Leader of Brent Council accused of breaching the Members' Code of Conduct over Planning Committee intervention

 

A previous Butt planning controversy

Whether it is because he is in thrall to the glossy world of developers or  because he suffers from a particularly bad case of Kilburnphobia, it is clear that all is not well with Muhammed Butt.

Behind the scenes the saga of Cllr Abdirazak Abdi’s removal from Brent Council Planning Committee has been burning away, emerging now and then in the Letters column of the Kilburn Times, and has now reached a crucial point. It is widely alleged that Abdi had been removed because he did not vote the ‘right way’, that is the way the Leader expected members to vote, although members on the Planning Committe cannot be whipped.

Cllr Abdi has submitted a Formal Complaint against Cllr Butt for breaching the Members;’ Code of Conduct.

The complaint, which has been seen by members of the Labour Group on Brent Council, sets out the background to the issue in detail and was sent to Debra Norman, Brent Council’s Chief Legal Officer.

I believe Cllr M Butt has breached the following Principles of Conduct in Public Life.

1. Objectivity. Failure to consult on the reasons why Cllr Abdi needed to be removed from the Planning Committee with Labour Group officers/Steering group in accordance with Labour Group standing orders.

2. Objectivity. The decision to remove Cllr Abdi from the Planning Committee cannot be justified based on the reasons provided by Cllr M Butt on 09 July 2018 and on the available information. Cllr Abdi is one of only two members on the Planning Committee who was not serving on any other committee (at the time). While 16 Councillors serve on 2 or more committees,11 serve on 3 committees and 5 serve on 4 or more committees.

3. Objectivity/openness. The justification given to Cllr Abdi by Cllr M Butt on 09 July, is not rational. If the purpose was to make sure all councillors serve on committees, why remove Cllr Abdi from the only committee he was on? (at the time).

4. Objectivity/Honesty/Openness. Cllr M Butt did not disclose the full reasons for the removal of Cllr Abdi from the Planning Committee (Please see emails on 09^th/ 27^th July 2018 from Cllr M Butt). This can be seen as misleading for not disclosing this information at the time. Breach of the rules of natural justice, right to be heard. Cllr Abdi was not given the evidence against him and even had Cllr Butt’s allegations against him been justified, Cllr Abdi was not given an opportunity to respond and challenge or develop in the role, before being removed from the Planning Committee.

5. Leadership. Lack of leadership for breaching the members’ Code of Conduct.

Muhammed Butt initially stated that Cllr Abdi had been removed from Planning Committee to make room for one of the new Willesden Green councillors elected in the by-election after the full council elections.  He said at the time that he thought Abdi was on another committee.

After protests Butt wrote to Cllr Abdi changing his grounds in a letter that manages to be both insulting and patronising accusing his colleague of posturing and pandering (to the public?) and threatening him with the Code of Conduct. Furthermore he brings council officers into the dispute sugegsting that they had ‘grave concerns’ over Abdi’s conduct. At one point he appears to suggest that councillors have to follow ‘prevailing expert guidance’ on planning issues. Does this mean the Committee should always rubber-stamp officers’ recoemmendations?

Dear Abdi,

I thought it would be helpful to try and clear up the mess that we find ourselves in.

Obviously we are at odds with regard to the recent change in your Planning Committee membership status. As Leader I have a number of obligations. In this instance I was caught between protecting this administration, and helping you, as a new member of Labour Group, avoid public embarrassment. In appointing you to Planning Committee I had hoped that you would take full advantage of the many opportunities available to grow into the role. Instead, it quickly became apparent that you were not prepared for the responsibility, nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice. Senior officers, committee colleagues, and experienced observers alike all expressed grave concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and in failing to properly prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and this organisation to justifiable claims of bias, predetermination, and incompetence, not to mention reputational damage.

Your actions since have only served to reinforce my fears that you do not yet understand your role. For example, in making internal Group matters public you have broken party rules. And, in condoning your branch’s potentially libellous motion, you have exposed yourself to civil action. However, given the circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to take formal action. Indeed, I think it would be wise to put this down to naivety and inexperience, albeit on the proviso that any further such conduct will not be tolerated. Please understand that you have a mandate from the people of Kilburn, are governed by the rules of our party, and must adhere to this council’s code of conduct. As a result you have an obligation to do more than posture or panda to a vocal if ill-informed minority.

On reflection, I should have been explicit on the need for this change. I realise that you were caught off-guard by the speed with which things occurred. While the same cannot be said for your subsequent actions, I can see now that your immediate reaction was understandably indignant. With the benefit of hindsight I am sure we could have gotten to this point without incident and I apologise for not having found another way forward. I do believe that you have what it takes to be an effective local councillor and a valuable member of Labour Group. You are clearly a keen and well intentioned advocate as evident in your already impressive casework record, which is why it is such a shame that we have started out on this poor footing.

I hope you understand that, as an official substitute, you have the opportunity to redeem yourself on Planning Committee and moving forward any other committee, and that you will now avail yourself of the support and advice available. In the meantime, I’d be very grateful if you’d consider becoming a member of Brent’s Pension Board. You’d be tasked with overseeing the management of hundreds of millions of pounds of investments on behalf of this organisation’s past, present, and future employees. While the board meets quarterly, given the subject matter, I’m sure you can appreciate that a lot of interesting and important work goes on in between. If that sounds like something you’d be interested in, do please let me know.

In closing, if you ever want to talk anything through on this or any other matter you will always find my door open.

Cllr Abdirazak responded: 

Thank you for your email on 27 July 2018, explaining your decision on09 July 2018 to remove me from the Planning Committee. I am writing to reapond to your accusations and to again provide my view of why I was removed from the Planning Committee.

I would like to make several observations and comments on the allegations you make in your email, ‘it quickly became apparent that you were not prepared for the responsibility, nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice. Senior officers, committee colleagues and experienced observers alike all expressed grave concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and in failing to properly prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and this organisation to justifiable claims of bias, predetermination and incompetence, not to mention reputational damage.’

Comments: The timing and context of these new accusations, you are making are very convenient, considering the following:

On 09 July 2018 when you first informed me of your decision, you said there following, “we are making quite a few changes on committees today right and er I am going to make you an alternate on planning right, because I need to put Elliot Chappell and three of the new councillors on committees. I am making those changes right” I objected and I said “I am not happy” and you said “You’re on scrutiny as well”. I said “No” and then I followed up by saying “you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do but I am not happy with it and I am not going to accept it”. You provided a clear and explicit reason for your decision to make a change on the planning committee above, and you are now providing a completely different reason without any substantiating evidence, it seems like you are trying to cover up the faults of your original decision to remove me from the planning committee.

The subsequent revised reason you provided on your e-mail dated 27 July, explaining your decision to remove me from the planning committee, was made after I made my accusations of the possibility of political interference in the planning process. In an e-mail sent to labour group members on 09 July 2018 at 17:44. This further explanation was provided after you had already provided a reason (above) and after three weeks had elapsed from your decision on 09 July 2018.

In response to your accusation ‘nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice’. I did not receive any offers of help, advice or guidance as claimed. Further no one, either the Chair, deputy Chair, committee members or officers, discussed or made any concerns known to me about my decision-making or preparedness on the planning committee. I would appreciate any evidence or communications that you have in this regard.

In fact, on 16 May 2018 after the mandatory planning committee training session I expressed concerns to the deputy Chair of the planning committee, about you and Shama Tatler’s conduct. On 16 May 2018 We had a mandatory training session on planning. Please see my account of the training session. ‘The session was led by Alice Leicester Head of Planning and David Glover a senior planning Officer. The Lead member for regeneration, Shama Tatler also significantly contributed, and raised new points while elaborating on the points in the training. She sat next to the lead officers. I felt this was inappropriate as this training was tainted by the political agenda of the leadership in the council. Half way through the same training session Cllr Muhammad Butt came in and sat down, next to the other members, he opened his tablet computer and began to look at the tablet screen and type on his keyboard, throughout the session. He was not there to learn, which was obvious to me from his actions but to pressure members to fully accept and act on the information that was being imparted on to us. I felt this was inappropriate as the planning committee is independent and members were being influenced towards a certain political agenda.

Every decision I took on the planning committee, I made based on material planning considerations, as the committee approved all these decisions. I was not asked and neither did I provide explicit reasons for voting in any particular way. 

It seems like you are making an implicit suggestion that officers’ recommendations have to always be accepted, in response to your suggestion. What is the purpose of having a planning committee, if we always have to approve the officers’ recommendations?

I would like to also make this further observation about the lead member for regeneration Shama Tatler. On 25 June 2018, we had a Planning committee members’ briefing from developers looking to submit their planning applications. The lead member for regeneration, Shama Tatler, sat in on part, of this briefing. Her presence was not helpful as she was neither a committee member nor a substitute and because it could dissuade members from asking questions and being open to raise issues early on in the process, so the developers can amend their applications. 

In short, I believe I was removed from the planning committee because I voted against planning applications favoured by you and Shama Tatler and not for the reasons currently claimed; lack of capability, ineptitude or lack of preparedness. If these reasons provided were true, then there would be concrete evidence that these issues, mentioned above, were brought to my attention, an opportunity provided for me to refute or comment, and if needed a development plan put in place. There is no evidence of any of these steps being taken and this is a convenient reason provided to defend against the accusations I’ve made.

Tell Wembley Matters what you think about the Copland School & Ujima House redevelopment

I was unable to attend Saturday's consultation on the Copland School and Ujima House redevelopments as i was at the Green Party Conference but I expect attendance was not great because of the Wembley Stadium Event on the same day.

I went along on Thursday and there seemed to be better attendance from Brent councillors and the developer's PR team than the general public.

This video, taken from the upper floors of Ujima House, shows the current state of the Copland School site with demolition almost complete and demonstrates the size of the site. The new building of Ark Elvin Academy (successor to Copland) can be seen behind the site. The enormous black cube is the Ark Elvin Sports Hall.

This video shows the buildings on the Wembley High Road between Park Lane and Wembley Triangle. On the left of the screen is the Twin Towers building that is currently under construction and behind them to the right are Hub's planned two new tower blocks beside the railway line. At the centre on the other side of the road is the building on the Copland site which is much closer to the road that the schoolwas. Copland had some green space there and mature trees. Neither are shown on the model which was a matter of concern for residents on Thursday. There appeared to be space for a few saplings.

The building replacing Copland has some internal open space which developers said the public could access and the two new towers behind Chesterfield House have a green walk. The impression is given of many trees but these will clearly take a long time to grow into anything substantial.

As this is a Brent Council development I asked about the amount of truly affordable housing in the development (ie London Living Rent rather than 80% of market rent) but was told this was still to be decided - things are at an early stage.

I would welcome comments from those who went to the consultation and those who didn't about these proposals and so will the developers: 


These are the exhibition boards. Click on bottom right corner to enlarge to full size.

What future for the Wembley Park tile murals?

Guest blog from Philip Grant

Last April, I let readers know about an effort by Wembley History Society to persuade Brent Council and Quintain to uncover the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, which have been covered with advertisements since the autumn of 2013 LINK. 

At first there was little response from them, but by chasing up through correspondence, the Society's chairman, Jim Moher, managed to get a meeting with Brent's Chief Executive and senior Quintain officials last month. It appears that they might be willing to uncover at least some of the murals for a time during 2019, and possibly 2020 (Brent's year as London Borough of Culture), and to make some other proposals for the future of the murals. 

It was agreed that Quintain's Julian Tollast would give a presentation to the Society about their plans for the Olympic Way area, and their proposals for the tile murals, and receive feedback from the meeting about these. That meeting will take place on the evening of Friday 19th October (see poster above for details). As with all Wembley History Society meetings, visitors who are interested in the subject are welcome to attend (there is usually a £3 charge for non-members, but I am not sure whether this will apply for this particular meeting).

Brent have given Quintain a lease to advertise on the walls of the subway until at least late 2021. In return, the Council receives a basic rent (to cover Quintain's use of the walls for its own advertising) and a share of the profits which Quintain makes from allowing others to advertise on the walls (usually in connection with specific events at Wembley Stadium). 

The origin of this advertising on the subway walls appears to have come from Council officers, seeking to raise money for Brent to help reduce shortfalls caused by government funding cuts since 2010. My researches have shown that in all of the officers' reports on which decisions involving the advertising have been based, they have carelessly (or carefully?) avoided any mention of the tile murals which the adverts would cover up! 

However, the meeting on 19th October is not about this. It is an opportunity to listen to the proposals which Quintain (and Brent Council) are offering. It is also a rare opportunity for the Society's members, and others who are interested in Wembley's heritage, and in this piece of public art celebrating the history of sports and entertainment at the Stadium and Arena, to express their views, and hopefully have some influence over the future of the tile murals.

Philip Grant (writing as an individual).

Vigil in Harlesden over police 'over-reaction' during arrest of young black man

The West London Stand up to Racism and Brent Trades Council have called a vigil on Tuesday 9th October 6.00pm in Craven Park Road NW10 8Sh near the New Atlas Cafe following the arrest of a young man which involved six officers restraining him and the use of pepper spray to the outrage of passers by. Bystanders tried to intervene to stop the police from over reacting and there is a feeling of outrage that this could happen in Harlesden.

Support the #McStrike outside McDonalds, Kilburn High Road, 6pm tonight

In addition to other events happening during the day today there will be a chance for those working today to show solidarity with a demonstration outside McDonalds on Kilburn High Road from 6pm this evening.

Crossed spoons are a symbol of solidarity - bring your own.

Willesden Salvage to close

Local residents have expressed shock at news that Willesden Salvage, the amazing shop on Willesden High Road, is to close.  The news was sent out on Instagram:

Spurs v Barcelona road closures and bus diversions

The month is wrong but these are the arrangements for tomorrow's Spurs v Barcelona match at Wembley.

Note road closures and disruption to local buses.

Have your say on Copland/Ujima House redevelopment Oct 4th and 6th

Locals will be aware that the demolition of the old Copland High School building is in progress. Brent Council is holding a public consultation at Ujima House 388 Wembley High Road on October 4th (4pm-7.30pm)  and 6th (10am - 2pm).

Ujima House

Copland High School

According to the council the consultation is about the proposed redevelopment of Ujima House and the former Copland buudling and improvements to the public realm along Wembley High Road.

The council has been working with Karakusevic Carson Architects and Easy to develp ideas for the redevelopment if the sites, including new community facilities, workspace and new homes.

Residents will be able to meet council officers and the architects and give their views on the High Road and the design proposals to date, ideas for uses of the community spaces and feedback on proposed new play facilities and public realm improvements.

UPDATED: Wembley Stadium’s vanishing arch – more evidence on Brent Council's failure to protect 'iconic' views

 

View from Bobby Moore Bridge May 2011

 

View from Bobby Moore Bridge September 2018

Last month, I reproduced a letter from Philip Grant which had been published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 6 September LINK . This challenged the Council to explain why it had allowed its own planning rules to be broken, and why it had failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium, despite its promise to do so.

Philip sent a copy of the letter to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. Ms Downs replied that she had forwarded it to the Council’s Head of Planning, for attention and action, and that a response would follow. Here is the text of the Council’s response:-

‘Dear Mr Grant

Case 10658297

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you seek a response to the matters that you raised within your letter to the Kilburn Time. Within this letter, you have set out that you consider that the Council has failed to protect the view of Wembley Stadium and that you consider that the Council has allowed its ‘own planning rules to be broken’. Within your e-mail, you provide a link to an article that you have published on Wembley Matters which refers to two planning applications for developments within Wembley.

Policy WEM6 of the Wembley Area Action Plan relates to views to Wembley Stadium. This sets out that ‘Regard should be had to the impact of development on the following views … of the National Stadium’ with specific viewpoints referred to within the policy and on a map. The pre-amble to the policy discusses the contribution the Stadium makes and the importance of views to it. It sets out that the Council will protect a range of views to the Stadium.

The potential impact on the views to the stadium are considered within planning applications that could affect those views. This includes the provision of information to demonstrate whether the proposal will affect a protected view to the stadium and the extent of any effect on that view.

The submissions for the two planning applications that you referred to within your internet article do set out the effect of those proposals. As you have highlighted in your e-mail to Carolyn Downs, those reports (and the discussions at the planning committee meeting itself) highlighted that those proposals will result in a small reduction in the view to the arch. This matter was considered by officers and members, and the level of harm associated with this reduction was evaluated. On balance, it was considered that the extent of the reduction was such that it did not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

It is clear from the report and the discussion and debate at the planning committee meeting that regard was had to the potential impact of proposed development on the views to the Stadium. These proposals would result in a slight reduction in the view to the stadium. However, the level of reduction was considered to be small and the level of harm associated with this reduction also small. This is not a matter of rules having been broken. Due regard was had to the policy, with a slight impact occurring should those proposals going ahead. That impact was considered and weighed against the benefits of the proposals, and on balance, planning permission was granted.

Yours faithfully

Development Management Manager’

Philip has decided not to waste his time in trying to argue his point further, but has sent me this comment:

‘This response is typical of the sort of excuse that Brent’s planners come up with. They admit that their planning policy recognises the importance of views of the Stadium, and says that it will protect them. They say that ‘this matter was considered by officers and members’, and then they say that it was only a ‘small / slight reduction’ in the view of the arch, so planning permission was granted. 

Brent must be seen as a “soft touch” by developers. They have planning policies, but it seems they are willing to allow developers to ignore them, as long as they only breach them by a small amount each time! But those breaches are cumulative, and would not happen if Brent stuck to policies the Council had adopted, after public consultation.

The Council’s response does not answer my second question, on why it has failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium, despite its promise to do so. It HAS failed to protect the view. The evidence is plain to see, from these two photos  above) taken at the same spot on the Bobby Moore Bridge, in May 2011 and September 2018.’

The "protected view" of Wembley Stadium from the White Horse Bridge, on 2 November 2018. If only it was a case of No.13 being an unlucky number for the Stadium views supposedly "protected" by Brent's Planning Policy!

The view from Barn Hill (the road not the open space)

Brent rallies to Palestinian cause

In a move of great significance for the movement supporting the Palestinian's quest for justice

Brent  & Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Brent Trades Council organised a joint  meeting on 'Solidarity with the Palestinian People'. Local people crowded into the meeting addressed by national speakers showing the strength of feeling on the issue in our community. The meeting ended on a high note with participants urged to deepen and widen the Palestine solidarity movement.
Brent & Harrow PSC can be contacted at brent2harrowpsc@outlook.com email to join the mailing list or for further information. New members welcome.


Hugh Lanning, Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign speaks, introduced by Mary Adossides, Chair of Brent Trades Council. 


Kiri Tunks President, National Union of Teachers section of the National Education Union.



David Rosenberg, Jewish Socialists' Group


Salma Karmi Ayyoub, criminal lawyer and external consultant for Al Haq, Palestinian human rights organisation


Graham Durham of Brent Central Labour Party


Questions and discussion part 1


Questions and discussion part 2

Solidarity with the Palestinian People - tonight Learie Constantine Centre 7pm - national speakers

Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Brent Trades Union Council have brought together a panel of nationally known figures for tonight's meeting at the Learie Constantine Centre.

Everyone is welcome to hear about the situation on the ground in Palestine and how people in Brent can take action in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The meeting in itself will assert our right to speak about these issues at a time when an atmosphere has been created that put this right at risk.

Brent NEU call on Brent Council to lobby for halting of Woodfield-Village Multi-Academy Trust

The following motion was adopted unanimously at the meeting of Brent National Education Union on Tuesday. It refers to the proposed Woodfield/Village Multi-Academy Trust:

‘We commend The Village staff on their ongoing campaign to fight against an imposed academy conversion. We note the [allegedly] corrupt practices that have been exposed in Woodfield academy and are subject to an Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) investigation. A further business consultant is now being bought in to work on finance at the school without any record of their business at Companies House. This was and is being overseen by both the former Headteacher and the existing Executive Headteacher.

We welcome the decision by the Labour Party at their Conference to halt all academy conversions and new free schools. We note with regret how out of touch the Brent Labour Party Chief Whip Sandra Kabir is, who pushed forward the academisation as Chair of Governors. This despite the overwhelming opposition by staff, parents, the community and local Labour Party members. The Conference vote underscores the fact that she did not, and does not, have Labour Party support for her stance.

There is still time for her to act and the proposal to be withdrawn. We hereby call on Brent Labour Council to lobby the Government and the DfE to halt the deeply flawed proposed Woodfield/Village multi-academy Trust. Should this not happen, we urge Brent Council to call on any new Labour Government to take The Village back into local authority control as a first priority.’

-->

Labour adopts Green Party policy on academies but there is more to be done

There was a welcome move at the Labour Party Conference towards the Green Party’s long-standing policy of opposition to academies and free schools and a commitment to reintegrating existing ones in the local authority school system. There is still a long way to go including the abolition of the SATs tests that narrow the school curriculum and stress both children and school staff unnecessarily, and the scrapping of Ofsted and its replacement by a peer-based method of school improvement such as that pioneered by the London Challenge and provided by Challenge Partners.

Unfortunately the change in Labour Party policy came after an article I had written for Green Left’s Autumn Conference Water Melon had gone to the printers. 

However, I think the following passage though is still relevant:

The concept of a National Education Service is relatively vague and still being worked on by the Labour Party.  At its worst it could be top-down, restrictive and bureaucratic at its best it could set up an entitlement framework across all sectors. 

Both Labour and Greens have to face the problem of the decline of local government both in terms of finances and democratic structures. The Cabinet system has meant very little open debate about local schools, which used to take place in Education Committees and scrutiny is often poor. Alongside this is a lack of public involvement with poor election turnout.

How will national government, local government and governing bodies interact in the future and how can democratic accountability be enhanced?

This is the statement issued by the Anti Academies Alliance:

Angela Rayner’s bold speech has put an end to the era of ‘cross party consensus’ on academisation that has dominated the education policy of the main parties for over a decade. In a move that will send shock waves through the board rooms of MATs and academy chains, there is now a realistic chance that the whole privatisation bandwagon will be halted.

Rayner’s speech to the Labour Party conference highlighted many of the problems and gave a glimpse of solutions through creating a democratic and locally accountable National Education Service. She tore into ‘fat cat’ pay and obscene profiteering. She put the needs of children and their families back centre stage of the debate. It was a genuinely refreshing vision. At last a politician has stepped outside the Westminster bubble and started listening.

Some may worry that there is insufficient detail as yet, but a new direction of travel has been set. Our job is to work together to help build this vision of a National Education Service, to help solve the detailed problems of “de-academisation” and to help carry the news of this important change into every school community.

That means challenging every academisation proposal. No school should academise this side of the next general election. It would be a costly, reckless and probably futile decision. The process consumes resources that would be better spent on ameliorating the effects of cuts to school budgets. Governors should refocus on real school improvement and local councils should scrutinise all plans for academisation and propose alternatives.

But it is also time for some introspection from the fat cat CEOs. The writing is on the wall. The least they could do is acknowledge how inappropriately they have been rewarded and offer serious pay restraint. But the likes of Sir Dan Moynihan, Sir Steve Lancashire and other fat cat CEOs should get out of education altogether. Their model of leadership has corrupted public services values in education. We need leaders in our school system who are committed to a National Education Service, who welcome local democratic accountability and who refuse to line their own pockets with exorbitant salaries. We need education for the many not the few.

Statement of Interest: I am a member of the Steering Group of the Anti Academies Alliance and a member of the National Education Union

Greens hail jailed Frack Free 4 as heroes

VIDEO Jailed anti-frackers speak out HERE


Responding to the news that four environmental campaigners have been jailed for peacefully resisting fracking in Lancashire, Keith Taylor, Green Party MEP and a vocal critic of the policing of fracking protests, said:

The frack free four are heroes. These people put their lives on hold to defend our environment and climate from the destruction imposed on it by a government blindly committed to fracking at any costs. The latest cost being the liberty of three peaceful protesters whose only crime is resorting to peaceful direct action to resist an industry after every democratic route of opposition was ignored and overturned by the government. The people of Lancashire and their democratically elected representatives repeatedly said no to fracking.

It has been almost a hundred years since Britain jailed its last environmental campaigners. Since then, the theory goes, we have developed into a mature liberal democracy that can accommodate dissent. Today's decision blows that myth wide-open; authoritarianism has become a favourite tool of a minority government that lacks the public's support to force through its environmentally destructive agenda by any other means. Any government that conspires with the dirty fossil fuel industry against its own people is rotten to the core.

Dissent is not a crime in any country with a political system fit to be called a democracy. Consequently, the sentences handed to the frack-free four are chilling.

-->

Missing cycle storage on new Capitol Way development

Brent Council is following up what appears to be a failure by a developer to deliver cycle storage space outside the new shops in Capitol Way, Colindale.

Brent Cyclists alerted the Council on Twitter:

There is no cycle parking apparent outside these brand-new shops in Capitol Way, Colindale (but a vast amount of car parking). Hasn’t this been specified in the planning process?

Brent Council Customer Service replied:

Thank you for raising this. A 32-space public storage room for bicycles was approved alongside the car park through the planning process. It does not appear to have been provided and we will be chasing this up with the developer.

It makes you wonder if there are other developments where developers failed to deliver unnoticed by Brent Council.

-->
-->

Metroline bus driver wins right to wear her Rastafarian colours

Marcia Carty with fellow Unite members

Marcia Carty, the Metroline bus driver suspended for wearing her red, gold and green Rastafarian colours at work has been reinstated. (Original Wembley Matters story HERE)

Earlier today Kingsley Abrams tweeted:

Am delighted to report a great result on this issue. Metroline have caved in and are letting Marcia Carty display her Rastafarian sacred colours of red, gold and green.This follows the powerful public petition and @UniteLondonEast press release and threats to escalate.

The  petition started by Lee Jasper calling on Sadiq Khan, Transport for London and Metroline has reached more than 19,000 signatures. LINK

This was the case set out by the petition:

Marcia Carty, a Londoner and a devout member of the Rastafarian faith, has been driving London’s buses for over a decade. Throughout that time, she’s worn a head wrap that has displayed her Rastafari sacred colours of, red, gold, and green without a problem.

This summer (2018), Marcia was approached by her manager at the Metroline Bus Company and told that while she could wear a head wrap, she must no longer wear her sacred colours.  Marcia was deeply upset but nevertheless was prepared to compromise, and with the support of her trade union union, Unite, offered to wear a company regulation, blue head wrap, with a small pin representing the colours so important to her faith.  That was refused and Marcia is now facing the sack if she does not comply with the order. Metroline was awarded the title ‘London Bus Operator of the Year’ at the prestigious London Transport Awards.

The irony is, that thousands of members of the Rastafari movement and their families constitute a huge percentage of London’s bus and tube drivers. Metroline is the only company who is insisting on introducing this new rule. Marcia has been off ill with the huge stress, she has faced since the beginning of disciplinary action against her.

Rastafari is not recognised as legitimate faith by UK law having been described in the Court at the time, by the then government representative, Lord Meston as  nothing more than  a relatively short lived “sect, cult or movement” with “quasi political and religious tenants”. 

As a result, Rasta’s employed in the private and public sector’s have no protection against religious discrimination in the workplace or in school. This is unacceptable for a  modern, multicultural, city like London where the contributions of Rastafari and Windrush  generations are rarely formally acknowledged.

We  say this is unacceptable and we call upon the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan to intervene  directly and issue instructions to Transport for London that henceforth Rastafari workers must enjoy the same protection, from religious discrimination in the workplace, as extended to all other recognised faiths groups. Rasta’s are currently allowed to wear their colours by London Transport. Remember Harvey Mitchell ? 

London is a diverse, and multicultural city and is important to recognise and value that complex diversity,  and ensure that all ethnicities, faith groups and other protected minorities, all enjoy robust protection from religious discrimination in the workplace.  

We call upon the Mayor of London to end this anomaly and ensure that Marcia no longer suffers religious discrimination and can return to work wearing the colours of her faith. 

One Love. 

Capita Barnet Scandal: 'Never mind Brexit, it's time for Capzit!'

From Barnet Unison

Grant Thornton was commissioned by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) to provide support in its response to the discovery of an alleged fraud.

On Friday 21st September 2018 Barnet Council published the Grant Thornton (GT) review LINK
The GT review looked the two Capita contracts below.

Contract 1: The London Borough of Barnet and Capita (BRDS) Limited relating to the provision of Development and Regulatory Services signed 5^th August 2013 “DRS”
Contract 2: New Support and Customer Services (NSCSO) Partnering Agreement between the London Borough of Barnet and Capita Business Services Limited. “CSG” contract commenced September 1^st 2013.

The combined worth of both contracts over a 10 year period £424 million.
GT review reported:

“The individual is believed to have committed a fraud to a detected value of £2,063,972 by directing CPO payments to personal bank accounts.”

“Our view of both contracts has identified a number of significant weaknesses which may have resulted in contractual breaches. We have identified and reported what we believe are fundamental weaknesses in budgetary control and financial accounting.” 

“We note both the DRS contract and the CSG contract detail consequences for the Service Provider of Persistent Breach”.

“Lack of effective review of controls over financial ledgers.”

“The monthly and annual budgetary control process provided by CSG Finance for capital projects in Re lack sufficient rigour to challenge unusual transactions and journal entries.”

“Significant financial control weaknesses”

“Poor accounting controls

“Weakened scrutiny over regeneration scheme KPIs” 

 SOURCE

The GT review goes on to develop five broad themes and referred as control ‘Pillars’. GT had this to say about their ‘Five Pillars’

“In our view, if any one of these controls Pillars was functioning effectively at any point during the period (July 2016 to December 2017) on question it should not have bene possible for the individual to perpetrate the fraud…”

John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor said:

The Grant Thornton (GT) review of the two Capita contracts in Barnet provides yet more evidence of the folly of privatisation of public services. When I read “significant financial control weaknesses…“poor accounting controls” in the GT review it summed up what I have been saying about the current Tory government. They have failed our economy by rewarding their friends in big business, leaving our communities and public services to suffer at the hands their brutal austerity policies. I want to send a personal message of solidarity from the Labour Party Conference to Barnet UNISON and the residents who have fought side by side against a right wing mass outsourcing ideology. I fully support your campaign to #KickOutCapita from Barnet and bring services back in-house.

Professor Dexter Whitfield who recently published a joint review entitled “’Future Shape’ ‘easyCouncil‘, ‘One Barnet’= Failure” with Barnet UNISON on both Capita contracts had this to said: 

The Grant Thornton audit reveals very serious flaws and inadequate operational practice in both the Capita regeneration and back office services contracts. The fact that it took a fraud case to reveal the full nature and scope of these flaws is a damming indictment of Capita and Barnet Councils contract management and monitoring.

Furthermore, implementation of the remedial action plan may address the current inadequacies but gives little reassurance that there are no other serious flaws that remain to be exposed. The audit provides further significant evidence for the Council’s review of both contracts and a decision to terminate the Capita contracts and return to in-house provision as a matter of urgency.

John Burgess, Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

I am shocked but not surprised at the content of the GT review of both Capita contracts. Barnet UNISON predicted that service quality would suffer once the services were privatised however there is little comfort in saying “we told you so” for the hundreds of local jobs in Barnet that were lost as a direct result of Capita winning the contracts. What is surprising, is that it took a fraud, to deliver the forensic scrutiny we have long demanded.

Over the past five years frontline in-house services have endured vicious cuts whilst the two Capita contracts have drained badly needed public money, in order to satisfy the needs of Capita shareholders who put profit before quality services to residents. When Capita issued a dramatic profit warning on 31 January 2018, why did the Council not begin discussions to bring services back in-house. It seems clear from the GT review that even at an early stage there were serious endemic financial and budgetary issues. The Council is currently preparing a review of both Capita contracts.

It is my view that in light of the GT review, it is untenable that the Council could even consider allowing Capita to run any of their services again. The relationship between the Council and Capita is in my opinion irreversibly broken, it’s over, and now is the time to end it, no expensive divorce bill, Barnet Councils services, and residents have tolerated enough of the mass privatisation ideology. Never mind #Brexit it’s time for #Capzit”.