have been reading the local press over the last week or so, you will have been wondering about the story of what, in one paper at least, was described as a 'tax dodging' Labour councillor.

The councillor in question has in fact not dodged any taxes, and in Mrs Angry's view has been the subject of a profound injustice.

Due to the internal party investigation which was set in motion in response to the council's action, the individual was not able to defend herself from the accusations made - until now, when at last the local Labour party has issued this statement:

Labour calls for public apology after councillor wrongly accused of council tax arrears

Labour asks Conservative council leader for assurances that he was not involved in decision to refer case to police

Barnet's Labour councillors today called for a public apology after a councillor was wrongly accused of arrears of Council Tax although her payments were in order.

Labour is also calling for a statement from Conservative council leader Richard Cornelius to confirm that he had no part in the decision to refer West Finchley Labour councillor Kath McGuirk to the police on an allegation that she voted in a Budget meeting while in council tax arrears.

At a meeting with Cllr McGuirk on 3 April, council officers accepted that her council tax payments were in order, and remained paid up to date at all times. Yet on 4 April the council referred Cllr McGuirk to the police for an alleged breach of the law that prevents councillors voting if they are in arrears of council tax by two months or more.

Labour group leader Cllr Alison Moore said today:

“Kath McGuirk was accused of council tax arrears it's now clear she didn’t owe. The matter was then referred to the police, despite the fact that Cllr McGuirk had received a letter from the council confirming that she owed no monies.

“I think there are serious questions to be asked about what went wrong in this case, how council tax and benefits processes are being handled by Capita on behalf of the council and whether commercial companies are the right people to be dealing with such sensitive services on behalf of residents. “Given that the monies weren't owed, the council or Capita should be thinking about a public apology.”

West Finchley Labour councillor Kath McGuirk said today: "I regret that it wasn’t possible to make the facts of this situation public earlier and I am glad to now be able to explain to people in West Finchley what has been going on.

"Barnet Council mistakenly issued me with demands for council tax arrears and then with a court summons, which I challenged because my payments were in order. "I would like to emphasise that the summons was not acted on because it was issued in error, and my council tax payments were not in arrears. It is not true, as has been suggested by some, that the summons was withdrawn because an amount owing was paid when the summons arrived. This is a completely false rumour.

"By mistakenly issuing the court summons, the council has set off a chain of events and rumours that should have been dealt with much earlier.

“This culminated in the council asking the police to investigate whether I had broken the law by voting on behalf of the people of West Finchley in a council meeting. The council did this in the full knowledge that I was not in arrears of council tax, that my dispute over alleged arrears was upheld and that Capita had written to me apologising.

"Because of the statements issued by the Leader of the Council about this matter, and because of the call from Conservative councillor Tom Davey for Alison Moore to resign because she refused to make my name public while these false allegations were properly investigated, I will be seeking assurances from the council that there was no involvement of Conservative councillors in the decision to refer the matter to the police.

"The whole affair raises the question that if Barnet Council can commit errors and mistakes like this against their own councillors, how many other summons and arrears notices are being issued wrongfully in our borough, against people who can hardly be expected to have the knowledge of council procedure necessary to see that the arrears notices are plain wrong? We know that across the country thousands of mistakes have been made in the way council tax benefits have been cut, most notoriously with the bedroom tax. It is a bad, heartless and incompetent Conservative policy that is then itself being implemented badly, heartlessly and incompetently by Conservative councillors.

"This is another example of the inefficiency, time-wasting and incompetence that has been brought to Barnet by the disastrous rush to privatisation started by Mike Freer and now continued by his glove puppet Richard Cornelius."

It is now absolutely clear that Kath Mc Guirk, an intelligent, passionate and articulate Labour councillor of many years' loyal service, has been deliberately pursued by the council with ruthless zeal over an issue which is and was demonstrably based on a false premise.

The damage done to her reputation, and the Labour party, and the timing of the action taken, raises serious questions as to whether or not the decision to refer the matter to the police was in any way influenced by political considerations, or pressure from individuals. As if that could happen here, in Broken Barnet, Mrs Angry ...

Well, yes, it could and it may well have.

And clearly there is a wider issue here too in relation to the involvement of Capita, which is now responsible for the collection of council tax: how many other residents have been sent bills or summons for money they do not owe?

There must be a full investigation into the circumstances in which this matter arose, not just for the councillor involved, but on behalf of all Barnet tax payers now beginning to face the real consequences of the Tory privatisation of our council services.

More later ...

On the same day it was revealed that a Labour councillor had been wrongly accused of 'tax dodging' and a decision made to refer her to the police, just before the period of purdah began, another story emerged regarding a Tory councillor and the grossly distasteful comments he has published on his Facebook page.

Tom Davey is the Cabinet member for housing.

He is still only in his mid twenties, and Mrs Angry has frequently commented on his lack of maturity and unsuitability for the responsibility that such a post represents.

Such an opinion is based on the evident delight he takes in spouting inflammatory comments in council meetings about those for example, working in the public sector, who should get a 'real job', (Tom Davey's real job is working for a tobacco company) ... the poor, the homeless, who lack 'aspiration' - after all, 'you can't help those who won't help themselves' ... and he wants to see Barnet populated by those who are not 'dependent on council services'.

As Mrs Angry has previously commented:

Obviously Cllr Davey uses no council services, as his feet never touch the pavement, he has no rubbish to be recyled, other than his half baked political ideas, and judging by the content of his contributions in debate, has failed to take full advantage of the benefit of our marvellous local education system, so highly praised by Richard Cornelius.

In his time in charge of housing, Barnet's new housing rules have imposed a five year contract for new tenants in social housing, a limitation which means families now have no security of tenure, no assurance that their children will have continuity throughout their young lives, and education, and that the tenants cannot commit to rooting themselves in a community - or call their house their home.

To wean the feckless poor out of their pointless lives, groaning under the weight of a lack of aspiration, social housing is now to be allocated to those who can prove they have made a 'positive contribution' to society.

The children of the undeserving poor must be punished, in other words, for their parents' failure to become social entrepreneurs, in between looking after them, and working all hours in a low paid job, or, even worse, depending on some council service or benefit to support them.

More recently, in the arguments over the lack of social housing, or even affordable housing, in the so called 'regeneration' schemes in West Hendon, Davey has stated that he would prefer to welcome the arrival of 'Russian oligarchs', than ordinary families without means.

After all, he has stated that people must live within those means, and if Barnet becomes too expensive for those without: well ... we only want 'well off' people here, don't we?

Mrs Angry took it upon herself to repeat this stupid comment of Davey's to Boris the other week, when he had the privilege of meeting her at the great celebration laid on by our Tory councillors for the opening of three new council houses in Muswell Hill. The only three built in 22 years.

Boris clearly did not believe anyone would say something so idiotic, but Davey stood behind him, beaming with pleasure, in his moment of notoriety.

Another moment of notoriety occurred last week, when leading website Political Scrapbook featured a clip of Davey spouting his nonsense about people 'flocking' to live in Barnet - as you will hear, Libdem councillor Susette Palmer protests angrily that they are only the people who can afford it, and he responds that 'they're the people we want'.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/04/tory-housing-boss-screw-affordable-housing-we-want-the-rich/

And then yesterday, Tom Davey was featured once more on Political Scrapbook.

This time the story was far more serious, and truly shocking.

'Vile Facebook messages of 'social cleansing' Tory councillor', was the heading, and the article published a number of deeply offensive, sick 'jokes' that were made by him in the year he was elected to council, in a Mill Hill by election, aged twenty one.

Where do we start with this disgusting stuff?

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/04/vile-facebook-messages-of-social-cleansing-tory-councillor/

"...benefit claiming scum beware. ps i don't like paying taxes for you lazybastards! "

He claimed that finding a job would be easier if he were:

"a black female wheelchair bound amputee who is sexually attracted to other women.”

He expressed himself as being "more excited than Harold Shipman in a nursing home", and, perhaps most appalling comment, made a remark that he was:

"smacking his bitch up…that’ll teach her for ironing loudly whilst the football is on"

These remarks are telling: they represent the extreme degree of his political views on taking office, and exhibit the same lack of tolerance or compassion that so clearly underlies the way in which he undertakes his responsibilities.

These comments are not some vague, ironic challenge to 'political correctness'. They are hurtful, hateful remarks that dehumanise the vulnerability of women, disabled people and the elderly.

In the case of someone who was entering public life, it is staggering, frankly, that anyone would allow such remarks to remain on a public social media profile, and for that, the Conservative party shares responsibility by its failure to ensure adequate vetting procedures and policies on the use of social media while in office.

No wonder that the housing policy in Barnet so mercilessly directs a policy of exclusion of the poorest residents of this borough, and is intent on removing them from the landscape.

Decanted over the border, as economic refugees - or asylum seekers - from the monstrous regime of swivel eyed loon, neo Thatcherites who have sold Barnet into bondage to Capita, so as to concentrate on something else, something more abstract, less tangible - an ambition beyond the practicalities of a commissioning council.

Because now they are moving onto another level, and one which is truly frightening.

The Tory mind sees the pursuit of individual liberty, and the principle of choice, as fundamental to their philosophy.

Except of course they mean liberty for themselves, and choice for people like them.

Freedom is too dangerous to leave in the hands of the lower orders, the benefit scroungers, people who do not live within their means, and expect everyone else to support them.

The logical progression, therefore, of a true blue Tory council - of a Conservative government - is the adoption of policies that do not serve the people, but rules the people - that shapes their lives, and minds, and controls where they live, and where they go to school.

You might call it social engineering: you might call it something else, something much worse - and there will always be those in the Tory party whose views and actions take us dangerously close to the edge of such wilful interference in the real rights and liberties of ordinary people.

Apologists for Davey point to his youth, and try to excuse his behaviour on the grounds of past indiscretion.

In fact Mrs Angry can reveal that only last April a complaint was made to him by her, which he forwarded to leader Richard Cornelius and Cabinet colleagues, regarding another matter relating to his then publicly displayed Facebook pages, after a resident contacted her with a copy of a highly offensive image that they had seen there.

As the matter involves a third party, Mrs Angry will not publish the material in question, but she can tell you that Davey was, in contrast to yesterday's revelations, utterly unapologetic, and indeed continued to maintain the image was amusing.

No action was taken by Richard Cornelius, and indeed it would seem that Councillor Davey continues to retain his full support, despite the further embarrassment caused by yesterday's revelations.

In the local Times newspaper, Davey says:

"These comments from 2008/2009 were intended to be in a jokey saloon bar humour. “I realise that they are offensive terms and I regret allowing them to appear. “They do not appear funny now with the benefit of hindsight. I am very sorry for this error of judgement.”

Not sorry enough to resign, it seems.

Labour leader Alison Moore commented:

"These comments are totally unacceptable for anyone to make, much less an elected politician. Tom Davey is the cabinet member for housing and he makes decisions that affect the very people he attacks in these disgusting remarks. "I am calling on the leader of the council to take immediate action against Cllr Davey - in my view he is not fit for office having made comments of this kind."

To Political Scrapbook Davey defended himself by stating that he has "a dry sense of humour". He also admits that his 'sick jokes' were 'probably a misjudgement in hindsight'.

Hindsight appears only to have kicked in during the last week or so, sadly.

As Mrs Angry remarked to him last year:

I have sat and listened to you in council meetings throughout the last three years and have felt appalled at times at the tone and content of some of your statements regarding such issues as social housing, benefits, bedroom tax, public sector workers.

You are only twenty six years old, and in my view you are simply not mature enough or experienced enough for the responsibilities that you hold, responsibilities that have a huge impact on the lives of so many families and individual residents, struggling to survive in these times of unprecedented hardship.

Davey's misjudgement in these matters is absolutely a reflection of the lack of experience and depth of maturity that he brings to what is a hugely important role: the lives and well being of many thousands of residents rest in his hands.

And that he continues to endorse the juvenile opinions of this fool is a reflection of the abject lack of leadership by Richard Cornelius.

During the debacle over Labour Councillor Kath McGuirk, Tory Councillor Tom Davey could not wait to try to make political profit from her predicament,in which she was an innocent victim.

He started a petition to force the Labour leader to name the member whom he claimed had failed 'to pay the council tax they owe', which was not the case.

And he called for the Labour to leader to resign, as her position was 'no longer tenable'. Here

again he repeats the claim that she had tried to dodge her obligation, which was untrue:

“I demand that you name the Labour councillor who has tried to dodge their obligation, and make public exactly why they thought they were different to hard working families who pay their tax".

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/cllr-alison-moore-name-the-labour-councillor-who-allegedly-dodged-their-council-tax-bill

The Labour leader is right to call for Cornelius to take action.

Davey should be immediately sacked from his Cabinet position, and in Mrs Angry's opinion, if he had any sense of honour, he would resign as a councillor.

In a few weeks time, of course, the voters of Hale Ward will have the opportunity to send him on his way, regardless of his own decision - or the indecision of Richard Cornelius.

The ward was always likely to fall to Labour, which is said to be the reason his fellow councillor Brian Gordon is standing elsewhere. It is pretty clear now that the Tories will lose Hale, and this fall of this marginal ward will hopefully help Labour to take control of the council.

The tale of two councillors, then: more than the sum of its parts - and a really rather distasteful reflection of political life, here in Broken Barnet.

Updated Thursday - see below:

Let's get the difficult part over with first.

Brian Coleman was right.

There. Said it.

Ok, 99% of the time he is wrong: spectacularly wrong, but this time ... he was spot on.

In fact, he was not just right, he was even more right than he realised.

Councillor Dean Cohen is a member for Golders Green ward. His father Melvin is not only a fellow councillor in the same ward, but currently the Mayor of Barnet - and the other ward representative is Reuben Thompstone, the man who has just cut the funding for after school schemes at Mapledown school for disabled children, and told their parents to think more creatively about raising the money the Tories have cut in order to pull off a pre-election tax stunt.

Dean Cohen inherited the role of Cabinet member for Environment from Coleman, after the latter's fall from grace - and Brian has never forgiven the more junior councillor for usurping his post.

In January, Coleman accused Dean Cohen of spending adisproportionate amount of the Highways budget funds on his own ward.

In an article in the local Times he claimed that:

Councillor Dean Cohen, the Conservative cabinet member for environment, allocated £800,000 of the authority’s £7million annual budget for 2013/14 to his own ward of Golders Green – more than any of the other 20 electoral districts.

Mrs Angry was intrigued by this suggestion. Certainly there had been reports of a lot of activity in Golders Green in recent weeks, nice new pavements, and lovely new trees springing up: look - here is one planted by Councillor Dean Cohen himself ... (this is part of a 'priority fund' which was rolled out in Brent Street, East Barnet Road, as well as Golders Green Road.All Tory wards, as it happens).

Cabinet member for environment, Dean Cohen, improving the environment of Golders Green with a lovely tree a few weeks ago ...

But £800,000 on highways funding for Golders Green?

Mrs Angry decided to ask about this budget spend at the last meeting of the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum.

But, oh dear: the question was not answered, and no one would say why not.

How very odd.

Mrs Angry turned to Councillor Dean Cohen, and asked him what the figures were. He rather tersely replied that he did not know. He claimed the money was allocated according to 'need'.

Ah. According to need.

Mrs Angry was pretty Angry that her question had been ignored: in fact filibustered to the end of a two hour meeting and silenced. But she was laughing up her blogger's sleeve, at the same time, as she had already submitted a Freedom of Information request for the same information. The spreadsheet data at the top is the response.

Strangely, the council claim they do not hold figures for the previous years.

(If Mrs Angry were a cynical, untrusting sort of citizen journalist - yes, the worst kind, of course - she might suspect this is because more data would make the accusation of disproportionate funding even stronger).

In fact, Brian, you were not quite up to speed with Councillor Cohen's spending list.

It was not £800,000 spent on Golders Green this year, in the run up to the elections.

Or perhaps it was then, in which case there has been a bit of a splurge in the last few weeks, because the FOI response has a different figure:

It was £1,055,983.

Last year, Golders Green ward had already been given a generous amount of funding: again the highest level of allocation, £563,542, 66. A total handout, therefore, in two years, of more than £1,600, 000.

Just to put that into perspective, the Labour stronghold ward of East Finchley, represented by members including the Labour leader Alison Moore, received only £157,638 this year, and £164,442,72 the previous year. East Finchley, incidentally, includes the Strawberry Vale estate, the worst area of social deprivation in the borough.

And Colindale, one of the least advantaged areas of the borough, with areas within the UK's top ten percent of social deprivation, as measured in 2012, in terms of income - and of course another Labour ward, received ... nothing.

Nothing. Not a fucking penny.

And the year before it had received a paltry £92, 936.25.

Mrs Angry had to query this amount, as she thought there had been an omission, but apparently not, as confirmed twice by officers dealing with the FOI response. Let's look at a graph representing the last two year's budget spending, ward by ward, kindly created by fellow blogger Mr Reasonable, who has some grasp of statistics, and is quite good at adding up, unlike Mrs Angry.

Well: how very interesting. The top four lucky recipients - by coincidence all Conservative wards - were given more than a million pounds over a two year period: and Golders Green is way ahead of the others, with £1.6 million.

Of course there may be a reason for this need of such high expenditure.

And so Mrs Angry has written to Councillor Cohen to hear his reasoning behind the wildly varying range of budget allocation.

No response as yet.

We await with interest the explanation for the second highest level of funding going to Hale ward, the Tory ward currently blessed with the representation of Councillors Hugh Rayner, Brian Gordon, and ... Tom Davey.

Hale is number 17 out of 21 wards in terms of size, according to the council's own ward profile data, compiled in 2012 - and only number six on the list of most populous wards. It is largely a quiet, affluent residential, middle class area, unlike some of the wards with much lower levels of funding, such as Childs Hill, a Libdem ward, or traditional Labour areas like West Hendon.

Childs Hill, West Hendon, Colindale, East Finchley: these are all wards with areas of high social deprivation - but apparently not worthy of high levels of highways funding. Of course by Barnet Tory reasoning, the feckless poor should not be driving cars they cannot afford, nor expect their pavements to be maintained to the standard of the millionaire residents of Hampstead Garden Suburb, or Totteridge.

Hale, of course, is a marginal ward, and very likely to fall to Labour in next month's elections. This is clearly a coincidental factor, and should not be interpreted as in any way influencing the provision of funding.

But here is another graph, this time courtesy of Mr Mustard, before he was famous - showing the allocation of funding in the last year, and just before the elections:

Interesting to see, is it not, the pattern of blue and red, and all the red drifting towards the bottom of the pile? Burnt Oak is the only Labour ward getting a decent hand out this year - oh, and West Finchley ... guess who lives there? That troublemaker, Mrs Angry. And another troublemaker and, until May 2012, the former Environment Cabinet member.

And yet Mrs Angry's ward is still waiting for the life saving safety measures in the Squires Lane area, funding promised last summer, and delayed yet again until after the election. The crash barrier meant to protect primary and nursery school children at Manorside, destroyed in October, in yet another serious accident while we wait for the safety measures, is still missing, after several requests and promises made. What price is the life of a child, in West Finchley?

One wonders how many other wards have had projects agreed and yet not implemented.

As for Colindale, with £92,000 last year, and seemingly nothing this year - and if this is a mistake, it is one verified by the FOI officers - Mrs Angry understands from local Labour councillors that they have been desperately trying to find out what has been happening to promised repairs and other much needed measures.

It is alleged that all sorts of excuses have been given for the many delays in the installation of a much needed crossing in Aerodrome Road, for example: change of contractors, problems with S106 funding: although these were resolved and the implementation promised for April, councillors have now been told it will be after the election, in June.

Similarly it is claimed that a crossing in Colindeep Lane was delayed by TFL, funding, electrical problems. And residents nearby have complained about pavements, but nothing has been done. No money in the kitty, then? Why? Has it all gone to Golders Green, and Hale, and Finchley Church End?

When Coleman made his accusations about the disproportionate funding, it was revealed that a new system of funding allocation had been introduced by the new Tory Cabinet member:

Councillor Cohen, who was appointed in May 2012, scrapped the previous policy of equal allocation to wards in favour of a new system, under which highways officers identify areas of greatest need.

Cohen explained the apparent disparity in funding levels, claiming that:

... the additional cash handed to Golders Green makes up for a “lack of investment in previous years.

He defended the new way of doing things:

It is based on need. We have a list of roads that are a high priority and that is constantly reviewed.

It comes to me and I make suggestions and take things out but it is always based on the need of an area.

I live in my ward so I am able to identify problems but if the need is in Golders Green then I’m not going to spend money in other areas just because they are not my ward.

So there you have it. Golders Green is in desperate need of highways funding, as are three other affluent Tory wards, and Colindale, and East Finchley are already adequately funded.

Convinced? Or are you worried about the lack of safeguards to protect this vital funding from the risk of political intervention and inequality in provision throughout the borough?

But then inequality and political intrigue is only what we expect, in our borough. This is Broken Barnet: If it ain't broke, we fix it - in a Tory ward, anyway: and if you are foolish enough to live amongst the less advantaged residents, then that's your hard luck.

If you don't like it, you know what you can do - and yes, there is something you can do, next month, on May 22nd: vote for a fairer representation of the real needs of the people who live here, and change this administration of fools to one where fairness, equality, transparency and accountability mean something more than the empty promises of this shabby Tory council. Mrs Angry

Updated Wednesday:

Mrs Angry is still waiting for a reply from Councillor Dean Cohen in regard to questions about this matter put to him in an email on Sunday.

Dear Councillor Cohen

You may recall that at the last meeting of the Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum, I had submitted a question about the allocation of spending in regard to the Highways Budget.

With no real explanation, my question was ignored - I asked you about the matter, and you said you did not remember the figures and claimed the allocation was 'according to need'.

I also submitted a Freedom of Information request for the data which was refused at the Forum, and I have now received the response to this. I can see now why there was such a reluctance to release the information voluntarily.

In the last year alone, more than a million pounds has been given to your own ward of Golders Green, in addition to the previous year's allocation of more than half a million pounds: a total of over £1, 600,000.

Such a total by far exceeds any funding given to any other ward. In fact no ward in the borough has received anywhere near such a level of allocation in either year, and in the current year and in a period approaching an election, such a large amount of funding could reasonably be argued to be totally disproportionate.

In fact the range of allocation would seem to be disproportionate.

I should like to ask you why it is, for example, that Colindale has received only £92,000 in funding in the previous year, and apparently not one single penny this year?

Is there not a risk of a perception of bias in that the wards which gained the most funding are Conservative held wards - the top four all receiving funds over a million pounds in two years?

I queried the amount allocated to Colindale with officers because I simply did not believe it could be accurate, but am assured that it is. Were there really no Highways related problems in Colindale which required attention in the last year?

Do you think it is fair that in two years, £1.5 million should be spent on your own ward, whilst only £92,000 was given to another ward, in a less advantaged area of the borough?

Is the allocation of funding in compliance with the Localism Act and its requirement for local government to follow the Nolan principles in public life, in particular, in this case, the need for 'objectivity' in carrying out public business?

The system of deciding Highways funding was changed by you from an equal allocation process to one by which needs of wards were allegedly to be assessed on a case by case basis. Please explain what safeguards there are to ensure no political influences can be brought to bear on such considerations.

I should be interested to hear your views and look forward to an early response.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Angry

No response at all: so a reminder has now been sent asking again for a reply. Mrs

Thursday:

Mrs Angry has now heard from Councillor Cohen, who has promised her a response. While she waits with great excitement for his considered reply, the Barnet Press has a very interesting article about the fundinghere .

As you will see, Labour Councillors Gill Sargeant from Colindale ward, and Arjun Mittra from East Finchley, are pretty furious about the clear disparity in allocation of funding, and the excuses given for failing to address problems in their areas when £1.5 million has been spent on Councillor Cohen's own ward.

In a frankly ludicrous statement, Dean Cohen now claims that the disproportionate spending in Golders Green is because there is a long road that runs through it.

Can't even be bothered to comment on that one - make up your own response, and send it to Councillor Cohen, complete with descriptions of long roads in your own neighbourhood that have not had a million pound makeover ...

This story has a long way to go yet, I think, don't you?

Thursday 5pm

Councillor Cohen has now replied: Mrs Angry takes no responsibility for his grammatical errors, but do read on:

Dear ms musgrove

As you know a large element of this budget went through the relevant area environment committees and it is there decision not mine.

Where the decision was mine the list was produced by officers on the following criteria set by myself;

Side roads where people live
Roads which have had complaints from residents
Roads which have had concerns raised by members
Roads where money was continuously being spent on re-active maintenance

With regards to colindale, there is huge amounts of development going on there and as a result much improved infrastructure in the highways which wouldn't come out of this budget.
However if colindale ward members or any other ward were concerned about specific roads they had the opportunity at the relevant area environment committee, whether they did I am not the right person to ask.

I stand by my decision to split the money across the whole borough based on need of the footway\carriageway and not evenly across constituencies.

Kind regards

As you will note, Dean Cohen has not responded to the questions about the need to observe the principle of objectivity in the allocation of public funds, nor the safeguarding of the budget allocation from the risk of political influence.

This matter has raised very serious issues of transparency and accountability: most importantly there are urgent questions still to be answered about the gross disparity and inequality in levels of funding given to wards around the borough.

Hey, Barnet: leave our kids alone ... the mums from Mapledown: and pupil Liam Canavan

Of all the stories which this blog has covered over the last four years, perhaps the tale of Mapledown School is the most eloquent example of what is so badly wrong with the values of the Tory group which runs Barnet council.

As readers will know, within a week or so of boasting about a pre-election 'gesture' of a one percent council tax cut, worth around 23 pence a week to residents, our Tory councillors were admitting they had cut the funding for vital support services to families whose children attend Mapledown school for disabled children, near Brent Cross.

The funding was for after school clubs and half term schemes: the cuts, we were told, were unavoidable, due to lack of central funding.

The decision to forego council tax revenue which would have covered any shortfall, due to the need for the pre-election 'gesture' was something that, according to leader Richard Cornelius,'the average person in the street' would think was 'fair'.

And Cabinet member Reuben Thompstone, who has never been to Mapledown School, even though it is in his own ward, helpfully suggested:

“I would encourage the school to be more creative in some of the ways it raises money."

The fury which such statements unleashed not just amongst the parents of Mapledown, but in the wider community and in the media, appeared to have no impact on the Tory administration, other than a sense of bewilderment that anyone should object so dramatically to something that they consider to be so trivial, a footnote in a budgetproposal, money saved to use elsewhere, of higher priority, such as their own allowance rise, or the unquestioned and ever increasing bills from the private consultancies still feasting off the One Barnet privatisation.

The Labour group called in the decision to impose these cuts, and this was the focus of last night's Budget Scrutiny meeting, chaired by Tory Hugh Rayner, attended by several parents, members of staff, and at least one pupil from Mapledown.

Rayner opened the meeting by warning us that we should not have unrealistic expectations of the meeting. The committee's powers were 'somewhat limited'. At best, they could - in theory at least - only vote to refer the decision back to CRC, the Cabinet Resources Committee that approved the cuts in the first place.

Some public questions had been submitted. Councillor Thompstone sat stiffly at the front, obliged at last to confront the reality of his policy in the form of the effect on real people, in the real world. It must have been a deeply uncomfortable experience.

Kristine Canavan speaks to the committee, as Cllr Reuben Thompstone looks on

Kristine Canavan, mother of Liam, who is a pupil at Mapledown, and was present at the meeting in his wheelchair, had asked why, if central government had imposed a 6% cut in funding, had Barnet Council taken a 25% cut from the Mapledown budget?

An officer was wheeled out to respond. Bla bla bla: in summary the excuse was the cut reflected Barnet's own agenda of 'efficiencies' and had little to do with government policy.

Parent Tina Kwabi asked why Reuben Thompstone had not visited Mapledown before the cuts were proposed? Answer the school was due for a visit.

(In fact, Thompstone and leader Cornelius are now invited to visit in the near future, and Mrs Angry sincerely hopes that this will be a useful learning experience for them).

Jill Eden, parent - did the Council consult the parents before the decision was taken, in regard to the impact on them?

The response claimed that yes, in regard to - ah, 'budget proposals' the council had consulted with residents, schools, 'contracted providers' and 'other stakeholders' ... you will note the absence of the term 'parents' in that list. Because this was a broad based 'consultation', and the parents of Mapledown do not register very highly on the list of 'stakeholders' when it comes to general budget proposals.

The last question was interesting, from parent Teresa Bull.

What would be the real impact of these cuts, in terms of the subsequent demands on other resources? No sensible response, just a load of guff about meeting statutory responsibilities.

Teresa suggested it was impossible to quantify how the cuts will affect people in other ways, other than financial, that is. The Tory councillors looked on, bemused. The quantification of non financial effects is not something to which they give much thought, in truth. The stress laid on parents, said Teresa ... the effect on their health ...

Ah: cost effectiveness in terms of a burden on health or social care budgets ... this turned on a glimmer of understanding in our Tory councillors.

You mean, summarised the Chair, that cuts here lead to expense elsewhere?

Now they were beginning to pay attention.

Sarah Sackman sat at the table to address the meeting on behalf of Mapledown parents. She is a barrister, and has acted locally in the case of the occupied library, and of course is also the Labour parliamentary candidate for Finchley and Golders Green.

In what capacity are you here, asked Tory Cllr Brian Salinger? Are you legally engaged? No, not here in her professional capacity, she replied. Clearly there was a suspicion as to her motives. Showing a natural sense of outrage and support for the children of Mapledown is another idea not easily understood by the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

Sarah tried to explain how the impact of the cuts on the families of those attending the school. It is not just the pupils themselves who are affected, because the after school support gives the opportunity for the parents and other siblings to spend time together. These parents spend so many long hours a day caring for their disabled children: the cuts were a false economy because withdrawing such a service makes those parents less able to cope, and creates further demand on resources.

The government, she reminded the committee, has recognised the value of short break care, and set aside its own funding for such purposes: why then was Barnet Council cutting its own funding for this sort of invaluable support? Why not look for alternative funding within its own budget - by cutting councillors' allowances, for example, Barnet First magazine, or even the public health budget?

Time for councillors' questions for Sarah Sackman.

Councillor John Hart was unmoved.

He suggested that the support which was at stake was only one of a number of 'nice things' that must necessarily face the chop.

He recommended 'self help'.

Perhaps you can imagine how well that went down with the exhausted parents sitting in the room, worn down by the relentless responsibility of caring for their severely disabled children.

It was, we were told, all about 'the choices that we make' ...

Of course our Tory councillors seem to have forgotten, or perhaps simply do not care, that although most of us who are parents choose to have children, no one chooses to have a child with disabilities.

Sarah reminded Hart that these schemes are not 'nice things'. For the parents sitting behind her, they are a necessity. As for choices: the budget cuts clearly were political choices.

Brian Salinger, who has a disabled son, said he did understand parents' feelings, but he also understood the constraints on finances. As to allowances, he did not claim all of his, he said, could the same be said about the Labour councillors?

You are an independently wealthy landlord, observed Labour's deputy leader, Barry Rawlings.

Libdem leader Jack Cohen asked if the parents, governors and staff off Mapledown were consulted in November, when the decision had been made?

No, replied the parents in the committee room. Sarah pointed out that parents were not consulted as they could not have known about the proposed 27% cuts in support. Parents responsible for severely disabled children do not have the luxury of spare time to browse the council's website for budget information, and notice such proposals tucked away in obscure reports.

And now it was time for Kristine Canavan to address the committee.

You can watch her here: if you can bear it. You can hear her son calling to her across the room, as she speaks.

You will probably find it incredibly moving.

And if you are moved by this, you are clearly not suited to the role of a Conservative member of Barnet Council, and you may congratulate yourself on the measure of your own humanity, and pity those cold hearted Tories who sat there, indifferently, and later voted to ignore everything she said.

Or worse, the next day, made the most offensive comments in the local press - see here :

Because Cllr John Hart, who did not vote to refer the cuts decision back to CRC, explained to the Barnet Press:

“Why should I?

We need to make economies.

My brother was disabled and there was nothing available for him when he was a boy.

I suggested there are other ways to raise the money.

People are too used to handouts nowadays.”

With quiet dignity, Kristine Canavan tried to explain the meaning of respite care, and tell the councillors what a lifeline it was. It gives time to recharge, she said - to prepare for the unpredictable.

She listed the multitude of problems that her son Liam has, and the challenges he and she have faced in his thirteen years of life: the consequences of a genetic syndrome, and cancer, the difficulties with mobility and visual impairment; the tendency to self harm.

Her daily life as a parent to Liam she described as walking in a minefield: a routine of endless medication, interrupted sleep, temper tantrums, dealing with soiled linen, dealing with an unwell child who is unable to communicate the problem when something is wrong - to say that she has time for 'fundraising', she said, is insulting.

Struggling to cope, for her the after school care was vital: what a difference it made. The support was from trained professionals, who know the children: the staff at Mapledown are outstanding. She is not able to afford the non subsidised care which would replace this care. She asked the councillors, some of whom, notably, were refusing to look at her while she spoke, to reconsider their decision.

We are real people, she said, who love our children, and want to care for them as long as possible: parents need these breaks, and the children themselves need them too ... and then Kristine concluded with that truest of observations ... a society's measure is by how it treats its weakest members.

How we treat our weakest members. Here in Broken Barnet, sadly, we do not consider the needs of our most vulnerable residents to have the same importance as the needs of able bodied, and the already priviliged members of society have a weight of influence and a voice denied to those less fortunate.

As Cllr Davey constantly reminds us, in this borough we want only the well off, and those who do not depend on council services. Or, as Councillor John Hart said today, those who do not demand 'handouts'.

Barry Rawlings, who had called in the Mapledown decision, thanked Kristine for coming.

The Chair wondered aloud about the practicalities of the funding, how the subsidy worked. Then: why, he asked, could the school not use its reserves to do this?

The parents and staff were furious.

In a particularly ill judged letter to the local Times paper, in defence of his cuts, Reuben Thompstone had made a similar jibe, blaming the school for expecting to fund the support:

... with over £100,000 in Mapledown School’s reserve account, it is for the school to determine how best to use their resources for those they serve.

Mapledown's head teacher, Steve Carroll explained later to the councillors, including Thompstone, who should already have known this, as should the officer advising him, that the school is not allowed to use its reserves in this way.

If the school could afford it, he said, we wouldn't be here.

As for being 'more creative', he said, as Cllr Thompstone had demanded: he had spent untold hours raising around £200,000 for the school.

Tory Cllr Maureen Braun regarded Mr Carroll impassively, as she munched on a biscuit.

The gaffe about school reserves by the Cabinet member demonstrates perfectly the total lack of grasp he has on his field of responsibility, and is yet another example, as in the case of Tom Davey, of someone too inexperienced for their post.

Barry Rawlings pointed out that the funding was available to the council, and had been in the Labour budget. There was no reason now, anyway, to refuse to look at the matter again.

Thompstone (or Councillor Reubens, as the Chair kept referring to him) sat at the table next. He has a deadpan expression, and tone of voice, which chunders on and on in the same antipodean drawl, delivered with a pomposity which belies his relative youth, and was received with a less than rapturous welcome from parents and residents alike, who began heckling him.

The Chair tried to intervene, looking sternly at the blogging corner, occupied by Mrs Angry and Mr Tichborne, who took absolutely no notice and carried on regardless, in time honoured fashion.

Thompstone did not exactly help his position. The report, he thought, was a good one. He talked about tough decisions. He made sneering references to 'Labour candidates'. The Chair asked him to address the real issues of concern, but clearly this was not on his agenda, and he was hopelessly out of his depth.

Difficult, of course, to have to defend cuts to a disabled school's vital respite care scheme but then: that is what happens when you make cuts to a disabled school's vital respite care scheme, straight after trying to pull of a pointless political tax cutting stunt for your disaffected voters, weeks before an election.

Jack Cohen had some questions for Thompstone. Had the cuts been made simply because of a political will to reduce budgets? No.

Had he seen the written answers to the limited consultation there had been? I saw a summary of responses, he said. Not individual ones. Why not? It would be prejudicial.

This last response provoked no little outrage in the public gallery, as you may imagine. Clearly Barnet Tories are not comfortable with the concept of consultation, but to avoid looking at the results for fear of being influenced by residents' views is a step beyond the normal line of retreat from reality. Or as Jack put it:

When you consult, you don't look at the answers?

I think you already knew that, Jack, didn't you?

How can you fight your corner, he asked?

At this point, an angry father from Mapledown who had come right to the front to watch the councillors' faces as they tried to justify their actions, shouted at them: You are responsible!

Thompstone was stumped by the last question from Jack Cohen. Which corner was he talking about?

He seems to forget that being a councillor is meant to be about speaking for residents, rather than shutting them up: admittedly he has had a lot of experience shutting them up in the local Residents Forum, where he was Chair when the new rule of censorship was imposed.

No answer.

Did you read the Equalities Impact Assessment?

Yes.

Can you tell us about it?

Outside this meeting.

More outrage. Jack Cohen asked him to say, hand on heart, how he had advanced the interests of the pupils of Mapledown School. He pressed the question: Thompstone's first response was deemed lacking in courtesy by the Chair: he muttered something about maintaining significant something or other, clearly floundering: the angry father got up in disgust and stormed out, and who could blame him?

Councillor John Hart was aggrieved by the reference to allowance rises, and indeed attempted to blame the whole idea of allowances - and this was a refreshing departure - on Tony Blair ...

Brian Salinger mused on what was clearly a dilemma for him. As a parent who had faced similar challenges, and as a committed Conservative, loyal to his own principles. He said might vote to refer the matter back. Follow your conscience, suggested Mrs Angry, showing boundless optimism, and an element of naive expectation in the slightest possibility of a trace of conscience still remaining in the cold, cold heart of a Barnet Tory councillor.

And then Maureen Braun surprised us all. Normally a loyal enforcer of party discipline, she suddenly asked, blurting it out, as if not entirely sure of the answer:

Who is more vulnerable than these kids?

Labour councillors and two Tories, therefore, managed the impossible: to agree to refer the Mapledown cuts decision to the committee that sanctioned it. The two Tories who supported this vote, it should be noted were a parent of a disabled child, and a woman. Of the three who did not, two have no children, and the other is a man of professed religious orthodoxy, but apparently not moved by the spirit of compassion, in this instance.

One problem is that that committee will shortly no longer exist, as the authority is abandoning the Cabinet system. Another is that it will not prevent the cuts from being reaffirmed: a situation that is perfectly likely should the current administration be returned to power.

And lastly it should be noted that not only did the Chair not vote for the referral, three of his colleagues were conspicuous by their failure to support such a move: these were:

Councillor Brian Gordon, Hale Ward, standing in Edgware Ward this time, as Hale, where Rayner is standing, is likely to go to Labour. Edgware is looking more of a risk than previously thought.

Councillor John Hart, standing in Mill Hill, no longer the Tory stronghold it was, and now without the Libdem support it once enjoyed.

Councillor Rowan Quigley Turner, standing in marginal Underhill.

Councillor Reuben Thompstone is a councillor for Golders Green.

Remember their names, on May 22nd.

Harriet, a former pupil of Mapledown, and a much loved member of staff

A tale of three budgets: Part Two - Turn again, or Which side are you on?

Other matters have been considered: Brian Coleman, and a missing laptop

Once upon a time in West Hendon: or - Mrs Angry's guide to social cleansing, Barnet Tory style

The politics of hunger - for St Patrick's Day

A very constructive relationship: Mike Freer, an 'anti-gay' pastor, and Jesus House

Good news all round: the meaning of democracy, and the destruction of a community: two nights out in Hendon

Dangerous obsession: or - the questions about Church Farmhouse Museum Barnet Tories won't allow

Don't ask me what happens next, or: the saving of a library, and who stole it in the first place?

Mapledown: the school for disabled children paying the price of a Barnet Tory tax 'gesture'

The Library that lived: and who saved it? A joint post by Barnet bloggers

Blue Barnet: Mrs Angry sees the light - but the joke's on you

Go home Boris: we don't want you here: When the Mayor came to Broken Barnet - and how it all went horribly wrong

What makes you think you're talking to someone who cares? Another Barnet Tory Cabinet meeting.

Holly Park: the Barnet School with a zero rating for food hygiene - time to answer questions

Words change their meaning: the last full council meeting in Broken Barnet

Whose West Hendon? Our West Hendon: MP Matthew Offord hides in a police van, and refuses to face his own constituents

A Tale of Two Councillors: Part One: the Labour councillor falsely accused of 'tax dodging'

A Tale of Two Councillors: Part Two - Tom Davey, the Tory Councillor with 'a dry sense of humour'

Scandalous: Barnet Council's million pound highways handouts: for Tory wards

The choices that we make: Barnet Tories face the parents of Mapledown School