Greens welcome the Greek 'NO' to bailout proposals

Greens have welcomed the outcome of the Greek referendum, which has shown around two thirds of voters have said ‘No’ to European Union and International Monetary Fund bailout proposals for more austerity in exchange for rescue loans.

Caroline Lucas MP said:

“The Greek people have made a decision which must now be respected. This referendum has seen EU states do their very best to undermine the democratic will of the Greek people but it’s time to draw a line under the past and move onwards.

“History shows us that countries can escape crippling debt in a just way. In 1953, at London Conference, Greece was among the European nations signing a deal which allowed for the cancellation of German debt, to enable the country to grow again after the destruction of the Second World War. Europe needs to come together to offer the Greeks a deal which allows their country to be rebuilt.”

Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for the South West, said:

“This referendum has provided an opportunity for all EU states to reflect on the balance of power between finance markets and democratic governments. We now need to see an urgent conference to address the issue of Greece’s debt with restructuring and debt relief a clear outcome. There also needs to be clear support for rebuilding the economy, especially by investing in sustainable sectors of the economy.”

 Michael Rosen posted this on his Facebook page today:
 
Standby for long grey files of Europe's elder statesmen
their wallets stuffed with the riches of
bad banking, offshore deals and weird deals
we know not of
standing solemnly in front of us
telling us that the Greek people
are mad, irresponsible,
and don't understand money.
Standby for them to tell us that the system
is essentially good and the Greek people
are essentially bad,
standby for them to tell us that their core belief
that money can create money is
wise and wonderful
and that the wicked Greek people
are betraying the law of nature
that whatever is lent must be given back
a hundredfold
and the law of nature that trees produce olives
is as nothing compared to that.

Update on Perivale Warehouse Fire

From the London Fire Brigade late yesterday:

Around 120 firefighters and officers tackled a fire at a warehouse, containing a number of commercial and factory units, on Wadsworth Rd, Perivale this evening.

Around 30 people left the building before the Brigade arrived and there were no reports of any injuries. The blaze gutted the large 75 metre by 75 metre building and at the height of the fire smoke could be seen across the whole of London.

Station Manager Jeff Lisle who was at the scene said: 

"Crews worked very hard in extremely difficult conditions to bring this fire under control. Firefighters used aerial ladder platforms to tackle it from numerous vantage points and to prevent the blaze from spreading to neighbouring warehouses. 

“Although not in a residential area the smoke from the fire was travelling quite a distance so we advised locals to keep windows and doors shut as a precaution." 

Twenty fire engines from stations including Heston, Northolt, Chiswick, Wembley, Park Royal, Ruislip, Ealing, Hammersmith, Willesden and North Kensington were at the scene.

The Brigade was called at 1852 and the fire was under control at 2344. Crews are expected to be at the scene throughout Sunday damping down the fire. 

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Perivale residents urged to shut windows and doors as thick smoke rises from warehouse fire

The source of the thick plume of black smoke over Wembley is a warehouse fire in Wadsworth Road, Perivale.

The London Fire Brigade  said:

Around 100 firefighters and officers are currently tackling a fire at a warehouse ( mixed factory units) on Wadsworth Rd, Perivale.

All of the roof and the first floor is currently alight.

The fire is producing a lot of smoke and the Brigade has advised locals to keep windows and doors shut.

15 fire engines are at the scene including engines from Heston, Northolt, Chiswick, Wembley, Park Royal, Ruislip and Ealing fire stations.

The brigade was called at 1852.

“Considerate Constructors” in South Kilburn – Really?

Guest blog from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha and Gorefield Houses and Canterbury Court Tenants and residents association

Readers of Wembley Matters may have noticed on many building sites around Brent posters showing “this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme” [CCS]. Very impressive, and their website http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/    sounds good too: “Considerate constructors seek to improve the image of the construction industry by striving to promote and achieve best practice under the Code of Considerate Practice”. My understanding is that being registered under this scheme is a requirement for getting contracts with Brent Council (and many others).

Having had problems with how (in)considerate Wilmott Dixon are towards those neighbouring their site behind Kilburn Park station in South Kilburn, members of our Tenants and Residents Association checked further.

The code of practice has various sections “Care About Appearance”, “Respect the Community”, “Protect the Environment”, “Secure Everyone’s Safety” and “Value their Workforce”. It would be interesting to know to what extent Councils monitor any of this, but our concern is with the “Respect the Community” section, where it states “Constructors should give utmost consideration to their impact on neighbours and the public; Informing, respecting and showing courtesy to those affected by the work; minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and work on the public highway; contributing to and supporting the local community and economy; working to create a positive and enduring impression, and promoting the Code.”

Having felt over the 3 years in which Wilmott Dixon have been our neighbours that we have not been treated with anything like the implied levels of consideration, we decided to submit a complaint to the scheme. Easily done via the CSC website, which also says

“When a complaint is received that is relevant to the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice, the site manager or company contact will be told what the complaint is about, and given the name and contact details of the complainant (with the complainant’s permission). Advice might also be offered as to how they might deal with the complaint.

The Scheme will stay in contact with the complainant until the site or company has investigated and responded to the complaint and until the Scheme is satisfied that the site is adhering to the Code of Considerate Practice, at which point the complaint will be taken off the ‘active’ list.”

Inconsiderate vehicle movements endanger children in South Kilburn development

 We submitted a lengthy complaint, covering a multitude of issues, such as frequent arrival of delivery vehicles before the permitted time of 8 a.m., , frequent working outside of permitted hours, building workers parking in residents’ spaces, construction vehicles moved via a footpath which is supposed to be only used by emergency vehicles, operations being carried out in a narrow street during times when parents and children were passing on the way to the local primary school, refusal to pay compensation to residents when cables have been cut. That’s the shortened version.

To be absolutely clear, all of these relate to issues (except not cutting cables) which Willmott Dixon committed to even before they began work on the site. Breaches have been complained about to Willmott Dixon, Catalyst Housing, Brent Council officers and Councillors throughout (usually with photographic evidence where appropriate). Very little has changed, even though occasional promises were made that it would. Rather, we found that Council officers had sanctioned some of these practices – they endorsed the idea that Wilmott Dixon did not need to pay compensation to those whose utilities were cut off (we were told that WD “didn’t mean to do it”). Council officers gave permission for WD to move vehicles between site entrances along the footpath (this was eventually reversed, but only after vehement complaints by residents).

We submitted that catalogue of complaints to the Considerate Constructors Scheme in April. We immediately got a response saying the registration of that site under the scheme had lapsed! Interestingly, the first response of the senior Council officer this was referred to was to suggest it be on the table for a future meeting. It had to be pointed out to him that maybe Brent should enquire as to why this had happened, which he subsequently did. The posters proclaiming the site a registered one came down sharpish. The registration fee was later paid retrospectively.

Early in May, because of concerns about our complaints, a meeting was held with TRA representatives, a senior Council Officer, local Councillors, a Brent Housing Partnership representative and local and senior representatives of both Catalyst Housing and Wilmott Dixon, at which we laid out our complaints fairly comprehensively. During the course of this meeting it emerged that there had been several site visits by the Considerate Constructors Scheme during the course of the work. However, WD had not thought (!) to inform tenants and residents reps of this, when we could have raised our complaints. They undertook, under pressure from their more senior representatives present, to invite us to a future such site visit (apparently they are known as ‘Open Days’).

Under the CCS, a registered site is under obligation to log all complaints received about their behaviour. At this meeting they undertook to provide us with a copy of this log and a full response to our catalogue of complaints, both of which we duly received. It should be noted that the log only contains those complaints sent by email, not those made by phone or verbally, clearly a shortcoming.

Not long after, there was indeed a visit by an investigator from the CSC. However, it turned out that he did not know we would be present, had not seen our list of complaints, and what’s more he had not known the size of the site he was visiting! We were treated as unwelcome guests and shunted out after a brief exchange. We have yet to hear anything further from CSC.

Just before this site visit, Wilmott Dixon excelled themselves. At the meeting one of the issues which came up was their poor communications, often informing residents late in the day about progress in the work, changes to access etc.. Our TRA had its Annual General Meeting coming up, and as ever, invited WD, Catalyst BHP etc. to give reports. WD asked if we wanted them to distribute our notices, to which we replied “no thank you”, we would distribute them ourselves to all residents as usual. A few days later WD put out their occasional bulletin with an update through residents doors, except that this time the second sheet was an adulterated version of our AGM notice changed to appear as if it came from WD! When we complained that, among other things, this made it appear we are somehow linked to WD they just didn’t “get it”. In fact they claimed that they were “being helpful”. How helpful is it when you are asked not to do it and go ahead anyway?

Have things improved since that meeting? Not really, we still have vehicles arriving early, we still have building workers using residents’ parking spaces and we still have work carried out outside ‘permitted’ hours, and cut cables again.  What has changed is that the building work is nearing completion (though it is still the case that every estimated completion date we are given is overshot), so not so much heavy work is taking place. Moreover, many of those who have complained have now given up because nothing changes and are just hoping it is all over soon.

Brent Council? There has never been any sign that Council officers monitor the performance of the developers. If we are lucky they occasionally respond to our complaints, encouraging WD to pull their socks up. If they are doing more, they certainly don’t tell us.

Last year our frustration was such that we passed a lengthy motion at our Annual General meeting in July covering 3 aspects – regeneration as social cleansing; problems with the proximity of new buildings to existing ones; and the attitude of the developers to local residents. Readers may have seen the article in the Kilburn Times about this. That resolution was sent to the lead member for regeneration, Councillor Margaret McLennan. Despite promising a written response on several occasions, we have yet to have one from her nearly one year on.

To be clear, our Kilburn Councillors have taken up our complaints strongly and have got as frustrated as us with the response from Council officers.

CCS? It is a self-regulated scheme, so maybe we shouldn’t have expected anything anyway. And WD sits on its board and has received awards under the scheme. But given that Brent and other Councils expect builders to be members of the scheme, you might expect (hope?) that they would pay some attention as to whether they fulfil their commitments under the scheme. Rather, Brent turns a blind eye, if anything siding with the builders in their inconsiderate behaviour.

To add insult to injury, after 3 years of this, Brent is pushing for HS2 to build its vent shaft next to our flats and the local primary school. So after 3 years of living on a building site, we are expected to accept another 6 years of the same. Or, rather, worse, given the vehicle movements predicted for the building of the vent shaft.

One last point, Brent like some other Councils, has taken a stand against blacklisting, saying it will not award contracts to any company that blacklists. Excellent, but maybe Councils should push for such a commitment against blacklisting to be written into the CCS, especially as so many companies which are known to have blacklisted in the past (including Willmott Dixon) are members.

United campaign against Baseline Assessment calls for support from parents and teachers

England’s leading early years organisations have united with teaching unions in opposing the September 2015 introduction of Baseline Assessment.

In response to the government’s announcement on approved Baseline Assessment providers leading organisations, including the Save Childhood Movement, the Pre-school Learning Alliance, The British Association for Early Childhood Education (Early Education), TACTYC:The Association for Professional Development in Early Years and the National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) have launched a new joint campaign, Better without Baseline, opposing the introduction. They have been joined by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) – which between them represent the majority of primary teachers in England.

The campaign is also supported by leading academics, including Dr David Whitebread, Senior Lecturer in the Psychology of Education, University of Cambridge, and Dr Pam Jarvis, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Childhood and Education, Leeds Trinity University. Other high-profile figures who have voiced their opposition to the plans include: Wendy Scott, OBE, President of TACTYC; Professor Cathy Nutbrown [Chair of The Nutbrown Review into Qualifications for Early Years workers]; Sue Palmer, literacy expert and author of Toxic Childhood; Dr Richard House, Founding Fellow of The Critical Institute and children’s authors Philip Pullman and Michael Rosen.

A Change.org petition against the tests has already attracted more than 6,500 signatures.

Despite considerable expert opposition, and against the recommendations of the government’s own consultation process, the schemes are being introduced as an accountability measure to ‘help school effectiveness’ by scoring each pupil at the start of reception. 

Schools were initially asked to choose from a list of six approved commercial providers, which have now been reduced to three. Although the tests will remain optional, the campaign is concerned that there has been significant pressure on headteachers to adopt a baseline scheme to mitigate against the risk of punitive measures if their schools do not reach the government’s raised floor standards when the Reception cohort reaches the end of Key Stage 2. It also queries the statistical comparability and validity of such different approaches.

Although some schemes take a more observational approach, the joint alliance fundamentally disagrees with their use as tools of school accountability.

The DfE requires that the assessments be carried out for all children within six weeks of starting Reception, on a “pass/fail” basis for each scoring item, and with a narrow set of results being condensed to a single score. The alliance questions the validity and predictive value of the results, and is concerned about teacher time being diverted away from helping children with settling in and learning. Opponents of baseline assessment also question the value for money of the scheme, which is expected to cost around £4 million.

Similar baseline tests were introduced by the Labour government in 1997 and abandoned in 2002 because it was an “ineffective and damaging policy” (Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan, 2015). They were also introduced by Wales in 2011 and withdrawn in 2012 as “time consuming, ill-thought through and denied children and teachers essential teaching time” (NUT comment 2012)

Under current plans, the statutory Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), which is not a test but a rounded assessment of children’s development based on observation over time, will become optional from September 2016. Members of the alliance believe that the loss of this data will:

1) undermine the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED) project, introduced by this government to assess the longer term impact of early years experiences

2) damage current work with colleagues in the health and social services who make use of the EYFS Profile in bringing together services for children and families

3) compromise the longitudinal data needed for the government to assess the impact of the Early Years Pupil Premium, and

4) remove one of the few available indicators used by Ofsted to measure the effectiveness of children’s centres

The campaign now has a new website www.betterwithoutbaseline.org.uk and petition, and is calling for the support of parents and teachers in challenging government policymaking that fails to respond to the recommendations of democratic consultation, and that continues to prioritise school accountability over the best interests of the child.

QUOTES

“Baseline Assessment is a bad policy, badly implemented. The DfE promised schools that by 3rd June they would know who their providers were, so that on 1stSeptember they could begin assessments. Schools have only just been told. At the same time, the TES reports that the DfE is considering changing the way in which ‘progress’ is measured.  Out would go baseline assessment at ages 4/5. In would come a new baseline – in the form of the restoration of SATs at key Stage 1. Amid such incoherence and uncertainty the case for baseline assessment gets weaker by the day.”

National Union of Teachers (NUT)

“Baseline assessment does not support learning, in fact, it takes teachers away from teaching and so wastes learning time. It is not in the interests of young children, whose learning and other developmental needs are better identified – over time – by well-qualified early years practitioners who observe and interact with young children as they play.”

Professor Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan 2015

“The difference between 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds as a percentage of life experience is one fifth – which equates to testing a 10 year old against an 8 year old and finding the 8 year old ‘wanting’ in some way. Or even finding a 20 year old lacking in adult life skills as compared to a 25 year old, or, at the other end of the scale, expecting a healthy 80 year old to be no different in any way to a healthy 64 year old.”

Dr Pam Jarvis, Leeds Trinity University, Too Much Too Soon Campaign

“The Association of Teachers and Lecturers is very worried that the new baseline testing of four and five year olds will undermine these children’s transition to school, by reducing our children to data points on spreadsheets. Of course teachers will assess children as they start school, in order to plan learning that supports and challenges each individual child. However, this new national baseline system has been designed to provide numerical scores rather than useful information for teaching. Nicky Morgan assured teachers before the election that she would give ‘more notice’ of any changes to assessment and accountability measures. Fewer than four weeks before the end of term is surely not enough time for teachers to prepare for tests which will be the first experience of school for many children, the results of which will define their journeys through school. Baseline is a bad policy, poorly implemented.

Nansi Ellis (Assistant General Secretary), ATL

“Unlike the existing early years assessment – the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile – the majority of the baseline tests that have been approved by government have a narrow focus on language, literacy and mathematics, with little or no reference to other fundamental skills such as physical development, and personal, social and emotional development. Equally concerning is the fact that most of the tests are computer- or tablet-based, and rely heavily on a ‘tick-box’ approach to assessment. Early learning should be about much more than just those skills that are easy to measure. To introduce an assessment that is more concerned with collecting data to compare and rank schools than it is with supporting child development is to do our children a grave disservice.” 

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance.

Brent Council Race Equality Award condemned

Following yesterday's revelation that Brent Council was a finalist for a Race for Opportunity award the organisation has received messages from local people about the council's record in this area. Here are two of them:

I am not sure why Race for Opportunity is surprised that BAME representation is decreasing when RFO itself is actively contributing to this state of affairs.

Black staff in Brent are reeling from the shock, as am I, of hearing that RFO has shortlisted Brent Council as a finalist for its RFO Award.

One only has to enter "race discrimination Brent council" in a search engine box to find out how the council's director of HR (acting in cahoots with her friend the chief executive, in further cahoots with the council's employment solicitor, aka director of HR's business and personal partner) was found guilty by an employment tribunal of race discrimination and victimisation of a black manager.

One has only to read some of the Wembley Matters blog articles to find out how disgusted Brent residents are at the council's total failure to investigate this HR director's wrong-doing and initiate disciplinary proceedings. LIN

All of the miscreants in this disgraceful case are desperate to redeem themselves on their CVs for their future employment prospects (the HRD left at the end of June with a payoff, nearly a year after the tribunal exposed her unacceptable behaviour, her partner has followed her and the chief executive's contract will be up some time this month.

They will undoubtedly be thanking RFO profusely that they can now say that they steered the council to being shortlisted for the award. Absolute shame on Race for Opportunity, an organisation that I have hitherto admired.

Googling stuff is so easy to do these days, RFO - not always accurate I know, but such a good idea to avoid promoting the very people that would be anathema to the professed RFO values. Even "Private Eye" has run parts of this dsgraceful story, so it seems only RFO is in the dark.

I will be copy- posting this blog piece on the Wembley Matters blog.

Nan Tewari
former Branch Secretary, Brent Nalgo (now Unison)

I write in disbelief regarding the the nomination of Brent Council for an award from your organisation....it's not April Fools Day yet is it??  Your spokesman is reported as saying that Brent puts " race equality at the heart of their activity"....ouch!!!  Are you aware of the following facts? 

1. Brent was found guilty of racial discrimination in the case of Rosemarie Clarke.   

2. The judge stated that Brent was guilty of bullying, intimidation and constructive dismissal.  

3.The decision in the case was so damning that the judge said that " Brent had no reasonable prospect of success" on appeal. Yet still Brent wasted Council taxpayer monies on fruitless appeals. 

4.The compensation award against Brent is likely to be made in September - perhaps coinciding with your awards ceremony. The exemplary damages are likely to be significant, and the total award against Brent is suggested to be between £500k and £1m.  

5. Brent engaged in a farcical internal review - led by Council Deputy Leader -of its H.R.practices after the case, despite calls throughout Brent for an independent review.   

I would ask you to reflect on your nomination. I am copying this e-mail to interested community parties. 

 Cllr John Warren

Unbelievable! Brent Council is a finalist for 'Race for Opportunity' award

If the news that Muhammed Butt had been chosen to headup the Equalities brief by London Council was not enough to declare irony dead, jaws dropped with a clang at the Brent Civic Centre today when the following notice was spotted on the Council Intranet:

Brent shortlisted for Race for Opportunity award 

We have been recognised for our commitment to increasing Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) representation in the workplace. 

The council has been named as a finalist in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action award category at the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015. LINK

The awards celebrate outstanding practice, innovation and dedication to race equality and inclusion in UK workplaces. The winners will be announced at the Awards Dinner on Tuesday 6 October at the London Hilton, Park Lane.  

Sandra Kerr OBE, Race Equality Director, Business in the Community, said:  "Congratulations to Brent Council on being named as a finalist in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action Award category at the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015. 

"They are taking action to create a workplace culture which puts race equality at the heart of their activity and have demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring that ethnic minority talent has equal opportunity to progress at every level.  

"It's a huge positive to see that they recognise the UK's changing demographics and are addressing the need to reflect the clients, communities and customers they serve, and I hope other organisations will learn from their example."

One Brent worker said, 'Imagine our faces when we saw this. We were speechless at the Council's barefaced cheek in putting themselves forward.'

Meanwhile unconfirmed rumours are circulating that the rule, devised by Cara Davani, prohibiting workers leaving the employ of the Council from taking their ipads with them, had been changed just before she left.

 

Greens: Heathrow decision 'deeply disappointing' & shows power of big business

 

Jean Lambert , London Green MEP has issued the following statement on the Davies Commission findings:

'Today’s announcement shows the power and reach of big business. Growth at any cost in our aviation capacity is not compatible with the UK's climate change commitments. Heathrow Airport is already the biggest noise polluter in Europe and with estimates that around 1.1 million people will be affected by a third runway, this is a deeply disappointing decision.’  

 In 2014 Jean Lambert  submitted a joint response to a major Government consultation on airport expansion. In it, she highlighted the impact of aviation on meeting our climate change targets and on local communities. She also submitted a response to a separate consultation on state aid for aviation, in which they called for an end to state subsidies to the aviation industry

Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England said:

“Despite three long years of the Commission looking at all the evidence, we still cannot build a third runway at Heathrow otherwise we will fail to meet our climate change targets.

It is and has always been a myth that the UK faces an airport capacity crisis and we already fly more than any other country.

Instead of expanding our airports the Government should introduce a frequent  flyer tax which would tax aviation much more fairly and at the same time  reduce the demand for new runways".