Get down to Kensal Green on Tuesday to help save the library

A message from the Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign

Public Meeting Reminder!
 

A reminder that we are holding a public meeting at 7.30pm on Tuesday 21st May in St Martin’s Church, Mortimer Rd, Kensal Green (first street on the right from Kensal Green Tube as you walk up College Rd, about 1 minute walk).

 

The Leader of Brent Council Cllr Muhammed Butt will be there and local councillors and we hope that Roxanne Mashari, the new Lead Member on the Executive responsible for Libraries will be able to make the meeting.

 

Roxanne came to a meeting of SOS Brent Libraries (the umbrella group of the campaigns attached to the closed libraries in Brent) on Sunday and stated most strongly that she wanted to have a dialogue with us and envisioned a partnership between the council and our community.

 

It is really important to let both the Leader of the Council and Cllr Mashari know how strongly this community feels about the loss of our library and the importance of the Kensal Rise Library building as a library and community space, a space that we will lose if the building is turned into flats.

 

To achieve this we really do need as many of you as possible to come to the public meeting.

 

We are still fighting after nearly three years and they need to know what we are fighting for and what we value in this community.

Princess Frederica debates the pros and cons of expansion

The Brent Executive this evening approved the plans for school expansion with the new  lead member for children and families, Michael Pavey, challenging the view (which is also my view) that very large primary schools are not beneficial to small children. Quoting his experience as Chair of Governors of Wembley Primary (an 840 pupil school) he said that he thought large schools were not necessarily cold and impersonal and could offer a warm, caring environment.  He thought large schools were good for Brent. Wembley Primary had a complete rebuild in extensive grounds to accommodate four forms of entry. Schools which are expanded by adding extra buildings often lose play space as a result as well as the space being used by additional numbers of children. Often the school hall is too small to accommodate all the children in assemblies or performances.

Coincidentally plans to increase the size of Princess Frederica Voluntary Aided Primary School by one form of entry (210 children) has provoked debate. .In order to address some of the concerns raised the school governing body has posted information for parents on the school's website LINK

There are briefings and Q&As as well as this statement from the Chair of Governors:

As many of you will be aware, we dedicated the March meeting of the governing body to the school expansion proposal and invited in parents/ carers and the public to express their views. This is because the governing body takes very seriously its responsibility to make a decision about the proposal to expand the school and wants to ensure that everyone has a voice.

Brent Council asked the Governing Body to agree to open a statutory consultation on expanding the school at the meeting on 21 March. We decided we did not have enough information proceed with such a consultation.

During April and May representatives from the governing body and school met with the Brent school expansion team. We discussed the key issues about expansion, as outlined on this page. Following this meeting, Brent LA have produced a detailed report about what expansion of Princess Frederica might look like.  The governing body will be meeting on Thursday 23rd May, 2013 to discuss this matter and decide whether we now have enough information to agree to a statutory consultation. It is very important to note that if we have a ‘yes’ vote, we are still not obliged to proceed. As a governing body we are committed to ensuring that our questions are answered before we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to expansion.

I would urge anyone with an interest – including those within the school, as well as neighbours – to make their views public on the website via the questions and comment function. Alternatively, you can email me at admin@princessfrederica.brent.sch.uk subject line: FAO Chair of Governors or drop a letter addressed to the governors into the office.

A Moss (Chair of Governors)

More Brent schools to expand as Gove restricts new LA school builds

Michael Gove receives a vote of 'No Confidence' from headteachers but at the same time his Tory leadership bid, launched last weekend regarding Europe, seems to be going well. The New Statesman this week carries an article suggesting a Tory leadership combination of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove ('BO-GO'). Enough to give you nightmares.

But the nightmare is already with us because Gove's policies are wreaking havoc. Most obvious at the moment is the ludicrous requirement that any new school must be academy or free school - despite the latter being mainly set up in places with a current surplus of places. Local authorities such as Brent are denied the opportunity to rationally plan new local authority schools in areas where there is a shortage.Instead they have to wait for the market to provide and meanwhile add extra classes to existing schools, or even annexes or 'satellites' to escape government restrictions. Boris adds his tuppenyworth by ear-marking any surplus GLA buildings for possible use as free schools.

Some primary schools are increasing in size to more that 1,000 5-11 year olds, an issue that I have raised several times on Wembley Matters and taken up on Saturday by the Guardian(1,000 pupils and rising - primary schools go supersize LINK )My view is that these are just too big to provide the care and contact that young children need but others think that given the right internal arrangements and ethos these difficulties can be overcome.

Meanwhile the new Brent Executive will tomorrow consider the latest report on primary school expansion which will be presented my Michael Pavey, the new lead member for children and families, and himself Chair of Governors at one of Brent's largest primary schools, the four form entry Wembley Primary.

Some schools have already doubled in size to cope with the shortage and in some cases have lost valuable play space or halls, music rooms or IT suites.  The report LINK includes for 2013-14 the following possibilities:

• 7 primary classes housed in modules at Kingsbury High with the children eventually transferring to Kingsbury Green Primary when it expands. 
• 15 primary classes at the Centre for Staff Development (Gwenneth Rickus Building) in Brentfield Road ) next to the Swaminarayan Independent School. This building will be vacated when the few staff that remain transfer to the Civic Centre. Originally it was ear-marked for secondary places but the required building money is not available.Both Mitchell Brook and Brentfield primary schools are close by but I have heard it may become a satellite of Leopold Primary in Harlesden.
• Use of temporary classrooms previously used by Preston Manor and Brentfield schools and creation of more 'bulge classes' - one off additions to a school rather than a change in the numbers of forms of entry.

There are schemes suggested to provide full new capacity by September 2014 at:

• Wembley High School - a new building providing a 4 form of entry (840 children) primary school making Wembley an 'all-through' school along with Ark and Preston Manor.
• Uxendon Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420  children)
• Harlesden Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420 children)
• Preston Park, Princess Frederica and St Joseph Primary will all add 1 for of entry (210 children)
• Vicar's Green in Ealing but serving many Brent children will add 0.5 forms of entry (105 children)

These schemes would provide new capacity between September 2015:

• Elsley Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420 children)
• Stonebridge Primarary - an additional 1 form of entry (210 chilren)
• Malorees Infant and Junior - an additional 1 or 2 forms of entry (210-420 children)
• Oriental City Primary - 2 forms of entry (dependent on Section 106 agreement - not clear re governance)

Other longer term sites in case the need continues have been identified.  These include the Wembley Quintain site for a 2 form entry primary school (420 children), Our Lady of Lourdes (Stonebridge) additional 2 forms of entry (420 children), John Keble and St Francis and St Andrew additional 1 form of entry (210 children) each.

Defend London's NHS demo in pictures

Brent had a good showing for the Defend London's NHS demonstration today. Fightback supporters were out in force along with a least seven Brent Labour councillors including Muhammed Butt and Brent Central parliamentary hopefuls Sabina Khan and Patrick Vernon.

London Green Party also mobilised for the event and were in evidence throughout the march. Front de Gauche were with us at the start of the march.

from Coalition of Resistance

E-ACT scandal should make Brent Council pause for thought on academies issue

As the Ark academies chain announces its takeover of Kensal Rise Primary School, renaming it Ark Franklin Primary Academy and appointing a new headteacher fresh from Dubai, LINK there is news of another academy chain, E-ACT,  which runs the Crest Girls' and Boys' academies in Neasden.

I would hope that the report below will give headteachers, governing bodies and councillors pause for thought before rushing into academy conversions or supporting forced academies. Conversions are often undertaken for financial reasons with governing bodies and headteachers saying they would let pupils down if they did not go for the extra academy funding - instead much of it may end up lining the pockets of the sponsors through high salaries for the chain bosses or 'extravagant expenses'.

This report is from the BBC:

A leading academy chain has been criticised for widespread financial irregularities in an official report. The Education Funding Agency report highlights a culture of "extravagant" expenses, "prestige" venues and first class travel at the E-ACT group. The report obtained by the Times Educational Supplement and seen by BBC News adds that E-ACT spent public money on unapproved consultancy fees. The group currently runs 31 state-funded free-schools and academies around England that have opted out of local authority control.

E-ACT was set up in July 2009 as an independent educational charity and company with the principal purpose of "establishing, maintaining, managing and developing schools colleges and academies". Its director general, Sir Bruce Liddington, resigned last month. The report found that E-ACT's systems of internal financial control were "weak" and lacking "rigour" - and noted that the governance of the group was "unusual". In particular it notes that "the controls around expenses for trustees are weak".

"Expenses claims and use of corporate credit cards indicate a culture involving prestige venues, large drinks bills, business lunches and first class travel, all funded from public monies," says the report. The report says the director general's expenses may not have been "subject to proper scrutiny". "Expenses claims and card payments by senior managers in E-ACT have occasionally stretched the concepts of propriety and value for money. Controls have been lax and some payments have tended to extravagance... however we found no evidence of fraud."

The report also highlights a wider "culture of acceptance of non-compliance with E-ACT's own policies for awarding contracts." The investigation found that hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money was spent by E-ACT on purchases that were not in line with its own spending policies. Many purchases were made by Sir Bruce himself. "Our review of the director general's cost centre indicates that £361,000 has been spent on consultancy fees from 2008-9 with £237,000 of this not having an order," note the authors.

The report also raises concerns that trustees on the E-ACT board were paid for consultancy work, stressing that "payment to trustees is unusual in the charitable sector, where the basic position is that trustees should not benefit personally from their position so that they can exercise independent scrutiny over the charity's operations." ”Around half of the 13 current board members have or have in the past had contracts for service or services provided." The investigation came after the group's auditors KPMG raised concerns that its financial administration was "playing catch-up" with its rapid expansion.

In particular the report notes that some of the group's financial practices were inappropriate for an organisation with a turnover of many millions of pounds and that the boundary between E-ACT and its money-making subsidiary E-ACT Enterprises Limited (EEL) was blurred, with some EEL expenses being paid out of public money.

E-ACT stresses that it has taken swift action to address the report's concerns. Chairwoman Ann Limb, who joined the group a year ago, said: "We have overhauled both the governance and the culture of E-ACT to ensure that this can never happen again. As well as the departure of the director general, the finance director and two trustees have also left the organisation. E-ACT is about educational excellence and the changes we have made will ensure we have operational excellence to support that.

"We are implementing a robust action plan which addresses all concerns raised and are working closely with the Education Funding Agency to ensure these changes are embedded throughout the organisation."

A Department for Education spokeswoman said "Any misuse of public money meant for schools is completely unacceptable. Academies cannot hide from their responsibilities. All their accounts must be externally audited and they are held to account by the Education Funding Agency so any issues of impropriety are immediately investigated.

"That is exactly why the EFA has written to E-ACT requiring them to take swift action to improve financial management, control and governance. We are monitoring the situation closely and will take any further action necessary."

Green MEP Jean Lambert calls for halt to London A&E closures on eve of NHS March

I hope to see London Greens out in force tomorrow at the Defend London's NHS protest  as well as some of the new Brent Council Executive A contingent from Brent Fightback will be there. They will be meeting on the Southbound platform of the Bakerloo line at Baker St at 1130 tomorrow to travel on together to the demonstration at Waterloo.

 

London  Green MEP Jean Lambert has called on the government to halt the closure of up to nine accident and emergency wards in hospitals across London.


The wards are scheduled for closure, as well as thousands of hospital beds, in what the Keep Our NHS Public coalition has described as ‘the biggest attack on our NHS in a generation’.


Lambert, who will join thousands of people from across the UK in a march to the Department of Health to protest against the closures – and the threat of hospital and community health services being taken over by private companies, said:

This Government promised to defend the NHS – but the reforms it has introduced have done exactly the opposite.

As well as privatising services – allowing Tory donors like Care UK to offer public health care - its cuts and austerity program has caused plans to close hospital wards across the capital.

Greens believe in an adequately-funded publicly-provided NHS, run in the interests of people – not profits – and I will be proud to march tomorrow alongside some of the millions of NHS workers and patients who agree.”

Weekend of action over Guantánamo's 100 Days of Shame

Guest blog from Aisha Maniar, courtesy of 'one small window' where it was first published

What does a person have to do to get noticed nowadays? In the twenty first century, enduring more than a decade of torture and arbitrary detention without charge, trial or any prospect of release is not enough. A mass hunger strike, involving the use of torturous force feeding methods, the firing of plastic bullets, and intrusive body searches, such as that currently taking place at Guantánamo Bay, entering its 100^th day on Friday 17^th May, might get you a little further. A life-and-death scenario is what it takes to remind the world of the injustice that is Guantánamo Bay.

The US military has yet to admit the full scale of the situation, with the current numbers reported to be on hunger strike at around 100 of the 166 remaining prisoners and over 30 reported to be force fed, including British residents Shaker Aamer and Ahmed Belbacha. This follows weeks of denial by both the US authorities and the mainstream media, only becoming newsworthy when violence entered the scene on 13 April.

The use of force to quell a hunger strike that arose on 6 February in response to the deteriorating treatment of prisoners, including the use of rubber bullets against them in January, appears to be a counterproductive method of dealing with the issue at hand. There has been no effort whatsoever to engage with or respond to the demands of the hunger strikers or to bring it to an end.

The hunger strike has undoubtedly brought Guantánamo Bay back into the public eye, even prompting Barack Obama to state “I’m going to go back at it [closing Guantánamo] because I think it’s important.” One of the triggers for the mass hunger strike was despair at his failure to keep his promise to close Guantánamo, and the prisoners’ fear that the only real way out is in a coffin.

Perhaps the latest political rhetoric is just a test to see who has been paying attention. In the past few months, Barack Obama has authorised the use of force feeding rather than end the hunger strike, and plastic bullets, which can be fatal. Furthermore, just one week before the hunger strike started, the newly re-elected president closed the office he had opened to work on closing Guantánamo.

The recent debate on Guantánamo Bay has largely recycled old, circular arguments. Congress is allegedly a sticking point, blocking progress on the closure of Guantánamo but may agree to a $200 million renovation of the prison.

The debate on force feeding hunger strikers is non-existent; medical and legal ethics do not allow it. The UN has described the practice at Guantánamo as “torture”. This has not prevented the US from force feeding hunger striking Connecticut prisoner Bill Coleman in the same manner for five years. The issue of possible recidivism in releasing cleared prisoners, a favourite of proponents of Guantánamo, is also moot; one has to have offended in order to reoffend.

Barack Obama once described Guantánamo Bay as a “misguided experiment”, except that on so many levels he knows that is not the case. A successful social experiment in peddling the politics of mistrust and fear, it is perhaps the greatest symbol of the abuse of power this century. The US keeps Guantánamo open because it is expedient, because it can, because it is a two-finger salute to the rest of the world: “screw with us, and you will be next”.

A legal monstrosity exists, yet Barack Obama has long known what he has to do to close Guantánamo. The question is not so much how, but when? Will it take further fatalities of innocent men to come closer to an answer? The situation at Guantánamo has been an emergency for far longer than 100 days. There is no place for rhetoric: there are no popularity contests or elections to be won, just lives to be saved.

If there is a debate to be had, it does not appear to be happening. The same applies to the US’ allies, such as the British government. In a backbench debate in Parliament last month on the case of British resident Shaker Aamer, the Foreign Office gave the same noncommittal answers to relevant questions by MPs it has given for years. It is highly unlikely that Mr Aamer’s case, or the hunger strike, were raised during David Cameron’s visit to Washington earlier this week, in spite of government assurances it is actively pursuing his case.

Hunger strikes are an ultimate act of desperation by those who have no other means to protest injustice. It is a reflection of the clear failure of all those who could make a difference and have not over the past 11 years. Former Guantánamo military prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis stated “A large part of [the] Obama legacy depends on how this issue breaks. It’s his choice to lead or lose.”

The hunger strike has not missed the attention of everyone, and for the past three months, campaigns such as the London Guantánamo Campaign in the UK and organisations such as Witness Against Torture and World Can’t Wait have been holding protests and solidarity actions about an emergency the world would still rather ignore. The hunger strike will enter its 100^th day on 17^th May and shows no sign of ending. Six prisoners have been on hunger strike and force fed for over one year; left to their own devices, they prefer death over indefinite detention. Hunger strikes can be fatal in the longer term; seven of the nine deaths at Guantánamo Bay, allegedly suicides, were prisoners who had previously taken part in hunger strikes.

To mark this 100^th day milestone and given the emergency of this situation, individuals and groups from around the world have come together to organise a weekend of protest on 17-19 May, calling on people to take action and fast for 24 hours if they can. A successful petition with more than 200,000 signatures gathered in around a fortnight put together by Colonel Morris Davis will be delivered to the White House on Friday 17 May. Protests will be held in various cities and towns across the world, with at least five planned across the UK, including a demonstration outside the US Embassy in London. The hacktivist group

Anonymous is also planning online actions over the weekend and others have Twitter storms planned over the three days using the hashtag #OpGTMO. Citizen actions around the world are an opportunity to show solidarity with the hunger strikers in different ways in different places. With lawyers visiting the prisoners reporting their worsening health and physical conditions, later may be too late.

Break up the Banks: Too Big, Too Powerful, Too Risky

A  powerful  post by Green Party member Peter Tatchell in  Huffington Post LINK today

The calls for banking reform are growing. About time. The big crash was more than five years ago. Since then we‘ve had Libor rate-fixing, bonuses for failed financiers and massive fines for malpractices by leading banks. Plus mis-sold PPI, interest rate swaps, fraud, money-laundering and tax dodging. Scandal after scandal.

What’s even more astonishing is that the gamblers and fraudsters in the City of London not only got away with their shenanigans, they were bailed out of the mess they created by the taxpayer. They won, even when they failed.

Are we mugs or masochists? Why do we put up with it? The rot has got to stop. The Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are not up to the job. Many people see them as agents of corporate power. Their light-touch regulation allowed speculators to play fast and loose with the whole British economy.

Today, under the auspices of Occupy Economics - an offshoot of Occupy London - a few of us are gathering in the heart of the beast, Canary Wharf, to call time on the freeloading megabanks.

http://bit.ly/11PBhNY

We propose three simple ideas to stabilise the financial system: put a limit on the size of banks, reduce borrowing ratios and mutualise ownership.

A few megabanks are holding society hostage, reaping huge profits on the back of the state, despite their failings. By threatening bankruptcy, the big banks extract public support worth tens of billions of pounds each year. The bail outs have siphoned off public money that could have been spent on health, education, job creation and better pensions.

Megabanks have the taxpayer over a barrel. They're drinking the bar dry and putting it on our tab.

Over the past 30 years, the big banks have grown bigger, riskier and fewer. Through incestuous "intra-financial" lending sprees, they've become wired to one another like a string of exploding fairy lights. If one bank goes down, there’s a risk that they all will.

The megabanks are a clear and ongoing threat to society.

Now Justin Welby, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, has challenged George Osborne:

“You continue to defend the idea of a small group of absolutely colossal banks... Is that lack of will to break them up not simply a recipe for a repetition of disasters?”

He's right. We need to end bank risk and welfare. Here's how.

Britain suffers under the financial stranglehold exercised a few very rich and powerful megabanks. They're unwieldy, over-complex and cannot be safely managed.

The solution: Cap bank size at $100 billion. Smaller banks are easier to manage and internal accountability can be stronger. Checks and balances tend to be more effective. With many smaller diverse banks, if one or two fail the impact on the economy will be less severe.

Megabanks borrow a lot and own little. With the government and public beholden to them because of the fear of what would happen if they were allowed to fail, bankers extort government handouts whenever they get into trouble because of their reckless policies.

George Osborne would let banks borrow 33 times what they own outright. How irresponsible is that? No one would expect to get a mortgage worth 33 times their deposit. It's far too much and too risky. So why should banks be allowed such astronomical borrowing ratios?

A sensible precaution would be to cap bank borrowing at around 14 times their net worth

Most of our banks are run for the benefit of a very small, privileged group of people – their major shareholders – who always have the option to get out while the going’s good.

This drives banks to be permanently seeking profit maximisation, often regardless of the cost to their own organisations - never mind the wider society.

Many French and German banks are run differently – as mutuals or in public ownership for the benefit of the customers and the common good. Why not ours?

Mutualisation would establish a stronger ethos of public service and accountability; removing from banks the pressure to put the optimisation of shareholder’s gain as their sole priority. This would, in turn, make possible a greater sense of civic responsibility in banking operations.  

These proposals are all about creating a culture of safer, responsible banking, with checks and balances to thwart, or at least minimise, a possible repeat of the 2007-08 meltdown.

Richard Paton from Occupy Economics puts it this way:

“Why are those who are brave, or honest, enough to challenge the megabanks either Archbishops or technocrats?

“Public revulsion at the banks won’t be assuaged by superficial measures. The underlying ‘conduct issue’ is that a few megabanks are able to extort profits by imperiling the solvency of the state.

“No-one seriously engaged with the issue believes the problem has been dealt with – except bank execs and the Chancellor.

“The government is in denial, determined to frame the problem as one of the ‘culture’ of wayward banks. Trying to address ‘culture’ alone is forlorn, like trying to catch a vapour in a butterfly net.

“The banking crash was driven by blind stock market pressure for ‘shareholder value’ in a sector dominated by predatory plcs. These megabanks still have their finger on the nuclear button known as Too Big – and too interconnected – To Fail.”