Tag Archives: Conservatives

Barnet’s mad and bad plan to censor and criminalise the nation’s bloggers

Posted on by

Barnet Council: Attempt to criminalize blogger Pic courtesy:http;// telegraph.co.uk

You couldn’t make this up. Barnet Council already facing trouble for illegally filming residents and bloggers coming to hear a council meeting on cuts, is now  seeking to censor and criminalize bloggers across the nation.

 The council has put in the most ludicrous complaint against a local blogger, Mr Mustard ( real name  Derek Dishman)  to the Information Commissioner claiming he has committed a criminal offence  under the Data Protection Act by not registering as a data controller  because he has made critical comments  about whether some of its officials have real jobs.

Using his right as a citizen he puts in regular FOI’requests to the council.  The row appears to have begun over critical comments questioning the council appointing a £50,000 change and innovation manager, Jonathan Tunde-Wright with  a remarkably verbose and tediously worded job description – for a job that seems to involve privatising everything. Phrases like ” delivery of  system thinking interventions” gives a  flavour ( see http://bit.ly/sQUmyA for full offending blog)

Now  Mr Tunde-Wright has his  personal website which contains his own creed for his work and  a commitment to “transparency and engagement “, ” community and accountability” and also a strong Christian belief :”  My quest to unravel the mystery of the cross of  Jesus Christ. That is a lifetime mission.” Nothing wrong with this ( Tim Montgomerie when at Conservative Home believed both in Jesus Christ and David Cameron). His website – with some interesting comments on council cuts following the recent BBC film is (  http://jonathan.uk.com/)

Now look at what Barnet Council did. On the day the Mr Mustard’s blog appeared they complained to the Information Commissioner seeking he had broken the law – and could face a £5000 fine- because he had ” processed personal data unfairly” and had no protection under the Data Protection Act.

 The council claims wrongly that ” the individuals involved do not refer to their employment with the council on their personal websites “( in fact Jonathan’s contains a link direct to Barnet Council) and ” views on the merits of their personal websites and blogs is not in the public interest.”

Initially rebuffed the council then came up with an extraordinary description of what Mr Dishman was allowed to blog without being forced to register or be prosecuted for unfairly processing data.

According to Barnet the only things bloggers can write about is their own personal data, their own family defined as people related by blood or marriage and their own household, anybody living in their house or flat.

Everything else requires registration and can be subject to legal challenge. The council even found an obscure Swedish case, involving a European Court judgement, against a member of the Swedish church  who released details of a number of local people waiting to be confirmed as why this must be done.

Luckily there has been an extremely robust response from the Information Commissioner.  They have dismissed Barnet’s second attempt with these words: ” If the ICO were to take the approach of requiring all individuals running a blog to notify as a data controller … it would lead to a situation where the ICO is expected to rule on what is acceptable for one individual to say about another.”

“Requiring all bloggers to register with this office and comply with the parts of the DPA exempted under Section 36 (of the Act) would, in our view, have a hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression.”

Thank God for some sanity. But what Barnet was really up to – to suppress freedom of expression, local comment  and intimidate someone who was using his right to ask them difficult Freedom of Information requests. By threatening to criminalize someone who in the ICO’s words writes a blog as a hobby, the authority is out-of-order.

If Barnet had succeeded it would have had enormous implications and costs for bloggers across the country. As Conservatives who are committed to transparency, the council should know better. They need to put up and shut up!

Barnet did not answer my questions about this. But I did contact both bloggers.

Mr Dishman said: “The likely response of the ICO if I needed to register would have been to invite me to register. I would have paid the £35 p.a. which is the only criteria to enable registration. If the council had succeeded in getting me fined £5,000 I would have paid it and then the blog would have become hyper critical and my work rate would have increased. What where they thinking? ”

He said he had no quarral with Jonathan Tunde-Wright or any of the officials named on his website.

Mr Tunde-Wright seems a bit bemused. “Speaking as a private individual it has felt like being caught in a crossfire somewhat.

” I think it is ironic that people like myself (and there are many of us in the public sector) who are truly passionate about public service and community empowerment appear to have been the targets of certain bloggers – talk of picking the wrong targets!

” I also do feel that by going beyond the Post to naming the Post Holder, referencing my personal blog and making particular comments, the said blogger may have crossed the line and placed myself and my family in this uncomfortable place of feeling harassed online.”

Barnet finally issued a statement to the Guardian today(tuesday):

“The council was concerned that an individual had used information gathered by the FOI process and linked this with other information to ridicule and abuse individual members of staff. The council consulted with the ICO as to whether this constituted a possible breach of the Data Protection Act.

 The ICO asked the council to make a formal submission, stating this was a currently a grey area.

It should be stressed that the individuals about which the council were concerned were not part of the council’s senior management team. The council does not tolerate the abuse or bullying of any of its staff.”

Why Britain’s youth should be seen and not heard: the patronising view of a London Assembly Tory

Posted on by

Gareth Bacon: A man who thinks young people should not question him.Pic courtesy: London fire brigade

An extraordinary e-mail exchange has taken place between Gareth Bacon, Tory London Assembly member, and Danny Hackett a 17-year-old Bexley constituent and a Labour activist.

Danny Hackett challenged Gareth Bacon why he has needed to claim up to £2000 a year to get free travel in London when he earned in excess of £150,000 a year – half of it from allowances as a London Assembly and Bexley councillor. Using material from this website he asked him to justify the claim. “A majority of people who live in London pay for travel themselves you should do the same,” he said.

Back came the reply addressed to, believe it or not, ” Master Hackett,” because as Mr Bacon explained later:”I addressed you as “Master” Hackett because that is the correct title for you – you are, after all, a minor. ”

 He went on to explain he was claiming it because he had to pay far too much tax and that  “means that more than half of  it does not reach me, indeed in effect it never leaves the Treasury and exists only on paper.”

Danny Hackett doing something that Mr Bacon would disapprove: Pic courtesy Danny Hackett

Mr Hackett found being addressed as Master ” patronising, rude and offensive” which really set Mr Bacon going and revealed his true feelings about the country’s youth.

“I suspect you have little or no experience of living apart from your parents, university, working for a living, supporting yourself, paying tax, having meaningful relationships, or raising a family. You have little or no practical experience of politics and no experience at all of public life.

“None of these things are faults in you, they are simply factors of your age. .. to be completely honest and fair with you, my advice would be to experience a little bit of life for yourself before you start criticising other people and preaching to them about how they should live theirs.”

However Mr Bacon has offered the youth a chance to vote ( he appears not to want to ban some teenagers from voting on the grounds they are too inexperienced) if he is 18 on May 3 when he stands again for the London Assembly- an invitation which should be taken up more widely.

“You will be able to exercise your prerogative at the ballot box and vote against me – be aware though, that holds no fears whatever for me, as a democratically elected politician.”

 I might suggest that lots of young people take up his offer and see whether he has any fears then.

 Neither Mr Hackett nor me are allowed to communicate with him. “I have nothing further to say to you” he has told Mr Hackett and he has told me when I raised  it with him : “I have nothing remotely to say to you.”

Believe it or not Mr Bacon is a youngish new generation Tory ( he had to tell Mr Hackett he was not an elderly gentleman) with I am afraid a mental age of nearer 139 than his actual 39. I imagine he would very much at home in Victorian England dragging naughty boys to his study to tell them off for daring to question his authority.

But we are in the 21st century and we live in an open society. So what do you think? E-mail Mr Bacon at his public work e-mail address gareth.bacon@london.gov.uk  if you disagree or back him.Email Danny at danny@hackett.org.uk  Tweet @dannyhackett if you agree or disagree with him.

If you want to see what Mr Bacon earns, where he works, as his strong views against trade unions and demonstrators, it is all on my website at http://t.co/0mKytVV. Health warning: Mr Bacon who doesn’t speak to me claims it is ” poorly researched.” Judge for yourself.

 

 

Praise be Pickles: Pity about your party activists

Posted on by

eric pickles- the bloggers friend; Pic courtesy cyclingsilk.com

 

Lynne Hillan- Barnet Tory leader- Queen Canute rather than Iron Lady. Pic courtesy: Barnet Times

Normally I don’t approve of the judgements of Eric Pickles, the  communities secretary, the man Westminster jokes is so much larger than life that he can be spotted on Google Earth. However in a  blog for Conservative Home last week http://bit.ly/i1cKAV the scourge of local government  bureaucrats penned an article backing the idea that councils should open the doors to bloggers and citizen journalists who should be able to tweet and film  to their heart’s content. He of course cited outrageous Labour councils who had banned this. He also praised the work of Maidenhead and Windsor council .

 He wrote: ” Conservative-run Windsor and Maidenhead recently decided to allow members of the public to video local meetings. This week, I wrote to councils encouraging them to follow suit, opening up public discussions to all forms of multimedia. Citizen journalists have as much right as anyone to attend and to share their views, and council ‘monitoring officers’ shouldn’t hide behind bogus concerns about ‘data protection’ or ‘human rights’.

He goes on to describe this new freedom right back to the Blessed Margaret Thatcher who introduced the right  of the press and public to attend council meeting way back in 1960.Isn’t it then doubly ironic that tomorrow night (March 1) Barnet Council, whose citizens returned the former Tory leader to Westminster, should be doing the very thing that Eric Pickles deplores.

 This Tory controlled council has banned videos by the public of the public council meeting saying it is ” against the council’s constitution” and I am told people can be ejected if they are caught tweeting , even though councillors are free to do so.

Indeed bloggers are not welcome at all. Lynne Hillan, leader of the council,  told the Barnet Times:

“The only thing we will do is consider responsible media requests, and they are the only thing we would allow at this stage. If we had a request I would expect an officer to approach me about it. I do not think we would consider a request from bloggers . Only respectable media would be considered.”

This dinosaur attitude from a Queen Canute  is breathtaking. Her ignorance about how the modern world works is absurd. Presumably her next step as Barnet leader will be to table a motion condemning Lady Thatcher for allowing the public by law to attend council meetings.

The best riposte to her comes from the mouth of Eric Pickles himself. ” When councils make these sorts of petty decisions, at best they look foolish and out of touch; at worst they look like they have something to hide.”

 Need I say more. You can. E-mail her with your views at leader@barnet.gov.uk or phone her direct on 0208 359 2059. Her fax is: 020 889 7464.

Update: Barnet kept its word in blocking bloggers and filming at the council last night by employing some rather heavy looking security guards to limit who could get a seat to hear the council introduce cuts and higher parking. According to Mrs Angry, a blogger who did get in, they appeared to be able to overrule local police officers. See her report and pix of  the heavy bouncers employed by the Tory council on her blog at http://bit.ly/i13ngn 

Barnet’s new pioneering Tory policy: Curb free speech

Posted on by

Anthony Finn-permission to speak ,sir? Pic -courtesy Barnet Times

Barnet Council already notorious for cuts as a no frills  Easy Council  – is about to make dubious history as the first borough to curb free speech.

New proposals now sent to a committee  will take away most councillors right to speak at future council meetings unless the Tory mayor, Anthony Finn, gives his permission.

The proposal is part of  a plan to “streamline” debate and procedures  by the ruling Tory group so presumably councillors will have little opportunity to protest at the growing number of cuts and increased parking charges residents have to face.

The Tory group also wants to bar discussion about the work of the Cabinet at the full council and change the scope of debates.

But the most controversial proposal comes from former Barnet Tory mayor Brian Coleman which limits the right even to speak.

His motion says: “To amend the Council Procedure Rules to grant a reserved express right to only the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the main Opposition Group or their spokespersons to speak on Motions, Policy Items and Committee reports at the Council meeting. All other speakers would be called at the discretion of the Mayor.”

The plan from a £128,000 a year  council allowance man  keen to become the new Tory Taliban  follows his humiliating climbdown last month (see earlier blog) when Boris Johnson slapped down his proposal to ban questions to the chair of the fire authority,one Brian Coleman.

Then he was exposed by blogger,Adam Bienkov. This news comes courtesy of another blogger, Mrs Angry, whose Broken Barnet website http://bit.ly/i13ngn  regularly reveals the calamitous state of affairs in the borough.

The proposals mean  as Labour is the official opposition, the government’s coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, could be denied a voice in the borough as could any dissenting backbench Tory. One extraordinary result is that Monroe Palmer, a recently ennobled Liberal Democrat councillor, could have more rights to express himself in the unelected House of Lords than as an elected Barnet councillor.

All this is hardly in line with David Cameron’s promise of more transparency and proper debate.

Barnet Council’s head of media, Sue Cocker, said: ” The council cannot comment on the substance of the report as these proposals have come forward from the Conservative Group. ”

“A review group will be considering the issues and will report back any proposals to a future meeting of special committee (constitution review).”

Richard Robeson, spokesman for the Conservative group on Barnet, would not enlighten people on the proposed curbs. The Facebook friend of Brian Coleman said tersely: ” We do not talk to bloggers or journalists “. If you can do better than me try him at work on 0208 359 2004.

You might ask what is going on by emailing the mayor at cllr.a.finn@barnet.gov.uk.

In future there may be a better way of protesting. The council under legislation will have to provide soon a facility for e-petitions from residents raising issues. How about tabling a motion calling for the council to restore free speech for its own elected councillors.

Netroots: Blogger’s victory safeguards public scrutiny

Posted on by

brian coleman -thwarted by a blogger.Pic courtesy: Evening Standard

Those who went to the TUC’s Netroots conference  last weekend should take heart from the success of one of their active bloggers only days after the event.

Adam Bienkov, aka Tory Troll, spotted that Brian Coleman, chair of the London fire authority, had tabled a paper changing arcane standing orders to abolish the right of any of the elected representatives to ask him a question on fire policy. This was to happen at the same meeting that is expected today to tear up a carefully negotiated settlement with London firefighters over their working hours.

 Brian Coleman, no stranger to this blog, was going against Conservative policy to promote transparency and accountability in public life. He would have probably got away with it without the tenacity of Adam. He published the facts,linked the report on his website and it got taken up – by print media in the London Evening Standard and the Guardian Diary. Soon it was on local radio airwaves and this morning was on regional BBC Breakfast TV.

The result: a complete climb down when Boris Johnson, to his credit, effectively repudiated Coleman, and publicly endorsed the party’s policy of openness in City Hall.

This is worth highlighting because  it  can be replicated with the new Netroots network. Other bloggers can keep an eye on their local council by looking up the agenda of council meetings on the council website  before they take place. And if they see anything nasty, highlight it and get in touch with the local media. Turning sunlight on dodgy council decisions can be really effective. Well done, Adam.

Election Campaign:What the politicians and civil servants didn’t tell us

Posted on by

Are you voting without them telling you all the facts?

The election is virtually over. Tomorrow  you can cast your vote.  The parties will concentrate on their key messages over the last hours before polling day. But have all the issues been covered? No way.
 
Just as there is a black hole in all the parties’ planned spending cuts, there are lots of issues that have not been properly covered and many more that have been completely ignored.
They fall into three groups: there are issues that have been discussed but  not properly explored; there are issues that have been ignored by the political parties; and, perhaps surprisingly, there have been issues that Whitehall – not the politicians – has buried under the carpet.
 
The biggest issue that has not been properly explored is immigration. It was partly catapulted into the election by Gordon Brown’s “Bigotgate” gaffe after meeting pensioner Gillian Duffy, but the parties have tried to obscure the facts.
 
The Tories have promised to introduce a cap on immigration – but it will not apply to the 27 existing members of the European Community. They account for 80 per cent of immigration – according to Channel Four’s fact check file – almost 1.8 million people coming into Britain against 1 million Brits going to live in the EU.
 
While those coming from outside the EU account for only 20 per cent of immigration, according to a BBC analysis for the last recorded year, 8,000 more people left than came in. In effect this makes Cameron’s cap almost meaningless.
 
The Liberal Democrats, while promising to give an amnesty to illegal immigrants who have been here for 10 years, estimate it could help 600,000 – but, as Nick Clegg admits himself, nobody knows where they are. UKIP would block immigration altogether – but that will mean leaving the EU as well. The Liberal Democrats’ policy would mean hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants paying taxes, while Labour say they would deport them all, if they can find them. So more heat than light.
 
Then there are buried issues. The biggest is pensions and how we are going to fund an ageing population. The Tories have promised to raise the pension age to 66 but not until 2016, after the next election.
 
And while the election is taking place, more companies are ending final salary schemes, which will make it more difficult to get a good pension, and the cost of providing care is going up all the time. The parties have touched on the cost of care but the multi billion pounds for pensions has not even been debated. Anyone thinking seriously about this would know that something has got to give.
 
Similarly, for younger people, one issue that might have been raised is the draconian measure – rushed through Parliament just before the election – to curb illegal file-sharing.  There is now a law that could give the music and video business powers to demand internet providers disconnect people from the internet. This has been barely mentioned.
 
Other issues hardly touched on include the environment, overseas aid, transport and housing.
 
But probably the most surprising thing that happened during the election was a decision by Whitehall – which runs the country while the PM is busy campaigning – to ban the release of new statistics which would have revealed how much you are funding farmers and agribusiness through the European Union.
 
Last Friday the EU expected every one of their 27 members to release details of the billions of euros spent subsidising farmers and big companies to produce food for last year. Every country except the UK published these figures.
 
In Whitehall, civil servants took the decision that to release this information in the middle of an election campaign would be wrong. They justified this on the grounds that some Parliamentary candidates might be receiving the  subsidies. I quote the explanation: “This decision reflects the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the UK Civil Service, given the potential risk that … payment  information relating to any individuals involved in the election might be used as part of election campaigning.” Possibly as many as 80 candidates, mainly Conservative, and a few UKIP and Liberal Democrats are benefitting from this.
 
Extraordinarily, in Scotland – where there is a devolved government – the figures were released. They showed that 19,000 farmers and businesses shared nearly £600m of taxpayers’ money. The figure for the UK was over £3 billion the previous year.
 
But the effect was to close down any political debate on the cost of the EU to the taxpayer. Other statistics like hospital admissions, road statistics and all the economic data have all been released.
 
So it is not only politicians who have limited debate during the election.

This blog is also on the msn website as part of their general election coverage.

Whitehall’s censorship of farming subsidies spares Tories (and UKIP’s) blushes

Posted on by

tucking into censored farm subsidy pic courtesy daily mail

Over the bank holiday weekend senior civil servants running the country took an extraordinary decision to ban the public  from seeing  information because  they thought it was so controversial that it would disrupt election campaigning.

They decided to protect candidates from being asked questions on the issue and thought it best the public be left in ignorance about the facts.

 What was this issue? Not some horrendous economic figure, some real facts on immigration. No, it was decision not to reveal which farmers and agribusinesses scooped up some £3 billion from the taxpayer from EU farm subsidies last year.

On Friday statistics were published simultaneously in the other 26 EU countries revealing who had been paid what – it is part of a victory by European journalists to force countries under freedom of information acts to release all this previously secret information.

But in London – against an EU directive – the information was banned. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website says: “Due to the general election campaign, this website will not be updated with the 2009 figures until after the election.”

A letter from a DEFRA official to Jack Thurston, head of farmsubsidy.org, which campaigns for transparency for EU payments, says why:

“This decision reflects the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the UK Civil Service, given the potential risk that CAP payment  information relating to any individuals involved in the election might be used as part of election campaigning.”

Yet ministries continue to publish information on hospital admissions and roads just to name two. And in Scotland because of devolved government – they have taken the opposite decision. They published their figures over the weekend –revealing that 19,000 farmers and agribusinesses shared nearly £600m of public money and the world has not fallen apart north of the border.

So who does this protect? Initial research by farmsubsidy.org reveals that possibly up to 70 of the 650 Tory candidates standing at the election could be receiving some sort of subsidy. Up to half a dozen UKIP candidates- who campaign against the EU- could be receiving EU cash as well as a smattering of Liberal Democrat and BNP candidates. On the Tory side they have discovered that the declared postcode for receipt of EU subsidies is often the same one as used by a local Conservative Association, suggesting that leading officials of the local parties are also receiving subsidies. These are all taken from the previous year’s subsidy figures.

 Yet we won’t know, thanks to Whitehall, until after the election- even though the EU has made it clear in an article in the EU Observer today that it is disappointed with Britain and intends to write to the new government pointing out it is not in line with the EU directive.

Frankly disappointment is too weak a word. It is scandal that unelected officials should decide what information should be made public and when. The decision is also partisan in that it appears to protect opposition party candidates more than Labour candidates from scrutiny – particularly in the case of the Conservatives.

Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, should reverse this now. Otherwise it bodes very badly if we are in “ hung Parliament “ territory when Whitehall  will be effectively  running the country while politicians sort out a new government. If officials are going to select what information the public should know and what should be kept secret, they are exceeding their brief.

This blog is also on the Guardian’s Comment is Free website.

Will bad planning by the Tories let the lights go out?

Posted on by

A new nuclear power station every 18 months -Cameron. Pic courtesy http://freefoto.com

A mad rush by the Tories to cut public expenditure the moment they are in office is already leading to fears that it could destabilise Britain’s fragile recovery. But there is now growing evidence that other policies could have similar damaging effects on the country.

Two Green Papers –one on planning and the other on energy- are leading to serious questions from some of the Tories natural allies – the CBI and the British Property Federation about their effectiveness. And when one looks at the detail, it is no wonder why.

The green paper on planning looks on the surface as a great, pro local democracy, anti bureaucracy document. And it does contain some good ideas, notably Open Source documents for all future planning applications.

 But in their rush to cull New Labour quangos, the Tories look set to stall rather than quicken the economic recovery. Their dash to kill the Infrastructure Planning Commission is actually going to cause chaos and confusion for any major schemes that might require planning permission in the next few years.

For the Tories want to bring back Parliamentary private bills for major projects and are daft enough to quote the Crossrail bill as a wonderful example of an alternative way of handling objections. This bill took literally years to get through Parliament with all day sittings and an enormous toll on the disinterested MPs who were supposed to monitor it.

Worse still The Tories are proposing an interim period when the Commission facing abolition will still be handling applications, while Parliament is geared up for a new role. Confused? Anyone would be.

But never mind. In their green energy paper, they propose using the same procedure to build an ambitious high speed rail link and nuclear power stations.

They deride Labour’s  London to Birmingham link as not ambitious enough and want to build a high speed railway across England .But imagine how long this will take under their planning reforms. The long winded Crossrail bill was just concerned with greater London but a bill for the whole of England will need the full term of the next Parliament for authorisation..

Cameron also promises to build a new nuclear power station every 18 months to solve the energy crisis – again using Parliamentary private bills to get planning permission. Energy analysts are not impressed. Inencom, the UK’s largest energy analysts, warned that this target is “verging on the impossible”, claiming that even if the party overcame planning delays, solving the skills shortages and construction complications would be a “huge challenge.”

Some of the smaller proposals in both papers also don’t stand heavy scrutiny.

On planning the Tories want to allow local residents and third party groups to object to new house building. This could also cause chaos for new home developments and traditional allies are not impressed.

 The British Property Federation said: “This would cause chaos for the system by allowing all manner of appeals.”

John Cridland, CBI Deputy Director-General, says: “The CBI agrees with the Conservatives that the planning system is broken, but it remains to be seen whether these proposals will fix it.”

And some energy schemes like encouraging micro generation of electricity in every home have not impressed the CBI either. Dr Neil Bentley, the CBI’s Director of Business Environment, said: This could end up increasing energy costs for businesses and consumers without increasing investment.”

The danger here is that not only will the Tories scupper a fragile recovery but manage to ensure that some half baked proposals will stifle new investment. They could even put the lights out.

This blog is also on http://progressives.org.uk as part of my Tory tracker column.