Butt on Davani case: The Council 'will not condone a witch-hunt against staff'

As you know Wembley Matters has carried a number of articles calling for Brent Council to provide details on whether the Council made a payment to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources on her resignation, and if so, the amount that was paid. This statement has been made by Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council.

Statement regarding employment tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke

 
"Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.

"The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement. We do this not because of any desire to defend our reputation, but because of the corrosive affect of untruths on the morale of our workforce and our ability to move forward as an organisation.

"The tribunal found that Ms Clarke suffered ‘discrimination on the grounds of race, victimisation, and was constructively dismissed’. The case relates to events between March 2012 and August 2013. Most of the managers and officers who had any significant involvement with the case have left the council.

"The tribunal findings are complex and centre on grievances raised by Ms Clarke, Head of Learning and Development, against her manager, Ms Davani, Head of HR. Before these were heard, she was suspended by Mr Newby, Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement, for another matter which, if upheld, in our view could have constituted gross misconduct. Ms Clarke resigned and left before the disciplinary and grievance matters had been fully determined.

"The council continued with both the disciplinary and grievance processes after she left. Ms Ledden, the Borough Solicitor, considered the gross misconduct case and concluded that she would have been dismissed. She also concluded that the grievance was without merit. The tribunal disagreed.

"The tribunal drew a direct comparison to another case of a white member of staff who was suspended on the grounds of gross misconduct and resigned, where the council did not continue to hear the case after he left. Fundamentally, it was this difference in the way the council acted that led to the finding of race discrimination. Different managers made the decisions in these cases, but the findings were against the council as the employer.

"Much has been made of the role of Cara Davani, in relation to the case. The fact is that the tribunal found fault in the decisions made by a number of managers and officers that collectively led to the finding against the council. We are sorry that mistakes were made, but we do not accept that all the staff concerned were therefore racist; indeed two of them were black managers. It was not what they did that led to the finding, but the difference between what they did and what other managers in the council did in similar circumstances. The Council will not condone a witch-hunt against staff, even those who make mistakes.

"The discrimination findings relied on what is known as the reverse burden of proof. If an organisation acts differently in two cases where the two employees happen to be of different race and cannot satisfactorily explain why, then it is deemed to have discriminated. The finding was against the Council as a whole.

"We are not legally allowed to discuss the terms of Cara Davani's departure. All staff are treated no more or less favourably than they are entitled to be treated in accordance with our contracts and in line with our employment procedures.

"In the three years since the start of matters in this case, Brent Council has made great strides in relation to its HR and Equalities practices. Most recently, we were judged to have reached the ‘Achieving’ level of the Equality Standard for Local Government.

"There are few councils in the country that are as proudly diverse as Brent, nor as committed to embedding equalities in our services and employment practices. We have used the failings in this case to learn, by commissioning a review of practices and through implementing an improvement plan.

"We stand on our record, as a service provider and employer, and hope that our staff and the public will judge us on this."

NOTE: The Watford Employment Tribunal Judgment can be found HERE

UPDATED: Dan Filson asks Brent Council, 'What do you know about £91m PFI?'

The 'World of Brent Council' is a strange place as any regular reader of this blog will know but the fact than Cllr Dan Filson, Chair of the  Scrutiny Committee, has to seek information via a Freedom of Information request to his own council, speaks volumes.

This is a request posted on the What Do They Know website:

Dear Brent Borough Council,

1: What evaluation, if any, has been made of the Public Finance
Initiaive contract made apparently on 19 August 2009 for a period
running to 18 December 2028 for a cost of £91,573,000?
2: Does the report to councillors at the time of the contract set
out the cost savings supposed to be achieved by this contract?
3: Did the contract cover services (the information I have suggests
'real estate services' but what that covers is unclear,) beyond the
financing of a capital requirement, and if so what services were
they?
4: Is there any break clause in the contract should either party
wish to end the contract, and if so would the exercise of such a
break clause incur penalties, and if so on what scale?
5: What is known of the other party to the contract, e.g. Is this
the subsidiary of a major bank, and what contingent risks, such as
the cost of replacing this contract, would arise in the event of
either the other party to the contract or the parent company
becoming insolvent?

Yours faithfully,

Daniel Filson

UPDATE July 17th Last night Cllr Filson in an exchange on Twitter justified using the FoI route, rather than asking the Council directly for the information, in conversation with a Green Party member:

Cllr Filson may be interested in this article I wrote on Wembley Matters in July 2011 entitled 'Civic Centre costs shrouded in secrecy':

Opposition to the Civic Centre, now under construction opposite the Wembley Arena, is increasingly evident and Cllr Ann John has been forced to defend the project at the current round of area consultative forums. Residents in Kilburn have criticised the Council for being 'Wembleycentric' and neglecting land that could be redeveloped in South Kilburn while others have been frustrated when trying to pin down the actual cost of the scheme and mistrustful of assurances that the project is 'self-financing', 'cost neutral' and 'won't cost residents a penny'. They are told that the £100m centre will make annual savings of amounts ranging from £2m to £4m due to efficiencies' and moving out of other Brent buildings, and pay for itself in 25 years. Transferred to personal housing this is tantamount to saying that a new house 'costs nothing' if expenditure over 25 years is equal to the amount saved from not renting.

In the light of the cuts ahead and the diminishing role of local government it is not clear how many council staff will be left in 25 years and whether the building will even last that long - think of Willesden Green library, scheduled for demolition by the Council, which was opened only 22 years ago.

My Green Party colleague, Shahrar Ali, has made a freedom of information request for financial details of the Civic Centre, which have been shrouded in secrecy.

There are however some clues in the budget document. The medium term forecast for central items included a forecast of an increase in debt charges from £23.359m in 2011/12 to £26.563 in 2012/13, £27.603 in 2013/14 and £29.104m in 2015/15 as 'a result of capital programme commitments including the civic centre'. The report states that the estimated borrowing requirement for the Civic Centre is £53.868m over the next two years.  In a key comment Clive Heaphy, Director Finance and Corporate Services states:

Clearly capital money is not free - it has a revenue impact and hence the strategy for future years will be to support programmes which are externally funded and those which deliver revenue savings which are equal to or greater than the debt costs. Conversely schemes requiring unsupported borrowing and have net debt costs must be reduced to a minimum or eliminated.

This gets to the nub of the issue of information. We need figures from the Council that will enable council taxpayers to assess whether the Civic Centre project meets this criteria.

Lycee International de Londres Winston Churchill produces record 14,000 page views on Wembley Matters

Unique page views on Wembley Matters topped 11,000 yesterday mostly reflecting interest in the story on the 1,000 pupil French School in London opening in Wembley at the former Brent Town Hall.  LINK Hits are normally between 1,500-2,000 a day. More than 14,000 have read the article.

What this means in terms of applications for places at the school remains to be seen.

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'The tribunal finds that, from the correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance, this was not in accordance with the first respondent's [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. This reads: 

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment it says:

‘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.’

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend that the “criteria” should be: 

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:
‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.

 

Leeks the most interesting item at Brent Council meeting

A satirical local activist presented Brent Council's Cabinet members with a leak each just before the formal start of last night's Full Council meeting at Brent Civic Centre.

The presentation followed mounting concern in Brent Labour Party over leaks from the Labour Group and meetings of the party to Wembley Matters.

The councillors instantly realised what was meant by the gesture and took it in good part, appearing to laugh it off:

Most of the meeting went according to the script published in my previous blog LINK with planted questions from backbench Labour councillors and pre-prepared answers from Cabinet members. There was what appeared to be a genuine question from Cllr Neil Nerva asking about the extent and quality of consultation over the Constitutional Amendments that had been tabled.  He was concerned about the impact on whistleblowers. One of the amendments, as Cllr John Warren pointed out for the Brondesbury Park Tories, bars council workers from talking to councillors about employment issues.

The report of the chair of Scrutiny Committee was noteworthy for its almost complete lack of content.

The Council approved without discussion a report on Council Tax Support. Although this put put forward only minor changes it proposed a full review before the 2016-17 financial year.

This follows a report on the same day that revealed that Brent Council had only spent 20% of its local welfare assistance fund which is meant to be crisis support for vulnerable families.

Brent Labour support campaign on cuts but not refusal to implement them

Apparently Cllr Butt recently advised fellow Labour councillors not to read Wembley Matters as it is 'the enemy'. He is still searching for 'leakers' amongst officers, councillors and members.

Anyway, everyone is going to have to be a lot more careful and not leave documents behind after meetings and avoid any other carelessness with information Muhammed deems the public should not know.

Interestingly, at Saturday's All Brent Labour Pary meeting, a motion was put which if published would go some way to improve Brent Council's tarnished reputation over internal policy.

So here it is.

This is the motion put by Kilburn branch:

This all-member forum notes that the £54 million cut in Brent Council’s funding over the next two years, on top of the £89 million already cut since 2010 will have a devastating effect on jobs and services in the borough. We cannot accept that the Labour Party and Labour Council should take responsibility for passing on this attack, which will inevitably hit the most vulnerable in the borough.
This cut in funding is not just a financial attack, but also an ideological one, stemming from the Tories declared aim of cutting back the welfare state, alongside a reduction of local democracy and centralisation. Their model for local government is the one promoted by Tory Barnet, where the role of the Council is simply to award contracts to outside companies.
 
This assault requires a political, not just a managerial, response from the Labour Party, both locally and nationally.
 
Therefore, the Brent Labour Party, together with Brent Labour Councillors, will:
 
1. Mount a campaign informing all residents of the effect which government cuts are having on local services and jobs, encouraging them to become involved in demanding the return of the money from central government:
2. Meet with Council and other trades unionists, service users etc. to urge them to mount a campaign with them against the cuts;
3. Approach other Labour Councils, in London and beyond, urging them to mount a similar campaign and to coordinate our efforts;
4. Incorporate this campaign into our efforts to win the general election, showing how coalition government policy is affecting jobs and services in the borough;
5. Urge, together with others in the labour movement, the national Labour Party to support such a campaign and to commit to restoring local government funding and democracy, including examining ways of placing the cost on the rich and corporations rather than the most vulnerable;
6. As an integral part of this campaign, Brent Labour Councillors will give a commitment to refuse to make the cuts demanded by central government

The leadership argued that they were already doing most of this and successfully substituted an amendment to Point 6, the most radical part of the motion.

I haven't got the exact wording of the amendment (please send it to me if you have it) but it was along the lines of recognising the difficulties councillors face in making the budget decisions and supporting their efforts.

I would support the motion as it was put (retaining the original Point 6) except for widening the appeal to all Councils as many other Councils under different political control, including the Greens in Brighton, want to see the restoration of local government funding and recognise the devastating impact of the Coalition's local government funding cuts.

Season's Greetings to Wembley Matters' readers and contributors

Jean Bonnin www.banana-meinhoff.com

Wembley Matters is taking a seasonal break now.

Can I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this blog as Guest Bloggers, commenters and readers as well as those who have supplied information by email, phone and post.

I hope that in 2015 we can get ride of the Coalition and start reclaiming our public services and dedicate them to the common good.

It is imperative that we lift up our eyes and recognise that we must redouble our efforts to persuade the international community and its politicians to tackle the climate crisis.

An apology

Following complaints about a previous post I made on this blog, I would like to apologise to anyone who felt it was inappropriate, or contained inappropriate elements. It was not my intention to cause anyone discomfort, distress, or offence, which is why I have, after considered reflection, decided to remove it and the post which followed it.

Comments are closed on this post.

Tristram Hunt's 'Oath' ridiculed as teachers turn to the Greens for education policy solidarity

Ledden claims Brent Council tweeted in 'error' to 8,000 followers inviting them to speak at Monday's Full Council meeting - then bars Martin Francis from speaking

Regular reader will know about the issues around democracy and Brent Council (refresher course: LINK ) and these came to a ahead wsith the Labour landslide  with proposals to limit questions to the Cabinet and have just one 'super' Scrutiny Committee. At the same time Muhammed Butt tried to get a change in rules which would have meant the Labour leadership only being contested every four years.

A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.

On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)

Clear enough you might think and having posted about the opportunity on this blog and on Facebook I sent in a request on Monday morning to have a deputation on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.

The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.

The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK

I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the  'deadline of August 29th'.

I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):

Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.

I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.

I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.

I received the following letter  from Fiona Ledden in response:

Thank you for your email in response to my letter. 

Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up. 

I refer you to Standing Order 39 in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution “Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting”. The deadline for deputations was 29 August 2014. 

As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.

Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!

I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence.  There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.

Undaunted I replied again this morning:

Dear Ms Ledden,

I am afraid that i am not satisfied with your response.  An invitation that went out to almost 8,000 followers of Brent Council on Twitter, and was then further distributed by some of them, cannot simply be dismissed as an 'error'.

Furthermore even the 5 day's notice in Standing Orders does not say '5 working days'.  Even if we take that to be what is meant, a deadline of Noon on Monday would give 5-1/2 days between the deadline and the evening meeting on September 8th. That is Monday afternoon, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and the following Monday.

I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.

 You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.  

If Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet were genuine in their commitment to give the public a voice in representation and decision making, it seems that their desires are being thwarted.

In the Standing Orders approved by the Council at their first meeting Fiona Ledden granted some fairly draconian powers over selecting delegations to speak at full Council meetings. No one from any party questioned these powers although they were commented on here:

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else.  If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.

If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.

Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to  Wembley Matters 'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.

Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?

A 'secret' meeting with Councillor Butt

Guest blog by Philip Grant

-->

The need for independent investigation of a number of important matters which appear to be going wrong within Brent Civic Centre has been the subject of a number of “blogs”, and hundreds of comments on them, in the past few months, most recently in Martin’s article about ‘Diminishing democracy in Brent’ on 13 July:- 

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/diminishing-democracy-in-brent-update.html
 

I was one of the people who urged our Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, to publicly answer the allegations which were being made, both in comments made and in emails sent to him both before and after the local elections in May. I also had outstanding matters from a letter I had given to him on 4 February 2014, at a “Brent Connects” meeting where I had spoken out in a “soapbox” slot about Senior Council Officers failing to honour commitments in Brent’s Constitution about proper consultation and working effectively with the community (the report back to the following “Brent Connects” meeting in April had incorrectly informed the public that ‘the Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant’).

I was therefore pleased when one of my emails finally received a reply, from Cllr. Butt himself, on 24 May saying: 

‘Let’s meet up soon so that we can discuss the points that you have been highlighting. I need to be appointed as leader again on June 4^th at the agm of the council and if all goes ahead fine we can sit down soon afterwards.’

After some delays at his office, I finally met with Cllr. Butt, and his assistant Thomas Cattermole, in his office at the Civic Centre on Thursday 26 June. I am a retired Civil Servant, and right at the start of the meeting I made it clear that I wished to make a written record of our discussions. This is how I recorded it in the “Introduction” to my notes of the meeting (the only part of them which I feel I can disclose, for reasons which will become apparent):

Robust local press in Brent more important than ever

Hannah Bewley, Brent reporter for the Willesden and Wembley Observer, has filed her last reports fro that paper. During her time at the paper, which is an off-shoot of the Harrow Observer, despite having little space she published some great investigative journalism.  The paper was particularly vociferous in its support of the campaign against Brent library closures.

Her departure reflects a reduction in editorial staff of the Trinity South group and the closure of some titles. The WWO, expensive at 90p where sold, is likely to have fewer Brent stories in the future which is a pity.

Meanwhile the pressure which is exerted on the local press is evident in the adjudication published in last week's Brent and Kilburn Times.  The Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint by former Labour councillor Jim Moher against Lorraine King, the BKT news editor but rejected two further complaints by him about accuracy and the opportunity to reply to stories.

The complaint that was upheld was about a comment that she made on Facebook about an unnamed individual Lorraine identified as a 'failed wannabe MP'. and in which she stated ''I plan to make his life a misery as much as possible' and  'Lord God forgive me if I bump into him before I get back to work, you will be visiting me in Holloway'.  The BKT argued that the comment was made on a personal Facebook account that could only be seen by 'friends'.  The comment had been made after she received an email from Moher which said:

Here you are again this week giving extensive coverage to the most scurrilous and unfounded attacks

and concluded:

PS By the way it was me who sorted your permit problem.

At the time that Moher's email, one of a series, was sent Lorraine King was on compassionate leave after the death of her mother. The PS  refers to a parking permit that Ms King needed for grieving relatives.  In the circumstances she found the email upsetting which led to the Facebook comments.

Although the Commission's remit does not cover social media content they ruled that as the comment related to the news editor's contact with Moher in her professional role, and could be viewed by individuals who she came into contact in that role, it could be considered under Clause 4 of the Code which states:

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

The Commission considered that the implied threat of violence was not intended to be taken seriously but concluded:

...it had no hesitation in finding that this constituted intimidation withint the meaning of Clause 4, and a serious failure to uphold the highest professional standards required by the code.

The Huffington Post in covering this story said it was the first time the PCC, which is shortly to be ablosihed and replaced by several bodies, had decided it could rule on what journalsits said on 'private' social media accounts LINK:

Mike Jempson, Vice-chair of NUJ Ethics Council, told HuffPost UK it was an issue that the union had debated on several occasions. "Difficulties have arisen because some employers encourage reporters to express their opinions on blogs and to engage with their publics via social media, yet as reporters they are expected to retain a degree of impartiality," he said.

“Journalists share the right to freedom of expression with all members of the public, and should not feel constrained in how they express themselves. Indeed many journalists also write fiction, drama and poetry which is not a matter for the PCC."

While stressing it was important the journalists themselves made the distinction between personal and professional contributions on social media, it would be "a pity, and improper, if the PCC and its successor IPSO were to determine that all material by journalists published on non-commercial outlets that operate their own agreed contributors’ codes should be subject to the Editor’s Code.”

Readers will make up their own minds about this but I do hope that the BKT maintains its robust coverage of local issues, which has sometimes inevitably made it unpopular with local councillors. Lorraine King has been an excellent news editor and local press coverage is especially important now that we have a Council with a very large majority. The BKT must continue to be 'on the side of the people'.

Wembley Matters in the past has had its own dealings with Jim and Roth Moher LINK

Wembley Matters is taking a break

Wembley Matters is taking an Easter break for  a couple of days

Its break will only be interrupted by major news such as Cllr Muhammed Butt joining the SWP, Francis Henry ousting Paul Lorber as leader of  Brent Liberal Democrats, Brent Conservative councillors becoming coherent, Brent Greens supporting Quintain's plans for a nuclear power station in the Civic Centre car park or Lorraine King organising a 'no shopping'  boycott of the London Designer Outlet.

The break will also provide a ceasefire in the Kensal Rise 'Comment Wars' taking place on this blog. Time for reflection and relaxation...

Kensal Rise Library, Copland and Representative Democracy

Guest blog by Guestropod

Anyone following the Kensal Rise Library correspondence on Wembley Matters LINK would be struck by two things:   1. the level of interest in the matter    2. the desire to communicate that interest and the related opinions to councillors, with  the implicit expectation that the elected representatives would respond to them.

A similar level of interest and a similar expectation of a response to their concerns also seems to have characterised  the involvement of Copland students in their opposition to the dismantling of their school and its takeover by the Ark academy business. This opposition was ultimately expressed in a letter which followed up a petition signed by well over 400 students and addressed to Brent Council's Head of Children and Families. Apparently, none of these students had participated in any similar action before and many would have been unaware that it was possible for them to do so. I would imagine that the experience was worth a term's worth of Citizenship lessons.  

The original petition was ‘lost’ by Brent council and further copies had to be provided.  A copy of the follow-up letter went to every Brent councillor. LINK

Out of the 60+ councillors who were sent the letter, I gather that a grand total of 3 (THREE) managed the courtesy of a reply, (2 Lib Dem, 1 Labour).

Anyone teaching in Brent at the 2010 General Election would have been impressed by the level of interest shown by 6^th form students keen to use their vote for the first time. The mock election staged at Copland and organised by Mr Allman was supported by local and national politicians and enthusiasm for the breath of fresh air and honesty which Nick Clegg appeared to be offering was palpable. Within a few months most of these students were in further education. And grants were tripled. A more effective way of disillusioning a generation of new voters is impossible to imagine.

None of those kids who signed the Copland anti-academy petition have the vote, so presumably they can be ignored. Those Copland 6^th formers who voted Lib Dem in 2010 did have the vote, but they were ignored and betrayed anyway. Those contributing to the Kensal Rise Library discussion on Wembley Matters and elsewhere no doubt all have the vote, probably used it last time and are likely to vote again on May 22nd. It’s good to see the faith they seem to still have in the democratic process and in their elected representatives’ responsiveness.

I would hope that Copland's current and past students could share that faith. But I can also imagine (and sympathise with) the reasons why they might not.

Wembley Matters wishes you a successful New Year of struggle

Page views May 2007 to Jan 1st2014

I would like to thank all my readers for their support this year which has seen the Wembley Matters readership continue to grow.   In particular I am grateful to guest bloggers and those who have contributed information for my stories.

Later this month Wembley Matters should hit half a million 'all time' page views.

I wish everyone a successful New Year of struggle for environmental and social justice..

Council Tax Consultation extended after complaints

The Brent Council consultation on Council Tax Support due to end today,  has been extended for a week after a posting on this blog, Twitter campaign and an official complaint that it had not been widely enough advertised.

Queensbury Caption Comp: and the winner is....

After reviewing the very high standard of entries, the winner of the caption competition is Anonymous, who posted on Wembley Matters. The winning caption is:

" Right, that's the 'Green' bit deleted. Now for 'Willesden' "

Congratulations to the anonymous captioner. Please would they make themselves known and email savethequeensbury@gmail.com to claim their meal voucher for two, kindly donated by The Queensbury Pub. Please claim your prize within 14 days or it may be awarded to another entry.

Thanks to everyone who entered and we would particularly like to thank Councillor Butt for his sense of humour and taking this competition in the light hearted manner in which it was intended.

Below are some of the other entries which came in via Twitter and Facebook. The other comments are under 'Comments' on this blog HERE

No need for a caption. There are times when a picture is worth a thousand words. (Sarah Cox)

Maybe there is some mileage in introducing Butt Bikes, there's an app for that. (Sedley Bryden)

No library,no pub,evictions,impoverishment..and  lots of scary signs.Do I get the David Blunkett award ? (Graham Durham)

Beam me out Scotty. (Monika Hofman)

He is about to press the red button ! (@orfray)

The Queensbury? Now that rings a bell, let me google that..." (@JudithKerem)

23p, 2 Euros and a zloty! Busking is no substitute for council expenses! (@BartonBank)

Think Bungler (@pinemarten100)

Think Burglar - 'Burglary classes and tips from the pros (@MorganCannonDJ)

Always be careful when standing near these signs and a photo is being taken. IT can show you in a poor light! (@Dan_Filson)

Delete N, add R...delete E, add A...press return...sorted! (@BartonBank)

Oih! Someone's pinched me assets! (Martin)

Police investigate new lead in disappearance of books and muriels from local library (Ed)

The catch is the meal is with @CllrButt and @PukkahPunjabi is paying. (@CllrButt) [Ed's note - it's not, we promise]

Thanks to everyone who took part and especially to Cllr Muhammed Butt who took it in a good spirit.

Jenny Jones condemns Coalition's 'senseless' lurch to right on immigration

GREEN Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones has condemned the Coalition Government’s “senseless” lurch to the right on immigration.

Last week, the Home Office’s ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’ vans were piloted in London. They were branded #racistvan by critics on Twitter and Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable described the campaign as "stupid and offensive."

UK Border Agency checks on the immigration status of targeted individuals at London Underground stations have been described as “sinister and disturbing” by London blog Wembley Matters.

“In their efforts to claw back UKIP votes the government seems to have taken leave of their senses. First the intimidation by the racist vans, now blatant discrimination against ethnic minorities going peacefully about their legitimate business“, said Jones.

“Immigration is not the overwhelming problem for the rest of us, it's the semi stagnant economy and poverty pay for millions. When will this government see the damage their vile policies are causing?”


In 2011, Green Party conference passed a motion opposing the government’s cap on immigration. It said we should stop “treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem”. Today, it’s important to restate that.

Thanks for your support for Wembley Matters

It has been gratifying to receive a number of messages from readers over Christmas thanking me for Wembley Matters.  I can't promise to keep it up forever but as the blog appears to be meeting a need I'll keep going as long as I can.

Meanwhile I hope all my readers have a restful break and come back with renewed vigour to fight for environmental and social justice in 2013.

Wembley Matters passes 200,000 page view barrier

Wembley Matters today went through the 200,000 all time page views barrier. The blog currently gets between 400 and 700 page views a day.