Showing posts with label Bob Blackman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Blackman. Show all posts

Thursday 27 April 2023

Brent and Harrow teachers on strike unite to call on Bob Blackman to get the Government to negotiate a fair settlement of the pay dispute

 

 

With the Government refusing to negotiate, Brent and Harrow National Education Union members, on strike today, got together to deliver a letter to Conservative MP, Bob Blackman calling on hime to intervene with his Government to get them to the table to negotiate a fair settlement. 

The teachers marched the short distance from Headstone Lane Garden Centre to Blackman's office and held a short rally outside before delivering the letter. The railway backs on to the MP's office but despite the noise from the trains the message was loud and clear: negotiate.



 




Wednesday 2 June 2021

Secretary of State refers Wembley Park Station car park tower block development to Planning Inspectorate


The Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick MP, has called-in the controversial Wembley Park station car park development which means he will make the decision on whether it goes ahead rather than Brent Council whose Planning Committee approved the development.

The application will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at a public inquiry, with recommendations then going to the Minister to decide the outcome.

In a letter to Bob Blackman MP, the Planning Inspectorate said:

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is T Gilbert-Wooldridge MRTPI IHBC and the inquiry will open at 10.00am on 28 September 2021. We have currently scheduled 6 sitting days (provisionally 28 Sept 1 Oct and 4-5 October).

The Planning Casework Unit cannot forward any correspondence that was submitted to them before this case was called in. Therefore, if there are any matters which you wish to put before the Inspector, you can write to me at this address or email (leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk) quoting reference APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339.

You can also use the Internet to submit documents, to see information and to check the progress of cases through GOV.UK. The address of the search page is https:// acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/

Please submit any representations by 8 July.

The date by when the application will be decided will be published at the time the report is submitted to the Secretary of State.

At the Planning Committee only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application and Cllr Kansagra, leader of the Conservative Group said that the Council had been bribed by the developer with flats. (FULL REPORT)

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to this blog, presented a forensic analysis to the Committe based on the Council's own existing Tall Buildings policy which limited developments on the site to 10 storeys. It breached policy that had been made as a result of public consultation.  He concluded:

Committee members, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled into accepting an application which doesn’t comply with the policies adopted by Brent Council, after consultation with its residents.

This application is a flagrant breach of those policies, and you can, and should, refuse it on those grounds. 

Philip's presentation followed a Guest Post he had written for Wembley Matters the day before the Planning Committee setting out his case in detail.  LINK

Regardless of party politics the Inquiry represents a second chance to stop over-development of the site as well as possibly putting a stop to officer's increasing propensity to make excuses for developers' failure to adhere to the Council's own planning policies and guidelines.

Philip Grant adds this comment:

AMENITY SPACE -

Although my main objection to this planning application was over its breach of Brent's tall buildings policies, there were a number of other failures to comply with planning policies.

When I had a look at the webpage for this application (20/0967) today, I found that although Planning Committee approved it last November, Brent has not yet issued a consent letter, so the application is still "undecided" (although with no mention that the Planning Inspectorate is now involved).

The other interesting thing I noticed was that an extra document had appeared in February 2021, described as a "Post Committee Delegated Report". It's main subject was 'Amenity Space Provision'.

It appears that Brent's Amenity Space policy DMP19 had been the subject of a Judicial Review, and this had found that Brent's planning officers had not been interpreting their own policy correctly! 'The JR judgement has clarified that all 3bed or larger units should be assessed against the 50sqm 
standard.' 

When planning officers had assessed the amenity space required for the 451 homes in the five tower blocks proposed at the Brook Avenue site, they had used 20 square metres as the standard requirement for the larger flats.

This meant that the cumulative private amenity space shortfall for the development was actually 7,498.9sqm, rather than the 6,178.9sqm reported to the Planning Committee meeting. 

[To give an idea of what these figures mean, the standard professional football pitch has an area of 7,140 square metres - so the residents together would be "robbed" of more than a football pitch in size of private amenity space, if the proposals are approved.]

Did the new information make any difference? This is what the planning officers' delegated report concluded:

'it is considered that the scheme would still be acceptable in planning terms, notwithstanding the shortfall against Policy DMP19 as the external amenity space provision remains to be of sufficient size and type to satisfy the proposed residents’ needs. The amount and type of external amenity space proposed was clearly expressed to members, and it is considered that members would not have come to a different view on the proposal had the greater shortfall been reported.' 
 

 

 

Tuesday 2 February 2021

Local MPs back End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners in Opposition Day Debate - Quadrant Court and Forum House residents hear bad news

 

Shepherd Construction's Capitol Way development as visualised 8 years ago(see Barry Gardiner's speech below)


Months of campaigning by leaseholders trapped in their buildings for want of an EWS1 safety certificate following the tragic Grenfell fire bore fruit yesterday when the Opposition  held a debate on the motion:

Unsafe Cladding – Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

 

That this House
calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk;
provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately;
protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis;
and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.

 

Lucie Gutfreund, a tireless local campaigner, co- leader of End Our Cladding Scandal and founder of Brent Cladding Action Group,  and a leaseholder in South Kilburn, told Wembley Matters today:

 

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners are pleased with the result of the Opposition Day debate and the resulting vote on protecting leaseholders from unfair costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Even if the approved Labour motion is non-binding, it puts pressure on the Government to abide by the motion in the best way they can. Brent MPs Barry Gardiner and Tulip Siddiq spoke passionately about protecting their constituents and pushing for those who are responsible for the cladding crisis to be made to pay to make buildings safe. Across Brent, thousands of leaseholders live in unsafe buildings and are facing bankruptcy from the extortionate amounts being asked. The highest amount we have heard of is approximately £100,000 per flat in a housing association development in Alperton. No one has this kind of money; this situation is breaking not just leaseholders' bank accounts, but also residents’ mental health.

 

She urged leaseholders of affected buildings in Brent to get in touch with the local cladding action group on the closed Facebook group    https://www.facebook.com/groups/713506399518392

    or email:

brentcladding@gmail.com

 

These are the speeches from Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Bob Blackman in support of the campaign’s demands:

Tulip Siddiq (Labour Hampstead & Kilburn)

The pain of the Grenfell fire was felt very deeply in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. Those who died were our neighbours and our friends. Some survivors were rehoused in Camden and Brent and became part of our community. Then, one Friday night, shortly after the fire, thousands of my constituents had to be evacuated from the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage after it emerged that they had ACM cladding that was near-identical to that on Grenfell Tower. I ask all those on the Government Benches to consider what it must be like to live in a property that they know could face the same fate as Grenfell, and where a 24/7 waking watch patrol is required to make sure that the building is not on fire. That is the reality for many of my constituents living in the new-builds in and around West Hampstead Square, many blocks in south Kilburn and other parts of Brent, and over 70 private sector buildings in Camden that still have dangerous ACM cladding.

Perhaps the worst part of it is that the residents—the leaseholders—who had no part in creating this crisis, are being forced to pay to fix it and to pay for the waking watches, the fire safety measures and the replacement of the unsafe cladding that threatens their lives. One constituent in Kensal Rise who bought their flat using the Government’s Help to Buy loan scheme wrote to me recently to say that they are being made to pay for cladding remediation works. As she so aptly puts it, it is

“a disgusting abuse that a government would aim to help so many and then bankrupt those they aimed to help by not legally protecting leaseholders from these costs”.

To add insult to injury, none of these people can sell their homes. Many others are unable to sell simply because they are being forced to wait many years for an EWS1 form. Lucie Gutfreund, a constituent of mine who co-founded the End our Cladding Scandal campaign, told me that she and others are effectively trapped, facing crippling bills, and that the mental turmoil is ruining their lives and the lives of so many.

Grenfell was a tragedy. The Government’s response has been a travesty. I am urging Ministers to do what they can and what they should have done a long time ago: make these buildings safe, shield leaseholders from the costs and make those who installed dangerous cladding pay. Anything less is unforgivable.

 

Barry Gardiner (Labour Brent North)

Residents trapped in unsafe buildings are fed up with sympathy; they want action—certainly those in Elizabeth House, Damask Court, Capitol Way, and many other developments in my constituency do. They know that this debate should not just be about who pays. Lord Greenhalgh has admitted that the Government’s building safety fund will not even cover one third of the cladding defects, and residents in Capitol Way know that this debate should not just be about cladding. This is about a whole range of fire safety defects that have turned their homes into a building site for the past three years, and threaten to do so for three years more.

The Minister started the debate by saying that the Government “absolutely expect” building owners to do the right thing. Three and a half years on—really? The Government hold developers responsible. The developers hold the construction companies responsible. The construction companies hold the building control inspectors responsible, and the building control inspectors say that the Government privatised the system of building control, creating a downward spiral of monitoring and control, as inspection became a competition about who would let the builders get away with the most short cuts. Nobody blames my constituents, yet they are now paying for all those mistakes. They are unable to move house, unable to sell their homes, and unable to get on with their lives. They are trapped in unsafe accommodation, with no end in sight.

In advance of this debate I was sent documents that show that many of the fire safety defects that exist in the Capitol Way development were not mistakes. I have reason to believe that that was known by the construction company, Shepherd Construction, by the approved inspectors, Head Projects Building Control, which is now in liquidation, and by the project managers for the development, who were from CBRE. Those defects were known about and recorded in reports that were prepared for CBRE by its quality assurance agent. Those reports were then doctored. Evidence suggests that that took place before residents were moved into those unsafe properties.

Given that there was full knowledge of the statutory breaches of the fire safety elements of building regulations, it is clear that life was put at risk. I believe that therefore constituted a criminal offence, and that withholding such information from leaseholders, who purchased their apartments in good faith, was fraud by false representation. There was a duty to disclose that information, but no such disclosure was made. In my view, that means my constituents were victims of fraud.

In July 2019, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a written statement to say that all cladding remediation would be completed by June 2020. Seven months on, instead of expecting building owners and the construction industry to do the right thing, the Government should wake up, impose a windfall levy on the industry, and get this work done.

Bob Blackman (Conservative Harrow East)

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.

This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACM and non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.

We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.

The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.

The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.

Bob Blackman, along with other Tories, did not vote in the denate. Dawn Butler Mo, joined her fellow Brent MPs in voting for the motion.

Meanwhile leaseholders and shared ownership residents at the Quadrant Court and Forum House buildings in Wembley Park, the first new builds to be completed in the regeneration, heard the bad news from landlords First Port that the fire risk survey of the blocks could only achieve a ‘B2’ EWS1.  First Port said: 

 

As you know, we recently commissioned an intrusive survey to find out more information about the external wall system at Quadrant Court. This information is needed as part of the process to obtain an EWS1 form for your building, as a result of the Government’s changing guidance on building and fire safety. 

 

The intrusive survey has now been completed and an independent fire engineer has reviewed the findings. The survey has advised that there are concerns regarding certain aspects of the external wall system. This means that the specialist engineer can only grant a ‘B2’ EWS1 form at the moment, which unfortunately won’t satisfy a mortgage lender. 

 

However, the independent engineer has advised that there is no requirement for any additional fire safety measures for your building. This means there is no need for additional fire alarm installation, or a waking watch, which would have incurred significant cost. We have been advised that a further survey of the external wall system would be prudent with the possibility of raising the B2 rating to a B1, this will satisfy most mortgage lenders. This survey will be undertaken by the simplest means and carried out in the next couple of weeks.

 

In the event that the rating stays at B2, this would mean that the external wall system should be remediated in order to meet the latest safety standards. Once remediation is undertaken this should then satisfy the EWS1 requirements and enable an EWS1 form of a higher rating, which mortgage lenders should then accept, to be granted for your building. I have received clarification from Quintain that Quadrant Court was built to BBA certified standards upon completion in 2008. 

 

These measures are being undertaken as a result of recent changes in regulations made by the Government. 

 

Building Safety Fund 

 

As you know, Forum House and Quadrant Court were both registered with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for the Building Safety Fund and we are delighted that Forum House has been invited to apply for funding. To put this into context 2,821 buildings were registered last year and only 294 have so far been invited to apply for funding, Forum House is in this group. 519 have submitted all the required information to MHCLG but are waiting for the invitation to apply, Quadrant Court is in this group. There doesn’t seem to be any reason other than time and due process that would dictate why one building over another is invited to apply so we are anticipating an invitation for Quadrant Court over the coming weeks. It is important to note that we will wait to understand the outcome of this application before starting any remediation works which could incur costs that we will turn to the fund to cover, however, the second intrusive survey can go ahead as planned.

Residents are in disrepute with First Port over charges for the works and made it clear that residents agreeing to pay for an intrusive survey  did not mean they accepted that they were responsible for paying for any consequential remediation works. At Quadrant Court work was needed on lifts and 44 fire doors had to be removed and refitted to be compliant according to the risk assessment.  

 

Monday 30 December 2019

Did Labour's candidate for the Alperton by-election tweet admiration for Bob Blackman?

There may be more than one person with the name Chetan Harpale but if this is the same person who is standing for Labour in the Alperton by-election I am rather perplexed.

Expressing admiration for Bob Blackman, a right-wing pro-Modi Conservative (and ex leader of Brent Conservatives), who local Labour activists mobilised to unseat at the General Election may be one thing - but calling Jeremy Corbyn 'ProJihadis'...?

There is of course the possibility that the Twitter account was hacked and I will be happy to publish any clarification from the Labour Party.

The Twitter account @HarpaleChetan is now locked.


Harpale is standing to replace ex-Cllr James Allie who resigned under a cloud.

Thursday 26 October 2017

Harrow Council for Justice support call for Bob Blackman's suspension while investigation carried out

From Harrow Council for Justice

Open letter to honourable Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Amber Rudd for their action and response

We would like to draw your attention to a very recent article in the Times:’Tory MP Bob Blackman hosts anti-Muslim nationalist Tapan Ghosh’.

An Indian extremist Tapan Ghosh, the keynote speaker at the meeting on 18 October 2017 hosted by your MP Bob Blackman in the Commons, has be
en reported making inflammatory statements like ‘he had created a “Hindu Defence Force” in his state to protect Hindu communities against Muslim violence’ and that ‘Your girls and daughters are threatened by grooming but in our country our land is threatened and our existence is threatened’.

Before this, Mr Ghosh was pictured with the UK far-right leader Tommy Robinson at a meeting in London on Monday. Also some of Mr Ghosh tweets are widely known:


Considering your position on dealing with extremists, hate-preachers and hate crimes, it is unbelievable that you allowed Mr Ghosh, an Indian Hindu-nationalist with extreme attitudes, to enter in the UK!
Not only Mr Ghosh smoothly entered the UK but Mr Blackman, a Conservative member of the communities and local government committee, hosted him in the Commons during an event called “Tolerating the Intolerant”.

We are concerned that if such a hosting at the Commons is not meaningfully dealt with, then inviting and promoting extremists at the Parliament would have no limits – it could be an anti-Semitic guest next!

We have nothing about MPs using the Parliament resources to support community events but holding any divisive/ hateful activities, especially with religious overtone, could only reflect badly on our graceful Parliament.

We don’t wish to draw political party parallel here but the Labour has set good example in dealing even with any allegations of negative comments (past or present) about any communities by its members/ MPs.  For example, it would be unthinkable for a Labour MP to host an anti-Jew speaker at the Parliament (or anywhere) and getting away with it.

We need to have one standard in confronting extremism and MP actions.

We would like you to appreciate that socio-political contradictions play a great part in triggering ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism‘ and the state enforcement arrangements without the community cooperation and support are not enough to effectively address these.

We support the call to Suspend & investigate Blackman for inviting extremists to Parliament   from Mr Blackman’s highly marginal Harrow East constituency.

We look forward for your action and response!

Jaiya Shah
Chairman
Harrow Council for Justice

Wednesday 25 October 2017

Bob Blackman accused of hosting Islamophobic speaker at House of Commons event

Tapan Ghosh and Bob Blackman at the House of Commons meeting

Bob Blackman, Conservative MP for Harrow East and former leader of Brent Conservatives has been accused of hosting an Islamophobic speaker at a House of Commons meeting.

Blackman courted controversy at the General Election by supporting Hindu nationalist opposition to making discrimination against Dalots ('untouchables') unlawful under the Equalities Act. LINK

The Zelo Street blog LINK commenting on Tapan Ghosh claims:
Tapan Ghosh frightens his supporters by repeatedly talking about the Muslim “reproduction rate” - the same tactics as those talking about “breeding”. For him, “moderate” Muslims are “really very small in number”. He endorses wacko fringe websites, which naturally includes Breitbart, Voice of Europe, and of course anything from Hindus who share his worldview. He has endorsed Stephen Yaxley Lennon’s Islamophobic agenda.



All of this is not difficult to discover. Yet Blackman has been happy to host Tapan Ghosh, who dressed up his bigotry in his talk “Tolerating the intolerant” as “800 years of defending human rights”. And that is not all: this talk not only took aim at “800 years of Arabic Islamic aggression” (Muslims in Bengal are not Arabs), but also “200 years of European Christian aggression”. Tapan Ghosh is as anti-Christian as he is anti-Islam.
A few days after the House of Commons meeting, according to Buzz Feed's Aisha Gani LINK, Ghosh met up with Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League and tweeted:

Other Tories at the meeting included Amber Rudd, Damien Green, Priti Patel and Sajid Javid. They might argue that they did not know Ghosh's reputation and their attendance did not mean they endorsed his views and that it was a wider event to celebrate Diwali but Blackman has no such excuse.

This compilation of tweets demonstrates Ghosh's beliefs:

Click to enlarge
This is much more serious than some of the current controversies surrounding other Members of Parliament.

Friday 2 June 2017

Is caste an issue in the General Election in Brent and Harrow?




A consultation is currently going on regarding caste discrimination in Britain and possible inclusion in the Equalites Act. Operation Dharmic Vote LINK is operating behind the scenes to back candidates who are opposed to anti-caste discrimination legislation. This is what they say:
Please take a few minutes to understand some very serious consequences of the caste legislation and case law. For the GE17 election, the Dharmic community needs to vote in large numbers and strategically. Political Party alliances and affiliations need to be set aside. Labour, LibDems, Greens and all the nationalist parties have supported caste legislation bare the odd MP in these parties. As you will see ALL the Prospective Parliamentary Candidates who have signed up are Conservative. Please note Operation Dharmic Vote is not being an agent of the Conservative party, as our analysis and rational for supporting the independent Candidate in Leicester demonstrates.
A Government Equalities Office report gives some background to the issue LINK.  Uma Kumaran, formerly Labour candidate for Harrow East in 2015, recently called out Bob Blackman for the divide and rule tactics based on caste politics used in the 2015 campaign.  She felt she could not expose her family to the stress caused by such campaigning by standing again LINK.


Campaign materials are downloadable from the Operation Dharmic Vote site

Locally Conservative candidates Rahoul Bhansali (Brent Central), Ameet Jogia (Brent North) Bob Blackman (Harrow East), Hannah David (Harrow West), Matthew Offord (Hendon) and Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) have backed Operation Dharmic Vote's campaign to withhold legislative protection for the UK's 250,000 Dalits (untouchables).

Brent resident Sujata Aurora said:  
Caste discrimination is endemic within parts of the Hindu and Sikh communities in the UK - there have been instances of doctors refusing to give medical treatment to Dalits and others where Dalit couples have been refused venues for weddings. It is a discrimination which remains largely hidden to wider society and its defence is usually cloaked as a way of preserving traditions. We have laws against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexuality and disability and it is frankly appalling that some candidates in this election are seeking to prevent the implementation of laws against caste discrimination. Voters should question their candidates about their stance on this issue and ask why, in 2017, it is legally acceptable to treat Dalits as inferior subhumans.
Green Party candidate for Harrow East, Emma Wallace recalled the 2015 election:
When I stood as Green candidate in Harrow East in 2015 I could not believe that Bob Blackman and his team had employed such a religiously divisive tactic as 'divide and rule' caste politics to ensure that he retained his seat.  It was especially shocking in light of the fact that Bob Blackman had been elected to represent all his constituents since 2010, in what is the most ethnically and religiously diverse constituency in the country.  It is beyond reprehensible that there are a number of candidates standing in this election backing a campaign to prevent legislation that protects caste members from discrimination. There is absolutely no place for caste discrimination in the UK. 
Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent Central, Anton Georgiou said:
My party's constitution is unequivocal, it says, we exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society in which no one shall be enslaved by ignorance or conformity. Caste discrimination does not belong in the UK's modern society. I am disturbed that some candidates in this election are supporting efforts to maintain it and prevent legislation that would ensure Dalits are treated as equals in our community. Brent's representatives should be leading the way to end this discrimination, not seeking to safeguard it.
Jaiya Shah (Chair Harrow Council for Justice) and Dr Pravin Shah (Coordinator Harrow Monitoring Group) have issued a joint statement on Bob Blackman's candidature  LINK
We can’t support Bob Blackman because we strongly believe that an MP should represent all constituents on equal footing without taking sides, stirring up religious emotions for votes and dividing the communities in the process.

Sunday 12 April 2015

UKIP's Martin Ferguson sinks without trace and his successor gets into hot water

Martin Ferguson
Martin Ferguson, who was UKIP's candidate for Brent North was mysteriously replaced at the last minute by Alan Craig. There are mutterings of a possible 'embarrassment' regarding Ferguson that has been allegedly hushed up by the party. It is unclear whether he remains a member of UKIP. Ferguson has not responded to my enquiries about the reasons for him stepping down and his party status. His image still appears on UKIP's official candidiates' page LINK

His successor, Alan Craig, has lost no time in making his mark. Pink News has exclusively revealed LINK that he is due to speak at a 'gay cure' event. He will join a panel on 'resisting indoctrination' alongside Christian anti-gay activists.

Scott Bartle, Craig's Green Party opponent said:
The only ‘conversion’ the Green Party is interested in is from a bigoted society, to one where we’ve put an end to discrimination of people due to their sexuality and protect non-binary rights.

Sadly (and ironically for UKIP) it is prejudiced attitudes of people such as Mr Craig that contribute towards people seeking asylum in the UK because of the criminalisation, discrimination and violence they experience in their own countries.

It’s time to end this culture of disbelief which has not only denied LGBTIQ people of their refugee status but resulted in needless deaths, including that of Leelah Alcorn.
Alan Craig
Craig, a former leader of  Christian People's Alliance has a history of opposition to gay marriage and called advocates of homosexual equality the 'Gaystapo'. He said LINK
Whatever you think of the issue itself, the gay marriage legislation last year was a democratic disgrace. Faithful one man/one woman marriage has been a defining and enduring bedrock of our society and culture – and the preeminent place of nurture for the nation’s children – for a millennium and a half.
Bob Blackman
His position is very similar to that of Bob Blackman, presently fighting to retain his Harrow East seat for the Conservatives. Blackman was denounced by his ex-mistress for 11 years, Cllr Carol Shaw (Conservative, Brondesbury Park) after he spoke about the sanctity of marriage in parliament.

Blackman said:
If this (gay marriage) went ahead it would be difficult to promote Christian values in parliament. I also make a point to promote religious values in my constituency.
Marriage is for man and woman, and for same-sex couples there is a legal partnership. It certainly angers religious groups and constituents, many of whom have contacted me
Luke Parker, the Conservative candidate for Brent North, is rather more progressive. Responding to Pink News LINK over Alan Craig's speaking engagement he said:
I don’t actually think it’s funny… this is a very serious and growing party, and they’ve transgressed into a party of hate.

UKIP selection policy seems to be based on finding people who can get as many other people as possible angry about who they want to hate this week.
He went on:
I wonder if there’s aversion therapy that can stop you being a bigot. If there is, maybe we can set it up so every time someone looks at a UKIP leaflet, they get an electric shock.”