Biomass Energy: The Issues - Film and discussion at Brent Civic Centre

Duncan Law will be showing a film and giving a talk about biomass at Brent Friends of the Earth's (Brent FoE) monthly meeting. It take place at Brent Civic Centre in Wembley on Tuesday October 14^th at 7.30pm. 

Duncan Law, from Biofuel Watch and Transition Town Brixton, will be presenting a short film and giving a talk about the issues around the use of biomass as an energy source.

“Friends of the Earth believes that bio-energy has a role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but only if it is done in a way that protects wildlife and people's livelihoods, and guarantees emissions cuts. Duncan will be explaining more about this important issue, and the questions it throws up regarding land use and protection of the environment,” said Pam Laurance, a coordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth.

Everyone is welcome to attend this free event, and would also be welcome to stay for the rest of the regular monthly group meeting.

The talk and film will start at at 7.30pm till approximately 8:30pm.  Ask at the Civic Centre reception desk for directions to the 3rd Floor Drum, Boardrooms 7&8. Brent Civic Centre is in Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ, nearest tube Wembley Park. For more information see http://www.brentfoe.com or email info@brentfoe.com.

For further information:

1. Brent FoE has a website at www.brentfoe.com, is on Facebook at www.facebook.com/brentfoe and on Twitter @brentfoe.
2. For more about biomass see LINK

After the Tricycle: Can Arts Organisations say 'No' to Embassy Funding?

TUESDAY OCTOBER 7TH - 7PM 17-25 NEW INN YARD EC2A 3EA

Amnesty has sent the following invitation which will be of interest to readers involved in the debate over the Tricycle Theatre's refusal of Israeli Government funding (via the Embassy) and the subsequent events.

Do artists and arts organisations have the right to say ‘no’ when governments with negative human rights records try to co-opt culture in the service of their public relations strategies? 

Please join the discussion – After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?

In August 2014, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Tricycle Theatre asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to forego Israeli embassy funding. The festival refused, walked away from the Tricycle, and briefed the press that the theatre was boycotting a Jewish festival. The theatre came under sustained attack: campaigns to de-fund the theatre, denunciations by liberal newspaper columnists, even intervention by the Secretary of State for Culture himself.

Do we have to accept that the kind of backlash the Tricycle experienced is inevitable as far as funding by a powerful state is concerned, and make sure we never follow where this theatre led?
Panel chair: Kamila Shamsie, novelist.

Speakers: April De Angelis and Tanika Gupta playwrights, Antony Lerman writer & commentator, and Ofer Neiman of the Israeli group Boycott from Within.

Panel discussion. Free entry, but reservation is recommended.
There will be a drinks reception afterwards.
When: Tuesday 7th October, 19:00 – 21:00. Doors open 18:30
Where: Amnesty International UK Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London. EC2A 3EA.

Brent People's Assembly Meeting Monday at the Prince of Wales

There is a meeting tomorrow (Monday) to discuss the setting of a People's Assembly Against Austerity in Brent.

I support the People's Assembly nationally but wrote to the organisers of this meeting pointing out that Brent Fightback, with much the same agenda, already existed locally.

This is their response:

I recognise the invaluable role Brent Fightback has played in the fight against cuts locally but setting up a Brent Peoples Assembly is not in conflict with the good work of Brent Fightback. The Peoples Assembly is a growing national umbrella organisation which has placed the fight against cuts, fight for jobs, improved services, for the NHS  and education as aspects of the overall fight against austerity and the PA is uniting its members by making demands which are set out in the Peoples Charter.

At a recent meeting of the national organisation Richard Lynch fedback that the PA in London is developing local branches in Camden, Barnet etc. and national TUs and local unions are affiliating to the organisation. It is possible that there are local Brent people who may be interested in setting up a Brent PA and the meeting on Monday is providing an opportunity to find out whether there is scope to develop this organisation locally. If there is we must then discuss how Brent Fightback and a local PA join up. A first step could be for Brent Fightback to affiliate to the PA.

I believe that in the past Fightback has been affiliated to the PAA  althought that may have lapsed.  We have certainbly attended their marches and conferences as well as a West London PAA event. I would be the first to admit that we need to attract a broader group of people, users of services as well as trade unionists, and  the younger people who are active in other campaigns such as Brent Against Racism Campaign and Brent Housing Action.

On the other hand it would not be good to duplicate activities and just provide the 'usual suspects' with an additional meeting. Burn out is  a real issue for Brent activists.

I will be going along to the meeting with an open mind:

6.30pm on Monday 6 October at the Prince of Wales Pub, 101 Willesden Lane, London NW6 7SD (a short walk from the junction of Kilburn High Road and Willesden Lane).

Shahrar Ali: Brent's appeal on race judgment compounds their fairness failure

Brent Green Party's Shahrar Ali slammed Brent Council's institutionalised denial of racism and repeated the party's call for an independent investigation into human resources and other matters at Brent Council in a letter to the Kilburn Times this week:

Please note that the Kilburn Times erroneously transposed quotes in the throd and fourth paragraphs. The correct version is:


One could be forgiven for concluding that the problem was institutionalised. In the words of the Judge, “No employer will admit to it [unlawful discrimination] and, indeed, discrimination is often operating at an unconscious level.” 


Ali said 'One could be forgiven for concluding that the problem was institutionalised' - not Judge Henry.

Brent Officers recommend Queensbury affordable housing offer but oppose development on heritage grounds

Locals demonstrating against a high rise block in a Conservation Area replacing the Queensbury

Brent Council officers are recommending acceptance of the revised affordable housaing offer by the developers of the Queensbury site in Willesden Green but also recommend that the Council continues to oppose the proposals on other grounds at the Public Inquiry. LINK

The Report, which goes before the Planning Commitee on October 15th rejects claims that consultation on the proposals was inadequate.

The revised affordable housing is now 22.6% compared with the Core Strategy's target of 50%:

Having considered s report from BNP Paribas on ther viability of the offer, Brent Officers claim that 'on balance' it is acceptable.

They admit this would narrow the grounds for Council opposition to the developer's appeal but believe that issues of design and heritage, especially, are still sufficient to go ahead and oppose. They have appointed a Design and Heritage expert witness.

Butt the PR man for Wembley Market

While the maelstrom continued over racism, bullying and harassment at Brent Council, leader Muhammed Butt on Twitter  yesterday concentrated on the real priority:

Brent Labour Councillors must act on racism and bullying tomorrow

Former Brent Council Executive member James Powney returned to the subject of the current race discrimination and bullying scandal at Brent Council on his blog yesterday. LINK

This is what he had to say:

I notice that in a debate on Martin Francis blog some of the commentators appear to be confusing his position and mine.  My original post is here, and Martin has paraphrased it accurately, whilst adding his own view.  Hence the understandable confusion.

My view is that Brent Council had strong rules and procedures before 2012, including appropriate relationships between members and officers.  These were built up over many years since the nadir of the Tory administration in the 1990s, as explained here.  Since 2012, there has been a steady decline in the application of appropriate standards, leading to a situation where accusations of various forms of abuse, including racism and misuse of public money, are flying about.  This is, in my view, the result of the past couple of years where patronage and irrational decision making have increased, scrutiny has declined, and certain individuals appear to have been allowed to believe that they enjoy impunity from accountability.

My view is that it is up to elected councillors to step in and sort this out, whether the abuses are being committed by over mighty officers or whether they are being committed by elected members who are out of control (or indeed whether they are being influenced by people who fit in neither category). Given the composition of Brent Council, that primarily means the Labour Group.

The debate on Martin's blog can be found here. 

It would be a pity if Labour councillors meeting tomorrow as the Labour Group let personal antipathy towards James Powney (as a member of the old regime), myself (as a member of a rival political party or Graham Durham (well, as Graham Durham) get in the way of recognising the need to deal with this issue.

Up to this point the scandal has not hit national media but any risk assessment of the potential damage to the Council and perhaps the Labour Party's reputation would recognise that the matters needs to be dealt with decisively and action taken.

In the last fortnight I have received emails and phone calls from former and current Brent Council workers about working conditions at the Council, some of whom work at a senior level. They have been told they will be disciplined if they approach Councillors directly and those that have left have had gagging clauses imposed as part of the settlement.

I have inadvertently found myself in the position of being their only outlet because of the Council's actions.  Several have wept on the phone as they recall the effect on their health and emotional well-being as well as the impact on their families.

Councillors should recognise that it is their responsibility to ensure that their employees are treated fairly in an atmosphere free from harassment, bullying and fear.

It is as simple as that.

It is not something they can ignore.

We need to follow up today's Independent letter on pressure on pupils with a national campaign

This is the text of the letter signed by educationalists, authors, teachers, parents and grandparents published in the Independent today. I tried to sign when it was on line but was thwarted by technical problems - I fully support it as an ex-teacher and current governor at two Brent schools.

The letter is in line with Green Party Policy and the NUT's Education Manifesto and could form the basis of a national campaign.

As parents and educators we find ourselves increasingly concerned at the pressure that is being placed on our children and young people. We worry about the long term impact that this pressure may have on our children’s emotional health, particularly on the most vulnerable in our society. We are concerned to hear of children crying on their way to school, upset that they will not be able to keep up; of parents worried that their four year olds are ‘falling behind’ or of six year olds scared that they ‘might not get a good job’. And we wonder what has happened to that short period in our lives known as ‘childhood’.

The pressure that is put on schools to achieve results, particularly in the tests that now form such a regular feature of a child’s life, has inevitably led to increased pressure on the children themselves. This is not to blame teachers, or schools. Rather, it is to say that with test results becoming such a high stakes feature of our education system, schools are put in a very difficult position. When test results are the key measure of whether a child’s school is ‘good’ or not, we believe that every child’s entitlement to a broad and balanced education is put at risk. We believe all children have the right to become fully rounded individuals, and that in order to help them achieve this, we must protect their emotional well-being, now and for the future. We believe all children have the right to be treated as individuals, and to be allowed to develop at a pace that is right for them, not to meet a Government target.

We call for all those who are equally concerned to speak out against the direction in which education in England, and in other countries around the world, is moving. We call for governments around the world to take into account children’s emotional well-being when they consider the ‘effectiveness’ of schools and other educational settings.

Posted with Blogsy