Don't bomb Syria - weaken ISIS by cutting off its funds and arms supplies

I am publishing this letter to Dawn Butler from local activist Sarah Cox as a Guest Blog in the light of Dawn Butler's call for constituents to give her their views on the bombing of Syria. Butler's poll is HERE

 I have just sent this email to Dawn Butler. Please email her too. You can do it through the Stop the War Coalition website Home or write your own email LINK
 
Dear Dawn Butler,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply to my previous email to you about the possibility of Britain joining in the bombing of Syria. I would like to ask you to consider again how dangerous and indeed counterproductive such a course of action would be.

I am sure you agree that policy decisions should be evidence based, not the result of knee jerk reactions or simply about this country's position in the world, so I am asking you to consider the following facts:

The US has been bombing ISIS positions for a year now and far from reducing the number of ISIS fighters or the area of land they control, both have increased. In fact it has been argued by some Middle East experts that US bombs act as recruiting agents for ISIS.

The bombing and invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and stability to that country, in fact ISIS was born out of the divisions in Iraqi society introduced by the US sponsored Iraqi government.
The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan have not brought peace or stability to that country, nor did NATO forces succeed in their stated aim of eliminating the Taliban, which still controls large parts of the country.

Allied bombing of Libya has not brought peace or stability to that country, in fact it has resulted in the creation of a chaotic failed state in which ISIS is able to recruit and organise.

Only today we learn that Turkish forces have shot down a Russian plane, claiming it was over Turkish airspace, while Russia insists it had not left Syrian airspace. How sensible is it to send more planes into the already crowded airspace over ISIS positions in Syria?

There are up to six million civilians living in the areas under ISIS control. Do you seriously believe that US, French, Australian, Jordanian, Russian and, if this country joins in, British bombs can distinguish between innocent civilians and ISIS supporters any more than the bombs dropped on Dresden (arguably a war crime by today's standards) did between Nazis and ordinary people suffering under Nazi rule?

Can there be any justification for dropping bombs on ISIS because they behead and inflict other barbarous punishments on the people in the areas they control, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other states which also behead and inflict barbarous punishments on people living in their countries? Saudi Arabia does behead people publicly, contrary to what David Cameron says, earlier this year they advertised for eight more executioners and recently sentenced a Sri Lankan woman domestic worker to be stoned to death, yet Britain regards Saudi Arabia, which arms and supports ISIS as a friend and ally.

Surely Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that the priority must be to cut off funding, support and arms supplies to ISIS and to seek a political solution to the immensely complex situation in Syria?

As for the threat of terrorist attacks in this country, I believe that indiscriminate bombing and increasing Western intervention in the Middle East make these more likely and that cuts to police funding will make us less safe. At the same time, a climate of rising Islamophobia, cuts to youth services and policies like the Prevent strategy that seek to silence debate about foreign policy or issues like Palestine could increase disaffection among young Muslims.

Thank you for taking the time  to read this. Please vote against further bombing of Syria and support policies that weaken ISIS by decreasing or stopping its funding and its arms supplies.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Cox

Dawn Butler asks for constituents view on bombing Syria & reminder of Tulip Siddiq's stance

This has appeared on Dawn Butler's website:

You can find the above poll HERE

Here is a reminder of what Tulip Siddiq said during the General Election campaign:

Matt Kelcher new Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

With Toby Perkins MOP and the Speaker of the House of Commons

 It was clear from the warm tributes paid to Dan Filson from all sides at Brent Council that he will be a hard act to follow.

In terms of the Scrutiny Committee that task goes to Cllr Matt Kelcher (Kensal Green) who was named as Filson's successor tonight. Later in the meeting he used a debate on PCSOs to make an undisguised party political broadcast on behalf of the Kensal Green Labour by-election candidiate Jun Bo Chan.

Whether he measures up to the criteria I set out earlier LINK  I will leave to readers to decide. His career trajectory is similar to many who go from university via well worn paths into politics with Parliament the ultimate goal.

Kelcher is proud of the report he write for Scrutiny on CCTV LINK   The increasingly semi-detached Cllr Janice Long joins Scrutiny to fill the place vacated by Kelcher's elevation.

This is from Cllr Kelcher's LinkedIn profile:

Keep Calm and Ignore 'Black Friday': there is an alternative

Last year's coverage

Following the nasty, and I think contrived 'consumer frenzy' at Wembley ASDA last year LINK the company has decided not to participate in Black Friday this year.

Tradecraft is offfering an alternative this year folloowing new survey results that show more than half the UK is negatively affected by shopping fever in the run-up to Christmas.

They have launched the 'Just Friday' initiative:

More than half of people surveyed (54%) said they experience negative emotions when shopping in the run-up to Christmas – feeling stressed, anxious, ill, argumentative and violent.

As major retailers turn their backs on Black Friday, Traidcraft’s ‘Just Friday’ initiative offers shoppers an alternative to the riotous scenes played out in stores in recent years. The campaign encourages people to take a moment to stop, breathe, and buy their gifts mindfully and ethically. By buying from ethical organisations, consumers shopping on Black Friday can use their spending power to help people in developing countries across the world.

The recent survey, conducted on behalf of Traidcraft, also showed how almost half of all consumers (43%) would like to see an end to Black Friday all together, with four in 10 planning to shop online to avoid the chaos.

Larry Bush, Traidcraft’s marketing director, says:

With some of the biggest UK retailers scaling back their involvement in this year’s Black Friday sales, it’s obvious that consumers are growing tired of this materialistic ‘consumption culture’, which is why we’re running our Just Friday campaign again this year.

Imagine if just 1% of the £1bn that retail analysts predict will be spent on Black Friday was spent with ethical, fair trade organisations like Traidcraft and People Tree? Even this small percentage could help us improve the lives of tens of thousands of people across the developing world and make a huge difference to someone’s life – and you’ll be buying a beautifully handmade, unique gift for family and friends.

So on Black Friday, one of the most chaotic days on the shopping calendar, we’re offering an alternative with ‘Just Friday’, and asking people to take a few moments and think about their buying choices.

Safia Minney MBE, Founder & CEO of People Tree says:

Mindless consumption that makes Christmas shoppers feel uncomfortable, especially at the cost of workers and the planet, has to stop. We can create change, a different way of doing business and buy Fair Trade, ethically and sustainably this Just Friday.

Shoppers can enjoy free shipping on all orders placed on www.traidcraftshop.co.uk this Just Friday, with gifts for everyone handmade by artisans across the globe.

Cuts to go ahead at Brent Council despite slight respite and worse to come

The First Reading of the Budget will take place on Monday at Full Council.  The report details a wider measure of uncertainty that usual regarding the impact of government legislation as well as specific figures from government. The report suggests that things should be clearer in time for the January 2016 Cabinet Meeting. The budget is due to be approved on February 22nd 2016.

Today's suggestions that the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement may allow councils to increase Council Tax by 2% to relieve the pressure on adult care provision is a further complication not covered by the report.

The overall forecast of council income is illustrated by this table from the report:

RSG = Revenue Support Grant. Money paid directly to local government from central government
BRTU= Business Rates Top Up again from central government, but the system is changing, ostensibly to allow local councils to retain more but resulting in a loss of income to local councils
NDR=Non Domestic Rates, affected by an increase in appeals against increases in ratable value
Council Tax Base - this has improved through increase in the number of properties in the borough, a decrease in the value of council tax discounts to residents and improvements in collection rates (although these have deteriorated again recently). These figures will change if the Council Tax is increased by 2%
NBH= New Homes Bonus is paid to councils for completed homes but this year it was top sliced in London boroughs to pay for Local Enterprise Panel projects.

The long term funding issue remains dire with a continuing decline in the Revenue Support Grant putting the very future of local government in jeopardy.

The July (red) line reflects measures taken in the Conservative Government's July budget but as can be seen the reduction accelerates again in 2017-18.

The report states:

 Probably the most likely scenario is that the pace of general fund financing reductions in 2016/17 will be less steep than previously assumed, meaning that the council can set a balanced budget for that year without the need to agree additional savings proposals. However, thereafter the scale of reductions is likely to accelerate, and so any gains in 2016/17 should be regarded as strictly temporary. 


'Additional savings' means in addition to the substantial cuts for 2016-17 agreed last year which in summary are:

The full list can be found in the PDF at the end of this posting.

The report does suggest that further savings be identified for 2017-18 on a contingency basis:

As set out in the introduction to this report, there are more and greater uncertainties in the financial planning than would normally be the case at this point in the budget cycle. Until at least the major uncertainties have been resolved it would be sensible and prudent to plan to identify more savings for 2017/18 and beyond than may actually be required, to ensure that the council has well developed options available to it if some of the worst-case estimates come to pass.

Brent’s Coat of Arms – some thoughts on history, and on justice

Guest bog by Philip Grant

The Coat of Arms which used to grace the front of Brent Town Hall in Forty Lane has been preserved, and will shortly be on display in the Civic Centre. A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Brent’s Regeneration Department, and asked if I would ‘review for accuracy’ the proposed text of the sign which would be displayed alongside it. As a keen local historian, I was happy to assist them, and was able to correct several minor errors and suggest some improvements. The resulting text and artwork for the sign can be seen below.

This coat of arms used to appear on Brent Council’s letterhead, and on various Council publications, but in recent years has been replaced by a modern branding logo. Looking at the coat of arms again, and the civic messages it conveys, has given me some thoughts which I will share with you here. Please feel free to add your own thoughts as “comments” below.

The designers could not use all of the information which I supplied. One of the details left out, about the banner held by the lion (taken from Wembley’s coat of arms), was that it shows the scales of justice, and commemorates the Saxon moot court held at a site near the present-day Kingsbury Circle. There was a form of local government here a thousand years ago, when Wembley was part of an area of Middlesex known as the Hundred of Gore. The name had nothing to do with blood, but with the triangular spear-head shape of the small field where the Hundred’s inhabitants used to meet.

The Moot (or meeting) for each Hundred was held in the open air on a regular basis, to discuss any problems, disputes or petty crimes which had arisen in the Hundred since the last meeting. The parties to an issue raised would put their case, anyone else who had a point to make could do so, and the matter would then be decided by a vote. The majority view decided the issue, and everyone was expected to accept it.

Illustration of a Saxon Moot, from “Wembley through the Ages” by the Rev. H.W.R. Elsley

I do not know how well this early system of local government worked in practice, but both Wembley (in the 1930’s) and Brent (when it was formed in 1965) were keen to use the symbol of the scales of justice, to show their commitment to fairness for all, which is what the Moot was meant to deliver. 

 

With over 300,000 inhabitants, it is not possible for the people of our borough to meet together in a field for an open discussion of issues which are then decided by a majority vote. Once every four years, we elect 63 councillors to represent us, in the expectation that they will hear the facts and evidence on matters of local concern, debate them and reach decisions democratically. Like the Saxon villagers of old, we have the right to attend Council meetings, and for several years we have been able to watch and listen to Full Council meetings online. In June 2014, we were given the hope that we could participate in our modern version of the Moot, when “Deputations” were introduced. The Council Leader explained the purpose of these in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” (12 June 2014) as follows:

‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘

So far, in my experience, this measure to bring more openness into Brent’s local democracy has not lived up to its original promise.

Martin Francis made the first request to present a Deputation in September 2014, on the (overdue) appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. He was denied the chance to speak, on the grounds that he had not given sufficient notice (even though he did so within the time set out in a “tweeted” invitation issued by Brent Council itself) LINK 

I have given valid notice to make Deputations a number of times, but have never been allowed to present them. I asked Scrutiny Committee, in November 2014, to allow me to make a Deputation seeking scrutiny of Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case. They were persuaded not to hear me, by misleading advice from Brent’s then Legal Director (who had a clear conflict of interests in the matter). LINK 

At the end of April 2015, I gave notice to make a Deputation about the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review, which was on the Scrutiny Committee agenda. I was told that I could do so, but only if I did not refer to the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which the review had been set up to learn the lessons from. Although I explained why it would be both relevant and reasonable to refer to that case, the committee accepted the advice of Council lawyers that I should not be allowed to speak on those terms. LINK
 

A year after Martin’s first attempt, I asked to present a Deputation to Full Council, to welcome the new Chief Executive, and to emphasise the importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out Council business. On this occasion, I was prevented from speaking only by the personal discretion of the Chief Legal Officer, who wrongly claimed that my proposed subject was ‘inappropriate’, and ‘in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency.’ LINK
 

Does Brent Council still uphold the spirit of fairness that its use of the scales of justice in its Coat of Arms was meant to show? You can add your answers, whether “yes” or “no”, as comments below. Personally, I hope that the presence of the Coat of Arms, on display in the Civic Centre, will be a reminder to councillors and Council Officers of the standards that, historically, Brent should be aspiring to.

Philip Grant

  Text and artwork for the proposed sign at Brent Civic Centre

 

Five way contest in Kensal Green by-election

Nominations closed this afternoon for the Kensal Green by-election caused by the death of Labour councillor Dan Filson.

The candidates are:

Labour: Jumbo Chan
Green: Jafar Hassan
Liberal Democrat: Sarah Hickson
Conservative: Chris Alley
UKIP: Juliette Nibbs

What does school mean to you? Watch and give your own ideas

What Does School Mean to You?

What does school mean to you? We asked children in countries impacted by conflict and natural disasters what school meant to them. We have heard from children in Gaza, Central African Republic, Malawi, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Nigeria. What do you think? They're #UpForSchool - are you? Watch & then share your answer!And join 10 million others around the world - sign the petition at upforschool.org

Posted by A World At School on Friday, November 20, 2015