trading company

Thanks to online stock trading companies it is now easy for anyone, anywhere to trade stocks online. There are a number of factors to consider before deciding on a trading company. For example:
- researching any and all fees charged (including commissions)
- the company's customer service history (a simple online search for customer reviews will suffice)
- what tools (if any) are provided to customers
- security
- and the company's portfolio
Let's investigate why each of these aspects are an integral part of choosing the right company for you from the sea of online stock trading companies.
Portfolio
The stock trading company you choose should have a wide range of investments available to you in their portfolio. This includes a wide array of stock options, mutual funds, access to the international markets and international stocks, exchange traded funds, availability of savings packages for both education and retirement and a variety of investment services available to customers.
Resources Available
What types of resources are available to you by the companies you are considering? Companies with little-to-no resources may not be the right fit for you. Examples of resources to look for in the company's offerings include:
- stock trading simulators (which help beginners learn about stock trading before they put any money on the line)
- investment plans for education and retirement
- tax advice
- stock research reports
- online forums (to chat with other users and expert investors)
- stock news that is updated consistently
- and automated banking facilities
If a company has few or none of the resources listed above, you may want to keep shopping. There are many online stock trading companies to choose from.
Fees and Commissions
This is a crucial part of online stock trading. Everyone is in it to make money, but you want to make sure that you make money as well. Companies that have large fees and take a great deal of commission may not be the ones you want to go for. Be sure to do in depth research on the fees, commissions and even the required account balance for sign up (to ensure it is within your budget).
Mobility
In this technological day-and-age, it is helpful if a company offers mobile services. With these services you are able to access your portfolio from your mobile phone or other mobile device. Most online stock trading companies support I-phones, Blackberry phones and android powered phones.
Tools
What types of tools does the stock trading company you are considering offer? There are a number of tools that help make trading easier. These include trading charts and graphs, calculators, stock alerts, both level 1 and 2 quotes, search reports, virtual trading facilities and criteria analysis. Each of these tools will serve a purpose in helping with your trades.
Customer Service
As with any company that you are a customer of, choosing online trading companies with excellent customer service and customer support is a must. Great service would include representatives that are knowledgeable, understanding and easy to reach. Many companies offer support via a wide variety of outlets including instant messaging online, email, online forums and traditional telephone contact. The ideal company for you would be one that does not charge for their customer service.
Security
Last, but definitely not least is security. What measures have the online trading companies you are considering set up to keep your information and your money safe? Both your identity and money are at-risk if you choose a company that does not have the appropriate security methods in place. The company should provide a complex, and seemingly annoying, method of accessing the site including complex passwords, secret questions and capture codes (to be sure you are a human and not a computer with hacking software).

Your Choice Barnet - The silent losers

By Linda Edwards,

The Barnet Eye published a blog on Monday, concerning Your Choice Barnet. This says everything except about people with learning disabilities who are forced to trudge the streets in all weathers, walk aimlessly up and down the isles of Supermarkets, and made to travel to different town shopping centres all under the guise of "being in the community". These are the silent 'losers' who cannot speak up for themselves and won't be heard, unless we shout out for them.

This exchange appeared on a forum. Says it all really

----
Hi there

Can anyone help ? If an adult has been assessed as having critical support needs, what needs to happen for a Local Authority to change that?

I am hearing reports of a LA which is re assessing people from critical to severe, because they say the family are providing support, so the individual's needs are not critical.

Is there some new ruling that has just come out, because the families concerned are providing the same amount of support they always were?
----

Response
From: Anon Carer

I don't have a straight answer to your question but this is so outragous!

The categorisation of needs - i.e. critical, severe, etc - is completely and absolutely about the service-user/person-with-needs REGARDLESS of who then meets those needs whether that is family, friend, neighbour or a paid service provider. I don't know whether it is legally binding but this definition is definitely in the Community Care Adult Service's declared policy guidelines.

Seems your LA are attempting to downgrade needs and thereby support they are obliged to provide or facilitate.

I have known our LA to argue that someone was mis-categorised before and the person in need of support is actually more capable of being independent than previously assessed but I have never heard of any case where the needs remain the same but family support means someone is in effect less disabled.
---

This is what happens when budgets are cut. This is how such organisations implement budget cuts by stealth.

Richie Havens RIP

Yesterday saw the passing of Richie Havens, a true legend. I first came across Ritchie when I was 18 years old at a late night screening of the film Woodstock at the Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley. If you've ever seen the film, you'll know there is some fantastic music in the film as well as a lot of dross. Richie Havens opened the festival and the film. At the time I didn't know the story, but all of the other acts turned up late, so he had to busk for a couple of hours. The track "Freedom" was one of the songs he busked. The reason I didn 't know is because it was a mindblowing performance, so full of intensity and passion. At the time I was a punk, so for a blok strumming an acoustic guitar to blow me away was a measure of the power of his performance. I don't think I've ever seen a more powerful piece of acoustic music ever.

The last time I saw Richie was at the jazz Cafe a couple of years ago. He was older, wiser and more gentle in his manner, but his music was mindblowing. After the show I bought a few CD's he was selling and ended up having a chat with him. He was a gent. I wanted to get him to play the Mill Hill Music Festival this year, but we couldn't make it happen.

My guess is that if you don't like Richie Havens, you probably don't like music

RIP Richie, Good luck at the big festival up in the sky !

Your Choice Barnet - The question that matters

Who are the winners and losers. That is what I ask myself, when I ponder the question of the private company set up by Barnet Council to provide social care in the Borough. The company is called "Your Choice Barnet". Earlier this year Barnet Council had to use taxpayers money to bale it out and stop it going broke. The reason? Because of a reported £2 million defecit in its accounts, after less than a year in business.

They say if you want to know the real story, follow the money. So I ask myself, what has this £2 million extra cash, not in the original plan been spent on? Have recepients of social care all of a sudden been getting Starbucks Cappucinos for 10p instead of the plastic cups of nescafe for £1.00 that they were getting before. Have the mini buses been replaced with a fleet of Rolls Royces. £2,000,000 is a lot of cash. I am not aware of a sudden flood of people needing extra care appearing in the Borough, so what has this cash been spent on? The council have provided social care for years, they know what it cost. It's not like they've set up a new type of technology, that is untried with hidden costs.

So where are the winners in the big £2 million hand out? From what I hear it isn't the people attending day centres or with care needs. I've not heard of anyone saying things have got better and they get more? Have you, if you have I'd love to hear !

So where has all the cash gone? Has it gone to lawyers and accountants, which any new organisation will need? Has it gone setting up a board of directors and paying them generous salaries? Has it gone on new offices and furniture? I'd love to know. For a business with a turnover the size of Your Choice Barnet it has either been spent on things that it wasn't spending on before, things which add nothing to delivery of care, or it has been a case of a monumental failure of the company to have an adequate financial plan.

In either case, the failure has been so spectacular that it has exceeded even the worst and wildest guesses of critics like me by a factor of astronomical proportions.

What happens in most businesses when the management team screw up and a bale out is required? They all get the sack. Fred Goodwin at RBS is one we all know. he bankrupted the bank, so he was sacked and lost his knighthood. Why has no one at the council even mentioned the possibility of sacking the board and taking it over (as happened with RBS)? Why is there not even an acknowledgement that it has gone wrong.

Winners and Losers? That is the question. Who are they? If £2 million has been overspent, someone somewhere must have got a lot of money that wasn't in the original business case. Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, be told who?

Friern Baarnet Community Library - The coming week

Friern Barnet Community Library

The People's Library

Events:

Mondays 2.40-3.40
School Chess (Dwight School)

Mondays 7.00-9.00pm (Next meeting 22 April)
Weekly meeting - all welcome

**Please bring a copy of the last minutes and the agenda with you, to save one person doing lots of copying - thanks**

Tuesdays 7:00-8:00pm
Yoga with Emily

Wednesdays 11:00-11:45am
French Rhyme Time for Toddlers (with local mum Dorothee - in French)

Thursdays 11:15-11:45am
Song and Story Time for toddlers (with local mum and pre-school teacher Tanya CRB checked)

Thursdays 1:00-3:00pm
Knitting Group

Thursdays 7:00-10:00pm
Open Mic Night - all welcome
Contact: Arnie Donoff apdonoff@yahoo.co.uk

This Thursday 25th April, Andrew will be back with a folk/blues extravaganza!

Fridays 11:00 - 1:00pm
Reading Group
Saturdays
Open as usual
Every 2nd Saturday 2-4pm (From May 11th)
Barnet Borough Sight Impaired Meeting

Upcoming events:

Tue 23rd April – 6-8pm World Book Night – Peggy Sherwood will be giving away copies of The Reader

Greenacre Writers Literary Festival

Friday 17th May 4.30-6.30pm – So you want to write for Kids! Creative writing workshop with author Miriam Halahmy.
Book workshop: https://sites.google.com/site/greenacrewriters/greenacre-writers-literary-festival
Friday 17th May 7.00-10.00pm - Open (Literary) Mic coordinated by Allen Ashley, author. Come along and read out your writing, poems, flash fiction etc - 5min slots.

If you want to use the library space, events MUST be booked beforehand. In the first instance please contact Rosa: friernbarnetcommunitylibrary@gmail.com

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

The Barnet Eye urges everyone associated with the Library to attend the meeting on Monday this week. There is an important meeting of the trustees on Wednesday and it is vital that anyone with any issues to be raised uses this meeting to make sure these issues can be raised

The Saturday list special - What's best in Barnet - The Deputy Mayors recommendations

By Kate Salinger,

As Deputy Mayor, I have had the privilege of meeting people from all over the borough who volunteer for others with no thought of reward. I salute each and every one of them, knowing that their work is incredibly valuable to our large community, although often unsung. I will now sing loudly an aria on behalf of the volunteers of Barnet who work in shops, places of worship, schools, community halls, parks, oh, anywhere that people can meet. The following is a list of all the people and organisations I have visited who are, I think, staffed by VOLUNTEERS. I have also visited many wonderful organisations (Flower Lane Centre for Autism and Community Focus to name but two) where volunteers work but are managed by paid workers.

So, here is the list of GOOD THINGS IN BARNET VISITED OVER THE LAST YEAR

All the people who helped to organise street parties for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

East Barnet Valley Bowls Club

East Barnet Royal British Legion

Friern Barnet Royal British Legion

Greenacre

Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, West Hendon

Rainbow Centre, Dollis Valley

Diabetes UK, Barnet Branch

Barnet Multifaith Forum

East Barnet Festival (not held this year due to too much rain but AL:WAYS excellent)

120th Hendon Air Training Corps

Friends of Montclair(town twinning group)

Friends of Barnet Countryside Centre

Monday Youth Club, Martins School

Friern Barnet Summer Show

Mill Hill Garden and Allotment Society

Wright Community Development Trust

St John's Ambulance Brigade

Barnet Older People's Assembly

Friends of Morphou (town twinning)

East Finchley Arts Festival

Finchley Art Society

Lions Club International (Edgware Branch)

Cancer Research Shop (East Barnet)

Barnet Elderly Asians Group

Women's Interfaith Network

Finchley Rotary Club

How fortunate have I been to visit all these places and people? Answer.....extremely fortunate.I hope that everyone who might scan down this list and currently does not volunteer, might be prompted into thinking that they might.

All the best,

Cllr. Kate Salinger

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

If you have a list of things in Barnet that you think we should know about, let us know ! A fine choice by one of Barnets most popular councillors

The Friday Joke - Your Choice Barnet Business Case Justification

Can someone explain how a shortfall of £2million in a total budget cost of running the Your Choice Barnet services of approximately £5million to £6.5million is a “solid” Business Case?

The Councillor responsible for Adult Social Services response to a question at the recent Barnet Council Cabinet meeting was interesting. According to the councillor the Business Case was “solid” for setting up Your Choice. Indeed having insisted the Business Case anticipated these shortfalls, the councillor then went on to say that the draconian and vicious cuts to workers’ terms and conditions.... Sorry he definitely did not say that, he said the proposals will “deliver further efficiencies”. “Further to what?” we wondered.

Just before that motion we had listened to the Leader of the Council talk to the Welfare Reform motion saying it was needed to ensure that it “pays to work”. With the cuts proposed to Your Choice workers and the Housing 21 workers and Fremantle workers before them, I’m starting to wonder if what is meant by the phrase is a society where the ‘worker pays to work?’

Having spoken to many Your Choice workers in the last few weeks, this is what one of them said:

“Support workers at Your Choice are being substantially de-skilled, by being given a new job description to justify a third of their monthly wages being taken from them. Service users at Your Choice are having a massive change in the hours that they are being supported – meaning that they can enjoy less leisure and educational opportunities. They are unaware of how severely their lives will be affected for the worse by these cuts”.

This has been repeated over and over that a cut to the workers ultimately means a cut to the service user.

What you can do

Please sign this petition

http://petitions.barnet.gov.uk/YourChoiceBack/

Of course, you may just think it's all very funny, our money being wasted like this !

S C A L E

JV Colossal Catalpa Puzzle Bowl & VVV for scale :-)

The hypocrisy of the Conservative Party towards Lady Thatcher

Yesterday we saw a state sponsored funeral for Lady Thatcher, Britains first female Prime Minister. Whatever you may or may not think of Thatcher, she certainly provoked a strong reaction. What has truly amazed me is the sheer hypocricy of the Conservative Party towards Thatcher and her legacy.

I was reminded of this yesterday in Mill Hill Broadway by a chap I've known for years, who was a staunch supporter of Thatcher. In 1997 I got into a conversation with him in Mill Hill Broadway whilst doing some campaigning for Labour. At the time he told me he would be voting for Tony Blair. He said he would never forgive the Tories for "stabbing Thatcher in the back". Thatcher won three elections for the Tories. What did she get for her troubles? She got dumped when the going got tough. Whilst the membership of the Conservative Party still loved her, the people who run the show knifed her in the back for their own reasons. In doing so, they nearly destroyed the Tory Party.

I was reminded of this. My acquaintance suggested that Blair was probably the only politician of the time who genuinely recognised Thatchers achievements. Blair honoured Thatcher and sought her counsel. It has only been recently that Tories have dared resurrect her image. Now they are nailing the Thatcherite mascot to their mast. For the past 23 years, the talk has been of "detoxifying the Tory brand". This really meant dumping Thatcherism and nailing the lid down on her legacy. Cameron came to power as a "moderniser". In truth this meant someone who had no association with the Thatcher era.

It is odd to think that Blair saw huge electoral advantage in cosying up to Thatcherism (and won three elections) whilst the Tories dumped it and have struggled ever since. What is fascinating is to see how two faced the Tory Establishment have suddenly rediscovered their love of the ghost they've spent 23 years trying to bury. It is odd to think that despite all of the eulogies, the Conservative Party is probably the one place where Thatcherism has been dead for years. One must wonder what she made of Cameron leaping under the duvet with Clegg. I can't ever imagine Thatcher snuggling up to Jeremy Thorpe.

At the end of the day, I think the reason is that, whatever you thought of Thatcher, she was probably a tad more attached to her principles than the current lot.

Blackcreek Mercantile & Trading Co.

Where was the state funeral for Harold Wilson?

Today we have a pseudo state funeral for Margaret Thatcher. I fear that this has set an unfortunate precedent. In future, are we likely to see similar demands for all deceased Prime Ministers? What are the requirements. If you had to win three elections and start a war, then Blair will most certainly qualify. He won three elections and started five wars. I can see no possible reason for denying him. If the decision is simply based on the fact that some people didn't like him, then Thatcher would most certainly have been denied her big day.

I think that we should have, rather late in the day, a state service for Harold Wilson. I believe the late Lord Wilson actually had a far greater influence than Thatcher and most of it was for the universal good. Lets look at some of his (seemingly forgotten) career highlights.

1. Won three general elections.

2. Created the Open University, allowing hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, who would never had access to a University Education, to better themselves. This is perhaps his greatest and most forgotten legacy.

3. Kept the UK out of Vietnam. Wheras Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron all committed British troops to campaigns in far flung corners of the earth (usually because of their other failures), Wilson turned down a request from the USA to assist in Vietnam, doubtlessly saving hundreds, if not thousands of British troops lives, in pursuit of a pointless and futile goal.

4. Gave the People a referendum on Europe. UKIP and the rabid right forget that Wilson was the only Prime Minister who let the people have their say.

5. Swathes of socially progressive legistlation. During the 1966-70 period, the Wilson government, with Roy Jenkins as home secretary passed swathes of socially progressive legislation, modernising the British state and British attitudes.

6. Won the World Cup. England won the world cup with Harold Wilson at the helm. Thatcher hated football and would have been quite happy to have abolished the sport.

7. The swinging sixties. During Wilsons reign, the sixties were in full swing and everyone felt positive about Britain. London was the place to be. Ted Heath was elected in 1970 and things were never quite the same again. Whilst people blame Labour for the economic failures of the 1970's, the Heath regime (of which Thatcher was a cabinet minister) was responsible for the period of steepest decline. The miners strikes, the three day week were all during Tory rule. By the time Wilson got back in, with a minority government, the damage had been done. Wilsons second period as Prime Minister was one of managing the fallout from the disasters of Ted Heath.

Of course, the last thing Harold Wilson would have wanted was a state funeral. He was a humble and decent chap. It is often reported that of all the Prime Ministers that served under Queen Elizabeth, Harold Wilson was her favourite. It is said that he was the last Prime Minister who would, in his weekly chats with the queen, brief her on what was happening, then ask her opinion and listen to her advice. He respected her views and knew she'd be around long after he was forgotten. He knew that she had a far better personal insight into the way the other leaders around the world thought. She also had a longer and better perspective on the systems that supported them. It is sad to report that none of her successors took quite the same view of her majesties role.

Today sees the start of a new era of how we commemorate departed leaders. Having honoured Thatcher, we are stuck with the precendent. Will John Major get one? I doubt too many Tories will make the case for him. Blair? That will be an interesting discussion when the time comes. Brown? Well he never actually won an election, but he did save the world, don't you remember. And best of all David Cameron. Well no one is sure whether he really won or lost the last election. No one is sure what he stands for.

In a time of austerity, we have a spectacle today that I hope is a one off. Winston Churchill did save the country and lead a government of national unity. He deserved a state funeral. I don't think any of his successors deserved one. The Thatcher funeral is a political device to serve the ends of the Conservative Party. That is why I find it repulsive. I think the funeral of Harold Wilson, is the model we should adopt going forward.

Guest Blog - "Is cutting Carer budgets ethical" - A response by John Sullivan

By John Sullivan,

Yesterday Monday 15th April on the Barnet Eye blog it was asked the question " Do You Think Cutting Carer Social Budgets is Ethical Humane or Moral ", my answer being the parent of a daughter that relies upon the services of low paid carers these special people is absolutely no on all three categories. I can also assure you that my opinion is that of many other parents carers and guardians of people with disabilities and illnesses not of their own making, this message came across loud and clear from parents carers and guardians at recent meetings on the subject. Not least of all the well attended public meeting of 11th march calling for all services currently in the hands of the financially wobbly Your Choice Barnet Ltd Company, be bought back in house.

A quote being used on a regular basis these days when referring to this awful inhuman dishonest coalition government and our local Tory councillors is " they know the price of everything but the value of nothing " and in this case this could never be more true. Some of the groups you refer to are referred to in law as " people with special characteristics " they are set apart from the rest of us due to disability or illness, yet our beloved government supported with gusto by Cornelius and his crew have throw them into the mix with the minority that scrounge on benefits . In order to justify their inhuman cuts in the support for these special groups, they have converted them from being poor dears to scrounging bastards to justify the inhuman cuts they are undertaking.

The blog makes a very important statement by so rightly including a person with dementia because it makes the very profound point that we are all in this together, we cannot be smug and complacent and pass by on the other side, because dementia in one of its many and varied forms like cancer that has visited both you and I can strike any one of us down at any time. The rapid growth in all forms of dementia demands more support for folk not less, sadly we live in a world of austerity where F --K you Jack Im alright remains the order of the day.

It seems an appropriate name for these folk to be described as people with special characteristics because that is exactly what their support workers are, they are a special breed they have an inborn vocation for the most difficult task in public services, they are truly people with a special characteristic. What makes this attack on these very special staff the proposed cuts to their already low wages now followed almost definitely by a further cut in a few months time when the ongoing benchmarking exercise is completed worse. Is the fact that these special high value human beings with inborn skills that cannot be taught, are being treated worse than a shelf stacker in a supermarket.

Nobody knows the value of these carers better than the parents carers and guardians of the clients in their care, they represent their peace of mind the comfort of knowing they are in safe caring hands and will be looked after with care and compassion from caring and compassionate people, they know how fortunate they are to have these special people helping with their task of caring for their loved ones, a task many of us could not undertake without their support. They also know what happens when the local authority engages in a race to the bottom in care quality and staff quality, an horrific reminder of this race to the bottom was Winterbourne View, a horror story we do not want repeated in Barnet because of dogma and ideology.

Yet our government both local and central have no regard for the skills of this special breed of public servant not even Cameron, this is the man leading the charge to decimate the wage structures and working conditions of this irreplaceable group of people, yet as a parent of a disabled child himself now sadly deceased , you would think he would know better you would think he at least would show some respect for these special people.

Sadly like Cornelius and co Cameron knows the price of everything but the value of nothing, and the fight to bring Your Choice Services back in house is the first of the battles to bring some sense of responsibility back to our society. A society currently driven by ideology and dogma a society being encouraged to see all disabled and sick people as scrounging bastards, and their support workers as layabout low value trouble making trade unionists, when in fact they are in many ways the most important people in society. Because they undertake with compassion with love with care the responsibility of ensuring quality of care and quality of life for these folk with special characteristics, the most difficult undertaking possible.

Cornelius and co are in a race to the bottom in terms of quality of care for disabled and sick people they are driven by dogma and have no concern for anything other than the bottom line, we have to stop this demonization of disabled people and those that care for them, and the first step in that battle is to sign here ( YCB Petition), and begin the fight back to reinstate the respect working conditions and wages of social support carers and stop this race to the bottom that might affect any one of us tomorrow.

People of Barnet should look around and smell the coffee because dementia has no respect for wealth or position, it attacks all and everybody, they can ignore the petition and go forward with fingers crossed or start the fight back against ideology and dogma . The worst of it all is we are led to believe these savings are absolutely necessary because they save us residents serious sums of money, when the reality is these special social support workers wages and working conditions could be protected by raising council taxes by less than 50p per week.

I repeat Cornelius and co know the price of everything but the value of nothing, they truly do not care, they have no vision for the future they are submerged in their perverse ideology and dogma, deaf dumb and blind to the long term damage they are doing to the most vulnerable folk within our society. Presumably on the premise that in their opinion " there is no no such thing as society ", an expression I have heard somewhere before.

Please start the fight back to decency and humanity and the long term sustained quality of life for disabled and sick people in Barnet by signing the Bring Your Choice Barnet Services Back In House petition.

Let The Battle begin

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

John Sullivan is a parent Carer living in the London Borough of Barnet. Guest Blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye.

It's a long way back to respectability for Councillor Robert Rams

Councillor Robert Rams, author of the Friern Barnet Library fiasco, has decided to go public with his feelings about his treatment by the Friern Barnet library campaign.

On his blog he said
===
Meeting with Friern Barnet Library Trustees

April 3, 2013Leave a comment

Over the last year or so, as I have in the past documented on this blog and tweeted about, I have been on the receiving end of a consistent and very personal campaign from a minority of supporters of the Friern Barnet Library.
It was a welcome step forward that I received an email from the trustees of the Friern Barnet Library, which in conclusion said,
“You have been subjected to some outrageous, abusive and inexcusable behaviour. I hope you will be prepared to help us repair the damage.”
I very much welcome this and have agreed to meet a delegation of the trustees next week.
I hope that this will start a more amicable relationship and we can start to work together to secure the future of a community library in Friern Barnet.

===

You can see the original blog here - http://robertrams.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/meeting-with-friern-barnet-library-trustees/ - this is quite a remarkable statement from Rams. As ever there is a little bit of spin in there. Firstly when Rams says "I have been on the receiving end of a consistent and very personal campaign from a minority of supporters of the Friern Barnet Library." he is being quite disingenious. I have attended many meetings and far from a "a minority" holding Councillor Rams in disdain, as far as I could tell the dislike of him was more or less unanamous. Now of course not everyone writes blogs or tweets, but I have not met anyone with a good word to say about him (including councillors in his own party).

Why? Because from the day that the Library closure was announced, Mr Rams has been less than honest with the people who mounted the campaign to save the library. He mislead them about the possibilities of reopening the library and duped them into wasting the time when they could have been preparing a judicial review asking them to "come up with proposals". When these were presented, they were summarily dismissed and campaigners were told they'd missed the deadline for the Judicial review. If you behave like that, what do you expect people to say about you.

When Occupy reopened the library, Council officials attended meetings at the library to try and work out a compromise that would satisfy the community. Rams refused to attend, leaving council officials with an impossible task. Why did he refuse to attend? It was made clear to him that the meeting would be respectful. Council officers bearing bad news were not subject to intimidation or bad treatment. Neither would he. Councillor Richard Cornelius, the leader, attended a question time meeting arranegd by the Barnet Alliance for Public services, with over 150 people in attendence. He was treated respectfully, despite leading a rabidly right wing council, so what possible concerns could Rams have. I myself was given a graphic demonstration of Rams duplicity when he tweeted that he was at Mill Hill Library. I instantly sprinted the 200 yards from my house to the library only to find no Robert Rams and a bunch of staff who said he hadn't visited the venue.
Why should councillor Rams say such a thing? Who knows. I doubt he thought I'd be there a minute later. I doubt he thought anyone would notice.

As to the comment “You have been subjected to some outrageous, abusive and inexcusable behaviour. I hope you will be prepared to help us repair the damage.” Rams seems to think that this statement vindicates him. He clearly doesn't really understand what the Trustees were telling him. The key part is the second sentence "I hope you will be prepared to help us repair the damage.” The trustees clearly were making the point that Rams own behaviour had created the campaign. They were asking him to modify his future behaviour and treat people with respect, decency and honesty. It is clear that the trustees, in their own extremely polite way, were saying "You have brought this all on yourself by your appalling behaviour, but you do have an opportunity to redeem yourself, if you start behaving in a manner befitting a senior member of the cabinet.

Rams sadly misses the point and misses the opportunity to apologise for his past poor behaviour and appalling treatment of sincere local campaigners and residents. The trustees have been extraordinarily generous in their treatment of Rams. Does he behave in a sincere and adult way and repay their trust? Nope of course he doesn't. He uses their generosity to pretend he is a victim and he is the wronged party. If Rams had posted a blog stating that there had been mistakes on both sides and both sides had perhaps done things they regret, but were now working together to create a better Barnet, maybe we would have concluded that he'd learned something over the last two years. Instead we get this awful little man, yet again taking other peoples generosity and trust and twisting it around for his own purposes.

What I find incredible is that Robert Rams is a professional political apparatchic. His job is to run the Conservative office at the GLA. He spends all of his time talking to senoir London Conservative politicians. I have a deep mistrust of career politicians on both sides of the divide. My suspicion seems well founded when I consider the record of Robert Rams and his relationshiop with the people of Barnet. It's a long way back to respectability for Councillor Robert Rams

Do you think that cutting social carer budgets is ethical, humane or moral?

Let me tell you about a good friend of mine. For the sake of his feelings, we'll call him "Turbo". He's 79 years old and suffering from dementia. He has lived in Barnet for 37 years and has paid his taxes and run a construction business employing dozens of people. In the last few months, he has started to display the signs of dementia. He lives on his own, but of late he has stopped eating and upped his daily drink quota to ten or eleven pints of strong lager. He has managed to upset and fall out with most of his friends and family, who are not aware of his situation. He has been making all manner of strange comments, a typical one being to a customer, who he was supposed to be tarmacing a car park for, that he'd been "discussing the project with the Archbishop of Canterbury and they had figured out a solution".

It is clear to all and sundry that he needs help. If he was your father, brother, uncle, best friend and you were worried about him, what level of care would you think was appropriate?

Or what about another friend who has a daughter with extreme disabilities, who can no longer cope and has asked social services to help? What sort of care should her daughter receive?

Or what about a relative of mine who is in her 50's, has Downs Syndrome and is cared for by Barnet. If she was your cousin, would you want her to have a fulfulling and safe life in a happy environment?

When Politicians talk about cuts to social care budgets, they mean one thing and one thing only - reducing the level of care to all of the people I mentioned. What will happen to them? I shudder to think. None of the people I've mentioned above are having an easy time. None of them elected to be in the situation they are in. All of them are at the sharp end of the cuts, through no fault of their own. A small percentage of UK citiziens are in their situation. A much smaller percentage than those paying the top tax band.

If you are a top rate tax payer, maybe you resent the fact that your taxes "subsidise" these people (to paraphrase a local Tory politician). Maybe you think that it is not the job of the state to ensure that people who can't look after themselves have as happy safe and fullfilling life as possible. If you do feel like that, then that is the end of the conversation.

If however, you (like most decent, caring people) believe that we should look after our fellow citizens who are unable to look after themselves, then there is no reasonable discussion to be had about cutting such social care budgets. You either fund them properly or you don't. When you start replacing skilled, trained staff with less capable people care suffers. When you contract our services, you replace carers who have a relationship and understanding of the client needs with transient agency staff, there is no way that you will have the same level of service. People with special needs need continuity. I pay top rate tax and I personally see it as my duty to society to ensure that such people have a decent lifestyle. There are plenty of extravagances I'd cut in councils and I certainly think executive pay is far too high.

So do you think that cutting social carer budgets is ethical, humane or moral? I don't. I am not ashamed to say that I believe a society is judged on how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable people, not it's richest, wealthiest and strongest. That is why I believe that the current cuts are not only divisive, they are immoral and wrong. I don't think that saying this gives me a label of anything other than a member of the family of the human race.

The Saturday list #37 - Margaret Thatcher Special - 10 things that changed as a result of Margaret Thatcher

When Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party, back in the 1970's, Great Britain was a completely different place to the society we know and love today. Many things have changed. Here is a list of ten things which are completely different to the first day she sat down with her new shadow cabinet.

1. The Conservatives became Eurosceptic Party. Under Ted Heath they were avidly pro European.

2. Vital nationalised industries disappeared into foreign ownership. Steel, Rail, Airports, Electricity and Water companies, all formerly deemed vital national assets were privatised and flogged off to foreign owners.

3. Centralisation of power. Due to the political activities of local left wing authorities, huge swathes of decision making and tax raising powers were removed from local control. Metropolitan authorities were dismantled and tax raising powers were restricted. Although localism has been trumpted as "a conservative value" this is a sham as Councils cannot set taxes at levels they see fit.

4. The Europeanisation of Great Britain. Despite Margaret Thatcher claiming to be Eurosceptic, she signed the "Single European act". This piece of legislation secured the central role of Europe in British life and was the legislation that opened the way for the mass immigration from Eastern Europe.

5. Entrenched Mass unemployment. Before Thatcherism, unemployment was seen as evil and wasteful. Under Thatcherism it rose to over 3 million and has never truly recovered. One of the most unfortunate side effects of Thatcherism was the culture of benefits dependency. Whole swathes of the country had industries destroyed. In the absense of new jobs, generations of families have embarked on new careers as welfare dependents.

6. Downgrading of the Armed Forces. Thatcher presided over the biggest run down of military capability in the history of the British Armed forces. Had the Falklands been invaded two years later, the Navy would not have had the capacity to retake the islands. Despite the ever increasing number of commitments, budgets and capabilities have been trimmed virtually every year.

7. Destruction of the consensus on education. Despite having presided over the near destruction of the Grammar School system of Education under Ted Heath, as education secretary, under Thatcher the decline of the Grammar system was halted and reversed. The political consensus that the Grammar system was not fit for purpose was destroyed. The concept of parental choice as adopted as the new holy grail in education.

8. The rise of homelessness in Great Britain. In the 1970's homelessness was virtually unheard of. Now it is part of daily life. This is all part of the long march of Thatcherism.

9. The demise of Social housing. Thatcher adopted the policy of selling council houses to tenants. This turned many working class people into Conservatives and introduced a previous level of aspiration unheard of in the working class. Perhaps the most contentious aspect of this policy was the fact that receipts from the sales were not reinvested in the housing stock. We now see the effects of this, with working class families unable to get accommodation.

10. The rise of the career in politics. Prior to Thatcher, most people entered politics after establishing a career elsewhere. Politicians were supported by non political civil servants. Thatcher didn't trust the civil servants and gave rise to a whole new breed of ideological appointees. This whole new race of people, living off the public purse, have grown into a very lucrative industry for all concerned. Of all the changes Thatcher brought about, I believe that this is the most dangerous and divisive. These advisers come are usually highly intelligent people, who come straight from University. They have little experience of life and no understanding of the constraints of working for a commercial organisation. They believe they "know better" and they are the people who draw up the "blue sky thinking" that influences policy.

The reason that Thatcher changed Great Britain so radically is because every single one of the policies listed above have been adopted as the way things are in Great Britain. We had 12 years of Labour rule under Blair and Brown and Blair and not a thing changed in relation to any of them. I believe that the bile poured out by the left towards Thatcher this week is misdirected. Her legacy was not reversed by Labour despite landslide victories and huge majorities. It would be perverse for us to expect the Conservatives to reverse Thatcherism when Labour has adopted much of it. The one lesson I learned from the coalition is that the Lib Dems are the same as Labour and the Conservatives when it comes to Thatchers legacy.

I personally believe that each point on the list has damaged the interests of Great Britain, with the exception of point 4. I also believe that until the Labour Party comes up with firm proposals to throw off the Thatcherite legacy, we may as well have a Conservative government, because at least we know where we stand with them. I would urge that the most important change we could make is to reverse the Thatcherite trend described in #10 on the list. Until we get people advising ministers who have experienced the rigours of working and the stresses and strains of family life on a tight budget, we will never see any improvement with regards to the rest of the points.

The Friday Joke 12/4/2013

Three men go into a bar on a Friday evening. A Dubliner, a Real Madrid fan and a Spurs fan. The Dubliner says "I'll have a Guinness as it's the end of the week and I always have a Guinness to honour my uncle Pat at who was a championship hurler". The Madrid fan says "I'll have a Tio Pepe in memory of my Uncle Pepe, who passed away on a Friday, he played centre forward for Madrid in 1953". The Tottenham Hotspur fan "And as it's a Friday, I'll have a Sol".

The Real Madrid fan says "So you are honouring Sol Campbell, the former Spurs captain, who moved to Spurs great rivals Arsenal at the end of his contrac after saying he was Spurs through and through?". The Spurs fan replied "Not exactly, it will give me great pleasure to enjoy watching it end it's career disappearing down the toilet in about an hours time".

Have a nice weekend.

Guest blog - The Big Con of “being in the community” - The Latest Endemic National Institutional Practice - By Linda Edwards

By Linda Edwards

Previously I have written as a family carer of an adult daughter who is on the autistic spectrum and has learning disabilities. After many years battling with Kate Kennally, Director of LBB Adult Social Services to remove the bullying and lying 'cowboy' Service Provider that her department commissioned for my daughter’s service and made my daughter regress and depressed, after many years my daughter’s Solicitor secured a new service provider.

The new service provider are not perfect. Nor would they say they are. It is sufficient that they provide a decent support service, care about her wellbeing, are proactive about her safety and at the same time eager to maximise her ability, and are proactive with any problems.

In stark contrast to the 'bully boys' Kate Kennally’s department commissioned and she continually refused to remove from harming my daughter further, her new service provider plan around my daughter's individual needs, speak and listen to my daughter, and support her unique personality. They also ask my advice based on my knowledge and experience of my daughter, listen to my views about her needs and communicate with me when a problem arises. The previous ‘cowboy’ service provider and the LBB In House Supported Living Service blamed me and made me the problem when I challenged them for putting my daughter at risk. It is a great relief and encourages me to be honest and open when I feel something is not right for my disabled daughter or if she has communicated something to me that she wants me to represent for her, to feel able to communicate this with the Manager of her new service! The previous service providers would always say “That is what Mrs Edwards wants!” Her new service provider have the humility to acknowledge when they have made a mistake and because of their contrasting culture, gradually I am learning to trust again. It should be essential that disabled people’s needs are addressed and family carer’s knowledge is respected and valued. It appears this is happening in many organisations but until the Local Authorities put this into practice as part of their culture, it is much a ‘hit and miss’ affair.

In spite of always trying to keep my role as family carer separate from my working role as Chief Executive of Larches Community (www.larchescommunity.org.uk) Senior LBB Adult Social Care and Health Managers have victimised the Larches Community because of my dual role of battling for my daughter to have the service she needs. The fact that it was necessary to complain about the LBB senior manager who was incompetent and acted unlawfully by blatantly disregarding me and not consulting with the family carer, resulted in this senior manager abusing her power and authority with how she behaved towards the Larches Community. This same senior manager has been one of the architects for Your Choice Barnet who are now in a dire financial mess. Shame on you LBB Adult Social Care!!

Kate Kennally excluded me from LBB Learning Disability Partnership Board because she didn't like me challenging LBB Adult Social Care and Health practice. This was in spite of the interviewers at my interview speaking about my “vast knowledge and experience.” There are at least two other working groups I offered to join. I was excluded from them both and I can only think this was because the senior managers had been included in my complaints of incompetence and colluding with bad practice.

This article will not make me 'Miss Popular' amongst colleagues in some other organisations but those like my daughter's service provider will know this is not about them. Nor will it make me any more 'Miss Popular' with Kate Kennally and the clones who protect and collude with the evil doctrine she leads.

At the beginning of March, Larches Community opened a Farmers Market. The purpose is to build inclusive communities by encouraging the community to receive from and give to our learners. This can be in the form of money by purchasing craft items we have made in our Social Enterprise; exchange of goods by bringing in buttons and material for us to use to make our crafts, and developing communication and interaction by sharing a cup of tea, mutual interests and chat together.

We have not seen a crowd of people come to the Community Market so last week when twenty potential customers arrived at the same time an excited stall holder called me from the office.

Observing, I recognised the latest National Institutional practice that has become endemic under the guise of “being in the community”. Ten disabled people were being escorted around the stalls by ten carers. A nice outing. So what is the problem, you may ask?

Senior Managers are misrepresenting “being in the community” with shoving disabled people into the streets like “herds of cattle" being bussed to shopping centres to walk round shops, supermarkets or any buildings that are located in a public place. The Organisations can tick another box to say their clients are “out and about in the community" and they convince themselves they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

When the group of twenty left I brought Larches Community co-workers and market traders together. Most stall holders came from LBB with a couple from Kent and Hillingdon. I asked what they had observed from the service users trip to our market. No response!

I described the following:

People were being led in a line of twos (although by an imaginary lead) like dogs being taken for a walk. I asked if anyone noticed any Interaction (positive or negative) between anyone.

Silence!.

To be honest I wasn't sure where we were going with this discussion but my ‘gut’ said we have to expose this non-human culture. Anyone who becomes consciously aware and still says or does nothing is colluding with The Big Con of “being in the community”

I asked if anyone noticed any chatting between the people; any eye contact; anyone smelling the freshly made bread or freshly picked herbs, or anyone having any FUN? Silence!

I explained that the staff will return to their Care Home or Day Centre and report to their managers that they had a good visit to a Farmers Market in the heart of the community. Many of the staff have received redundancy or frightened they will in the near future and morale will be low. Maybe they haven’t been trained and supported to understand any other purpose of the visits in to the community or what is important in how they communicate. Sadly, the most I can say the benefit was for the service users is that they had some exercise in walking to Larches House from the Broadwalk Shopping Centre Car Park and back again!

I explained that what parents are most concerned about is “What will happen to my disabled son or daughter when I die?” I asked everyone to do something for disabled people whether they are our sons and daughters or whether their parents have already died. I asked them to:

1. Raise their antennae and watch when they are in the street, in a coffee shop, chemist or shopping centre for this non-human interaction because it is happening all the time to people who are hungry for human contact and intimacy. People with learning disabilities thirst to feel and experience warmth, eye contact, acknowledgement, to communicate either in speech or another form of communication and to be heard and experience responsiveness. This is more or less than what we all need in our life but our disabled sons and daughters are being deprived of their basic human needs because of cost cutting and tick boxing.

2. Send us their stories or better still send them to the media of what they have seen and

3. Write to their Local Authority complaints department giving details of the issues and what they have observed. Remember “Anyone who becomes consciously aware and still says or does nothing is colluding with The Big Con of “being in the community”

Whilst society may be forgiven because of fear of "getting it wrong" or "not understanding someone" or "not knowing how to respond" Organisations set up to work for disabled people and Local Authorities Commissioning such services both perpetuating this kind of non-human behaviour cannot be forgiven! It doesn't take money to have the intention to want to communicate; to build Inclusive Communities; to be creative; spontaneous and adapt your usual methods of communication to engage with people whose way of communicating is different from ours. What is unforgivable is that all around us are Organisations receiving payment for supporting and caring for disabled people in this non-human manner. Worse still is Local Authorities who are receiving money from Central Government and paying their own Local Authority Trading Companies for this kind of shambolic pretence of providing services and “being in the community”. Local Authorities are either not monitoring, not caring or being so immune to what is happening in reality to disabled people that they are authorising such practice.

In the streets of Edgware, I frequently see LBB In House Supported Living staff accompanying someone with a disability and walking two paces ahead as if they are the Queen walking with a lesser royal behind. Last weekend whilst having Chinese lunch with my daughter we met people from where she used to live (LBB). Was it my imagination or reality but nobody appeared to speak or communicate with each other throughout their meal?

Larches Community has supported meetings of The Space Group family carers who have been very unhappy about “Community Space folk that are currently dumped out in church halls” and “continue to fill the balance of their days, riding on public transport and wandering around shops.”

"It seems a monstrous dereliction of care to me to force people round shops aimlessly, with no purpose, and not provide safe, stimulating activities, that need not be expensive but simply require planning, and communication skills by carers. Mini buses of SPACE clients are bussed to large shopping Centres and walked round and round until they are exhausted. There were more choices prior to the privatisation of the services, the dragging of clients around shops in all weathers has significantly grown since privatisation. Your Choice is a lie as no choice was given, and it does not offer the more choices promised it offers less choice, it is not only the business model that is a car crash it is the whole concept.” John Sullivan

Recently a group of disabled people from Community Space who are now based in a church hall in Finchley were seen at the Galleria in Hatfield “being dragged around shops to pass the time away.” One lad who is very disabled was sitting on the floor in the middle of the store exhausted and very pale and looking unwell. The care worker was alerted to his obvious distress and retorted “Yes he does look a bit pale.” The next day this lad was taken ill. This could be your son or my daughter but what are we doing about this Big Con of “being in the community?”

On the recent Monday bank holiday, another disabled lady had to walk around Harrow shops because privately run dance classes where she would go to on a Monday were closed for

By Linda Edwards,

Easter. The following Wednesday she was forced to walk around Harrow shops because they could not go bowling when the schools are closed. The elderly family carers report that “the result of these two days walking the stores was their daughter who has a back and a knee problem was in some discomfort and pain in both her back and her knee when she arrived home Wednesday afternoon.” The same disabled lady was booked to attend the gym which because of her pain in her back and knee, agreed she would attend the gym to watch and not participate. After travelling on public transport and in spite of her knee and back pain, she was taken for a walk around Burnt Oak shops.

“These folk deserve better they like us are human beings with feelings who enjoy the comfort zone of their peers and community. Sadly in many ways the community hub that is so vital to us all was snatched away from these folk without consideration or consultation and in my eyes that is unforgivable.” John Sullivan

Sadly John, this is the Big Con of “being in the community!”

Barnet Council created the Local Authority Trading Company “Your Choice Barnet” to provide social care for adults with learning and physical disabilities. After only a year the company is in trouble and planning to reduce the quality of services, and Barnet Homes is preparing to pay a £1 million bail-out out of £2 million shortfall.(see John Sullivan's guest blog, and Open Letter, and John B urgess's concerns for further details).

Linda Edwards

Family Carer

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

Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye.

Design by Free7 Blogger Template simple blogger template

the trading company