Appeal to help save the Corrib

Outside the Corrib, 76-78 Salusbury Road, Queens Parkm NW6 6PA

From Friends of the Corrib

Now the Planning application is published, it’s a clear plan to KILL the CORRIB.

We urge you ALL to do one more thing to help Save the Corrib.

Please object to Brent Council Planning

EACH objection increases the chances of keeping the Corrib Community Rooms and Pub forever.

Tell the planners what the community rooms and pub mean to you and what you used it for especially the Function Rooms which had all the dance classes, pensioner meetings and other events and/or just give your views as why it should not be turned into luxury flats - as we should not lose community spaces.

You can just object to the principal of the destruction of community space, especially this one, protected by a 106 agreement protecting money originally spent by Brent when it started for the community. The more you tell them the more weight it will have.

How to object.

You can email the planning officer directly at:
barry.henn@brent.gov.uk

To be accepted by planning you do need to include your name and address in the email.
It does not matter if you are not local – you just need to feel it’s important

Please copy in savethecorrib2017@gmail.com so we can ensure that Brent note all the letters received.

OR (the most sure way)

Go on the Brent Website, register and then object on line.
Paste below into your search engine to register.

https://myaccount.brent.gov.uk/Web/PublicPages/IR1_Register.aspx_ga=1.122443147.1434451185.1368051210

Then paste in the site below

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

Click on Make a Comment and add your concerns

Tell them things you could do and events that this place had and the value of the function rooms both in the past and into a promising future

Summary of the Developers plan.

To turn the community rooms on the first floor, into 6 luxury flats and make a £4M profit.
As a sop they have offered a function room in the pub, which will allow some community use for 3 evenings a week, making for a much reduced and commercially dead pub. Of course if the pub fails, more flats.

This planning application means the loss of 530m2 of community space, space that was originally brought with public money and is now protected by both an ACV order and by a Section 106 covenant. The 106 is a council owned legal restriction that prevents the owner building flats on the first floor. We urge Brent NOT to break this 106 covenant but to honour and cherish it.

To read the planning application in full, go to:

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

The documents should read are:
1) 170116 - planning statement v756767850000.pdf
2) Statement of community involvement56767850001.pdf

NB: The Sir Richard Steele in Chalk Farm is a similar pub with function room and Camden and the Planning Inspector both turned down this conversion to flats so we say that Brent should do the same here.

http://archive.camdennewjournal.com/steeleappeal

Also ask friends etc. to sign the petition, we are aiming at 2000 signatures.

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-corrib-pubs-community-rooms

Thank you for standing with us on this issue. 

Duffy forces Council U-turn on out-sourcing

Following recent controversy about the Kingdom littering contract, including the Scrutiny Committee discussion from which the public were excluded and the revelation that no formal minutes existed for the original contract meeting between officers and Kingdom LINK, it appears that Cllr John Duffy may have achieved a break-through, forcing a re-think by the lead member and Cabinet.

I understand that following Duffy's production of figures showing that an in-house solution would offer better value for money than the Kingdom contract, that this is now likely to happen.

Duffy has maintained that the original Cabinet decision to out-source the contract wasted over £100,000 of the environmental budget at a time when council finance was under pressure from government cuts.  Duffy challenged the Cabinet's claim that Kingdom paid the London Living Wage and it does now appear that the company was not LLW accredited and that rates are far below those for similar officers directly employed in the public sector.

In an interchange earlier in the Scrutiny meeting Duffy quoted 73 fly-tipping fines versus 4,000 fixed penalty, notices mainly for dropping fag ends. Cllr Southwood said the proportion of FPNs for fag ends had been reduced to nearer 60% after talks with Kingdom. Cllr Duffy claimed that this was still still out of balance. An Environment Department officer claimed it was more difficult than people might think to get admissable evidence on the perpetrator of  fly-tipping. Even if addressed letters were found inside black bags you still had to prove the addressee was responsible for the fly-tipping.

The figures suggest that Duffy has been vindicated and that an in-house service will not only produce a better service and value for money for council tax payers but that workers involved will secure  better pay and conditions.

Tomorrow's road closures in Wembley and Kingsbury for Half Marathon

The Vitality North London Half Marathon takes place on Sunday 12th March passing through Brent  and Barnet with about 10,000 runners expected.

This will mean road closures from early morning on the Sunday:

Olympic Way (from 4.45am)
Wembley Park Boulevard (4.45am)
Royal Route (4.45am)
Perimeter Way (4.45am)
Engineers Way (6.45am)
Fulton Road (6.45am)
Brook Avenue (4.45am - between Olympic Sq access gate and Bridge Road)
Bridge Road (4.45am between Brook Avenue and Forty Lane)
Forty Lane  (7am)
The Paddocks (7am)
Fryent Way (7am)
Valley Drive (7am)
Kingsbury Road (7am between Valley Drive and Roe Green)
Roe Green (7am)
Hay Lane (7am)
Edgware Road (8.545am between Hay Lane and Colindale Avenue)
Slough Lane (7am between Kingsbury Road and Salmon Street)
Salmon Street (7am between Slough Lane and the Paddocks)

The race will start at 8am and a 'dynamic reopening schedule' will operate to ensure roads are open as soon as possible once runners have completed each section of the route and when it is safe and feasible to do so. Roads will begin to re-open from 10.15am and most will be re-opened by 12.45pm. Brook Avenue and Bridge Road will be the final roads to re-open at 1.45pm.

WEBSITE

Ofsted chief: It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

There was a change of tone in today's speech by the new Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman  to the ASCL which I thought was well worth publishing in full for the information of local teachers and parents. Publication does not imply agreement but rather recognition that this is an opportunity to debate wider education issues.

 
I want to start by paying particular tribute to Malcolm Trobe and his stewardship of ASCL in recent months. And I’d also like to congratulate Geoff on his election as General Secretary.

And some other thank yous. One is to my predecessor Sir Michael Wilshaw who, we can all agree, has been a tireless and outspoken advocate for higher standards and improving young people’s life chances. And having seen the number of new challenges he has set himself since stepping down, we can be sure that that zeal will continue for many years to come.

I also want to thank the wider Ofsted team for all it has done in recent years to make an inspectorate so much improved from even just 5 years ago.

The Ofsted I have inherited is far more focused on what works, far more self-critical and reflective, and far more outward facing and engaged with the sectors it inspects, than at any point in its history. It is a privilege to work with this team to carry that forward.

It may be hackneyed, but it still merits repeating, that our education system is only ever be as good as the people who work in it. We know there are very real challenges: funding pressures, changing structures, curriculum and qualification reforms.

But we are lucky enough to have the most talented generation of school and college leaders in our history. Which, by the way, means that we can have, and should aim to have, the best outcomes for pupils in the world.

And I’m delighted that my first major speech as Chief Inspector is to ASCL. For me, ASCL embodies the very best in our education system – self-confident, engaged school leaders, representing a profession determined to control its own destiny. I am looking forward to working with Geoff and your council to continue the good work that ASCL and Ofsted have done together in recent years.

I would particularly like to commend your blueprint, which is a hugely impressive piece of work. It sets out an ambitious vision for the future of education, as well as a challenge for you as school leaders to step forward and take ownership. And I very much hope that vision remains for the foreseeable future.

Getting it right

When it comes to Ofsted, your blueprint highlights the important responsibility that school inspection has to parents and young people in determining the effectiveness of a school. That responsibility means that Ofsted inspections have immense power.

Spending the past 6 months, as I have done, travelling round the country, meeting inspectors, heads, teachers, pupils and parents, I have come to see what that power really means.One of the most gratifying moments was visiting Skinners’ Academy in Tunbridge Wells, led of course by your President Sian Carr.

By pure chance, I was in the school just as they received their outstanding judgement, and I saw first-hand the pride that all the staff felt in seeing their achievements for young people recognised.

 That experience brought home to me just how much our findings matter to those we inspect and how we must never lose sight of that when we make our judgements.

So Ofsted’s power is one that I will use responsibly and intelligently.

Inspection should not be making your job unnecessarily difficult or laborious. Or, worse still, actually diverting you from the real task at hand – our children’s education.

I have no interest in using this role to impose my personal prejudices about how you should run your schools, nor will Ofsted on my watch become a vehicle for promoting the latest educational fashion or fad. And I won’t be pushing you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops, only to change direction a couple of years down the line.

My interest is solely in ensuring that every child receives what is their fundamental right: a good education. And not only a good education but the right education for that child.

Let me be absolutely clear. My commitment to responsible and intelligent inspection does not mean that I will hold back from exposing places where children are not receiving the proper standard of education or care.

Whether it is pupils struggling to learn in schools where behaviour just isn’t good enough, young people being exposed to extremist views in illegal schools or children left vulnerable in our care system, I will be frank about these failings and, what’s more, I will demand action to tackle them.

Anyone who assumes that the high value I place on evidence and data means that I am reluctant to speak truth to power will find themselves mistaken. In fact, it is the use of robust evidence and data that gives Ofsted the authority to challenge, on behalf of the minority of children who are being let down.

Inspection will never be painless, and a regulator will never be loved by those it regulates – nor should it be. We must, though, make sure we are respected and use evidence responsibly and intelligently in everything we do.

Improving inspection

But, much as we focus on rigour and evidence, inspection will always be to some degree an art as well as a science. It won’t ever be flawless.

At Ofsted, we are lucky to have a terrific team of inspectors: Her Majesty’s Inspectors and also many Ofsted Inspectors drawn from your own ranks.But that doesn’t mean that inspection is a perfect tool.

That is why we are doing more work to refine our processes, to get better, to use research and evidence so that our inspections are as valid and reliable as they can be.

The reliability study we published earlier this week is an encouraging start. As you may well have read, it found that inspectors, working independently but in parallel, agreed on the outcome of a short inspection in 22 cases out of 24.

This is about as good as we could have hoped for. It was pleasing to see this recognised by a number of influential figures, including Professor Rob Coe.

But it is only the first step, and I want to go further in exploring inspection reliability, what we should be aiming for, and how we can improve it.

At the same time, we will look at the validity of inspection. By that, I mean whether inspection is measuring what it is intended to measure, and coming to the right conclusions.

But I need to set expectations here: this is the basis of a continuing programme of work; not one quick hit.

Adding value

One of the most important questions for us is how we make sure we at Ofsted add value. We all know that we live in a world of almost limitless school data and extensive performance measures.

By and large, I think that data is a good thing, not just in providing information about a school’s performance, but also in helping us all to evaluate what works and what doesn’t – and, more broadly, to improve the practice of education.

But as powerful a tool as data is, it also has its limitations. And they are limitations that we do recognise. That is why our inspections are informed by data, but not driven by them.

It is dispiriting to see some commentators still insisting that data is all we care about.

Just a few weeks ago, one headteacher made that very claim in the Observer, despite the fact we recently judged his school to be outstanding when, as yet, it has no results at all!

I cannot stress enough that data is the starting point for our inspections, not the destination.
In fact, it is mostly by looking beyond the data that Ofsted can and should add value, providing a rounded picture of how well a school is doing.

It is that human and, dare I say it, subjective element of our inspections that makes them useful. And for that reason, I am pleased to say that our inspectors are, for now at least, one group who have nothing to fear from automation!

But on a more serious note, we are well aware that the challenge of interpreting data wisely, and placing it in context, is even more important when the main external exams are changing.

For example, we know that it is impossible for schools to predict this year’s student outcomes in the new English and maths GCSEs with any accuracy. That is why Sean Harford, our National Director of Education, has written to inspectors to ask that they do not request predictions from schools: in fact he described it as ‘a mug’s game’.

Instead, inspectors should be looking at whether schools know if pupils are making the progress they should, and taking action where they are not.

At the same time, we said that we would provide both general and school-specific guidance to inspectors from September, about what can and cannot be inferred from this summer’s results. I hope this will provide reassurance that your schools are being fairly judged in the context of a changing qualification system.

A quality curriculum

One of the areas where data can only tell us so much is in assessing the quality of a school’s curriculum.

I suspect no one here will disagree with the vital importance of a curriculum which is broad, rich and deep. It matters so much for children, and particularly for disadvantaged children, who are less likely to have the gaps filled in at home.

As recent research from Dr Cristina Iannelli has shown, differences in the secondary school curriculum contribute significantly more in reproducing social inequalities than does school type. Or, as she puts it:

In the British education systems subject choices were and are still crucial for gaining access to prestigious universities and for entering professional jobs… We should not overlook the importance of subject choices in secondary school for creating opportunities for social mobility.

And our inspectors understand this. Only this week I spoke to an HMI who explained how he’d recently come to judge outcomes in a school to be outstanding. Published progress data was broadly average. But he recognised that the leadership had stuck to its guns, continued to insist on modern foreign languages for all pupils, including in its sixth form, and provided an exceptional curriculum. Those ‘average progress points’ were hard won by a courageous leadership team, who, by the way, were also judged outstanding as a result.

Given the importance of the curriculum, it’s surprising just how little attention is paid by our accountability system to exactly what it is pupils are learning in schools, particularly as we have been through a period of significant curriculum upheaval.

Certainly, we have good measures of pupil attainment at 16 and 18. And new measures, such as Progress 8, go much further than their predecessors in painting a fuller picture of pupils’ learning. But even they take us only so far.

The same is true of Ofsted inspections. While assessment forms a large part of the teaching and learning judgement, the curriculum does not.

The taught curriculum is in fact just one among 18 matters for consideration in reaching the leadership and management judgement, making it somewhat of a needle in a haystack.

I believe that lack of focus has had very real consequences.

I have heard from many of you about the conflict between your desire to give children the right education and the pressure to maintain your league table position.

And we all know how the corrosive pattern can emerge. However much you want to resist narrowing your curriculum or teaching to the test, when you see the school down the road doing it, and getting the league table pay off, you may feel you have no choice but to follow suit.

One of the more dispiriting moments in my 15 years of visiting schools was a particular Year 11 history lesson. First, pupils did a practice exam question, then they had to compare their own work to the model answer for their target grade, to see what they should be adding in. So if you had a C grade target, you were actively discouraged from aiming any higher. For me, the whole lesson was a clear example of where the exam had come to replace the education, rather than merely measuring it.

More generally, there’s a telling contrast in the schools I visit. In some, people want to talk purely about the result numbers and how they achieve them, whereas in others, they want to talk about the actual substance of the education they are giving.

And we all know that the wrong kind of focus on results can be damaging.

As Sean wrote in his inspection update, we know that there are some schools that are narrowing the curriculum, using qualifications inappropriately, and moving out pupils who would drag down results. That is nothing short of a scandal where it happens. Childhood isn’t deferrable: young people get one opportunity to learn in school and we owe it to them make sure they all get an education that is broad, rich and deep.

As I have said many times before, there is more to a good education than league tables. Vitally important though a school’s examination results are, we must not allow curricula to be driven just by SATs, GCSEs and A levels. It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

So I am determined to make sure that the curriculum receives the proper focus it deserves.
And that is why I’m announcing today that I have chosen the curriculum to be the focus of the first big thematic Ofsted review of my tenure. From early years, through to primary, secondary, sixth form and FE colleges, this will explore the real substance of education.

We will look at how schools are interpreting the national curriculum or using their academy freedoms to build new curricula of their own and what this means for children’s school experience. We will look at what makes a really good curriculum. And we will also look at the problems, such as curriculum narrowing, and what we can do to tackle them.

What we will not be doing is trying to unpick the national curriculum. Indeed, I suspect I would be jeered off the stage if I were to suggest yet more upheaval.

But I do want this review to provide key insights into some of the most important policy debates of the day. How do we best promote social mobility? How do we make sure that every child has the best possible start in life? And can the accountability system play a part in encouraging the development of a rich curriculum, rather than incentivising gaming?

I do hope that many of you will be able to play a part in this review and share your experiences so that others can learn from your example. You are the experts and you understand these issues better than anyone. Everything we know is informed by the work that you do, and that’s the way that it should be.

Tackling workload

And there is another thing I’d like to talk about today, and that’s workload. I spoke earlier about the importance of Ofsted acting responsibly. We are not naïve about the impact that our inspections have on workload. So we will do our bit to make sure your time is spent where it matters most.

Ofsted does have a track record of listening and acting on the feedback we receive from the profession. That’s why we have brought all school inspection in-house and ended the third-party contracts.

We’ve brought many more serving leaders – including people in this room – onto our inspection teams. Almost half of inspections include serving practitioners, and over a third of inspector days on the ground are from practitioners, not HMI. So we are already much closer to a peer review system than many people realise.

We’ve also introduced a more proportionate inspection model for good schools, so as to focus more sharply on schools that are struggling.

Just as importantly, we have worked hard, especially over the past 2 years, to dispel many of the common staffroom myths about what Ofsted requires or expects when it comes to things like teaching styles, lesson planning, and marking.

Although this is strictly anecdotal, we are seeing more school leaders on social media and elsewhere reflecting positively on their recent inspection experience and how it felt like a marked departure from the past.

Of course there is more to do: more myth-busting work, more inspector training and more critical self-evaluation.

But when it comes to workload, Ofsted can only go so far in mitigating the impact of inspection. As my predecessor pointed out, you as school leaders need to justify your policies on marking, lesson planning and teacher evaluation on their own merits, rather than erroneously citing Ofsted ‘expectations’.

This has to be a 2-way relationship. When we bust myths, we need you, as school leaders, to consign them to history.

Ofsted inspections should not be a performance that schools spend hours rehearsing. Our inspectors are getting better at evaluating whether what we see on inspection is a true reflection of the everyday life of a school.

And no matter what so-called ‘consultants’ are selling, when school finances are under pressure and workloads are high, running mocksteds is an unacceptable waste of staff time and scarce pupil funding.

All of us have a role to play in tackling that destructive cycle which means the teaching profession is bleeding talent, and losing the brightest and the best.

We know from a DfE study released last month that teachers are working unsustainable hours, and we also know from the international TALIS surveys that it isn’t because they’re spending more time teaching than their peers abroad.

At 20 hours a week, teaching time is close to the international average. Instead, teachers in England spend significantly more time on planning, marking and administration, where I know unnecessary preparation for inspection plays a major part.

So Ofsted is committed to supporting the DfE in its workload challenge, and I do hope that you will all be displaying the workload poster and pamphlet released last month. Among other things, this clarifies what Ofsted does and does not want to see.

I am not naïve enough to believe that a poster alone will solve the problem, but it should certainly help.

Another thing we know will help with workload is greater clarity between different actors in the system. As Malcolm Trobe put it in a letter to me earlier this week,

schools would benefit from greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities and relationships between Ofsted and RSCs in particular.

There is nothing inevitable about rising teacher workload, and working together we can tackle it.

Conclusion

So I’d like to leave you with these parting thoughts.

My ambition as Chief Inspector is to make sure Ofsted is regarded as a force for good. I want us to highlight outstanding practice, recognise where leadership and management is performing well in challenging circumstances, and provide the feedback that schools which are less than good need to improve.

But Ofsted judgements aren’t ends in themselves. Despite many years in education regulation, I still believe the old adage that weighing the pig isn’t what makes it fatter.

When I was at Ofqual, I consistently said that qualifications were the mirror of education, not the education itself. And exactly the same applies to Ofsted judgements: they are a reflection of school quality, but they should never become the definition of quality.

All too often Ofsted Chief Inspectors are portrayed as the champions of rigour, standards and quality in schools. But the truth is I’m not a medieval knight in armour, and nor do I aspire to be one.
That’s because it is you and your staff who are the real champions of standards. You are the ones who work tirelessly day in, day out, at evenings and weekends, so that your pupils get an excellent education. Yes, it’s my job to say how well schools are performing, but the far harder job of delivering for young people is yours.

And we need to attract even more talented people into the profession, grow them into successful leaders and support them to take on new challenges.

I want Ofsted to play its part in what your blueprint so perfectly describes as

a move away from prescription to a profession-led system that is evidence-informed, innovative and ethical.

Within such a system, inspection can have a powerful role as a force for improvement and a judge of education quality. Realising that potential is the challenge I have set myself, and I look forward to working with all of you to make it a reality.

Two blocks of flats planned for Wembley Job Centre site

Wednesday's Planning Committee will have a pre-application presentation on a development on Wembley High Road/St Johns Road/Elm Road.

It is on the site of the present Job Centre on St Johns Road with the Boots store front on 500 High Road retained.

The plan would replace the above building with a 10 and 12 storey block .

The site

The following 74 flat residential mix is proposed (remembering that 'affordable' is up to 80% market rent):

 

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1 bed
19x 2 bed
10x 3 bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

The officers' report considers issues such as the height of the proposed building and the quality of the build and recommends revision before it is submitted as a full planning application. LINK

Join Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group actions against Tory policies

From Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group (KUWG)

 

DON’T LET THERESA MAY AND HER SYCHOPHANTIC & PYSCHOPATHIC FRIENDS RUIN US! THEIR ‘IDEAS’ ARE ABSOLUTELY STINKING RUBBISH!!!!!!

The Tories espouse the crap ideas that making unemployed people’s lives harder will incentivise them to get work. For the rich MORE monies and bonuses incentivise them…1 rule for the real parasites, another for people already down on their luck.

One stupid cost-cutting exercise is to close 78 jobcentres including KILBURN and NEASDEN. KUWG have petitioned claimants at those jobcentres and found out nobody knew, as not even in a consultation process, and people signed our petition to keep them open. It is yet another tactic to make travelling more onerous to get us late to appointments or not turn up, so we can get sanctioned. Pure evil! We have sent petitions to local MPs Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler and to the West London DWP Office so this rotten government can’t say  that there was no opposition. We will continue to try to prevent these closures, with more petitioning, letters, leafleting, protests etc.

The PCS Union, who have staff in jobcentres, have organised on 28th March 12:45pm to 16:45pm a lobby of Parliament to stop Jobcentres closures...turn up & contact your MP.

Unite Community have organised a National “No to Benefits Sanctions” day of protest on Thursday  March 30th with local jobcentre protests with a demonstration at 2pm same day outside the DWP Headquarters Caxton House, Tothill Street, Westminster. Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group will be outside KILBURN Jobcentre tween noon- 1pm that day.

NO TO THE “NASTY” TORY PARTY, WHICH IS GETTING EVEN NASTIER! Yuk!!

What is the Lycee's contribution to the local Brent community?

When the planning application was made for the Lycee des Londres Winston Churchill to occupy the old Brent (Wembley) Town Hall the school stated that it was keen to make community links.  It saw itself as complementing local schools - not a rival. Among the promises made was the provision of French language classes for pupils from local schools as well as adults. LINK

As far as I can see these have not come about, perhaps as a result of relations being soured by the refusal of planning permission for a swimming pool in the gardens adjacent to Forty Lane.

Compared with some of the grand promises made by Quintain this may seem small beer but it does raise the issue of whether Brent Council is sufficiently proactive in making sure that such promises are fulfilled.

Prevent secrecy feeds suspicion

I gave my two minute presentation on Prevent at Scrutiny Committee  earlier this week but not until the lead person on Prevent, Kibibi Octave link person had  given a Powerpoint Presentation and lead member for Stronger communities Cllr Tom Miller had put forward his views.

I had enough time to  ask 9 questions from my list  LINK pointing out that secrecy rules means that none of them could be answered and thus proper scrutiny and transparency was not possible.  I suggested this reinforced suspicion and lack of confidence in the Prevent Strategy.  Octave and Miller admitted this was a problem. In the discussion the former said that there was ‘interest' in the strategy from Brent Muslim groups rather than they ‘bought into’ the strategy. Groups wanted to do things their way rather than be directly aligned with the strategy. Playing Devil's advocate Miller said that if the referral figures were to be published for each borough extremist groups could then focus on the weaker areas.

Muslim groups wanted to do things their way rather than be directly aligned with the strategy.  Responding to a question from a councillor Kibibi Octave said that they'd had less success speaking to Muslim women. I pointed out that a well established Muslim women's group, group An-Nisa had asked for dialogue with the Council - so far unsuccessfully.

Cllr Miller said he had a critical approach to the Prevent duty and was sensitive to the concerns of the Muslim community. He said that the duty was mandatory but he tried to follow key principles that centred on safeguarding victims from grooming etc.  During the discussion there was much emphasis on  avoiding crass referrals and a claim that better training had reduced the number of these. Kibibi Octave said that across London there had been a reduced number of referrals from the education sector in the last year.