UPDATED: Organising in process to defend Harrow from right-wing disruption

 Back in 2009 the Harrow and Brent community organised a united stand against an advertised Islamophobic attack on Harrow Mosque. In the event the racists and Islamophobes were hugely out-numbered.

 Harrow now appears on an EDL list with a protest planned on Wednesday at 8pm near Yes UK Immigration in Pinner Road.

The leader of Harrow Council has been informed  and efforts by the community to organise a united defence are in process as I write. Updates will appear on Wembley Matters so please be ready to support on Wednesday.

 

A reminder of 2009 below:

Democracy in Brent – Council and Leader responses to my open email.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Martin reports Cabinet’s (in)action over my efforts to get 28 May minutes corrected.

 

If you have been following the saga over the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease, and what happened at the Brent Cabinet meeting on 28 May, you will know I feel strongly that the subsequent official minutes for item 7 are not a correct record.

 

On Sunday, Martin published a guest post from me, setting out the text of an open email which I had sent to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, and all the members of his Cabinet. This forwarded an email I had sent to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), which gave details of the changes I believe needed to be made to the minutes, to make them a correct record, which is what minutes of meetings are meant to be. I wrote: ‘I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.’

 

In the hour before that meeting, there was an exchange of emails between the Corporate Director and myself, followed by an email from the Council Leader after the meeting. As Martin has published my views, I think it only fair that he should also publish the Council’s response to them.

 

Here are the full texts of the email exchanges on Monday 17 June, so that followers of “Wembley Matters” can read them if they wish to, and make up their own minds on the issues. All of the emails were copied to the Council Leader, Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive. (As I am writing this, I will reserve the right to have the final word! You are welcome to agree or disagree with me in the comments section below.)

 

Monday 17 June at 9.15am, from Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance):

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails relating to this matter and I note your main concerns identified in your email of 14 June 2024 (now copied to the Cabinet and Chief Executive) following your consideration of Mr *****’s email of earlier that day.

 

The main purpose of minutes of a Cabinet meeting is to establish a clear record of the decision(s) taken.  The minutes should also establish the reasons for the decision(s) including any alternative options which are placed before Cabinet but not agreed.  This can be done by reference to the report relating to the decision.

 

The minutes meet these requirements.

 

Other details of the meeting are not required to be included.  In respect of what is included I cannot see that the minutes are inaccurate.

 

In respect of the first section you wish to substitute, the decision and reasons are required to be recorded in the minutes.  The minutes refer to the potential options being presented in the report, they do not state that the Leader specifically presented these options himself. You had of course already spoken about the Options so there could be no doubt that the Cabinet was aware of them and of the views of those who supported the petition to take note of them.  In agreeing the recommendations in the report, the Cabinet was agreeing to note items as recommended as Mr ***** explained.

 

Cllr Donnelly-Jackson thanked you for your contribution, which was for the purpose of representing the residents who supported the petition, and I think recording that as Cabinet thanking residents is not inaccurate.

 

There is no general requirement for Cabinet members to vote by a show of hands or to formally state their support.  Cabinet members were given the opportunity to indicate that they did not agree the recommendations which the Leader had proposed be agreed, for example if they had thought Option A was the correct choice.  None of them chose to do so.

 

In respect of your second proposed substitution and your intervention to raise a point of order, the minute clearly captures the import of the Leader’s response.  As a member of the public observing a Cabinet meeting you would not have the formal right to raise a point of order.  However, given you stated the point you wish to raise anyway, had the Chief Executive or Head of Law considered there was a matter of concern to address I am sure they would have provided advice.

 

In summary, although I wasn’t at the meeting, I have watched the webcast and do not consider the minutes to be an incorrect representation of the decision or the reasons for it, including the options which were presented by the report.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Debra Norman
Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

Monday 17 June at 9.35am, my reply to Ms Norman’s email:

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for yoùr detailed response to the concerns I raised.

 

I note what you have said, but still believe that the minute for item 7 of the 28 May Cabinet meeting is NOT a correct record, and should not be accepted by Cabinet as such.

 

I would be grateful if you would, please, publicly make clear at the meeting that a member of the public involved at that meeting does not accept that minute as being a correct record, and have that included in the minutes of today's meeting. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Monday 17 June at 9.59am (meeting started at 10am!), reply to me from Ms Norman:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email.

 

This would be a matter for the Leader.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Monday 17 June at 11.08am, from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s to me:

 

Thank you.

 

The minutes were accepted as a true reflection of the cabinet meeting held in May.

 

Regards

 

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council
Labour councillor for Tokyngton ward.

 

It is not often I agree with Cllr. Butt, but I think that what has happened over this matter, since the open email I wrote to him on 20 May (about the need for the voting on the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease to not only be fair, but to be seen to be fair) is a ‘true reflection’ of the state of Democracy in Brent under his Leadership.

 

I said above that I would have the final word. This is the reply I sent to the Council Leader, with copies to Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive and Corporate Director … etc.:

 

Dear Councillor Butt,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I will pass on your message to those who are interested.

 

I hope that you and your Cabinet colleagues will consider, along with the Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Law and Governance), the points I made in my email of 15 June, about the need for Cabinet decisions, and votes on them, to be more visibly seen to be considered and made, in the interests of open democracy.

 

That is also something where "Change" would be welcomed. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent residents deserve to be treated with more respect by our elected councillors*. The least we should expect in a democracy is that the decision-making body, Brent’s Cabinet, considers  decisions carefully and votes properly on them in its public meetings!

 

Philip Grant.

 

* They were democratically elected. Cllr. Butt topped the poll, receiving 1447 votes, when he was elected to represent Tokyngton Ward in 2022, and Labour councillors won 57.6% of the votes cast in Brent, on a 30.67% turnout. Under our first-past-the-post system, that gave Labour 49 out of 57 Council seats, and after such a victory it was unsurprising that Cllr. Butt’s councillors voted to give him four more years as Leader of the Council (a post he has held since May 2012).

Wembley Matters over the next few weeks

 Wembley Matters will be updated only occasionally over the nest few weeks. Comments will be updated when possible so leave any urgent news in the comments below.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Wembley Matters launches a new forum for Brent residents

Local newspapers can provide a lively forum for residents to express their views and contribute to local democracy.  Unfortunately the Kilburn Times with its diminishing number of pages carries only two or three letters a week, in stark contrast to the Camden New Journal that has 4 or 5 pages of letters.

Brent has at least as many local issues as Camden so I will be welcoming Letters to the Editor from  residents who would like to air their views.

 In a mainly one party borough we need to increase the number and variety  of voices. I recognise that WM can in no way replace a good local newspaper letters page but perhaps, in a very modest way, can contribute to a livelier public discourse.

Letters will reflect the writer's view and not that of Wembley Matters and should be accompanied by the name of the writer which they can withold if they wish. I will reserve the right to edit as appropriate and recommend a word limit of 1,000 words but shorter will be appreciated.

Send letters to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com 

Thank you from 'chicken shop basement' blogger

Chicken Shop Basement Update

 

Following an update posted on Wembley Matters earlier I'd like to thank the readers and responders of Wembley Matters for their kind support and action.

I knew that it was an unfair and unsuitable offer but didn't know how to move past that.

 

I haven't yet heard from the Housing Department but will keep you updated on the outcome.

 

Whilst I'm delighted that the Council have apparently withdrawn the offer - ie not forced me to be intentionally homeless - it is us as Council Tax payers who are better served when the Council is held to account.

 

In the meantime I'm just so pleased that it's off their books and that no another family will be forced to live there - thank you again Martin for being an incredible and dynamic local resource.

Tributes pour in for Indro Sen - great CNWL lecturer and trade unionist

Former secondary maths teacher, primary school governor,  College of North West London lecturer,  and most importantly trade unionist, Indro Sen has died shortly before his 68th birthday.

In 2016-17 Indro was involved in a dispute at CNWL over his allegations of corruption in an apprenticeship scheme and I worked closely with him on publicising the issue here on Wembley Matters. (Links below) He was suspended from his job allegedly because of his support at an emeployment  tribunal for a sacked colleague and his opposition to the CNWL's merger with Westminster College.

At the time Peter Murry, Trade Union Liaison officer for the London Federation of Green Parties and for Brent Green Party  supported Sen and said,   'Both of these are actions are entirely proper for a University and College Union Branch Secretary to carry out. If Indro Sen’s suspension is a result of his performing the legitimate duties of a UCU Officer, then he himself seems to be threatened with unfair treatment and victimisation.'

His son Shenin said on Twitter:

On Wednesday we lost my father Indro Sen. Being unaware of his underlying health issues, this has been a complete shock for me & my family, which is where my full focus is right now.

His whole life was dedicated to helping others, I couldn’t have asked for a better role model.

Sen's novel approach to maths teaching in the 70s or 80s

Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the NEU said:

So sorry to hear of the loss this week of Indro Sen. Long time NUT and then UCU militant.
Long time school rep at Kingsland secondary school. Successful fights against victimisation.
Highly regarded Maths teacher.Brilliant ally in fights as a parent, and governor, at Benthal Primary school. 

Many condolences to all the family. Rage against the dying of the light. Rest in Peace Sen.

Bernard Regan, long time member of the NUT, Summed up Indro Sen, the person:

A great comrade and campaigner. At the centre of fighting many injustices. I will remember him for his strength of character and gentleness of being. I will remember his laugh with fondness. His hat which he wore all the time - his eye for detail and passionate commitment to fighting injustices including those inflicted on him..We will remember him.

Wembley Matters postings on Indro Sen and his struggle at the College of North West London:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2016/12/greens-call-for-immediate-and-full.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/02/support-builds-for-indro-sen-in-cnwl.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/06/support-cnwl-strikes-to-defend-sacked.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/05/indro-sens-appeal-against-dismissal-to.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/02/cnwl-lecturers-threaten-action-to.html

Councillors move to improve Brent Council's scrutiny process

Scrutiny is more than just a band!

Following my article about failures in Brent Council scrutiny processes LINK local resident and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant took up the issue with councillors. Concerns centred around the Council not meeting the standards outlined in the Centre for Public Scrutiny's  Good Scrutiny Guide.  Indeed the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee's Recommendation Tracker showed only ONE response from the Cabinet to the Committee's 18 reports for 2019-20 and that was merely to 'note' the committee's recommendations on the vital issue of air quality, rather than provide any responses and action commitments.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have a Recommendation Tracker so it is difficult to assess the impact of its recommendations which are often made after very detailed questioning of officers and lead members. At the last meeting which I attended the committee members did not raise any issuers under 'Matters Arising' from the Minutes which would be one way of checking on any actions arising from recommendations.

These are the responses Philip  Grant has received which indicate that the matter is being considered by at least two councillors.

Philip writes:

Cllr. Miller  Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement, responded to my email  but he did not say whether he was writing on behalf of the Council Leader and fellow Cabinet members, or just in a personal capacity.

Among the points in his email, I welcome his statement that:

'I wish to agree with the point that Scrutiny reports should not simply be ‘noted’. Often when there are 20+ recommendations etc it can be difficult to go into great detail in responding, but generally where an action or decision is requested I feel that the cabinet should record its response, if not its basic reasoning.'

He went on to say:

'... if cabinet disagrees with a scrutiny recommendation, then we should make an effort to say why. My officers will shortly report back to the Chair of the knife crime scrutiny task group, Cllr Kabir, on progress against her report recommendations, for this reason. I would like to see this embedded in our practice more officially.'

I have replied to Cllr. Miller, saying:

'I welcome your agreement that the Cabinet should do more than just "note" recommendations from Scrutiny Committees. The findings of those committees, who have the time to consider particular issues far more closely than the Cabinet can do, should be respected and implemented by the Leader and Cabinet, unless there are very good reasons why that should not be the case. Scrutiny is one of the important "checks and balances" which a well run Council democracy needs.'

Hopefully, the points raised by Councillors Nerva and Mashari at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January, and Martin's highlighting of them , will see better treatment by Brent's Cabinet of recommendations by the Scrutiny Committees in future.

I have received the following email from Cllr. Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that Martin's efforts in highlighting this matter in his blog, and mine in sharing my concerns with councillors, may not have been a waste of time:

'Thanks for your continued interest in this matter:

I have had several meetings on the subject with the most senior officers in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that it is something I take very seriously.

A new system will be in place for the next couple of meetings of my committee and I am sure you will see a significant improvement.'

Brent Planners seek further information from McDonalds on McDelivery service at Wembley Asda - cafe now closed and gutted

The Planning Officer dealing with the application for a McDonald's restaurant in Wembley Asda has replied to Wembley Matters' query regarding the McDelivery facility:

I had previously requested further information from the applicants regarding how the proposed McDelivery window would operate and the impact the proposals would have on transport movements, pedestrian flow and parking, including the disabled parking provision and parking associated with the operation of the window.  I have contacted the applicants again today regarding the further information required, including the noise impact.   

I will keep you informed with regard to further information received and how we intend to take this forward.  We will ensure that further information relevant to the determination of the proposals is made public and that the public have the opportunity to comment further.

Meanwhile today the existing cafe has been closed and is boarded off inside the store and outside, and the interior gutted.

-->

Brent Council's 'deep and sincere regret' over Cassie's adult social care experience & commitment to learn from the case

Following on from Tuesday's story (see below) about 'Cassie' an adult on the autistic spectrum, who contracted HIV while in the care of Brent Council at a home provided by an Independent Provider, a Council spokesperson has given Wembley Matters the following statement:

“All of the partners on the Safeguarding Adults Board, including the Council, have expressed our deep and sincere regret to both Cassie and her family.   We can confirm that Cassie is now safe and happy and is having all her health and care needs met. 

“As soon as the Council became aware of the situation the Safeguarding Adults Team took immediate action to ensure that Cassie was safe and receiving the support she needed, and further steps were taken to ensure no other person was at risk.  The matter was reported to the police, who undertook a full investigation. 

“Following these immediate actions, the Council asked the Safeguarding Adult Board to consider commissioning an independent Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR).    A SAR is a nationally recognised process, under the Care Act 2014.   The Board and the Independent Chair agreed this met the criteria for a SAR because there had been serious harm in a complex case which involved a wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies.  The purpose of a SAR is to ensure the independent consideration of the facts, and to use these facts to identify and promote effective learning across all agencies.  It is a key part of improving services in order to prevent serious harm occurring again.  The function of SARs is not to apportion blame or make judgements about negligence.

“As a result of the SAR, the Safeguarding Adults Board has a multi-agency action plan.  This will be monitored by the Board and the Board’s Independent Chair, who will ensure that the lessons have been learnt across all the agencies involved.   

“The Council has fully supported this process.  We have already delivered a range of actions to improve the support we provide to vulnerable adults in Brent, including setting up a team that specifically focuses on reviewing the quality of care and support for individuals in residential placements, and integrating the health and social care learning disability teams into a single team providing holistic support to adults with a learning disability. 

“Cassie continues to do well in her new home and we continue to ensure that she is getting the support that she needs.”

-->

Wembley Matters off-line

I am going into hospital for an for an operation  so Wembley Matters will be off-line for a while. I have certainly had cause to appreciate the NHS as a service over the last 18 months or so! Long may it continue.

Butt and Brent Momentum at loggerheads over HDV & academisation

Cllr Butt has co-signed the letter criticising the Labour NEC over their intervention on the Haringey Development Vehicle LINK. That, combined with his letter to Village School staff criticising union members over their strike action LINK, has intensified criticism from Brent Labour Party members and Brent Momentum who took to Facebook and Twitter over the weekend to express their views.

Alleged political interference in Brent's planning decision making process brought to attention of Monitoring Officer

 From Philip Grant (first published as a comment on Andrew Linnie's psot)

Further to Andrew Linnie's post LINK, this is the text of an email I have sent to Debra Norman, Brent's Chief Legal Officer:-

Dear Ms Norman,

I am writing to you in your role as Brent Council's Monitoring Officer, to bring to your attention allegations of interference in decision making over planning applications, which, if true, are in clear breach of Brent's Planning Code of Conduct and Members' Code of Conduct.

You will remember that, on 3 October, you replied on behalf of the Council to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made, about hospitality received on 10 May 2017 by two Cabinet members and two Senior Officers from Terrapin Communications Ltd, on behalf of some of their developer clients. I shared the information provided, and my views on it, in a blog on the "Wembley Matters" site on 5 October, which I believe I drew your attention to.

As a result of my involvement in that matter, I received private email correspondence in early October from several Brent councillors, who shared information with me "in confidence". I responded to them, saying that I felt their allegations and supporting evidence should be passed on to you, as Monitoring Offier. I do not know whether any of them have done so, as they may be concerned about the personal consequences to their political careers if they were to "blow the whistle" on the Council Leader.

I was not intending to get involved further, but information from another FoI request has been shared today on the "Wembley Matters" site, in a blog headed "No records kept of Cllr. Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers", which I would suggest that you read at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/no-records-kept-of-cllr-butts-closed.html

In view of the concerns raised in that article, I felt it only right to ensure that you were made aware of the nature of the information I was given by councillors early last month, so that you can consider what action should be taken to stop the potentially illegal manipulation of Brent's planning process, and help to restore trust in that process, which many Brent residents feel has been brought into disrepute. Even though I cannot give the names of my sources, I believe that the information they gave me was in good faith, and is probably true.

1) It is "common knowledge" among Brent councillors that there is "political interference" with the planning process at Brent Council.

2) A former planning officer and a former legal officer at Brent Council have confirmed that there was direct interference by Cllr. Butt in planning decisions made.

3) At least three current or former councillors on Brent's Planning Committee have admitted that Cllr. Butt has told them how to vote on planning applications - but none of them are willing to speak out publicly.

I will copy the text of this email as a comment on today's blog article (see link above), so that it is in the public domain that this information has been given to you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Normal service will be restored as soon as possible

Regular readerswill have noticed a lack of postings in the last week or so.  This is not because  there are not Brent issues to be publicised and discussed.  I have been unwell for some time culminating in hospitalisation last week.  I am back at home and hope to resume postings but my energy levels are much less than usual.

I am happy to supplement Wembley Matters with any appropriate guest postings that readers may with to submit.

Martin Francis

Brent CEO confirms Cllr Butt's right to speak on Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, has responded to my request for clarification on the Council Leader’s right to speak on the Spur’s/Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow evening:

Cllr Butt is entitled to speak at the planning committee in his role as a ward member representing the views of the residents of Tokyngton ward on this planning application.

The issue was also taken up with Carolyn Downs by Cllr John Warren, Brent Conservative Group:

I understand that Cllr. Butt intends to address the meeting in support of the application from Spurs re.Wembley Stadium .

If true, I find this outrageous and is a clear conflict of interest.  I recognise that he is a Tokyngton ward councillor, but there are two other members of his ward. I do not believe that Cllr.Butt has spoken in the past few years at planning  on the numerous Quintain applications that have been made in his ward.....for obvious reasons. As a cheer-leader, and leader of Brent Council, it would be totally inappropriate for any involvement from him at planning.

Brent was recently on the receiving end of a savage report from PWC regarding all aspects of the planning process. Surely, Brent should be conscious of the need to have a process that is  not only  totally fair and even- handed  but seen by a “reasonable person “ to be fair and even-handed.

I believe that Cllr.Butt speaking at the meeting would jeopardise any belief  that this controversial planning decision will be dealt with fairly....having the Council leader attempting “ undue influence “ on the committee members is hardly a fair approach.

Carolyn Downs replied:

As you know Cllr Butt is entitled to address the planning committee as a local ward member and raise issues that are specific to his role as a local member representing the views of the residents in Tokyngton ward.

It will be interesting to see how Cllr Butt maintains the separation between representing the views of residents, his own views amd his views as Council and Labour Group leader tomorrow evening.

This is what the Brent Constitution says about the Committee’s deliberations:

36.         When the Planning Committee vote to refuse an application contrary to the recommendation of officers, the Chair shall put to the meeting for approval a statement of the planning reasons for refusal of the application, which if approved shall be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Where the reason for refusal proposed by the Chair is not approved by the meeting, or where in the Chair’s view it is not then possible to formulate planning reasons for refusal, the application shall be deferred for further consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. At the next meeting of the Committee the application shall be accompanied by a further written report from officers, in which the officers shall advise on possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence that would be available to substantiate those reasons. If the Committee is still of the same view then it shall again consider its reasons for refusing permission which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 


37.        Members of the Planning Committee shall refrain from personal abuse and party political considerations shall play no part in their deliberations. Members of the Planning Committee shall be respectful to the Chair and to each other and to officers and members of the public including applicants, their agents and objectors and shall not bully any person. Members of the Planning Committee should not make up their mind before hearing and considering all relevant information at the meeting and should not declare in advance of the vote, how they intend to vote on a particular application or other matter. 


38.        Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning 
Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code or Standing Orders. 

41.        When questioning members of the public or the applicant who have spoken at a meeting of the Committee, members of the Planning Committee shall ensure that their questions relate only to planning matters relevant to the particular application, and the question should not be party political. 


Brent's Annual Governance Statement: Public money safeguarded & properly accounted for?

A Wembley Matters reader writes: I came across the attached document tucked away in the "Transparency in Brent" section of the Council's website, while researching a point on the 2015/16 accounts. Brent's Annual Governance Statement opens with the words:

'Brent Council (‘The Council’) is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively.'

The statement does actually mention (though not by name) the Rosemarie Clarke case and the settlement with Cara Davani at the end of Section 5 - Significant Governance Issues.

I wonder if other Wembley Matters readers might be interested in having this Statement brought to their attention (as I am not aware that the Council has done much to publicise it).

Get to know some of your Brent local history with Philip Grant

Wembley Matters readers, particularly in Sudbury and Kingsbury, may be interested in two local history events taking place in the next few weeks. Both are being presented by Philip Grant, of Wembley History Society, and posters are attached giving details.

The first is an illustrated talk on Saturday 4^th June, at the new Barham Community Library. Visitors will have the chance to see the facilities at Friends of Barham Library’s new premises at 660 Harrow Road (part of the Barham Park Buildings, which were home to Sudbury’s own public library from 1952 until Brent Council closed it in 2011), as well as to enjoy a talk which combines the story of Wembley’s own fire brigade with the involvement of a local family in it.

The second event is an illustrated walk from Kingsbury Library on Wednesday 22^nd June. As part of the “Festival of Learning”, those taking part can discover that history is not just what you had to learn at school, but things you can see as you walk around somewhere you may have shopped, without actually noticing them before.

Even if you cannot come to either event, you can still find out more about the local history of Brent (its people, places and occasions that have happened here) online. Recent improvements to the Brent Archives homepage, at: https://www.brent.gov.uk/archives , allow you to “click” on the local history articles link, to access a menu of illustrated pdf files on a variety of subjects, or on the online catalogue link, to search for places in the borough from over ten thousand pictures, from Victorian times to the present.

A New Year greeting to Wembley Matters readers, from a contributor

Wembley Matters: Normal service resumed

I have been away on the North Norfolk coastal path on a personal version of Autumn Watch. There's lots of catching up to do but meanwhile here's some pictures of life beyond Brent.

Time to ask if Butt is fit to hold office?

The Kilburn Times has published an article LINK on the out of court settlement by Brent Council in the Rosemarie Clarke racial discrimination casewhcih was reported on Wembley Matters last Friday. LINK

Deciding to challenge an employer on such issues is always stressful but Brent Council's stance on the matter has added to the stress as Nan Tewari pointed out in her statement to the Kilburn Times:

Rosemarie is relieved that the original employment tribunal case is over. Her priority now is to try to recover her health, which has hit rock bottom as a result of Brent’s ill-treatment of her throughout the period from her submitted resignation in 2013 right up until the 11th hour of the case being settled out of court. 

The tribunal went through everything in great detail. It went through all so-called disciplinary charges and it was very clear they were made up and supported by documents that weren’t accurate.”

Unfortunately this is not the end and Rosemarie’s recovery will inevitably be hampered by the council leader having effectively caused damage to her reputation by the imputation in a public statement, of a justified finding of gross misconduct against her by the council. She is worried about what the future holds for her and this will inevitably impact on her recovery.

The role of Muhammed Butt, the Brent Council leader in the case is deeply disturbing. He sought to undermine Philip Grant when he tried to raise this matter at Scrutiny LINK , heckled him at an earlier Council meeting and after the last Council meeting interupted me when I was speaking to Helen Carr about her disgraceful attack on Philip. Despite other Labour councillors being aghast at Carr's conduct, Butt gleefully congratulated her on her attack and asked for a copy of the statement she had read out. 

Helen Carr has been made to apologise to Philip Grant and other councillors.

Muhammed Butt has not.

It is surely time for Labour Party Region, the Labour Group and Labour Party members to ask if Muhammed Butt is fit to hold his current office.