WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Monday, 3 November 2014
Farewell to Myron Jobson of the Kilburn Times
 |
| Myron Jobson |
He is joining the Financial Times to to work on features, mainly for one of its supplements.
Myron's recent series of articles on the campaign to save Stonebridge Adventure Playground has shown committed local journalism at its best.
It is a big leap into another world and I wish him well.
Mysterious Brent Full Council Meeting change may have unintended consequences
This is the rather terse statement on the Brent Council website announcing the very unusual change in the meeting of Full Council.
Peter Goss gave me rather fuller information just before his office closed on Friday:
However, this raises rather more questions than it answers.Councillors have this afternoon been notified that the Full Council meeting on 17 November has been moved to 8 December in order that the outcome of the consultation on the borough plan can be considered as part of the 1st reading of the budget. The web site has been amended to reflect this change.
1. Who made the decision and under which provision of the Brent Constitution?
2. When the Council has a carefully constructed Forward Plan how was this major item missed in the calendar?
3. With the Borough Plan consultation not closing until Friday November 28th, how will it be possible for the Brent officers to compile a report for Full Council in just 5 working days?
I remain sceptical about the reasons for this decision.
One consequence of the three week delay is that some councillors may be caught in the six month rule. This disqualifies councillors from office if they have not attended a council meeting, which they are expected to attend, in a six month period.
Unless some special dispensation is granted, or councillors presently not on a committee are drafted on to a committee that meets before November 24th, there appear to be three councillors who face disqualification as a result of the postponement.
These are John Duffy (Kilburn), Zaffar Van Kalwala (Stonebridge) and Ahmad Shahzad (Mapesbury).
This may (or may not) be an unintended consequence of the postponement decision but it would be absurd, and expensive, if as a result of the postponement three by-elections are triggered.
Sunday, 2 November 2014
Scott Bartle launches positive campaign to win Brent North for the Greens
 |
| Scott Bartle |
Scott holds registration as a positive behaviour
psychologist and works within the NHS. He lives in Mapesbury Ward Brent,
where he stood as Green candidate in the 2014 local elections and gained 8% -
one of the highest results for an individual Green Party candidate in the
constituency.
Explaining his decision to stand Scott said:
As a Cornishman raised in one of the most deprived areas of the UK and Europe I am acutely aware of the human impact that poverty can have as detailed in the ‘horror’ statistics. It was no surprise that the regional areas of Britain were increasingly turning away from the three main parties as they have experienced neglect since Thatcher, perpetuated by Blair, and continued by the coalition.
It was also no surprise that in Brent, one of the most deprived areas of London, we have people turning away from the UK government and mistakenly thinking that their values are represented by elements in Syria. When people are alienated from the society they live in, there is only so far that they can be pushed. It’s been said that the apocalypse won’t come like lightning, but gradually like a fog. Mostly, successive governments have managed to avoid the ire of the public in perpetuating the agenda of their corporate donors but the fog is starting to become visible around us.
Whilst this fog may be pollution, as our government is being taken to court by the EU for London’s poor air quality - we know only the Greens will protect our environment.
When Labour started the erosion of civil liberties and now the Tories pledge to repeal Human Rights legislation – we need the Greens to lead the resistance.
When Labour sought to channel public money out of the NHS through Private Finance Initiatives that we are still paying now – we need a Green to look at the long term.
As studies reveal 50% of people receiving social care in Brent feel unsafe, we need to stop allowing private equity companies to funnel profits off-shore when they’re failing in their primary duty – Greens care.
When our foreign policy, rendered inconsistent by our colonial past is still causing conflict across the world and giving cause to recruit people from our own communities – we need a Green to challenge that.
When the economic policy of ‘austerity’ advocated by Conservatives and Lib-Dems is an irreconcilable failure and Labour pledge to continue it - the fog envelopes us.
Nobody actually wants all of this – it’s why it is vital we look for an alternative.
As Parliamentary Candidate for Brent North I will seek to highlight that Greens can provide something for people to vote FOR, rather than against – a real choice.
Through saying YES to Human Rights, YES to a consistent foreign policy, YES to Economic Change, YES to Public Services, YES to Environmental Action, YES to Green Jobs we are saying YES to a sustainable future for people, nature and wildlife worldwide
Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)
This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.
-->
Most readers of Wembley Matters
will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its
Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found
that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had
been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation
and racial discrimination at its hands.
Given these findings, and the
strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any
reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to
Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers,
up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the
Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its
procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council
issued a statement, saying among other things:
‘Following independent legal advice, we
have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the
Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and
victimisation aspects of the judgement.’
I wrote straight away to the Council
Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the
tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the
tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an
appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a
valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her
for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council,
was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent
completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on
that point.
I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to
paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely
credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial
discrimination finding:
‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’
The tribunal also recorded
that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision,
Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31
July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty”
of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent
did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to
clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to
tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary
proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated
Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the
consequences of their actions.
I have not received any reply
from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take
any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the
Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with
copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to
consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment
Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and
gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in
the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council
Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates,
covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’
The Council statement on 26 September
had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who
exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom
of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this,
from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and
documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling,
as it
is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is
covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal
Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s
department, in November.
Although two members of Brent’s
Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away,
Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a
meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to
the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he
had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the
Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the
Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I
wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny
Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council
officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a
member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent
Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on
the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.
Cllr.Choudry
replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments,
and:
‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors -
Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response:
"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion
earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to
support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function
is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment
Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’
As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:
‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view
that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask
you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:
1.
I believe that the advice you have been
given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.
2.
Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests
in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in
advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your
Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment
Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal
against it.’
Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say
outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet,
and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that
impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution,
that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its
terms of reference at Part 5) are:
‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection
with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of
the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or
the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'
I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday.
I will
attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at
Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr.
Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the
name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in
the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly
scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the
actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is
able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain
whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.
Philip Grant
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Shahrar Ali of the Green Party to take on the 'Greed Parties' in Brent Central
Shahrar Ali was recently elected make deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.
Shahrar contested the seat in 2015 and stood in the London Assembly, European and local elections.
Speaking earlier today Shahrar Ali took on the neo-liberal parties and promised something radically different:
He said:
The People of Brent have been let down time and time again.From the closure of libraries and A&E wards to the privatisation of schools and council services -- all the main parties are responsible.From the displacement of communities from social housing to the eviction of families due to the bedroom tax -- all main parties are responsible.From the assault on civil liberties from arbitrary raids to the deplorable tactic of racist van slogans -- all main parties are responsible.It is high time for change of the political order.I have a track record of fighting the people of Brent's corner year in year out.More and more people are coming round to our way of thinking -- and doing -- for a long-term, sustainable way of living. Politics doesn't have to be looking after number one. It can be about the common good for all, including the species we share the planet with and what we leave behind for our children's children.As MP for Brent Central, I will fight for everybody's right to a decent life - education, health and meaningful work - and an economy that doesn't shortchange the planet every time we buy more than we need.The Green Party is on the rise. As recently as 2012 we were knocking on the LibDems door. With Sarah Teather out of the race, and the LibDems in meltdown here more than anywhere, we are the main challenger to Dawn Butler and Labour-sheen policies. Out with the old politics, in with the radical.
Campaigners staging sit-in at Barratt Homes PR meeting on West Hendon Estate right now
Campaigners from Our West Hendon and Barnet Housing Action are currently staging a sit-in at an exhibition by Barratt Homes at the community centre in Marsh Drive, West Hendon.
The current occupants of social housing on the estate are being ousted to make way for a luxury private development by Barratts (See previous posts on Wembley Matters including LINK )
The campaigners have set up an online petition to Boris Johns, Mathew Offord MP and Boris Johnson: LINK
Why is this important?Our West Hendon are a group of concerned residents on the West Hendon Estate that believe that the developments taking place benefit private developers at the expense of our community.We fear the development is going to force many people from our community out of the estate and possibly out of London. We are therefore making the following demands of Barnet Council, Barnet Homes, Barratt and Metropolitan Housing Association
Ensure the following:1) That all 'non-secure' tenants be granted 'secure or flexible' tenancies2) The right for all members of the community (irrespective of type of tenure) to remain and be rehoused on the W.Hendon estate3) A Freedom of Information Request to see a copy of the developers Viability Report that clearly documents their need to lower the % of social housing on the estate4) That IF the viability report proves that it is not viable to maintain the current level of social housing on the new development that any member of the community that must leave the estate be housed as close to their support networks in W.Hendon as possible AND be given a 'secure tenancy'.
ACV status for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be decided next week
 |
| The Kilburn Times has been supporting the campaign since the start |
The Brent Play Association's application for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be made an asset of community value is due to get a response from Brent Council by November 5th.
ACV status gives some protection to such assets but does not prevent development. However, it can be taken into account by the Planning Committee and clears the ground for a community bid. It makes a clear public statement that the facility is valued by the public.
Certainly the playground can easily demonstration that it has been a community asset for decades and many personal testimonials demonstrate its value to a community.
 |
| Front: Martin Francis (Green Party) and Dawn Butler (Labour) united in defence of the playground |
The playground's fight for survival has received much support including that of Dawn Butler, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, despite Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt insisting that he remains 'neutral'. I am supporting the fight both as a Tustree of the Brent Play Association and as Brent Green Party's spokesperson on children and families.
 | ||
| A community asset then... |
 |
| and now |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)