Monday 3 November 2014

Farewell to Myron Jobson of the Kilburn Times

Myron Jobson
Myron Jobson, who has become a familiar figures covering demonstrations and meetings in Brent is leaving the Kilburn Times tomorrow.

He is joining the Financial Times to to work on features, mainly for one of its supplements.

Myron's recent series of articles on the campaign to save Stonebridge Adventure Playground has shown committed local journalism at its best.

It is a big leap into another world and I wish him well.


Mysterious Brent Full Council Meeting change may have unintended consequences


This is the rather terse statement on the Brent Council website announcing the very unusual change in the meeting of Full Council.

Peter Goss gave me rather fuller information just before his office closed on Friday:
Councillors have this afternoon been notified that the Full Council meeting on 17 November has been moved to 8 December in order that the outcome of the consultation on the borough plan can be considered as part of the 1st reading of the budget.  The web site has been amended to reflect this change.
However, this raises rather more questions than it answers.

1. Who made the decision and under which provision of the Brent Constitution?
2. When the Council has a carefully constructed Forward Plan how was this major item missed in the calendar?
3. With the Borough Plan consultation not closing until Friday November 28th, how will it be possible for the Brent officers to compile a report for Full Council in just 5 working days?

 I remain sceptical about the reasons for this decision.

One consequence of the three week delay is that some councillors may be caught in the six month rule. This disqualifies councillors from office if they have not attended a council meeting, which they are expected to attend, in a six month period.

Unless some special dispensation is granted, or councillors presently not on a committee are drafted on to a committee that meets before November 24th, there appear to be  three councillors who face disqualification as a result of the postponement.

These are John Duffy (Kilburn), Zaffar Van Kalwala (Stonebridge) and Ahmad Shahzad (Mapesbury).

This may (or may not) be an unintended consequence of the postponement decision but it would be absurd, and expensive, if as a result of the postponement three by-elections are triggered.





Sunday 2 November 2014

Scott Bartle launches positive campaign to win Brent North for the Greens

Scott Bartle
Brent Green Party today announced that Scott Barttle has been selected to fight the Brent North seat for the Green Party in the 2015 General Election.
 
Scott holds registration as a positive behaviour psychologist and works within the NHS. He lives in Mapesbury Ward Brent, where he stood as Green candidate in the 2014 local elections and gained 8% - one of the highest results for an individual Green Party candidate in the constituency.
Explaining his decision to stand Scott said:
As a Cornishman raised in one of the most deprived areas of the UK and Europe I am acutely aware of the human impact that poverty can have as detailed in the ‘horror’ statistics. It was no surprise that the regional areas of Britain were increasingly turning away from the three main parties as they have experienced neglect since Thatcher, perpetuated by Blair, and continued by the coalition.
It was also no surprise that in Brent, one of the most deprived areas of London, we have people turning away from the UK government and mistakenly thinking that their values are represented by elements in Syria. When people are alienated from the society they live in, there is only so far that they can be pushed. It’s been said that the apocalypse won’t come like lightning, but gradually like a fog. Mostly, successive governments have managed to avoid the ire of the public in perpetuating the agenda of their corporate donors but the fog is starting to become visible around us.
Whilst this fog may be pollution, as our government is being taken to court by the EU for London’s  poor air quality - we know only the Greens will protect our environment.
When Labour started the erosion of civil liberties and now the Tories pledge to repeal Human Rights legislation – we need the Greens to lead the resistance. 

When Labour sought to channel public money out of the NHS through Private Finance Initiatives that we are still paying now – we need a Green to look at the long term.

As studies reveal 50% of people receiving social care in Brent feel unsafe, we need to stop allowing private equity companies to funnel profits off-shore when they’re failing in their primary duty – Greens care.
When our foreign policy, rendered inconsistent by our colonial past is still causing conflict across the world and giving cause to recruit people from our own communities – we need a Green to challenge that. 
When the economic policy of ‘austerity’ advocated by Conservatives and Lib-Dems is an irreconcilable failure and Labour pledge to continue it  - the fog envelopes us. 
Nobody actually wants all of this – it’s why it is vital we look for an alternative. 
As Parliamentary Candidate for Brent North I will seek to highlight that Greens can provide something for people to vote FOR, rather than against – a real choice.

Through saying YES to Human Rights, YES to a consistent foreign policy, YES to Economic Change, YES to Public Services, YES to Environmental Action, YES to Green Jobs we are saying YES to a sustainable future for people, nature and wildlife worldwide

Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)

This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.

-->
Most readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination at its hands. 

Given these findings, and the strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers, up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council issued a statement, saying among other things:

Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and victimisation aspects of the judgement.’



I wrote straight away to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council, was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on that point.



I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial discrimination finding:


‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’


The tribunal also recorded that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty” of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the consequences of their actions. 

I have not received any reply from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’

The Council statement on 26 September had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this, from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling, as it is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, in November.

Although two members of Brent’s Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away, Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.

Cllr.Choudry replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments, and:

‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors - Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response: 

"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’


As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:


‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:

1.     I believe that the advice you have been given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.

2.     Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal against it.’

Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet, and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution, that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its terms of reference at Part 5) are:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'


I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday. 


I will attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr. Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.

Philip Grant


Saturday 1 November 2014

Shahrar Ali of the Green Party to take on the 'Greed Parties' in Brent Central

Brent Green Party today announced announced the selection of Shahrar Ali to contest Brent Central in the 2015 General Election.

Shahrar Ali was recently elected make deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Shahrar contested the seat in 2015 and stood in the London Assembly, European and local elections.

Speaking earlier today Shahrar Ali took on the neo-liberal parties and promised something radically different:

He said:
The People of Brent have been let down time and time again. 

From the closure of libraries and A&E wards to the privatisation of schools and council services -- all the main parties are responsible. 

From the displacement of communities from social housing to the eviction of families due to the bedroom tax -- all main parties are responsible.

From the assault on civil liberties from arbitrary raids to the deplorable tactic of racist van slogans -- all main parties are responsible.

It is high time for change of the political order.  

I have a track record of fighting the people of Brent's corner year in year out.

More and more people are coming round to our way of thinking -- and doing -- for a long-term, sustainable way of living. Politics doesn't have to be looking after number one. It can be about the common good for all, including the species we share the planet with and what we leave behind for our children's children.

As MP for Brent Central, I will fight for everybody's right to a decent life - education, health and meaningful work - and an economy that doesn't shortchange the planet every time we buy more than we need.

The Green Party is on the rise. As recently as 2012 we were knocking on the LibDems door. With Sarah Teather out of the race, and the LibDems in meltdown here more than anywhere, we are the main challenger to Dawn Butler and Labour-sheen policies. Out with the old politics, in with the radical.

Campaigners staging sit-in at Barratt Homes PR meeting on West Hendon Estate right now


Campaigners from Our West Hendon and Barnet Housing Action are currently staging a sit-in at an exhibition by Barratt Homes at the community centre in Marsh Drive, West Hendon.

The current occupants of social housing on the estate are being ousted to make way for a luxury private development by Barratts (See previous posts on Wembley Matters including LINK )

The campaigners have set up an online petition to Boris Johns, Mathew Offord MP and Boris Johnson: LINK
Why is this important?

Our West Hendon are a group of concerned residents on the West Hendon Estate that believe that the developments taking place benefit private developers at the expense of our community. 

We fear the development is going to force many people from our community out of the estate and possibly out of London. We are therefore making the following demands of Barnet Council, Barnet Homes, Barratt and Metropolitan Housing Association


Ensure the following: 

1) That all 'non-secure' tenants be granted 'secure or flexible' tenancies
 2) The right for all members of the community (irrespective of type of tenure) to remain and be rehoused on the W.Hendon estate
 3) A Freedom of Information Request to see a copy of the developers Viability Report that clearly documents their need to lower the % of social housing on the estate
 4) That IF the viability report proves that it is not viable to maintain the current level of social housing on the new development that any member of the community that must leave the estate be housed as close to their support networks in W.Hendon as possible AND be given a 'secure tenancy'.

ACV status for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be decided next week

The Kilburn Times has been supporting the campaign since the start
The Brent Play Association's application for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be made an asset of community value is due to get a response from Brent Council by November 5th.

ACV status gives some protection to such assets but does not prevent development.  However, it can be taken into account by the Planning Committee and clears the ground for a community bid. It makes a clear public statement that the facility is valued by the public.

Certainly the playground can easily demonstration that it has been a community asset for decades and many personal testimonials demonstrate its value to a community.

Front: Martin Francis (Green Party) and Dawn Butler (Labour) united in defence of the playground
The playground's fight for survival has received much support including that of Dawn Butler, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, despite Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt insisting that he remains 'neutral'. I am supporting the fight both as a Tustree of the Brent Play Association and as Brent Green Party's spokesperson on children and families.

A community asset then...


and now


Firefighters are human too-support our strike for fairness


As firefighters strike again today this open letter to the public sets out their case. Higher retirement ages for teachers ansd firefighters are examples of decisions made on the basis of accountancy rather than the realities of the job.LINK


Dear Citizen of the United Kingdom,

It is with a heavy heart that I feel I have to write to you. I am a Firefighter and I feel it’s my duty to explain to you why I have chosen to take Industrial Action. This I’m afraid is the only option I have left. I have spent my working life serving you. I have seen and done things that nobody should ever have to, but I do it and live with the scars because I am Firefighter, it’s what I do. I am there when you need me the most, willing to lay my life on the line to help you and your family in your darkest hour.  I am not a hero, in fact I resent that title. I am a human being just like you, only a human who has dedicated their life to train and train and train again for any situation. Who has fought through heat and smoke to be there when you need me the most. Who has studied for hours numerous cars to know the best way to cut you free. Who has swum in icy lakes to save you from drowning.  This is to name but a few.  I don’t do it for thanks, I don’t do it for praise, I don’t do it for money,  I do it because I am a Firefighter. It’s what I do. The only thing I ask, which I never thought I’d have to, is to be treated fairly and with respect.

The current Government have decided that since the financial crisis, people like me will have to pay for it. People who are easy targets.  This not only includes nurses, teachers, police, ambulance staff and other essential  services, but people who rely on benefits through no fault of their own to survive. We continue to be penalised while the real crooks get away with it. The Government have decided my future and I must accept whatever decision they seem fit.  No negotiation, no looking at any evidence provided, just dictating what I must concede to.  This I can not do.  It is not in my nature to lie down and accept what is unfair and unjust.  I am a Firefighter, the clue is in my title, I will fight for what I feel is right just as much as I would fight for you or your family’s life.

This weekend sees 96 hours of Industrial Action been taken all over England. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, Industrial Action will be avoided as negotiations have taken place and the relevant authorities have seen sense in sitting round a table and compromising to find a solution.  I am bitterly disappointed that the current Conservative Government, particularly Eric Pickles along with the current Fire Minister Penny Mordaunt  and former Fire Minister Brandon Lewis, think so little of us that this has not been an option.

It has become apparent that members of the public think that I am asking for more pension and more pay. This is certainly not the case, even if the Government let you believe this.  I am not asking for a single penny more.  Just what I signed up to and what I was told I was guaranteed.  The Government have started to lay new pension regulations which will be unattainable for many Firefighters’. The Fire Brigade Union has plenty of evidence to back this up*. In my 50’s, I will be asked to take a fitness test which hasn’t been laid out in writing, so I have no idea what it will involve. If I fail the unknown test I will face the choice of dismissal or a heavily reduced pension.  A decision I feel is immoral for just getting older.  The Government are also taking more pension contributions for longer and then paying out less.  This is unacceptable without any negotiation. The last time I checked we were in a Democracy, not a Dictatorship. My message to the Government is simple. Negotiate with us, don’t put us in a situation where we have no choice but to strike.  It’s not fair on Firefighters or the Public.  You have a responsibility to all of us.  Take it seriously.  This is not a game.

Please do not think that the decision to take Industrial Action has been taken lightly. It pains me that this has been our only option and even now the Government refuse to negotiate.  I wish for no lives to be endangered, but this is only the beginning of our fight.  More cuts are to come.  You will have less and less Firefighters, less and less Fire Stations.  Fire Engines are becoming a thing of the past as 4×4’s and even Mini’s are being used.  I hope that you can support me in this time of need and put pressure on your MP to challenge the way that I have been treated and the way the future looks for your Fire and Rescue Service.  The Government will try to tell you Fires are a thing of the past.  This is not true.  We still face overwhelmingly difficult fires on a daily basis across the UK.  The Government however fail to tell you that flooding has significantly increased. They fail to tell you how the Fire and Rescue Service have had to face new threats with Terrorism as 7/7 showed. We face new challenges with more and more chemicals that are used in the modern world.  The Government don’t tell you that much of what I do isn’t in my ‘role map’ but I do it voluntary so I can deal with anything thrown at me. We may be called Firefighters, but fires are only the start of it.

I implore you to speak to your MP and tell them your feelings. You can find them here http://findyourmp.parliament.uk.   Go out and show your support on the picket lines. Speak to a Firefighter, they will be happy to answer any questions you have.  We need you!  Help us to stand up for the future of not only ourselves, but the future of the Fire and Rescue Service in England.
Thank you for reading.

Yours sincerely

A Firefighter of England.
* http://www.fbu.org.uk/