A Call to Europe: Human Rights for Refugees August 27th

A Demostration Called by: 

Help4Refugee Children, Syria Solidarity Campaign & Calais Action.

Sixty years ago, the Refugee Convention defined rights for refugees, and most countries signed up to it. The first principle was that refugees should be treated decently. A little later, the world refugee year of 1959-60 was an attempt to get counties to face up to their responsibilities.

Since then, the situation of refugees has got steadily worse. Today their rights are everywhere disregarded, eroded, and trampled on; governments think they can gain popularity by treating refugees in an inhuman way. We say that this is unacceptable. No one is illegal; no one is inhuman.

WE ARE SEEING A GENERAL DEHUMANISATION OF REFUGEES - AND WE DEMAND THAT THIS MUST STOP, AND THAT WE BEGIN TREATING THEM AS HUMANS, WITH THE SAME RIGHTS AS OUR OWN.

The countries of Europe in particular have been trying to evade acknowledging the basic humanity of refugees, and the rights which they should respect. They have deliberately avoided:

1. Their responsibility for the wars in Syria, Iraq, and vast areas of the Middle East which have caused people to flee;

2. Their continuing responsibility for ensuring a safe passage to Europe (in particular across the Mediterranean) for thousands of refugees, as though they had no duty to protect them. Thousands have drowned through a deliberate state policy of neglect.

Worse, once the refugees arrive in Europe, no country will accept them although by the terms of the Refugee Convention once arrived in Europe they can apply for asylum. (Their situation is viewed from a frankly racist perspective - as though they represent an army of foreigners aiming to pollute a pure white Europe.) There is an increasing drive to make life impossible for them wherever they are, closing down what refugee camps there are (particularly in France).

The refugees are housed in shocking, subhuman conditions such as the ‘Jungle’ camp at Calais, where they are constantly harassed by police and threatened with eviction by the State. Indeed, this camp (home to 7000 people and 500 (unaccompanied children) is now threatened with another demolition; which will rob these homeless people of the little they have. The camps already have almost no facilities and are run by hardworking overstretched volunteers relying on donations, not official agencies.

The people who have reached the camps, after difficult and dangerous journeys, have clearly not done it from choice. Our failure to treat them with decency and humanity shames us.
We are demonstrating to demand a new start, based on respect and human principles.

TREAT REFUGEES AS HUMAN BEINGS WITH FULL RIGHTS, ON EVERY STEP OF THEIR ROAD!

Theresa May’s grammar school plan would brand many children as failures - Green Party

Back to the future with the Tories

Theresa May’s plans to allow new grammar schools would create an unfair education system which leaves too many young children branded as failures, the Green Party has warned.

There is clear evidence LINK that selective schools primarily benefit the already advantaged, while failing to serve the needs of those who most need support and assistance.

The Green Party is committed to fighting inequality and believes the Prime Minister’s plans to lift the ban on grammar schools, reported in the Sunday Telegraph LINK, would create a more divisive education system.

Vix Lowthion, Green Party spokesperson for Education, said grammar schools do not increase social mobility.

She said:

Selection based on academic performance in 11 plus style tests will not be based on raw ability but on which pupils are coached to pass these tests.

And coaching costs money and time and that only certain families will have.

Research by the Sutton Trust LINK found less than 3% of children at grammar schools are entitled to free school meals, while in contrast almost 13% did not have state-school backgrounds, coming mostly from independent schools.

Ms Lowthion, a secondary school teacher on the Isle of Wight, added:

Selective schools would condemn the vast majority of our 11-year-olds to feeling like they are academic failures before their high school career has even begun.

Grammar schools are not the solution. High expectations and the best education for every single child is what education policy must be.

The Green Party wants to see current grammar schools integrated into the comprehensive structure to make a fairer education system.

Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, said schools should prepare children for more than just exams, and joined calls for May to rethink the plans.

This is not a positive sign of the direction of education policy. We had hoped to see an end to Gove’s era of ministerial whim and outdated ideas of the purpose of education, when the ideology of privatisation dominated.

I speak in many schools, universities and colleges, and I know that young people feel failed by a system that prepares them for exams, not life, and that is being increasingly scarred by cuts to funding for essential provision.

Brent Council to take over maintenance of historic Old St Andrew's Churchyard

The churchyard at Old St Andrew's Church in Kingsbury has been cleared of vegetation, including brambles and elder, which had covered and concealed many of the graves for years. Apart from revealing many fascinating headstones it also reveals considerable damage to graves including fallen headstones, subsidence of graves and gaping holes in some vaults.

Old St Andrew's is Brent's only Grade 1 listed building and the oldest building in the borough dating from before 1100.  The graves appear more recent but are hard to date because inscriptions on the oldest headstones have been worn away.

According to the incumbent, Father Jason Rendell, the last burial in the churchyard was in 2003.

The churchyard includes many fine yew trees and is at its best in the Spring when snowdrops, violets and bluebells can be found.  It is amazingly peaceful for a site surrounded by suburban  development and where yesterday the roars from Wembley Stadium could be heard.

A proposal to close the churchyard for future burials has been tabled with the closing date for comments tomorrow. Parishioners who have reserved their places will be unaffected by the closure. (Details below)

Once the churchyard is closed, a process that may take a year, Brent Council will take over the maintenance. An electronic survey of the graves  is to be undertaken which will record the position, condition and inscription of each grave. There will also be a tree survey and self-seeded trees will be removed opening up the churchyard to more light.

The churchyard is overcrowded and there was a proposal in the 1930s to open a lawn cemetery nearby on ground now occupied by the Birchen Grove allotments, Welsh Environmental Study Centre and the Garden Centre. As far as I can ascertain that site is still consecrated ground. The chapel for the proposed cemetery still stands and houses Energy Solutions.

I sometimes visit the churchyard with primary classes and it is interesting how they overcome initial fear  to become fascinated by the social history recorded by the graves including infant mortality, references to the two world wars and the verses on many of the graves. Those children whose first language is not English can be confused.  'Is there really someone sleeping under there?' one asked me pointing to a huge stone slab.  There follows a lesson about euphemisms and an eager search for examples.

Influenced by the peace and the surroundings children often initiate profound discussions about death and religion. Some children who are refugees from conflict open up about their experience and their family losses.

The churchyard closure notice:

Representations should be sent to Coroners and Burials Team, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ quoting Reference OPR/075/333

'Stand with Kushinda' daily protests outside Brent Civic Centre from tomorrow

Visitors to Brent Civic Centre and Wembley Library are likely to see daily protests from tomorrow until the end of the month.

The protests are organised by the African National Women's Organisation who explain the background here:

We are asking for your assistance to help support and raise up the story of Kushinda Olanrewaju (aka Shirley Campbell) who is the mother of learning-disabled man, Meshach Boland who has been targeted by police for years.

After a May 11th protest outside Willesden Magistrate’s Court in London’s Borough of Brent and pressure from the African National Women’s Organisation and its supporters, his case hearing was postponed until September of 2016 pending an updated education psychologist report.

What followed next was a string of retaliatory tactics from the London Borough of Brent,  where they moved to  revoke Kushinda’s assistance and benefits, which are vital for her as the mother and a full-time  carer for her learning-disabled son and her elderly ailing mother. They have also attempted to forcibly evict Kushinda from her home as well as levied her with illegitimate council taxes.

The African National Woman’s Organisation understands this treatment as targeted state violence against Kushinda and Meshach, born under a colonialist government system set up to fail and then jail poor and working class Africans. Meshach’s incarceration poses as a better investment to law enforcement than the adult social care set up to support him.

Starting August 9 @ 12-2 in front of Brent Civic Centre, Kushinda Olanrewaju will stand in daily protest over the treatment she and her son have received at the hands of the state. If we do not bring to light Kushinda’s detrimental mistreatment by the state and hold the council representatives accountable to their own policies––which ensure that the most vulnerable of us will be guaranteed services and proper consideration in legal proceedings ––then we unwittingly agree with their cavalier decision making, which only seems to change when African people are involved.

Learn more about this issue: http://anwouhuru.org/tag/meshach/

Further information on how ANWO would like you to help and a sign up form to take part in the protests are HERE

Brent's LOBO loans at 68% premium merit deeper scrutiny

In April I published some information from Cllr Michael Pavey on the complex issue of LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) loans. At the time Pavey was deputy leader of the Labour Group and lead member for finance. He confirmed that Brent Council had £95.5m in LOBO borrowing. LINK

In June 2014 journalist Ian Fraser published an article entitled 'How City banks and brokers stitched up local authorities with LOBO loans' and gave this Brent example.

Click on image to enlarge

In 2015 a Channel 4 Dispatches programme 'How Councils Blow Your Millions' revealed how banks had exploited local councils through LOBO loans and as a result a Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry was set up to examine the issue.  Bob Blackman MP was a member of the Committee.  He was leader of the Brent Conservative group on Brent Council and deputy leader of the Council when it was in coalition with Brent Liberal Democrats prior to the local elections in May 2010. The LOBOS borrowing  was arranged between November 2002 and April 2010.  Minutes of the Communities and Local Government Committee oral evidence can be found HERE

Department of Local Communities and Local Government statistics for 2015-16 showed Brent Council had total long-term borrowings of £423.7m of which £328.2m was Public Works Loan Board and £95.5m LOBOs.

The campaign Debt Resistance in covering Newham Council's massive exposure to LOBOS mentioned Brent LINK:

  At Brent Council where a similar £10m LOBO loan from RBS was analysed, it was found the council was paying £1.2m more for the loan from RBS, than if it had borrowed via the UK Treasury Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) – standard practice for councils. To exit the loan would cost Brent a further £3-4m in “break penalties  

Brent Cabinet will be receiving the 2015-16 Treasury Management Outturn Report at its meeting on Monday August 15th.  The report acknowledges the high cost of redemption of LOBOS loans:

No debt was restructured during the year and no lenders exercised options to vary the terms of loans on LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) terms. The Council has borrowed £95.5m under LOBO transactions, all of which were entered into in the period November 2002 to April 2010. Unlike PWLB loans, there is no formula for the cost of redemption of LOBOs, and the price quoted would depend on any bank’s view on its commercial advantage. The banks’ positions have been insured through the derivatives markets and to renegotiate these arrangements would be very expensive. The average premium on our LOBO portfolio is about 68%: this would mean that it would cost £8.4m to redeem a LOBO with a nominal value of £5m. However, there is no established formula for the redemption price and the actual cost be higher.

The 68% average premium applied to total LOBO borrowings of £95.5m would give additional redemption costs of £65m with the possibility, as in the last sentence above, that it could be higher. It would be worthwhile for the Cabinet (or perhaps Scrutiny) to go into the issue a little deeper and particularly to explore what appears to be some complacency about the situation:

There are complex arguments made about LOBOs, by their supporters and by their detractors. The Council's position is simply that the LOBOs are part of its portfolio, and must therefore be managed as effectively as possible. There are no plans to enter into further LOBO contracts. However, it should be noted that the average rate of interest being paid on LOBOs is little different to that on PWLB debt (4.75% compared to 4.71% at 31 March) and the range of rates lower. The most expensive LOBO was at 6.234% on 31 March, compared with the most expensive PWLB at 8.875%.

Since, the end of 2015/16, Barclay’s Bank decided to give up its lender option to £15m of LOBOs. There were three loans of £5 million each, with interest rates of 3.95%, 4.35% and 4.5%, with maturities between 2048 and 2076. Barclays did this to ensure it could meet Basle III Capital Requirements that banks need to comply with by 2019. As these changes are to the borrowers’ advantages, it merely needed to notify us and provide us with the signed declaration of its change. It is likely, according to Arlingclose, our Treasury advisers, that other lenders will soon follow suit. 


These are Brent Council's LOBO loans according to Debt Resistance. The tables on its website are interactive providing more information LINK:

Auditor asked to make a Public Interest Report on Davani pay-off

The Cara Davani issue just won't go and the news that she now runs a 'boutique hotel' in Suffolk LINK isn't going to exactly endear her to those who have been seeking out the truth about her £157k pay-off.

Now Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, has asked Brent Council's Auditor, KPMG, to make a Public Interest Report under Section 24  of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Dear Mr. Johnstone, 

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

As is required by law the request has also been submitted to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer, Conrad Hall.

If anyone else wishes to make a request it must be written in a proper form to the Auditor by August 11th. Here is some guidance from  Philip Grant submitted earlier today as a blog comment:

if you are on the voters list for Brent, you have a right, if you wish, to object to the expenditure of £157,610 by Brent Council, BUT ONLY if you submit your objection in a proper form by Thursday 11 August.

If you do want to do this, it can be done by email to the auditor at KPMG: philip.johnstone@kpmg.co.uk , and a copy must also be sent to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer: conrad.hall@brent.gov.uk .

Your email would need to say that it is about the accounts of the London Borough of Brent for 2015/16, and that you are objecting under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

You need to say that you are an elector in Brent, give your full postal address, and (if you know them) the name of the Ward in the borough and the constituency (e.g. Brent North, Brent Central or Hampstead & Kilburn) in which you are registered to vote.

You must say what you believe is wrong about the accounts and why you believe they are wrong. If it is the £157k payment, you should say that you are objecting to the compensation for loss of office payment of £157,610 to Brent's former Human Resources Director, shown at Note 30 (Senior Employees' Remuneration) in the accounts, and that you think it is wrong to include this amount in the accounts because it was not a proper payment for the Council to make.

In support of your objection, you need to explain why you think the £157k should not have been paid, and provide what evidence you can. Based on your comment, you could say that Cara Davani should already have been sacked for gross misconduct after the Tribunal findings against her (Note: these were NOT for racial discrimination, but for victimising Rosemarie Clarke and for wrongly having her suspended for misconduct just because Rosemarie had complained about being bullied and harassed by her); that she should not have been given a compensation payment for leaving (or at most only a small one, quoting the normal redundancy rates from your comment); and that the £157k payment shows she was being treated more favourably than she should have been because she was a crony of Christine Gilbert.

You don't need to provide much evidence, as you can also say that you are aware that there has been another objection about the leaving payment to Cara Davani, and that you would like any evidence provided in any other objections to be used in support of your objection as well.

At the end of your objection email, you would need to ask the auditor to investigate the payment you have objected to, and either:

1) ask the Court to declare the payment unlawful, under Section 28, if he thinks there is a strong enough case for this; or,

2) make a public interest report, under Section 24, giving his views on the payment and asking Brent Council to take action to remedy it.

Brent's Annual Governance Statement: Public money safeguarded & properly accounted for?

A Wembley Matters reader writes: I came across the attached document tucked away in the "Transparency in Brent" section of the Council's website, while researching a point on the 2015/16 accounts. Brent's Annual Governance Statement opens with the words:

'Brent Council (‘The Council’) is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively.'

The statement does actually mention (though not by name) the Rosemarie Clarke case and the settlement with Cara Davani at the end of Section 5 - Significant Governance Issues.

I wonder if other Wembley Matters readers might be interested in having this Statement brought to their attention (as I am not aware that the Council has done much to publicise it).

Councillor accuses Brent Council/Kingdom Securities of 'bounty hunting' over littering fines

Cllr John Duffy has condemned the Fixed Penalty Notice Littering Scheme run for Brent Council by Kingdom Securities as 'bounty hunting' and 'entrapment of the worst type:

My understanding is that these tickets should not be issued until the resident have had the chance to pick up the  litter.  I believe this whole scheme is a con , these officer will not investigate dumped bags, only hang around outside fast food  bookies and pubs looking for smokers, instead of approaching the premises and asking them to place a receptacle for smokers.

This is bounty hunting  the poorest residents  and in the case of Kilburn High Road is entrapment of the worst type.

Duffy visited Victoria Road and McDonalds to see for himself and wrote to Carolyn Downs, Brent Chief Executive Officer: 

I visited the area last night.  I spoke to someone from McDonald's  and some residents .

No one seems to understand why Brent would remove the bins from outside a major fast food retailer , with a high foot fall, a young demographic  and a strategic location.

One resident asked were they removed to increase the numbers of litter tickets issued by KS.  As I cannot think of any other reason for the removal, can you confirm the day they were removed , who made the request to remove  them and were any FPN issued in that area during the time the bins were removed .

This morning  (10mins ago) I heard of KS issuing tickets on  Kilburn High Road, without  giving the person an opportunity to pick it up.

I realise this a serious issue  removing litter bins when we have an enforcement process going on.  If we are trying to entrap residents into committing a offence , that is unacceptable. I believe we need to get to the bottom of the issue immediately. 

I have always had concerns about the policy of paying for bounty hunters to issue tickets , which was promoted by Cllr Southwood and Cllr Mashari, now I believe we should suspend the service until we have sorted out clear rules of engagement with public.

In the meantime I demand to know why they were removed and who requested there removal , with a full email trial of the instruction. I also need to know the number of tickets that were issued in Kilburn high road during the period the bins were removed.

In an earlier email to Brent Council officers, Cllr Duffy asked for answers to a series of questions:

I understand from the local paper, that the private firm introduced by the cabinet, Kingdom Securities (KS),  has issue 1200 FPNs.I therefore would like the following information.

(1) Can you also tell me how many FPN were issued for offences other than Littering( list below provided by DEFRA )

·       littering

·       fly-tipping

·       dog control offences

·       graffiti

·       fly-posting

·       nuisance parking (people selling or repairing cars on the road)

·       abandoned vehicles

·       leafleting without permission on land where leafleting is restricted (‘designated land’)

·       failing to nominate a key holder or give the council key holder details in an alarm notification area

·       failing to provide a waste carrier licence (for businesses transporting their own waste)

·       failing to provide a waste transfer note when moving non-hazardous waste

 or are KS employed exclusively for littering.

(2) What percentage were issued outside Tube stations, bus stops for discarding cigarette butts or similar before they enter a tube station or get on a bus.

(3) How many of these were issue following the searching of dicscarded waste under section 87 and section 88.

(4) Were any of the 1,200 offenders offer a chance to pick the offending litter as per the guidance laid down by Defra "that strictly speaking the unintentional dropping of litter is an offence , however DEFRA advise that a notice should only be issued if, after drawing the matter to the person’s attention, and he then fails to pick it up. Can you confirm you have followed Defra's guidelines that you have allow the offender to pick it -up and therefore only cautioned them if they did so, instead of issuing a FPN.

(5) As you may be aware Defra also say that in practice, the overwhelming majority of environmental offences are ‘summary offences’, this is to say they are criminal offences that are tried summarily, in front of the magistrates.  Also it is a requirement that records should be kept of the number of fixed penalty notices issued, the resulting receipts and the number of cases pursued through the courts. This information is legally required on an annual basis by Defra for monitoring purposes.Therefore can you confirm how many cases have been referred to the legal section for prosecution.

(6) How many have been paid within the 14 days required? (please change the question below to your anwser)

(7) I am assuming  we have received 70% payment and have been  paid = £67200 we have paid KS £55200 and therefore we have received £12k extra revenue to deal with appeals and taking legal actions against the outstanding offenders,can you confirm that is the case. Can you  also estimate the cost of the legal department of dealing the outstanding unpaid FPNs.

(8) Can you give me the on costs for the office space per month for the six members of staff , which was  circulated in your report to scrutiny and has KS incurred and other costs like the use of IT, use of pool cars , free car parking,  could you also give me the cost of collecting the fines by Brent.

 (9) It is clear the only fixed cost is the £55k income we have paid KS, can you confirm we have stopped cost for any item in part (8) above.