Sweets Way Solidarity Rally, Willesden Magistrates Court, 1pm Friday

From Sweets Way Resists

JOIN US TO STAND UP AGAINST SOCIAL CLEANSING AND THE CRIMINALISATION OF PEACEFUL PROTEST!

On 23 and 24 of September, the Sweets Way estate was evicted by dozens of High Court bailiffs and 7 vans of London Met police. Nearly a hundred occupiers of dozens of homes were turfed out, as was Mostafa, the last original resident of the estate. Supporters peacefully attempted to stop Mostafa's eviction, many of whom were arrested. Fifteen now face criminal charges for obstructing High Court Enforcement Officers.

Their trial is scheduled to take place over three days, from 10am on Wednesday, December 16, through Friday, December 18. Supporters are encouraged to attend the hearings each day, but we are calling a solidarity rally outside Willesdon Magistrates Court for 1pm on Friday, December 18 to take a stand with those who were arrested for standing up to social cleansing.

Decline in air pollution masking major problems in UK cities

From the British Heart Foundation

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) is disappointed with the air quality plans released today and concerned that new emissions data might be interpreted positively when the UK population continues to live with a serious air pollution problem.

While the BHF is pleased to see that the new emissions data also released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) today shows a continuing decline in emissions in the UK as a whole, the charity argues this is a distraction from the localised air quality problems that the Government has so far failed to act upon.

The Supreme Court order handed down to Defra earlier this year clearly shows that the UK is breaching its duty to clean up the UK’s dirty air yet the BHF feels that the Government’s air quality plans are not strong enough to effectively tackle these localised air pollution problems.

Laura Thomas, Head of Policy at the British Heart Foundation, said:

While pollution levels as a whole are declining, air pollution hot spots in many UK cities are seriously damaging our health. The devil is in the detail and the Government cannot use general statistics like this to shirk its responsibilities to clean up the UK’s dirty air. This is particularly worrying when we know how dangerous air pollution is for a person’s health – raising their risk of a deadly or disabling heart attack or stroke.

While these figures are superficially promising, they’re so shrouded in smog they’re harder to navigate than Oxford Street on Christmas Eve. They mask the major air quality problems faced by people living or working in UK air pollution hotspots such as areas of London and the Midlands.

The public deserves clean air that will not harm their heart health. We’re disappointed with the lack of ambition shown by the Government in this plan to clean up the UK’s air. Proposing five clean air zones where polluting vehicles will be allowed to drive as long as they pay to do so will harm heart health.

Since 2010 the BHF has provided nearly £7 million for medical research that will help us better understand the link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease. We have learnt that air pollution can make existing heart conditions worse and cause cardiovascular events in vulnerable groups. Recent studies have linked air pollution to increased incidence of heart attacks, strokes and a worsening of heart failurw/

There are 7 million people in the UK living with cardiovascular disease and the likelihood of their exposure to air pollution is high. It is therefore imperative the governments and administrations around the UK ensure they are meeting European Union air quality limits and targets as soon as possible to improve air quality.

Find out more about air pollution and heart health at bhf.org.uk/airpollution

Jenny Jones refuses to support the GLA report on Prevent: 'Prevent is failing to reach the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach'

Jenny Jones, Green London Assembly Member, has decided not to support the GLA Police and Crime Committee report on Prevent. This is an unusual move but indicates the seriousness of the issue.

The full report plus Jenny's statement is available HERE

I am concerned that no upfront definition of what is meant by extremism is made for the purposes of the report. However, I recognise that, along with the Government's definition of 'radicalisation', these are very contested words and not all Members of the Committee would be able to agree a common definition. Flexibility is obviously required when professionals seek to define what is and isn't 'extremism', just as flexibility is required when debating what is 'Britishness', and the interpretation will often vary according to local circumstances. But there are obvious dangers to this. For example, the Met Police have previously included at least one member of the London Assembly and several journalists in their database of 'domestic extremists'. This shows how words such as 'extremism' can be interpreted in a surprisingly broad brush way.

I am also unhappy that while the report references the concerns raised about the Government's focus on non-violent extremism, this is not reflected in the recommendations. There is academic evidence that the 'conveyor belt' idea, which underpins the Government's new approach to Prevent, is not a valid one. These academics argue that violent terrorists do not grow out of a culture of non-violent extremist ideas. If these academics are right, then I believe there are three ways in which Prevent could be counter-productive. First, it could alienate people who have 'extremist' ideas but would be potential allies in the fight against violent extremism. Second, it may hinder the development of the counter-narrative in classrooms and colleges as communities withdraw from discussions in those controlled spaces. Finally, I believe the larger the number of people being monitored as 'extremists', the thinner the spread of Met Police resources becomes. I believe there should be consultation about whether the emphasis in Prevent on linking violent and non-violent extremism is having a detrimental effect on the work of those trying to engage in their communities and develop a counter-narrative.

I am concerned that the recommendations in the report avoid questioning the Prevent Strategy adopted by the Government. I believe the most significant barriers which the professionals and organisations are facing all stem from the way Prevent is being framed. If we believe that counter terrorism increasingly relies on information gathered from communities, and less on intelligence services at home and abroad, then we need to radically overhaul programmes like 'Prevent'. If decent, law-abiding people view these programmes as counter-productive and we wish Prevent to be more successful on the ground, then it needs to address any fundamental problems in its approach which are creating barriers to implementation. Prevent is failing to win the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach.

For these reasons I am unable to support this report.

GLA Committee says 'secrecy' over Prevent hampering community engagement

This story has been published by the BBC on its website HERE It will be of interest to readers following the public meeting on Prevent last week and the subsequent meeting with Brent Council

Secrecy surrounding anti-terrorism work is hampering efforts to halt extremism, the London Assembly has said.

Its Policing and Crime Committee called for more transparency around implementation of the government's Prevent strategy.

Cooperation between boroughs was "patchy" and the police needed to step back if the public were to have more confidence in the scheme, it found.

The Met has been approached for comment.

Under Prevent, which aims to stop people supporting or becoming terrorists, local authorities have a statutory obligation to monitor signs of extremism in schools and public services.
But the committee said this was proving a "challenge" for teachers, and some young people were afraid to take part in discussions about extremism for fear of being "put on a list".

'Narrative battle'

"For the public, transparency about what Prevent is for and what activity is taking place is critical," it said.

The committee echoed previous criticisms of Prevent, when it was dubbed a "toxic brand" which aroused suspicion among communities.

"We know that community engagement is hampered by suspicion and fear, and much of this is the consequence of the secrecy that surrounds the delivery of the Prevent strategy."

Committee chairwoman Joanne McCartney said "a strong counter-narrative which condemns violent extremism" was one of the most powerful ways to counter online radicalisation, "but attempts to deliver this have been lacking so far."

Through social media, groups such as the so-called Islamic State (IS) were "telling a better story" in a fight where "narrative is actually almost everything", Lord Carlile of Berriew said.

'No oversight'

The committee said London could learn from Birmingham's success in co-ordinating Prevent.
In the capital, Counter-Terror Local Profiles, which set out risk in a particular area, are highly confidential documents often only seen by a borough commander and council chief executive.

In Birmingham and Manchester, the information is shared with public services "without giving away anything of national security importance".

Communities in London should have a say in how best to prevent extremism, and the police should only intervene when necessary, according to the report.

It criticises 'patchy' co-ordination between London boroughs.

"There appears to be no London body that has overall oversight of what is taking place at any one time," it said.

"It is difficult to establish what, why and how decisions have been taken in respect of preventing extremism."

In some boroughs, such as Waltham Forest, the quality of work was "extremely high", Lord Carlile told the committee. In others, it was "rather less high".

Green MEP warns Cameron's EU renegotiation could mean race to the bottom on environment and health

In discussions on the UK’s future place in Europe, Green MEP Molly Scott Cato today warned the European Parliament that Cameron’s renegotiation agenda risks bargaining away citizens’ rights and creating a race to the bottom on environmental protection and health standards. She also said that the many in the UK who want the country to remain as part of the EU back a genuinely positive vision for the future; a vision based on a stronger, more effective European Parliament with greater decision-making powers and upholding the rights of citizens.

Molly Scott Cato was speaking during a plenary session in Strasbourg ahead of a European Council meeting later this week. The Council meeting will include a discussion on the European referendum and address some of the remaining political issues before a concrete proposal is adopted in February. David Cameron wrote to Council President Donald Tusk in November setting out four areas where he is seeking reforms as part of negotiations on the UK’s membership of the European Union.

In her one minute address to the Parliament, attended by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Nicolas Schmit, representing the Presidency of the Council, Molly Scott Cato said

I am speaking about the very serious threat that my country may soon leave this Union. David Cameron wants us to believe his renegotiation ‘vision’ is the only show in town when it comes to EU reform. His pro-austerity, regulation-lite, anti-migration rhetoric is more nightmare than vision. And it appears he now wants to export and inflict this nightmare on the rest of Europe. 

But it is clear that his fake negotiation is unravelling. His pledge to ‘reduce red tape’ sees him doing his bit for the corporations, eager to eliminate anything that stands in the way of their profits. And his support for dodgy trade deals like TTIP show he is happy to see a race to the bottom on workers’ rights, environmental protection, and health standards.   

But many in the UK want to be a part of a genuinely reformed Europe, with a stronger, more effective European Parliament with greater decision-making powers and scrutiny over the Commission and Council.

Greens say yes to the EU, yes to real reform, and yes to upholding the rights of all citizens which Mr Cameron is so keen to bargain away.

Talks to take place on Prevent Strategy with Cllr Butt after Cabinet approval of Stronger Communities Strategy

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, has agreed to meet some of the organisers of Thursday's public meeting on the Prevent Strategy on Tuesday afternoon.

Meanwhile this evening the Cabinet approved the Stronger Communities Strategy of which Prevent forms just one part along with domestic violence, female genital mutilation and gangs.

Introducing the document Cllr James  Denselow (Lead Member  for Stronger Communities) said that diversity was one of Brent's strengths and the Council was instigating a community led approach, based on the Manchester model,  where 'Big Question' events were held to involve the public and voluntary organisations.

The approach was aimed at the twin challenges of preventing terrorism and Islamophobia.  A version of Prevent had begin in Brent in 2011 but now the state of the world was different and the strategy had become a statutory responsibility of local authorities.

If the Government deemed that Brent Council was failing it its Prevent Duty it could take over implementation of Brent in the borough.

A community led approach would mean that 'we would be doing things our way' and would help mainstream Muslims challenge extremism on their own terms.

Michael Pavey reiterated his opposition to the top down version of Prevent coming from the government but said the Stronger Communities Strategy was about much more than Prevent as it also covered domestic violence, female genital mutilation and gangs.

Cllr Denselow in response to a question from Cllr Roxanne Mashari replied that they would work with young people through schools using a non-traditional approach and that he would discuss with Brent Safer Neighbourhood Teams the recording of hate crime, including those aimed at Muslims.

The Stronger Communities Strategy report is HERE

King Edward VII Park, Wembley - an explanation from Brent Council

The following explanation has been sent to Cllr Stopp regarding the works in King Edwrd VII Park, Wembley

The works taking place at King Edwards Park are to improve the quality and drainage of the five football pitches, and the cricket pitch on site, which have historically been of poor quality. This project commenced in August, and was originally expected to be concluded with 5-6 weeks; however, a number of issues- including the discovery of a buried electricity power cable and an unregistered gas pipe running across the site- resulted in delays whilst we liaised with the utility companies, and unfortunately the colder and wetter weather we're now experiencing means that the final cultivations (which rely on dry ground conditions and higher temperatures) cannot currently take place.

The specific status of the works is as follows:

Part A: Site remodelling of King Edward VII Park

All works have been completed aside from final cultivations, sand amelioration and seeding.  Final cultivations rely on dry ground conditions and as expected, ground conditions are unsuitable for these works.  These works will be completed at the earliest opportunity in Spring once the soils have dried sufficiently.  It is envisaged that these works will take a maximum of 3 weeks to complete before seed is in the ground.  Once seeded the pitches will be green within 1 week to 10 days.

Part B: Maintenance of Football pitches (not including Cricket square)

The maintenance works will begin once the seed is germinated and ready to cut.

Part C: Cricket square construction

This element of the works have been completed in full

Part D: Cricket square maintenance

The maintenance works will begin once the seed is germinated and ready to cut.

The contractors will ensure the site is secure before winter. They will also come to site in the next couple of days to verti-drain and overseed the track way and make good damage caused by the caterpillar digger.


Unfortunately therefore, it is now unlikely that some of the works will be concluded before better weather in the spring, and the temporary fencing will need to remain in place until then.

We have asked for some fresh signage to be placed on site explaining the delays, and hope that this will be in place within the next week or so.

We are also attempting to locate the source of the smell that is being reported.

Clearly there is a need to keep yourselves, the Friends of Group and all interested parties abreast of the latest developments.

I am sorry this has not properly happened to now. I will personally schedule regular updates.

Another meeting about Sudbury Primary School on Thursday

 

Teacher and non-teacher unions have called a meeting for parents and carers of Sudbury Primary School pupis at the Partyman Play Centre at Vale Farm on Thursday at 4.30pm - a time they say was chosen to enable the maximun number of parents to attend to find out what is going on at the school.

The unions say they hope for a big turn-out of parents, with some governors and councillors too, and that the meeting will lead to a solution that will avoid strike action.