London AMs asked to rethink positions on anti-semitism motion

Brent Central Labour Party is holding a discussion on The Labour Party and Anti-Semitism tonight (7.30pm Christchurh Nursery, St Albans Road, Harlesden, NW10 8UG).

Richard Kuper (Free Speech on Israel) and Jeremy Newmark (Chair, Jewish Labour Movement)  will lead the discussion.

By coincidence the issue of criticism of Israeli government action being conflated with anti-semitism has produced intensive discussion  in both the Labour Party and the Greens.

It has arisen after the London Asembly unanimously approved a resolution on the issue:

This Assembly expresses alarm at the rise in anti-Semitism in recent years across the UK including London. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using anti-Semitic tropes.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11^th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on anti-Semitism which define anti-Semitism thus:

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

The guidelines highlight manifestations of anti-Semitism as including:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This Assembly hereby adopts the above definition of anti-Semitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish ed organisation, committeed to open and transparent debate on Palestine-Israel issue the folowing ststaement:

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish-led organisation, condemns the decision of the London Assembly on Feb 8 to adopt a position on antisemitism that is a charter for censors. It threatens to make effective campaigning for justice for Palestinians impossible.

Antisemitism is an age-old visceral hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews. It must be vigorously fought against, along with all forms of bigotry. To confuse it with opposition to a state which calls itself Jewish, or to the founding ideology of that state, Zionism, is to obscure the real meaning of the term antisemitism and make combatting it more difficult. This is exactly what the motion passed by the Assembly does.


Setting the limits of debate about “the Jewish state” is a key goal of pro-Israel lobbyists only recently unmasked as working hand in glove with the Israeli Embassy to brand any criticism as antisemitic. Labour Friends of Israel, to which the motion’s proposer Andrew Dismore belongs, were shown to be key players in this witch hunt, which has resulted in a wave of suspensions and interrogations of pro-Palestinian Labour Party members. The victims include Jews who, contrary to the claims of the pro-Israel lobby, do not have Zionism woven into their DNA. Jewish organisations have been among those calling for a full inquiry into the extent of Israeli interference in UK politics.

We defer to Avi Shlaim, professor emeritus of history at Oxford and an Israeli Jew, who writes: “Israeli propagandists deliberately, yes deliberately, conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to discredit, bully, and muzzle critics of Israel.”

It is not necessary to agree with Palestinians and their supporters when they question the founding principles of the State of Israel, compare it to Apartheid South Africa or call it to account for its well-documented racism, in order to recognise their right to say such things. The London Assembly has taken a position which endangers that right.

At a time when minority ethnic communities, particularly Muslims, are under constant attack in our society, the London Assembly, on the pretext of defending Jews against racism, has placed itself in the invidious position of defending Israeli propagandists against Palestinians and their supporters. This can only have the unintended consequence of stoking new hostility to Jews who will be seen as attempting to determine what non-Jews may or may not say about a foreign state.

We urge members of the Assembly to reconsider this politically ill-advised move.

Celebrate the contribution of migrants to the UK - Feb 20th 'One day without us'

Meeting tonight to plan campaign on Harrow voluntary sector cuts

From Harrow Association of Disabled People

Harrow Association  of Disabled People (HAD) are holding a public meeting this tonight  7pm after our Board meeting in the Red Brick Cafe, 38-40 High Street, Wealdstone. It is aimed at discussing the implications of Harrow Council’s changes to the way that it’s funding some of the work of local charities.

We also want to discuss campaigning together and more generally as a voluntary sector within Harrow.

HAD will lose nearly £100K in the move from grant and SLA funding (“Service Level Agreement” a form of direct funding from a particular Council department). Many other charities will also lose. Attached is a list, taken from recent cabinet papers, of what other charities received this financial year in the way of SLA and/or grant funding and assumedly, what they will lose next year. Apologies for any errors in the list, I tried to combine the total effects from several tables.

HAD are particularly concerned about the loss of direct funding for Gladys Janes and Fatima Walji our Welfare Benefit Advice workers. The SLA from Harrow Council that enables us to run the service has been cut over the years to the current level of £27K. Harrow’s direct funding for this service is to finish at the end of April 2017.  Gladys and Fatima see nearly 1,000 new clients each year and help them to gain over £1 million in disability welfare benefits that disabled people need to ensure that they can live independently and with dignity. The team help with the complex and long application forms, help with the appeals, and if necessary represent them at tribunals (where there are currently winning over 85% of cases). Many of their clients are referred from other local charities and If we lose their services it will be a great loss to the whole voluntary sector in Harrow.

The Council are proposing to move any money that they have for delivery of services through the local Voluntary Service into their "Commissioning" group. This will mean holding competitive bids through their “Commissioning Systems” that local Charities, and others, will have to bid for. Last week, HAD made representations to Harrow Council, who are themselves facing swingeing cuts from Central Government, to discuss this, and to present what HAD believes are better choices for achieving this. We have a meeting with Michael Lockwood scheduled for next week and this open meeting will help us to prepare for it.

Please come along, Nigel Long (HAD’s Chief executive) and I will outline the Council’s proposed changes, outline our alternatives and I’ll chair a discussion.  Nigel has around 30 years experience as a local Councillor in Milton Keynes, many of those years as a Cabinet Member. I have some years experience working on, and within, public procurement systems.

Bill Phillips

It is time for Genesis Housing Association residents to get organised!

-->

 From Genisis Residents

Why? Actually it is pretty straightforward.

The board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have been campaigning to ‘de-regulate’ or ‘de-register’ Genesis. Meaning they want to get out of most of government control or become private completely.

Do you remember the mutual building societies which went private about twenty years ago? The same kind of thing. They all ended up in the hands of banks.

In addition Genesis now clearly have a policy of raising rents so they can obtain more loans on the private money markets to build out-of-reach homes. In one recent case Genesis has asked the rent officer for an over 90% rent increase for a secure tenant. Hopefully the Rent Officer will not give in - but there is no guarantee.

Recently Genesis advertised a home for sale for £1,000,000. And another one bedroomed home was offered at a rent of £1,950 per month. I don’t suppose there are many readers who can pay that kind of rent.

The CEO publicly announced back in 2015 that Genesis would not build any good quality low rent houses. He said: “That won’t be my problem.”

He also explained how he looked at the homes of the residents: ‘[We are] really looking at our asset base and seeing what the value of that is and how we can get our hands on that value, (our emphasis) by changing its tenure, by churning it, by selling it and using those proceeds to build more homes.’

Nice! These are our homes he is talking about.

So residents have a fight on their hands and we have created a new residents organisations called ‘Genesis Residents.’

The next meeting for residents is in Harlesden on Thursday 16th February from 6:30.

It will be held in the Harlesden Methodist Church, 25 High Street, Harlesden, NW10 4NE

All the details can be found on our Facebook Page or you can e mail us at the address below

https://www.facebook.com/genesisaction

genesis.residents.action@gmail.com

Hopefully we will see you there.

LDO was skating on thin ice with 'FREE Ice skating' advertisement

Following a complaint I made about the above advertisement that appeared to offer free skating to London Designer Outlet customers and visitors to the Wembley Park area, but stated in very small print (bottom left) that this was only available to people who spent £50 or more at the LDO, LINK the Advertising Standards Authority has responded.  I complained that the advertisement was misleading:

Legal, decent, honest and truthful

Having now reviewed the ad in light of your concerns, we have come to the conclusion that it was likely to have breached the Advertising Codes (“the Codes”) that we administer. I am writing to let you know that we have taken steps to address this.

We have explained your concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the Codes.

 

House of Commons vs Football Association February 9th k.o. 2.15pm

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has secured a debate on the governance of football governance in the House of Commons.

The debate taking place on Thursday 9 February 2017, starts at approximately 2.15pm and is on this motion:

That this House has no confidence in the ability of the Football Association (FA) to comply fully with its duties as a governing body, as the current governance structures of the FA make it impossible for the organisation to reform itself; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to reform the governance of the FA.

The Committee published two Reports in the last Parliament calling for reform of the FA, to allow representatives of fans, women’s football, BAME groups, officials such as referees and the grassroots sport a significantly greater say in the governance of the game, and to give the Executive Directors of the FA greater weight in comparison with the representatives of the Premier and Football Leagues. However, the reforms called for by groups representing the wider game, the Committee, successive ministers for sport and recently, a number of past Chairmen and Chief Executives of the FA, have been ignored by The FA.

Last autumn, the Government published its guidance on best practice in sports governance. It is clear that The FA does not comply with this guidance now and there appears to be considerable resistance to the idea of changing its very out-of-date structure at all. The Committee is therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA—which is, in legal terms, a company—into line with modern company law.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins, said:

The current Minister for Sport told the Committee that The FA had been given six months from publication of the Government’s guidance in October 2016 to demonstrate that it was willing to improve governance, otherwise public money would be withdrawn from The FA and distributed to football through other means.

We do not believe that The FA will comply voluntarily: it can survive easily without the Government’s contribution of money to grassroots sport, and there are powerful vested interests that refuse to accept the right of all those involved in football to play a role in the governance of the sport. We are therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA, especially its Board and Council, more into line with modern company practice and the Government’s guidelines for sports bodies.

 

• Inquiry: The Governance of Football
• Watch Parliament TV: The Governance of Football
• Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Petition launched opposing Spurs & Chelsea home games at Wembley

A petition has been launched asking Brent Council to reconsider the use of Wembley Stadium for Spurs and Chelsea home games. (The FA/Spurs are presently consulting on this See LINK)

The petition is HERE and wording below:

We the undersigned petition the council to reconsider the use of Wembley Statium for Tottenham Hotspur home matches and for Chelsea home matches for the Champions League and Premier League

Wembley National Stadiium is a stadium of national importance and as such is designated for matches organised by the Football Association for matches of national importance and also for finals of league cups etc. These matches are very frequent in the spring and summer each year. The residents around the area understand and accept this use of Wembley Stadium for such matches.

The use of the Wembley National Stadium for club matches for the above mentioned clubs mean that for then next few years at least 30 additional matches will be played in the Wembley Stadium for the above mentioned clubs. This will put extreme pressure on public services around the Wembley Stadium area. The roads will be blocked due to the excessive traffic. Access to schools and post school activities for children will be hampered. Elderly people will be especially at risk due to the huge amount of traffic around the stadium area. The traffic will also put emergency access at risk the roads will be absolutely blocked.

Additionally, the football fans will descend on Wembley for 30 additional days in a year. While not demonizing football fans in general, some sections of the football fans cause immense damage to property and intimidate local residents.

As a national stadium, these club level matches are not acceptable.

Started by: Vishal Sinha

This ePetition runs from 30/01/2017 to 13/03/2017.

High rise march on Wembley Stadium continues as Network Housing propose 21 storey block on Olympic Way

Click on images to enlarge

Network Housing are proposing a block of 21 storeys and 15 storeys to replace their current 8 storey building at 8 Rutherwood Way Wembley Park. The site is bounded by Olympic Way, Rutherwood Way and Fulton Road.

The Planning Committee at their February 15th Meeting will be given a presentation on the scheme which will provide 242 dwellings:

There will be commercial space at ground level and  external community space, including children's play space, at 1st, 15th and 21st floor levels.

The building will be higher than its immediate neighbours but there are others of that height, or higher, in the Quintain area.  It will not impact on 'most' of the views of the stadium according to the officer's report. LINK

One area of controversy will be how much of the development will be affordable in real terms, not the 80% of market rent, commonly quoted, although the planners use the latter definition in their note:

The submission documents have not included details on the proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme, officers understand that this is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 


The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme, and this would need to be tested through the submission of a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers.