Learning lessons from 'Pride' see the film and join the discussion tonight

--> -->

It’s the summer of 1984 – Margaret Thatcher is in power and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) is on strike. At the Gay Pride March in London, a group of gay and lesbian activists decides to raise money to support the families of the striking miners. But there is a problem. The Union seems embarrassed to receive their support. But the activists are not deterred. They decide to ignore the Union and go direct to the miners. They identify a mining village in deepest Wales and set off in a mini bus to make their donation in person. And so begins the extraordinary story of two seemingly alien communities who form a surprising and ultimately triumphant partnership.

 It's the winter of 2016 - David Cameron is in power and the trade union movement is fighting attempts to restrict trade union rights and solidarity action. Across the country local government cuts are biting deeply into the fabric of society  as social spaces including libraries are closed and basic services privatised. The Save Preston Library community campaign invites Jonathan Blake, veteran LGBT campaigner to lead a discussion after a screening of the film 'Pride' depicting the 80s events.

What lessons can we learn?

Come to Preston Park Primary School's new Conference Centre tonight to see the film and take part in the discussion. Doors open 6.30pm and film starts at 7.15pm. Raffle and refreshments.

Tickets £5 on the door.

College Road, Wembley HA9 8RJ Preston Road (Metropolitan Line)

This weekend's tube strike is off

Good news: Welsh Harp Environmental Centre re-opens

The Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre has been closed over the Autumn and early Winter. Brent Council has released the following announcement   See LINK for earlier coverage of the campaign to keep the Centre open. I understand there will be a £6 per head charge for class visits.

The Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre has reopened thanks to a lease arrangement between Brent Council and environmental charity Thames21 under the council's 'Community Asset Transfer' policy.

The Community Asset Transfer policy was introduced by the council last year and allows for the transfer of council buildings to community groups that can help the council achieve its vision for the borough, at a time when the council has to make budget savings.

Thames 21 is an experienced environmental education organisation with a track record of delivering effective, community volunteering, engagement and educational events and activities to local communities promoting environmental awareness.

The centre, on Birchen Grove in Kingsbury, provides an area rich in bio-diversity for Brent primary school children to learn why it is important to look after all aspects of our environment.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Environment, said:

We introduced our Community Asset Transfer policy last year to allow council property to be transferred to community groups that can help us deliver services that Brent residents and the community value, at a time when local funding from central government is being drastically cut.

This particular transfer is the very first in Brent and means that the centre can continue as a valuable educational resource for local schools and children.

The Welsh Harp Centre will be having an official reopening in the summer when all residents can tour the facilities.

Debbie Leach, Chief Executive of Thames 21 said:

We'll be announcing details of the reopening in the coming weeks, so I'd encourage anyone who hasn't been before to drop us a line and come and see it for themselves. It is a fantastic place to discover as it shows us that the natural world is very much alive and happening here in Brent and that we all have a crucial role to play in its future.

Newcastle City LP member calls for Brent to follow their lead on ethical procurement

Message from a Labour Party member in Newcastle on the Ethical Procurement Motion covered in an earlier blog

Some great news: our Ethical Procurement and Pensions Investment motion has now been passed by Newcastle City Council - passed overwhelmingly at Wednesday night's council meeting - so is now council policy to campaign against the changes being proposed by the Tories.

If you can do whatever you can via your Labour Party contacts in Brent and surrounding boroughs to push it down there and get Labour groups to adopt the motion and take it to their respective councils that would be great.

The motion as Passed by Newcastle City Council

Response to Government’s attack on a Councils’ right to follow an ethical policy in relation to procurement and Pensions Fund investments

Council notes with alarm the recent statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) confirming that new guidelines will be introduced early in the New Year which will curb councils’ powers to divest from or stop trading with organisations or countries they regard as unethical.

Council further notes that the new guidelines, which will amend Pensions and Procurement law, follow on from the government’s announcement made at the beginning of October 2015 that it was planning to introduce new rules to stop “politically motivated boycott and divestment campaigns” (Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government).

Council recognises that the focus of these new measures may be on procurement and investment policies and that they may have profound implications for Councils’ ethical investment policies more generally.

Newcastle City Council is proud of its’ commitment to human rights and to putting this into practice through such measures as an ethical approach to its relationship with business as outlined under  Newcastle’s Social Value Commitment.

Council believes that the proposed measures now being outlined by the DCLG will seriously undermine the Council’s ability to implement its commitment to ethical procurement and pensions investments.

Council also notes that the new guidelines represent a further, serious attack on local democracy and decision-making through a further restriction on councils’ powers. This is directly contrary to the government’s own stated commitment to the principle of localism, given a statutory basis by the Localism Act of 2011, which holds that local authorities are best able to do their job when they have genuine freedom to respond to what local people want, not what they are told to do by government.

Newcastle City Council therefore resolves to take all legal measures possible to oppose these new measures, including:

·       Writing to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to express Council’s unequivocal opposition to the proposed changes as part of the consultation

·       Working with any other local authority, the NECA, the LGA or other appropriate forums as well other partner organisations (such as local trade unions and community groups) who share these concerns to raise awareness of the implications of the proposed measures and to campaign against their introduction

Newcastle City Council reaffirms its commitment to an ethical basis to its procurement and pensions investment policy.

'Nuclear Disaster - The Aftermath' Feb 4th Meeing

Ealing

 

Are hosting

Nuclear Disaster

The Aftermath

A talk by Mrs Kei Ikezumi

(Director of the No-Nuke project)

Kei has been living with the thousands of evacuees still living in temporary accommodation 5 years after the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power plant disaster in Japan. Kei will speak about the impact of the disaster and the dangers imposed by nuclear power

Thursday 4 February 7.00pm for 7.30pm

The Forester pub (upstairs function room)   Leighton Road, West Ealing W13 9EP

Brent CCG A&E Ad ruled misleading and potentially harmful in victory for Brent Patient Voice

Congratulations to Brent Patient Voice in succeeding with their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding Brent Clinical Commissioning Group's poster telling residents to use A & E only for 'life threatening emergencies':

This is the full finding:

Ad

A poster and claims on the advertiser's website www.rightcare4u.org.uk, seen on 5 October 2015:

a. The poster stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly. For more information visit: www.rightcare4u.org.uk".

B. The website stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... If you use A&E when you could get help somewhere else, you are taking NHS staff time away from life-threatening cases. Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly ...".

Issue

Brent Patient Voice challenged whether the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was misleading and potentially harmful, because patients with serious medical conditions/injuries that were not necessarily life-threatening may be wrongly discouraged from going immediately to their nearest hospital A&E.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

1.33.13.3

Response

Department of Health trading as Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (BCCG) explained that the ads focused specifically on diverting unnecessary cases away from local A&E departments to more appropriate settings, such as Urgent Care Centres and Minor Injuries Units. They said the primary aim of the ads was patient safety. They had based the core message on nationally available NHS information, in particular the NHS Choices website. They provided an extract from that website which listed some examples of life-threatening emergencies and included loss of consciousness, persistent severe chest pain, breathing difficulties and severe bleeding that could not be stopped.

BCCG said that in contrast to A&E departments, Urgent Care Centres could treat sprains and strains, broken bones, wound infections, minor burns and scalds, minor head injuries, insect and animal bites, minor eye injuries and injuries to the back, shoulder and chest.

BCCG said they had received clinical approval for the campaign. They accepted that there may be a few exceptions, for example, the ones cited by Brent Patient Voice, regarding some specific situations which might require A&E treatment in non-life-threatening situations. They said that was why there were well-established protocols in place in order to safely refer all patients requiring A&E treatment who presented at Urgent Care Centres. They believed the question was one of risk and, in the case of the ad campaign, communicating clearly to a whole patient population about the appropriate use of A&E overall, given the potentially serious and significant impact on those patients who genuinely required A&E treatment by those patients who would be better off (both for themselves and others) reporting to non-A&E services. They said it was important to emphasise that it was not their intention to present misleading information. They were seeking to educate people who might consider going to A&E for situations which were non-life-threatening and who could be treated more appropriately elsewhere.

They offered to remove the word "only" from the claim, in order to provide for those few situations which might require A&E treatment for non-life-threatening emergencies in the context of the A&E service overall being for life-threatening situations, as set out on the NHS Choices website. They believed their amendment was a reasonable and proportionate response to the complaint.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood from Brent Patient Voice and BCCG that there were certain medical conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but nevertheless required treatment in A&E, for example, some broken bones (e.g. ankle), facial injury requiring maxilla-facial surgery, saddle paraesthesia and serious eye injuries. We understood that those conditions and injuries could not be treated in Urgent Care Centres or Minor Injuries Units. We acknowledged that the intention behind the ad campaign was to encourage the appropriate use of A&E services, so as to ensure the proper allocation of NHS resources and patient safety, and was not to deter individuals from accessing A&E services if they genuinely required them. However, we noted that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was an absolute claim, even though there were exceptions, and we were concerned that individuals presenting with the conditions listed above might be deterred from seeking urgent treatment at A&E as a result of seeing the ads. We considered that the amended claim, which omitted the word "only", did not resolve the complaint because there were certain conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but which nevertheless required treatment in A&E. For those reasons, we concluded that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was misleading and potentially harmful.

The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Brent Clinical Commissioning Group to take care not to inadvertently make misleading and potentially harmful claims about the scope of A&E services in future.

Could Brent Labour follow Newcastle's lead on ethical procurement?

Brent Council during the apartheid era took action over severing links with companies that benefited from South African contracts.  More recently they declined to take similar action regarding the Public Realm contract with Veolia which at the time was providing infrastructure support to illegal settlements in Palestine.

Now the government is seeking to curtail the powers of local councils to have an ethical pesnions and procurement policy.

Newcastle City Labour Party has passed the following motion unanimously and expect to get it through Full Council.

I hope that Brent Labour group will take a similar stand.

Here is the motion which could easily be adapted for Brent:

Response to Government’s attack on a Councils’ right to follow an ethical policy in relation to procurement and Pensions Fund investments

Council notes with alarm the recent statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) confirming that new guidelines will be introduced early in the New Year which will curb councils’ powers to divest from or stop trading with organisations or countries they regard as unethical.

Council further notes that the new guidelines, which will amend Pensions and Procurement law, follow on from the government’s announcement made at the beginning of October 2015 that it was planning to introduce new rules to stop “politically motivated boycott and divestment campaigns” (Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government).

Council recognises that the focus of these new measures may be on procurement and investment policies and that they may have profound implications for Councils’ ethical investment policies more generally.

Newcastle City Council is proud of its’ commitment to human rights and to putting this into practice through such measures as an ethical approach to its relationship with business as outlined under  Newcastle’s Social Value Commitment.

Council believes that the proposed measures now being outlined by the DCLG will seriously undermine the Council’s ability to implement its commitment to ethical procurement and pensions investments.

Council also notes that the new guidelines represent a further, serious attack on local democracy and decision-making through a further restriction on councils’ powers. This is directly contrary to the government’s own stated commitment to the principle of localism, given a statutory basis by the Localism Act of 2011, which holds that local authorities are best able to do their job when they have genuine freedom to respond to what local people want, not what they are told to do by government.

Newcastle City Council therefore resolves to take all legal measures possible to oppose these new measures, including:

·      Writing to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to express Council’s unequivocal opposition to the proposed changes as part of the consultation

·      Working with any other local authority, the NECA, the LGA or other appropriate forums as well other partner organisations (such as local trade unions and community groups) who share these concerns to raise awareness of the implications of the proposed measures and to campaign against their introduction

Newcastle City Council reaffirms its commitment to an ethical basis to its procurement and pensions investment policy.

BBC - Don't Shut Out the Greens who give a voice to the voiceless

Shahrar Ali and Amelia Womack at the BBc today

 The Green Party’s Deputy Leaders today handed in an official appeal to the BBC Trust urging the BBC to re-consider its initial decision not to grant the Green Party of England and Wales a Party Political Broadcast in England.

The Green Party has also launched a petition this morning calling on the public broadcaster to include the Greens LINK .

Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales, handed in the appeal on behalf of Nick Martin, the Green Party's Chief Executive Officer.

Last week, Martin wrote to the Director General and Director of Editorial Policy and Standards of the BBC to argue that the current proposals, which shut out the Greens and allocate three broadcasts to the Liberal Democrats, fail to recognise the pattern and direction of political support in England. That appeal was rejected and the Green Party has today lodged a further appeal with the BBC Trust, to be heard by the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.

Speaking at the hand-in, Womack said:

This time last year it was the public that ensured our inclusion in the televised Leaders Debates. Now we need that support again.

The Green Party’s membership has grown and the Green Party’s vote has grown. It’s time our public broadcaster reflected the general public’s support for the Greens.

This petition represents an opportunity for us to make sure that the Greens’ unique voice gets heard so we can send more elected Greens to the Welsh and London Assemblies.

Ali said:

The BBC is a public service broadcaster and we feel they have an obligation to treat all parties on an even keel.

By continuing to exclude the Greens from the PPBs it is our contention that the BBC is not fulfilling its duty to ensure balance by communicating the full range of political opinions to its audience.

We have been the only Party giving a voice to the voiceless and it is deeply ironic that the BBC thinks it is okay to exclude us from these important broadcasts.

PETITION HERE