|Outside Brent Town Hall in Spring 2011
|At the special meeting arrnged with then Brent Council leader, Ann John
The report states: The optiopns range from reveiwing the operating model (including management and infrastructure costs) to a reduction in the level of services provided.
In 2011 there was a large turnout of young people at the then Wembley Consulation Forum which won a meeting with the then Council leader Ann John.
She offered a meeting to discuss the cuts at Brent Town Hall and there was a large and articulate turnout. LINK Among the most effective arguments were the relative costs of the Youth Service versus the cost of imprisonment for young[people who went off the rails as a consequence of the lack of facilities.
Very similar arguments are being raised about Stonebridge Adventure Playground. In 2011 the proposed cuts were reduced but some costs were saved through appointing one manager for several youth centres.
This round of cuts is far bigger than in 2011so young people have a real fight on their hands.
These proposals, along with the potential closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, will be a test for the Brent Youth Parliament and its capacity to stand up against the Council and represent young people's concerns.
Meanwhile the Labour Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Navin Shah, has condemned Boris Johnson's proposed cuts to education and youth services which will see the budger reduced from £22.6m in 2014-15 to £2.3m in 2016-17.
Navin Shah said:
The fact that Boris Johnson would even consider cuts of 90% to schemes designed to help some of Brent and Harrow’s most vulnerable young people tells you everything you need to know about his cavalier and uncaring approach to governing.Projects to increase apprenticeships and support for people to stay on at school may seem like optional extras to Boris Johnson but for many young people they make a world of difference, helping them to get on in an increasingly competitive jobs market.Boris Johnson may be focused on his next job in Parliament but he has a duty to responsibly see out his term working for all Londoners. These cuts however suggest more a policy of scorched earth, drastically cutting funding to important projects and leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.