Oliver: Reviewing the Situation

Everyone was familiar with the Dodger and his clipboard. Incurring Dodger's displeasure was something you would try hard to avoid, even if it meant treating the wee tyke as though he actually was a figure of authority. There was good reason for treating him that way - he reported back to his master.

An anonymous commenter shared their experience with us:-

When working on the market about a year ago, I came under the scrutiny of the young Dodger. He popped up in front of my stall when I was still setting up. With clip board in hand he cast his eye over my stall & uttered "rubbish", then ticked a box on his board. When I asked him what he was up to, he said that barny asked him to go round & see which stalls were good & which were rubbish. Later he came back to tell me that I should put up my company name sign. At the time I just laughed it off. I'm sure this kid was having great fun doing Barny's bidding, but this should not be, as the market can be a dangerous place for an unaccompanied six year old.

Your eyes did not deceive you. Traders' displays were being critiqued by someone whose cultural horizons were defined by Spongebob, Lego and cheese string, and whose ideal retail experience was Toys R Us. And Dodger was copying him.

Off yer trolley

A quick plea to the management.

As Ben is not around at the moment to effect repairs, can you please send someone out to "liberate" a few new trolleys to replace the crippled ones.

The picture should remind you where to "borrow" them from.

Thanks.

Oliver's choice

O happy day. You're a casual trader. It's coming up to Christmas and there just aren't enough pitches to go round. You're one of a few traders left at the end of allocation. You're not too worried about getting a pitch though. You've been coming to the market most days all year round. Loyalty has it's reward and you're sure Barmy will pick you.

Wait... What's this? Barmy's got young Dodger with him. Ah, it's alright. He's obviously brought the young spud along to show him how a professional market manager operates. Here we go - the moment of choice.

Barmy bends down to little Dodger, indicates you and your fellows, and asks the lad to choose who should stay and who should go. Dodger points at one trader, then another, then another. But not you. You're not one of the favoured. You're going home.

Oliver: a responsible adult speaks

I'm still shocked by a trader's visit to the market on Sunday to circulate a letter naming their child and family as the subject of my posts. I have been sent a copy of the note, but I don't intend to publish it as I have no wish to compound the harm it has already done. (I am grateful for the publicity though - the blog had more visitors yesterday than at any time since it started.)

Rather than address the note's authors, I'll address myself to the Dodger's parents, who, like the boy himself, I am not prepared to identify by name. I firmly believe they would be right to be angry with anyone who might name their child openly and therefore reveal their identity publicly, in a blog or a note. The lad is innocent and shouldn't be named to anyone who doesn't know who he is. I am a responsible adult and his identity is safe with me.

I also think the parents are right to be angry with whoever thought it was a good idea to expose this child to risk and them to ridicule in the first place. That Dodger was used as some sort of unofficial, unpaid assistant manager is outrageous and I am quite sure the boy's parents were blissfully unaware of this. I do not doubt that they had no idea he was being encouraged to collect rent, carry cash, vet traders and disrespect adults. I am confident they didn't know about the traders who left the office carrying receipts adorned with their son's childish doodles. I wouldn't question that they had no knowledge of their "friends" being afraid to refuse giving their son a tip, especially when he asked for one.

I'm sure of all this because I cannot conceive of any parent who, being aware of these things, would allow them to continue for a moment. I'm convinced that they would not have wanted their fellow traders, with whom they enjoyed much banter and laughter, to be fearful of attracting their son's displeasure, resulting in the real management's unwelcome attention. They would no doubt have admonished those responsible for encouraging their lad to play a game of "managers and traders".

What has been posted in this blog and reaffirmed here must have been news to them, and I envy them. In their blissful ignorance they were almost unique. A great many people in the market did know about these events. Many were affected by them. Everyone involved, including traders and GSM's staff, must have known these things were wrong, but did nothing to stop them, such was the climate of oppression.

If my little blog has helped alert Dodger's parents to the way their son was used, I am happy, and I hope they will actively pursue those who misused him and alienated so many potential friends.

In case Dodger's parents haven't been paying attention, this blog isn't directed against them - it isn't anti-anyone. Really. I know it may not seem like it sometimes, but that's true. What it is, however, is pro-trader. Of his parents I ask: can you honestly say that you never felt bullied, intimidated, disrespected or ill-used? You and almost every other trader - hence the blog.

Let me be clear. I don't write about these things to upset a child. Nor to disturb blinkered parents. Not even to punish the management that brought the situation about and allowed it to continue. Just to stop it. These things did happen, they were wrong, they affected many traders and they must never happen again. That's why I write the Oliver posts.

As to the motives ascribed to me in the misguided trader's note, I would have thought that I'm obviously not engaged in a quest for attention. If I was, haven't I kind of blown it by being anonymous? I'm not the message, just the messenger - so don't waste your bullets on me.

Oliver: What the f***?

I've been reliably informed that someone's been walking around the market openly naming the Dodger - in writing.

I'm very upset about this. As I said in my first post in the Oliver strand, "Oliver Twisted":

"What happened was not the children's fault and I am not using their real names. I shall call the boy Dodger and the girl Rose."

I've never deviated from this, as I take the view that those who witnessed the events knew who was involved, and those who didn't don't need to know, so I'm rather shocked.

To all who have commented and emailed on this issue, my thanks. However I don't want to go off half-cocked and criticise anyone without being in possession of the full facts, so I'm holding your remarks back and delaying my own comments for now. Can someone please email me a copy of said note so I can see what's going on.

Compensation?

I've just seen Whistler's post called Compensation. It's a bit off the wall. Still interesting though.

There's one thing Whistler missed. I'm supposing that the shop's leaseholders come in for compensation because their businesses are going to suffer in the redevelopment. Ditto GSM. What about the dozens of businesses that operate from market stalls, some of whom have been there for more than 20 years. Shouldn't they be compensated?

Perhaps GSM will be generous and let some of their compensation trickle down to stallholders. That was a weird thought - who knows what I'll be like when the lithium wears off completely.

Seriously, why don't you guys band together and get some legal advice - before it's too late.

Horn of plenty

This is a comment I received on my "Bungled" post:-

I'm not sure of the specifics of your posting but I can tell you for sure that the non food traders are being pushed aside on the weekdays to make room for the food court. I have also heard rumours that the food stalls are not paying rent at the moment. I know this for sure with regard to Wednesdays (12 weeks grace I believe) but there seems to be confusion if this is also the case on Thursdays and Fridays. I would have thought the food court is meant to be a healthy addition to the weekday markets, rather than a take over bid at the expense of other long standing paying traders.

First let me say I have no wish to set traders against each other. Before commenting here please remember that this situation is not of the traders' making, but rather of a bizarre management style that rules by division. Much as it pains me, I have to confirm the truth of the expanding food court and the pressure on space for other traders.

I can also confirm that you are correct about the rent-free pitches. All the Wednesday traders, food and non-food, have the thick end of 3 months free, while GSM's largesse has been confined to food only on Thursday and Friday (I'm not sure if they all get that - anyone know?).

I'm not sure why the most profitable businesses in the market need that kind of subsidy, but what do I know?

Victim support

I feel the need to speak out on behalf of one of the most put-upon traders whose treatment last weekend plumbed new depths.

Dominique has been a regular casual trader for quite a while. She is affable, friendly and manages to smile in the face of adversity. She sells leather bags which although not designed or made by herself, are bright, modern, inexpensive and there are few other bags on sale in the market that are better.

She is consistently the last trader to be allocated a pitch, but last Sunday she was more put-upon than usual. There were many new casual traders; I recognised some from Covent Garden's Apple Market, which I understand has contracted recently. (Could these people's appearance have anything to do with Whistler's remarks about Sunday spreads? There were no spreads last week.) In conjunction with the new traders, there was further pressure on space due to the food court overflowing into another row of stalls.

As a consequence, although every new casual was accommodated inside the market hall, Dominique was given a stall outside the toilets in Durnford Street, traditionally the crappiest pitch available. Insulting enough, you'd think. To rub salt in the wounds, she was not given an electricity supply all day in spite of pointing out the omission to management.

Just to press their point home and dump on her business to the greatest degree, the manager allocated a double pitch opposite Dominique to a trader selling cheaper bags.

Way to respect your regulars. Morons.

Bungled

Has anyone noticed that since the introduction of the weekday food court, arts and crafts traders are being pushed out. There's a huge, mainly empty, space for the food which used to accommodate non-food traders.

They have to go somewhere (in the case of Colin last Friday, home) so Barmy has been putting up stalls along Durnford Street. Now I remember ages ago asking Bill why he never had stalls in Durnford Street when the weekday market was busy. According to him, GSM's lease forbids the erection of stalls beyond the canopy (and of course the office doorways have to be left clear) on weekdays. That makes sense as the office tenants need free access to their buildings and car park.

I don't know if Barmy thought the conditions of the lease don't apply to anything he wants to do. I do know that on Friday he started to put the stalls out again - and shortly after took them all down even though traders were waiting for them. I reckon someone from NBRE or the Hospital yanked his chain. Anyone know?

Oliver: I'd Do Anything

First let me say I know this sounds far-fetched. If I hadn't seen this myself I would be highly sceptical on hearing it third-hand. It's true.

Imagine you're Barmy. Allocating pitches took you the usual exhausting hour or two. You've had a hard day in the market office with Dodger raking in the rents. Dealing with all those pesky traders moaning about the toilets backing up, about the power going off for the tenth time today and about their stock being nicked from storage again is wearing you down. You're tired of traders still not getting the priority system, no matter how many times you explain it. Now you have to trudge around to visit all the traders who haven't brought their rent in yet. No, wait. There is an alternative.

It's no good. I just can't think like Barmy. What in the name of whatever he believes in possessed him to delegate this job to the boy Dodger. Barmy sat in the office while he sent a child, someone else's child at that, out into the market to collect rents, an act so mind-bogglingly irresponsible, reckless and plain stupid that it beggars belief. What Barmy expected Dodger to do if someone wanted to take the money away I can't imagine. Perhaps I'm ill-informed and the lad was schooled in martial arts (Barmy's something of an expert, we're told) so GSMs bag of sovereigns was quite safe from the local footpads.

Nobody witnessing this could possibly have thought it right, least of all those having their rent collected. That no-one refused to pay or spoke up about this at the time (even Dodger's parents) shows what a climate of fear Barmy's regime brought about.

Plank

What do you do if you have a member of staff you want to get rid of, but you want to bypass all the rights employees inconveniently have these days?

They haven't done anything wrong. Quite the reverse - they're one of your most effective, loyal, honest, hard-working and respected employees. They have, unfortunately, committed the serious disciplinary offence of treating traders and staff like human beings. How can you get shot of them without stirring up a load of legal trouble ending up in you losing an industrial tribunal case?

Make their life a misery, of course. If they need the job badly enough, like if they have a wife and children and the usual financial commitments to support, they'll stick it out. Kick them out of the job you employed them to do and stick them somewhere out of sight. Slap a gagging order on them - hell, why not extend it to their wife too? Give them the crappiest jobs and treat them like scum. For the sake of their family they'll tough it out for a while, but, if you make their life grim enough, in the end they'll quit. Problem solved.

I've just seen an anonymous comment on Whistler's blog:-

The message came straight from the horses mouth on Saturday (the horse being John Burton when he visited the Market)
"Ben will not be returning to Greenwich Market"
so that ends any speculation.

Well done GSM. Part one of your plan has worked. How long before part two kicks in and Ben steps off the plank?

Oliver: As Long As He Needs Me

Thankfully, collecting rents in the market office while traders lost business was just a blip (see Oliver: rent boy?).

Most of the time Barmy operated the policy of other managers and collected the rent from the traders at their stalls. Where Barmy differed from his predecessors was in his choice of security assistance. Collecting the rent has always carried a little risk and a wise manager takes along some muscle for backup. In the past, someone like George or Anson would be on hand to look intimidating and carry the cash.

So who did Barmy choose to protect GSM's money? Step forward the fearsome Dodger. Whenever Barmy went on his rounds to collect rents, Dodger was there - moneybag at the ready. I think it was a brilliant tactic. What self-respecting armed robber would ever believe that the thick end of five grand was being held by a six-year-old?

A chip off the old block

As I noted before Barmy's big brother, well, small brother, is among you. So far it seems that Guy, for so he is named, has some of Barmy's qualities - but with a refreshing twist.

Guido has already been overheard being bollocked for monkeying around with a refreshing disregard for health and safety (only his own thus far, so no problemo). In this regard he differs greatly from his bro' who bleats on endlessly about health and safety while allowing everyone else to be at risk. (You just know I'm going to do a post about that, don't you?)

Well, now Guido has displayed another of his sibling's hallmarks: making traders cry. After a few moments with the chap while setting out her stall, a female trader was in floods of tears which took some time to control. This has been a regular feature of Barmy's reign and to find his bullying tactics being duplicated is disturbing.

However, as I implied, there is a difference. Guido apologised! For his sake I hope Barmy didn't see this sign of weakness or Guido will be banished to Elephant and Castle before you can say shafted.

Oliver: rent boy?

One of Barmy's subsequently aborted experiments was the gathering of rents in the office. Rather than tour the market going from stall to stall to collect rent from traders, Barmy expected them to leave their stalls unattended to go and queue outside the office waiting their turn to pay.

I'm with Barmy of course. Having to leave your nice warm office to save the peasants being obliged to desert stock and possible customers to cough up the cash is unacceptable. I doubt if the traders saw it that way, so may have been less than pleased to then wait to assist in an arithmetic lesson.

Once admitted to Barmy's sanctum, they would be faced with having to pay their fees to his rent boy. The boy Dodger would collect the rent, work out how much change to give, under Barmy's tutelage, and write a receipt.

I trust the entire market appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the lad's education.

Going for a burton

Who should be seen in the market this weekend but John Burton himself. An uncommon sighting as Mr Burton is usually too busy to visit his domain, preferring to entrust Barmy with overseeing the serfs.

At least I don't think he comes among you often - but I could be mistaken. According to my sources he was armed with a digital camera and was seen discreetly taking the odd snap. Perhaps he likes to have a few photos on his desk to help him remember what traders look like. No, surely not - best not to have one's days sullied with such reminders. What then?

Not only was Mr Burton taking pictures, but it was said that if you tried really hard, you could hear the faintest sound of whistling. Could he have an alter ego?

Oliver's army

In the days of Oliver's army Barmy would seldom be found without his sidekick, Dodger. Like Dr. Evil and Mini-Me, they seemed ideal companions, spending hours sequestered together in the privacy of the market office or strolling the market aisles spreading goodwill and reassurance. As time passed and with his seventh birthday fast approaching, Dodger was given more responsibility and sent out into the market on his own.

Barmy equipped his tiny assistant manager with his own walkie-talkie on the market circuit so he could be in constant contact with his master. Sometimes seen in his official day-glo market staff tabard, it was always reassuring to know that in the event of trouble, the plucky four-footer was ready to leap into action.

Oh how safe everyone felt in those days.

Hands up

How refreshing to see that GSM have put their hands up and agreed to compensate Yok for her losses (see "It's a fair cop").

Actually she saw Barmy on Friday to press her case with him. As you would expect he denied all liability. Apparently none of it was GSM's fault and Yok couldn't expect compensation anyway as GSM weren't insured for this sort of thing. Every time Yok tried to explain why she thought she should be compensated, Barmy shouted her down with "Yok, you're not listening to me". No Barmy, you're the one who wasn't listening. Or thinking.

As I mentioned in a comment on my previous post, this is far from the first time GSM have stuffed up and lost or damaged a trader's gear or caused an injury to someone. They always claim that it's not their fault, there's no insurance, so suck it up. No. If something in GSM's care is stolen or damaged, or you're injured, and it's not your fault, don't accept GSM's line. Remember, they should compensate you - if they can't recover their loss through having no insurance, that's their problem. If need be, consult a solicitor.

That's what Yok did. For once Barmy picked on the wrong helpless frail woman. Her husband, a solicitor, paid Barmy a visit on Friday. I don't know what he said, but I understand GSM have seen the error of their ways and agreed to cough up.

If they don't pay out, victimise Yok, or otherwise act like bastards in this issue, I'll let you know.

Oliver Twisted

What if I told you that until recently a market manager delegated some of his duties to a boy of six to seven years of age (it went on so long he had a birthday)? What if that boy was given responsibility way beyond his years? What if the lad inspired unease in traders and staff? What if an even younger girl was given power over traders' livelihoods? Now I'd have to be making all that up, right?

What happened was not the children's fault and I am not using their real names. I shall call the boy Dodger and the girl Rose. I shall call the market manager Barmy.

All that follows in the "Oliver" posts is true.

Oh Brother

Is it just me, or is the sudden appearance of Barmy's brother a bit weird. I'm not talking about his looks, clearly the Crockford's midwife didn't have enough ugly dust for more that one application. No, it's the rather odd fact that nobody's ever seen this bloke before - then Ben gets shifted sideways and <<poof>> here's Guy. Magic.

I feel rather sorry for him really, one minute he's chucking another prawn on the barbie and the next he's up to his eyeballs in wallaby droppings. Time will tell if he's been gifted with enough of the family's sandwiches to make up a full picnic.

It's a fair cop

On Thursday last week, the Thai girl who sells silk scarves, Yok, was pissed about by the new assistant manager (according to said assistant anyway) who gave her a very hard time to get a pitch. She didn't seem to know who Yok was or what she sold. Yok, who has been a constant presence for at least two years, was expelled from her regular pitch and nearly went home. Eventually Patrycja (for it was she) had two tables erected in the space outside the office at 10 a.m. so Yok stayed. The only thing I can think of to say in Patrycja's defence is that she had the Thursday market dumped on her by Ben's displacement and Barny's absence.

Moving on to the following morning, Yok comes in to find half her stuff nicked - hundreds of pounds worth. It had been left out all night by the management, so the piss-heads from the local pubs could pick over it and help themselves. The poor sods who do the storage hadn't spotted the stuff as it wasn't where it should be. The management, who you'd expect to do a scan around to make sure all's safe and sound, had buggered off without checking and without letting anyone know. It's at times like this that you need Ben and Alex.

A week on and so far the management have denied all responsibility and refused to entertain compensating her. Yok pays them to put her stuff away in their storage. They don't put it away. It gets nicked. Whose fault do you think that is?

I'm bringing this up now because it hasn't been resolved as far as I know, Barmy was in the market today and so was Yok's husband. If anyone knows what the score is, please let me know.

What a dope

Had a problem getting your daily black? Want some skunk but don't know where to look? Come on down to Greenwich Market and visit our new Cannabis Court. Sadly that's not as far-fetched as it should be.

There is a trader on the market who comes in as late as he likes and never has his pitch given away. A trader whose prime pitch goes against Barmy's "only for designer-makers" policy. A trader who seems to have a guardian angel. A trader who doesn't just sell the usual Greenwich Market stuff.

What they do sell has been smoked by half the market staff who've ever passed through. Their main business (not the visible one) is common knowledge among other traders, but they don't seem concerned. Can there be an explanation for their confidence?

Smoking ganja is commonplace in Greenwich Market. If you're planning on rolling a joint, the traders' men's toilets are the usual place. Even trader's children have blundered in on this activity. Can the management not know?

There may be a ready explanation for the dealer's nonchalance and the users' indiscretion. Here's an extract from a letter printed in the Camden New Journal on the 20th December 2001:-

I write with reference to the recent statement by the Home Office on the legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy. Councillor Jane Roberts, leader of Camden Council, has also raised this issue with statements made to the Camden New Journal.

Camden Lock manager Barney Crockford wishes to open the first marijuana café in Camden Lock despite the immense drug problems in Camden Town. I would like to say that this is such an important matter that it should have been raised in the Government's election manifesto and not sprung on the public by the Home Secretary a few months later.

Jose Kelly
Bayham Street
NW1

I'm not making a point about the pros and cons of cannabis. I just wonder what sort of market you want and what sort of people you want running it.

A few more facts for the curious. Cannabis is currently a Class C drug and has never been legal. Possession is a criminal offence punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. After reclassification to Class B that penalty will rise to 5 years. The maximum penalty for supply, dealing, production or trafficking is 14 years imprisonment. I'm not sure what the penalty is for turning a blind eye.

The Home Office is stiffening up enforcement right now. The land on which Greenwich Market sits is Government property. I think we can expect the authorities to take a dim view.

Gagging for it

Why don't the market porters talk to anyone any more? Why won't Ben talk about his treatment at the hands of GSM?

They've all been gagged. Every one of them has been ordered by their superiors (I use the term loosely) not to talk to traders about anything more controversial than the weather. If you try to have a chat with any of GSM's staff and Barmy heaves into view they clam up tighter than a barnacle's sphincter.

What are GSM so afraid of?

About Comments

You are most welcome to comment on this blog if you have a point to make that will help unsettle the management, reveal injustice or restore traders' confidence. This blog is completely open to comments.

Unless you're Fudgepacker or another Barmy apologist. I'm not like Whistler. I couldn't give a toss about your freedom of speech. You want freedom of speech? Start your own blog. This one's mine. Comments are moderated, which means I get to review them before they appear on the blog. If I don't like them, they're toast. (It's a bit like the Barmy approach to mediation, but there'll be no bullshit here.)

Having said that, any Friend of Whistler is a Friend of Marketeer, even if you're a bit uncomfortable with my way of doing things. Steer clear of libel and you'll be welcome here. Remember - facts, truth and eye-witness accounts.

Welcome to my world

Hello everyone. I think introductions are in order. My name is Marketeer, last survivor of the three Marketeers. I hope you're a market trader, a market manager, their bosses, the market's owners or interested bystanders. Press, councillors, lawyers and members of parliament are, of course, also most welcome.

I described myself as the twisted bastard offspring of the Greenwich Whistler, which is about right. Like a lot of people, I think Whistler is amazing. I've watched Whistler and been deeply impressed by their style and cool under pressure. The comments of Fudgepacker and friends have been poisonous and nasty, but Whistler has been calm and polite throughout. Sod that.

I've also watched market traders bullied, abused, divided, undermined, intimidated and reduced to tears. I've stood by while staff have been similarly treated. I've seen livelihoods wrecked, emotions injured and spirits broken. I've had to watch people in what was once the happiest market I've ever seen descend into misery and despair. It's hell.

You all know who's to blame but you can't speak up. Whistler knows who's to blame but apparently needs to keep an eye on the bigger picture and bring about change by persuasion. I respect that, and I'll leave them to get on with it. This isn't about the bigger picture.

I know who's to blame and I won't be quiet. I will speak up on your behalf. I will name names. I will make one concession to the Whistler's ways: I will only deal with facts - there's no need for unsupported rumour when there's so much that has been witnessed.

Right then. I'll kick off tomorrow. I am so looking forward to this.