IS the Council saying that our Charity is to blame for the £3m Firoka sham Licence?

THE LEADER of Haringey Council, Ms Clare Kober, and the Director of Corporate Resources, Julie Parker are called on to stop the mounting pressure that is being placed on the Trustees of the Alexandra Park and Palace Trust (our Charity) to sign the wholly unsatisfactory draft accounts.

At the Special Board meeting on Tuesday 6^th January 2009 the Trustees were placed under considerable influence from Trust Solicitor Iain Harris and Council Officers to agree the accounts with only trivial changes, and sign within 48 hours. It would seem the trustees are not being advised as trustees, but as councillors.

The Trustees have a statutory duty of care to safeguard our Charity and its assets. Signing the accounts as they currently stand is likely to lead to a Breach of Trust by the current board. Trustees, according the Trust Law, are personally responsible if not liable, for their actions.

The Trustees, who are also Councillors, were instructed by Trust Solicitor Iain Harris in a September 2008 letter attached to the Walklate Report that they should leave politics behind when acting as trustees, and putting their fiduciary trustee duties first and foremost when representing our Charity. They are now being pressured into making decisions that are not in the best interests of our Charity.

The Council, as the main Trustee, has the responsibility to prove that any expenditure was reasonably and properly incurred on behalf of our Charity.

The accounts relate to the eight months of the Firoka unlawful occupation which lead to a £3 million loss to our Charity. This occupation was authorised by a temporary Licence that was investigated by the Walklate report that found that the Board of Trustees had not approved the final version of the licence. Furthermore the Licence was issued for three months but was actually allowed to run for eight months which exacerbated the financial losses. Our Charity has not seen any of the income generated during the Firoka occupation whilst the Council has paid all salaries and expenses.

The ice rink (which normally produces a substantial and direct income to our Charity) was wrongly transferred to Firoka as a result of the unapproved Licence. It made up a substantial part of the £3 million loss whereas in the previous year, it had contributed £1 million to our Charity's fund. The ice rink is a charitable activity – a legal term meaning that only The Board of Trustees has the authority to transfer it. It was only after Firoka's occupation and losses having been incurred that the decision was made to transfer it to APTL – a limited company and trading arm of our Charity. The accounts as they stand incorrectly state the ice rink status at the time of the occupation.

A second report, Walklate 2, it is understood, has been commissioned by the Trustees to investigate the financial impact of the unapproved licence and how to recoup the losses. This report is due, we are told, in February. It is premature and imprudent for the auditors and Trustees to finalise the accounts before this second report is out.

The pressure that is now being placed on Trustees to sign the accounts looks suspiciously like the old regime and the Council wishing to exonerate itself for the financial mismanagement of Alexandra Palace under the occupation by its ex-preferred partner Firoka, when it was the Council who insisted on the sale to Firoka by whatever means. Further, the Council seems to wish to perpetuate the myth that Alexandra Palace is debt-ridden and therefore unattractive to potential investors and partners in our Charity.

This is yet another example of the conflict of interest here, whereby the Trustees are also Councillors. It is clearly time for the trusteeship of Alexandra Palace to be made independent of politics and be run competently for true public benefit.

Firoka is out for good

The Alexandra Palace Trust issued the following
press release this afternoon (19 August 2008):

The Alexandra Palace Charitable Trust has received notification from Firoka Ltd that the developer is no longer interested in being involved in the future of Alexandra Palace.

This comes after over a year of negotiations between the Trust and Developer.

Matt Cooke, Chair of Trustees, said:

'As this option for moving forward closes I am determined that we will grasp the opportunity this now gives us to explore new ways of realising our objective of securing Ally Pally's future in an exciting and sustainable way.

'I will be taking proposals to the next meeting of the Board which will be about that future and learning the lessons of recent months, years and decades. The Trustees will now focus on reviewing the various options open to them in order to ensure that the charitable objectives of public resort and recreation are maintained. We will take this opportunity to ask the difficult questions and seek realistic proposals for the Palace's future.

'During this period of negotiation we have not been idle and a tremendous amount of work has been done in reinvigorating our trading company culminating in the appointment of a new Managing Director last week. This work gives us a solid foundation for the future - a future which could be tremendously exciting for the Palace.

'Local people and beyond see pure potential in the Palace, and we have a duty to Haringey and all of London to secure and realise this tremendous asset's future.'

Secrecy in Council decision-making

Or, Alexandra Palace and the code of omertà about the sale

THE intense secrecy pervading the sale of Alexandra Palace continues. The Palace is a Charity, paid for by all of us and whose beneficiaries are all of us. But its disposal, as a Developer Shell by Haringey Council to their favoured property developer, doesn’t feel like simply the sale of surplus land.

The sale is treated with all the secrecy of a big arms deal to a dodgy third-world dictator. Replete with bribes, kick-backs, immorality and government-subsidy, together with excuses of ‘commercial confidentiality’ – unlawful, but said to be in the interests of National Security. It’s surprising the press hasn’t been slapped with a D-notice!

Again and again, the Council uses commercial confidentiality to excuse the mystery about the deal. This is despite the fact that entering into these arrangements was ruled unlawful in the High Court last October and not least, because these arrangements were in defiance of the specific promise of a Government Minister in Parliament in 2004. The shady deal is currently stalled; since the High Court defeat, the silence from the developer himself has been deafening.

Even some Trustees of the main Trust Board have difficulty obtaining basic information from the coterie of council-cronies who control our charity.

Sometimes it is possible for the public to attend an entire Trust Board meeting. But often press and public are told to leave when the meeting agenda reaches Exempt Items. The items the council wants to conceal from the public are always labelled Exempt. These are said to be commercially sensitive but are probably politically sensitive or just plain embarrassing. They might reveal details of council ineptitude and the level of quality of the legal advice that the Council receives.

Some of the current negotiations about the sale of a Lease of 125 years, are believed to be about the need to provide for full disclosure (during the required Public Consultation) and to maintain commercial confidentiality (!)

Month after month, the general manager provides either verbal or written reports which say that there is nothing to report. The Council has been furnished with an Opinion from leading Charity Counsel, that shows that any Lease of AP cannot be solely for commercial purposes. But Haringey is unable to face the fact that this unlawful deal has to be called off.

What little information is released to the public, is carefully channelled and spun via the PR firm Lexington Communications, which our council-controlled Trust has employed at great cost since January 2005.

As for the two nominally autonomous committees which might be expected to have a say about the future of our Palace, the Council cares little what they might say. Nonetheless, the Council has artfully managed to muzzle those two watch dogs: the Statutory Advisory and the Consultative Committees.

Haringey council corrupts their proper independent functioning, by inviting favoured members of those committees to have access to documents on the strict condition that they are sworn to secrecy. By granting access to some members of those committees, the council divides those committees and extends the conspiracy of silence.

Those members selected for access will feel special and privileged and may do more than just keep quiet. They are likely to stifle any reservations they may have had and defend council policies against attack. But by agreeing to such restrictions, these members loose any basis for arguing that the documentation should be open to all, as it should be. Their position is compromised and their independence is shot. The Council has deployed the insidious technique of omertà in order to pervert both committees.

Each committee is also dependent on the council organisation for resources and facilities including venue, Minutes, administration and legal “advice”. The Consultative committee is chaired by the same Councillor who chairs both the main Trust Board and the Palace’s trading company.

Secrecy in local government is probably never likely to lead to good, well-rounded decisions. It can cover-up mistakes. An absence of scrutiny allows a culture of waste and inefficiency to develop. Councillors and council officers, of course, feel more comfortable in such a climate but it is not good governance.

• Is the Firoka deal dead or not?

THE CHAIRMAN of the Alexandra Palace Board of Trustees (for at least another month) recently wrote that “the Trust continues to explore” how to achieve the significant investment needed for the palace.

This may or may not be news to Firoka, the property developer with which the London Borough of Haringey signed a 125 year lease for our charity’s asset.

For some time now, the Trust and its PR company Lexington have claimed that Firoka will deliver £75m or £55m or - most recently – £45 million of “investment”. Why does the exploration for cash continue? Has the Trust in fact lost its way?

The contract with Firoka specifically promises a Casino in the User Clause section. Despite much obfuscatory bluster, this is not denied. The chairman has not yet offered an explanation for the casino clause or even acknowledged it. Is the reason for no comment that this Clause is a matter of embarrassment to the Council? Perhaps the next chairman will address it.

Another sign the deal is dead is that the Chairman has, for the first time, publicly opined that the casino “would be totally inappropriate at the Palace”. Is the reason that this was not said earlier, because of a fear of offending Mr Kassam, who insisted that there was the promise of a casino in the contract? But if the whole deal is off, it is now safe to make such a bold statement? Is this leadership?

If a casino fails to materialize at AP, it will be because either the whole Firoka deal is off or because Haringey renege on its promise to Firoka of a casino in the legally enforceable lease. The later to cost the Council a lot of money, but hey, its only our money they would pay to Firoka in damages!

For the past two years, the Council has described Firoka as its “Preferred Development Partner”

When Firoka were evicted from Alexandra Palace in December, following their unlawful occupation, the Trust issued some kind of ultimatum to Firoka.

This was followed in January with what the chairman then described as receipt from Firoka of a statement expressing the “clarity” the Trustees had been seeking and “fresh commitment” from their preferred partner. The commitment that was fresh then, now looks stale and even rancid.

And recently we heard a renewed offer to takeover AP from the current London Mayor, in which the Haringey council leader expressed glee and interest. Is this another signal the Firoka deal is dead?

The chairman is keen on always being clear, or at least saying he wants to be clear. Can he please clarify whether or not the Firoka deal is on or off? Will the Trust proceed with the Firoka deal or consign it to the dustbin where it always belonged? The uncertainty is not helpful and some of the Trust’s concerned beneficiaries would like to know.

The chairman’s commitment to openness “in the coming months” was first made last Christmas, four months ago. Since then we have had the normal secretiveness and repeated exclusion of press and public whenever there needs to be discussed something that is politically embarrassing. The public – the beneficiaries – needs fewer vacuous platitudes and more information from this shady Trust.

Published
Hornsey Journal
30 April 2007

THE ULTIMATUM: Alexandra Palace Trustees and Firoka

IN the disposal of Alexandra Palace, the weakness in the Council’s position, vis a vis Firoka, is now fully revealed. The attempt at obtaining a firm commitment from the so-called ‘preferred development partner’ has fallen flat.

The levers of power must be satisfying to operate, even if little thought appears to lie behind their exercise. The young chairman of the Trust since May, seems to have relished his powers to evict members of the press and public from meetings of the Charity Trust Board.
Then in early December, the Trust proudly announced that they were serving notice on their preferred partner (!) from Alexandra Palace and, if that eviction wasn’t enough to demonstrate how tough was the Council’s new position, they also gave Firoka an ultimatum, reported in the press as:

“The time has come for Firoka to decide whether to move ahead in partnership with us as preferred development partner at the palace. If there is a will to progress, we are prepared, ready and willing to move forward.”

The only will demonstrated so far, has been a will to treat the Council-run Trust with contempt. The ultimatum expired on 28 December, without any apparent response from Firoka. The bluff by our Council - with their empty hand - has been called by professional players.

The Trustees do not admit publicly that they learnt anything from their defeat in the High Court, apart from learning the way ahead was now clarified (?!). But they probably did learn one thing: that the bluff of Firoka could be called - as it was called finally by the High Court judge - and Firoka does not necessarily walk away as they threatened.

In their earlier negotiations the Trust had buckled each time Firoka had threatened to walk. The custodians of our history, the Council, even agreed to the demolition of the world’s first television studios in their craven desire to appease commercial greed. The Council-Trustees should have called the bluff of Firoka a long time ago and pretended to Firoka that the Trustees were competent partners to be respected.

The recent attempt at a tough position came far too late and with its failure, the feeble position of our council is exposed still further.

Chamberlain’s speech to the House of Commons after the failure of his ultimatum to Hitler is well known, but do not expect any statement from the trustees along similar lines:

“Sir, that was a final Note. No such undertaking was received by the time stipulated and consequently this Trust is now at war with Firoka.”

Instead, expect an increasing bunker-mentality from the beleaguered Trust. Expect no public comment, but actions that signify the following statement:

“Ratepayers, that wasn’t actually a final request to commit (nobody really believed us, did they?). Although no undertaking was received by the time stipulated, the Trustees will continue to beg, bungle and grovel to Firoka to take Alexandra Palace away from us.

We now know we are rubbish negotiators, we don’t have any Plan B, and no exit strategy because we have burnt our bridges. We will get an awful deal on behalf of the Trust beneficiaries (the public).

We must appease Firoka before they turn on us and sue us for millions due to misleading them over the need for a public consultation. We (the Council Trustees) deliberately ignored the promise of a Government Minister and we may yet end up paying a far bigger price than merely the costs that were awarded against us in the High Court.

We have no choice but appeasement. You ratepayers will suffer, but hey, you’re going to suffer anyway!”

Having the local Council running a big asset disposal is like an anemic hemophiliac trying to get a good price for a blood-bank from a vampire.

31 Dcember 2007

• Carry-on-bungling

IT'S CARRY ON bungling at Alexandra Place, with Council-appointed Trustees last week agreeing to evict the Council’s favoured business partner (Firoka) and in the same breath, begging him to stay (!). The public could be forgiven for being confused and it would all be hilarious but for the fact that the incompetence and mismanagement is being paid for by us and by cuts to services. The bungling tab is picked up by the Trustees = The Council = Taxpayers.

HARINGEY would have the public believe that the Firoka-eviction is the smooth execution of a coherent strategy to relieve ratepayers of a large burden. A spokesman for AP stated “it was a good time to end the agreement giving both parties an opportunity to reflect on the outcome of the judicial review” (they’ve had about nine weeks to consider on the judge’s damning remarks). The Chairman said of the U-turn “… it is right and proper that we now look to bring our own trading company back on-line …”

The truth is different. Firoka’s occupation - approved by the Trustees - was brought to the attention of both the Attorney General and of the District Auditor. The Trustees knew that the slipshod situation they had engineered would not pass muster. We shall watch with interest to make sure they really do leave and that this is not just another Haringey-sham.

Firoka leaves the Palace having trousered money from all the events held there since May. This could be a seven figure sum. We do not yet know how much of this money is owed to our Trust and how much, if any, has been passed to our Trust. We do know that Firoka has not paid for the Lease since they assumed the management of the building in May; the Lease was quashed by order of the High Court of Justice on 5 October 2007. Haringey let the occupation slide on for a further nine weeks.

Did the oft-quoted short-term licence agreement “dated” May 2007 really exist? Does the public get to see a copy of the 28 day notice to leave? When did the notice start? It is besides the point that Firoka may have paid some running costs during the time of their occupation. Did they pay rent? Goodwill? A Premium? Who pays for Insurance? Repairs? Maintenance? Is the taxpayer to wear all this? When will the Trustees take responsibility for this bungling?

Firoka’s boss at the Palace, Shaun Ormrod leaves behind a bruised and demoralized workforce, what is left of it. Ormrod expected to stay in charge and the staff were unhappy with the management style. They were encouraged to resign, which avoids eligibility for redundancy payments. It is surprisingly that a Labour Council allowed its workers to be treated so shabbily.

Firoka should not have been allowed in the palace in the first place. The incompetent Trustees, some of whom do not know what is going on, agreed to a late change in the Lease by Firoka, that would allow Firoka to occupy the Palace just one month after the Charity Commission sealed the sale Order. Normally the period would be three months, allowing sufficient time for any Judicial Review to manifest itself.

How many folk selling their property would allow possession before completion? In effect, this is what the Trustees agreed to.

The Trustees and their legal advisor, if they thought about it at all, were presumably gambling that no legal challenge would come. It came, they lost, costs were awarded against them. It seems that negligence was involved at some point and it is a pity that the Trustees never take personal responsibility for their decisions, otherwise they might take them more seriously.

The Trust chairman said

“The time has come for Firoka to decide whether to move ahead in partnership with us as preferred development partner at the Palace. If there is a will to progress, we are prepared, ready and willing to move forward.”

The time has come for the Trustees to decide whether or not to persist with the biggest rip-off of public assets in Borough history, or to hand over the reigns to those who have the interests of the people at heart.

The Chairman has spoken of his love for the Palace: so much love that he can’t wait to get rid of it! His love for the Palace might be compared with the love of a mother giving up her baby for adoption to a known pedophile! (see: Firoka and Oxford City Council)

The Council believes their problems over AP will end as soon as they get rid of the Palace. But when new problems arise, the public would still look to the Council as Trustee to solve them. Except the Council would be in a hugely weaker position to do anything about it, having sold the building.

Eviction of Firoka does not end the troubled stewardship at Alexandra Palace. The only thing that will end the agonies over AP will be a change in Trustees, away from the dead hand of an incompetent Council.

[letter sent 17 December 2007]

• Power-play, poker and permissions at the Palace

I WAS GLAD to see the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, David Lammy, publicly endorse a recent refusal of an application for a betting licence:

The decision by Haringey Council to refuse a licence for yet another betting shop on Green Lanes should be applauded …

… This is something I will support in our community and will fight to keep this on the political agenda in Parliament.

David Lammy MP

Letters, various local papers, 20 November

I hope the MP would agree that there are more than enough betting facilities in Haringey. I further hope that Mr Lammy, as a former Minister of Culture, might oppose another betting licence application in Haringey, this time in our Borough’s most important building, Alexandra Palace.

This latest application might be the thin end of a thick wedge (of cash) that culminates in a few years time in Haringey’s first casino. This current application (just for track betting) is made in the name of ‘Alexandra Palace Trading Limited’ (APTL).

APTL is a secretive company controlled by none other than Haringey Council itself. The sole shareholder of APTL is the AP Trust Board. Both Boards comprise Haringey Councillors and all Councillors on the APTL Board are on the main Trust Board. APTL is therefore absolutely under the control of the Majority Group of the Council.

(What’s the betting that the Haringey Licensing Authority will find in APTL, a most trustworthy applicant of utmost integrity to whom they have no hesitation in awarding a gambling licence?!)

I hope that Mr. Lammy will hold firm to his principles and not be deflected by the fact that, with this new gambling licence application, Haringey Council is in effect, applying to itself for permission (a conflict of interest?).

What might further complicate this matter for the Member of Parliament, is that Haringey would be granting a licence to themselves in order to help out a private business with which they have become enmeshed. The need for APTL to help out their crony, arose because of what appears to be a need to circumvent Section 342 of the Gambling Act (see below) in connection with an earlier application made by the private company. Unofficially, APTL is applying on behalf of Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Ltd. whose original gambling application was turned down because it contained two fascinating claims:

In Firoka’s original application of 9 November 2007, they (a) confirmed that they had the right to occupy the premises and (b) applied for a permanent gambling licence.

There is no doubt that Firoka do occupy the premises and the claim for permanency may not at first sound remarkable.

But on 5 October 2007 – less than five weeks earlier – a Judicial Review had quashed the Order to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka. Haringey’s behaviour leading up to that sale had been such that the High Court awarded costs against Haringey. The Judge said that the Trustees (i.e. Haringey) were “the authors of their own misfortune”. No one should hold their breath waiting for Haringey to explain that away!

The Chief Executive of Haringey Council, Dr. Ita O’Donovan, recently confirmed that Firoka Management “was given a very short term licence to trade at the Palace” but she has declined to give further details. Firoka’s managers have been handed both the income and management of Alexandra Palace, in exchange for – nothing. At least, nothing that the public knows about.

According to the gambling licence application form “… it is an offence under section 342 of the Gambling Act 2005 to give information which is false or misleading in, or in relation to, this application”. Again, no one should hold their breath waiting for Haringey to take action over the statements of their business partner.

I sincerely hope Mr. Lammy will not turn a blind eye to the continuing irregularities at the Palace. Three things seem certain:

1. Firoka are keen to have a Casino at Alexandra Palace. A casino would be generate much cash and profits for the Firoka company. Last year, Firoka tried to get a Super Casino in Oxford but were frustrated. A casino is clearly shown on Firoka’s architects’ plans for Alexandra Palace.

Firoka are insisting on total control over the entire building with what is euphemistically called a ‘Holistic Lease’. Firoka have repeatedly threatened to walk away from this shady deal unless they get everything they want. Haringey have suggested in the past that he will not be allowed his casino, but Mr. Kassam has a reputation of getting what he wants and he is a past-master at dealing with local authorities of variable competence.

2. Haringey are keen to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka. Haringey have bent over backwards and forwards to accommodate their favoured partner. They are so keen to give Firoka everything they want, they have agreed to sell AP for a reported figure of only £1.5 million. But if one deducts the sale costs – by 2006, £1.2 million – from the sale proceeds, the Council will have received nothing. But it is worse than that for ratepayers: as part of the deal, the Council will incur new, extra, regular costs which are the annual upkeep of the park and road: now running at £740k/year and rising, costs previously met by the profitable Trust). The lengths to which Haringey are prepared to go to please Firoka, can be gauged by the fact that our local Council has even agreed to the destruction of the world’s first television studios, a potential UN World Heritage site.

3. Most of the deal remains secret. All the sale documents, including the Lease and Master Agreement were deliberately concealed by Haringey from the public during the Consultation. That was heavily criticized by the High Court. Even now, those documents are available only in severely redacted form. But the top-secret Project Agreement has never been available to the public, even in redacted form. The key finding of the High Court, was that Haringey had no business entering into any confidential deals in the first place over the AP sale, which contradicted the promise of a Minister in Parliament. Some of the concerns raised here may be groundless, but unless all sale documents are published un-redacted, we will never know. Haringey’s PR statements and politician-assurances have negligible legal value: only what is contained in the contractual agreements is legally enforceable.

Conclusion: For public consumption, Haringey claims there will not be a Casino at AP. Before the sale of our Charitable Trust’s asset, they will probably repeat this. But how can we know there does not exist a “gentleman’s” agreement or a clause in the secret contract providing for a casino in the future? A couple of years after a sale, and after Firoka threatens to pull out for the umpteenth time, they might then be granted the full gambling facilities they are keen on.

Even with the arrangements over the current APTL application (for permanent track-betting) we see how eager the Council is to help their favoured partner. A private or secret arrangement about the Casino could be the one sweetener that prevents Firoka from walking away.

By turning a blind eye to the occupation of AP by a private company, probably after the expiry of their licence to trade, Haringey thumb their nose at the High Court decision. The whole process relating to this sale shows that Haringey Council believe they are beyond the law.

I hope David Lammy MP might read the evidence and the Judgment from the totemic High Court case, together with further information about the continuing scandal at Ally Pally, all of which is freely available at www.saveallypally.com

• Alexandra Palace: Gambling back on the Agenda

THE latest news from Alexandra Palace is that there is an Application in with the Council for a premises licence under the Gambling Act 2005. It happens to be for a permanent track betting licence. But it is more evidence of the determination of Haringey Council’s favoured development partner (Firoka) to bring gambling of one kind or another into the Alexandra Palace Trust – a registered Charity – with Council connivance.

The first Application for this gambling licence was made by Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Ltd. on 9 November 2007 for Track Betting and the licence would cover betting services provided for the World Darts Championship and other sporting events held at the hall at the Premises.

It is questionable as to whether Firoka should be in Alexandra Palace (AP) at all – and more questionable after the AP sale Order was quashed by the High Court. But, less than five weeks after the High Court quashed the sale of AP to Firoka, that same company applied for a permanent track betting licence at AP. On their original application form, they confirmed that they (Firoka the applicant) had the right to occupy the premises.

This was a little too rich, even for Haringey Council. Haringey’s Chief Executive confirmed recently that Firoka Management

“was given a very short term licence to trade at the Palace”

although what is meant by very short term, we do not know.

The secretive Alexandra Palace Trading Ltd. (APTL) is a company wholly owned by the Trust. And so Firoka’s cronies in APTL are now applying in that name for a licence which will doubtless be used by Firoka. APTL is now a shell, having prematurely handed over to Firoka both management and the income from the Palace, in return for – nothing. Is this not another example of the inherent conflict of interest in having a Charitable Trust board comprised of political appointees who implement Council policy?

The gambling Application makes a mockery of the licensing process. The puppet company of a puppet board of the ruling party, seeks permission to have permanent gambling in the principal asset of a Charitable Trust, whose beneficiaries are all of us. In effect, the Council is asking itself for permission.

Can this be regarded as good governance, an arms-length transaction or free from conflict of interest? Does anyone imagine that the public consultation about APTL-Firoka’s gambling licence will be any more sincere or effective than the public Consultation over the sale of the entire building? The so-called Consultation about the sale was condemned by the High Court as being fatally flawed, it was quashed and costs were awarded against the Council. The Council put much pressure on the Charity Commission to ensure that public consultation was limited, unfair and uninformed.

If there are submissions from the public about the gambling Application, what is the betting (off-track of course) that any objections will be ruled vexatious? Objections will be ignored because it is almost a forgone conclusion that Haringey will award itself a licence. Does anyone doubt that this is an incestuous relationship and that Haringey will award itself this licence? I’m sure that APTC and the Council are all in the same team; let us wait and see how independent is Haringey’s ‘Licensing Team’.

The intention of Haringey’s partner (Firoka) is to demolish the world’s first television studios and we are expected to be reassured on that score because it would need a Planning Application that requires approval by Haringey’s Planning committee. Does anyone believe Haringey will not give their favoured development partner all the approvals they demand?

Haringey continues to try to force through the sale, most aspects of which remain shrouded in obsessive secrecy. Is the gambling licence application another example of the corruption of normal processes that we now expect from this Council over AP?

How many more irregularities before the Charity Commission steps in to remove the current incompetent Trustees and replaces them with committed, independent Trustees of integrity?

GAMBLING: Firoka and the Casino
THE other manifestation of Firoka’s strong desire for gambling at AP is the Casino. The chairman of the Trust board has claimed that it was a myth that a Casino was ever a part of Firoka’s proposals. (Firoka certainly wants a Casino, although a Super casino now appears less likely.) A Casino – later described by Cllr. Cooke merely as an ‘option’ – is clearly shown on Firoka’s architects plans in the AP basement.

Cllr. Cooke said “One thing that needs to be highlighted is that since the implementation of the Gambling Act, the casino is no longer a realistic option.” Another thing that needs to be highlighted is that Cllr. Cooke sees the Casino option solely in terms of whether or not it is able to proceed under an Act of Parliament.

Is Cllr. Cooke relieved or disappointed on behalf of Haringey’s favoured partner, that the Gambling Act makes Firoka’s casino no longer a realistic option? Is he relieved because of the potential embarrassment or disappointed that Gordon Brown has stopped further Super Casinos? Would he prefer that the casino was a realistic option? Prostitution might fit with the casino and a hotel but there’s probably an Act of Parliament implemented that means that that too was not “a realistic option.” Money laundering, drug dealing and organized crime might also fit well with the Casino.

A small scale casino is allowed under current legislation so some sort of casino is a real possibility. On the gambling licence application form, it is just another checkbox: Casinos come in three sizes: Regional, Large or Small. Which size is favoured by our Charitable Trust?

Does the Chairman see casinos as desirable in Muswell Hill or anywhere else in Haringey? Does he believe that Firoka’s desired Casino – and all that would go with it – would not promote social problems? Those seems to be the prior questions. Politicians sometimes show moral courage and leadership. It’s troubling that gambling is seen only in managerial terms rather than in any moral context, the more so from the representative of a party that prides itself on looking after the more vulnerable in society.

Although Councillor Cooke has claimed to represent the position of the SaveAllyPally group, he is careful to avoid mentioning its principal address www.saveallypally.com which has copies of the evidence from the High Court case that he wants to avoid publicizing. Why did his Council have costs awarded against them in the High Court over AP? That web site also contains the goals of the campaign and much additional information.

Haringey Council has prostituted itself over the sale of Alexandra Palace, but they are not a very business-like prostitute – the reported sale price of £1.5 million will pay for just 24 months’ worth of regular additional costs they have agreed to take over (the park and road upkeep), before the extra costs become a burden on Haringey’s long-suffering ratepayers. After spending £100 million on AP over the years, it doesn’t seem like a good deal to flog it for just £1.5 million.

Sent to local newspapers on
20 November 2007

Councillor Cooke and censorship

COUNCILLOR M. Cooke – Chair of the Alexandra Palace Trust Board for just a few days – launched an attack (Hornsey Journal 21 June, p.16) on a rate-payer who is concerned about the fate of Alexandra Palace and – due to the connivance of Haringey Council – the impending demolition of the world’s first TV studios.

“to do anything to the [Alexandra Palace] Park other than manage and improve it is simply not on anyone’s agenda.”

This might be easier to believe if the only ‘agenda’ that exists on the subject was full public knowledge (i.e. the Lease & related documents). But Cooke’s Council has gone to some trouble to maintain a hidden agenda that contains the details that are either commercially or politically sensitive. Cooke stated:

“… O’Callaghan claims the details of the lease have never been made public, yet he has a copy on his web site. ...”

Not only is Mr O’Callaghan telling the truth – i.e. that the details of the Lease have never been made public – but Cooke dissembles when he says there is a copy on [the] web-site.

That document, which was all that was available to Save Ally Pally,

1. was doctored by Cooke’s Council so as deliberately to conceal selected details from the public. That single document was given up so unwillingly by the Council, that,


2. it took formal requests under the Freedom of Information Act to prise away even that censored version. We still do not know what are the details of the whole Lease.


3. does not include other, intimately-connected documents that include the Master Plan and Project Agreement. Cooke fails to mention these, implying that the Lease is everything there is to know about the deal anyway. We the public, have never seen any part of these other important documents, not even censored versions.


4. Cooke implies that the public has had full access to the Lease all along, and fails to disclose that – thanks to his Council’s most earnest efforts – even the cut-down version was published long after the final date for public comment to the Charity Commission.

Haringey, and its puppet AP trust board, made not a single detail of the Lease public of their own volition. Our Council released a partial version of one of several closely related documents, grudgingly, too late to help the public and under external pressure.

I made a request to the Council on 11 December 2006 under the FoI Act for a copy of the contract with the development company, Firoka. After a 10 day delay and just before Christmas, Haringey asked me for ‘clarification’ of what I sought. The deadline for public comment was in early January. Haringey then wrote that the Lease was subject to commercial confidentiality and I could expect further delay while the lawyers of Haringey/Firoka worked out what they might choose to release into the public domain.

Can it honestly be said that, in the handing over to Firoka of the Borough’s most important building, Haringey has operated in a fair, sincere, open manner?

We simply do not know what details have been withheld from us. Despite the protestation of commercial confidentiality, we cannot be sure about the nature of what is kept secret or even if it is kept secret at the behest of the property developer. The information concealed may be more politically sensitive than commercially sensitive. The public – on whose behalf all of this is being done – cannot tell. Where the excuse of ‘commercial’ confidentially is used in Council contracts, it can easily serve as a smokescreen for mistakes, inefficiency, irregularities and the abuse of power.

It is conceivable that the Council expected that the Lease might be subject to an FoI request. Haringey-Firoka lawyers could have drafted the Lease anticipating that some of it would need to be withheld. For example, one could construct, include (and later withhold) a clause along the lines of ‘notwithstanding the provisions of clauses x, y and z, Firoka shall not be liable for a penny in payment to Haringey in the event of a, b or c.’ Thus, the detail in the Lease that is hidden from the public might be small, but so critical that it puts the whole Lease in a completely different light. A few words omitted might qualify ‘Access’ to mean Restriction, Refurbishment to mean Demolition and ‘Nature Trail’ to ‘Golf Course’. Do Haringey residents have no right to know what is in store for this historic public building?

So the question is: why is the Council so secretive and who is doing the misleading?

letter to local newspapers
23 July 2007