Barham Park Trust accounts rubber stamped despite detailed anaylsis revealing many problems with them

 Paul Lorber was refused permission to present this paper on the Barham Park Trust accounts at today's meeting. The meeting lasted less than 10 minutes. Officers said that representations had been dealt with in previous correspondence and the accounts were fine. Cabinet members in the guise of trustees asked no questions and then rubber stamped them.

 

PAUL LORBER'S PRESENTATION

 

The revised accounts for the year 2022/23 are fundamentally wrong and should not be approved. They are inconsistent with previous years, do not reflect the correct income due to the Charity, overstate the Charity expenses and do not provide information in an understandable and clear way that makes review and scrutiny of those accounts easy.

 

I deal with some of the key issue in detail below and summarise the other issues in need of investigation.

 

Rental Income presentation problem (the income is not confidential and can be easily ascertained from past public reports)

 

Excluding the £11,300 rental income from the Children centre, £6,500 from Virgin Media, casual rentals and income from the funfair the Rental Income due from the four tenants occupying the Barham Park buildings is as follows:

ACAVA                                    £43,000

Friends of Barham Library         £7,000

Barham Veterans Club                £3,000

Tamu Samaj                                 £1,500

TOTAL                                       £54,500

 

This income has remained unchanged for some years. According the Officers the Accounts are presented on a Cash “received” basis rather than on the more usual” arrears” basis.

 

This income is shown in the accounts on the line described as “Rental Income – other”

The amounts shown are:

17/18               £50,373

18/19               £52,500

19/20               £51,500

20/21               £51,500

21/22               £50,009

22/23                 £1,625

 

None of the years 17/18 to 21/22 agree with the expected income suggesting that some rents were not collected. The officers may want to explain which tenant did not pay and why or what the discrepancy with the expected £54,500 p.a. is for each of the years.

 

The amount for the year 2022/23 looks very odd compared to all the previous years. The officers claim that the Accounts for the Trust are prepared on a cash basis (i.e. they show income in terms of cash received and payments in terms of cash paid rather than on the traditional accruals basis of showing the income expected to be received in the year with any amount not received shown in debtors.)

 

This explanation does not stand up to scrutiny when you look at the extracts from the minutes dealing with the 2020/21 accounts. Minute 3.5 clearly states “the majority of the rental income for 2020/21 is still outstanding”. If this is so why is the supposedly “cash received” figure for the year showing £51,500 when most of the rental income “has not yet been paid”.

 

The rental income for 2019/20 of £51,500 too is clearly also NOT the “cash received” as note 3.6 below states that at 31 March 2021 …..£76k of the rental income has not yet been received. As ACAVA’s annual rent is £43,000 this means that £33,000 (£76,000 less £43,000) of the amount outstanding as unpaid must relate to 2019/20 – which in turn means that the £51,500 clearly cannot possibly represent the “cash received” in respect of rent in that year.

Extract from 2020/21 Accounts

3.4 During 2020/21 the Trust incurred expenditure of £96,283 on maintenance of the building complex and the park. This is made up of £60,383 of unrestricted funds expenditure and £35,900 of restricted funds. The Trust generated £81,300 receipts from rental income and interest earned.

3.5 This includes rental income that is due but has not yet been paid. The majority of rental income for 2020/21 is still outstanding. The cumulative rental income due but not paid as at 31 March 2021 was £76,291.

3.6 This means that as at 31 March 2021, the Trust had assets of: (i) £58k unrestricted funds cash (ii) £353k restricted funds cash (iii) £76k rental income due but not yet received (unrestricted funds) (iv) £939k valuation of Barham Park Building Complex

3.7 This means that if the rental income arrears are not received, the Trust would have only £58k of unrestricted cash. If the arrears continue building up, the £58k would be enough to cover around 12 months of maintenance and wardens costs.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Accounts for all years to 2021/22 have been produced on an accruals basis (they show the rent due and not the cash income received).

 

The revised 2022/23 Accounts presented to you on Tuesday 25 September 2023 are wrong as they are being presented on an inconsistent and a totally incomprehensible basis.

 

The 2022/23 figures are attempting to show some form of ‘cash basis’ whereas the comparative figures for 2021/22 are clearly on the correct accruals basis.

 

Even if officers were correct to present the 2022/23 on a cash received basis to make the accounts consistent and for them to make sense they would have to revise the 2021/22 comparatives to a cash basis too.

 

IT MAKES NO SENSE

 

In terms of the size of its transactions the Barham Park Charity should prepare its accounts on an accruals basis as in relation to rental income the accounts would show the rents due in the year and any amounts uncollected/owing would be shown as a debtor and any rents paid in advance/prepaid would be shown as a creditor.

 

This makes it straight forward to make comparisons between the years in respect of both income and expenditure figures making it easy for Trustees and 3^rd party observer to see the trends between years and ask questions if unusual variations arise.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

Various reports claim that the Council provides the Barham Park Charity with a subsidy. This cannot be substantiated because none of this is reflected in the Barham Park Trust Accounts.

 

Charity Commission Guidance covers this issue:

 

CHARITIES SORP (FRS 102)

 

Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice applicable to charities preparing their accounts in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK

 

Accounting for donated facilities and services, including volunteers

6.13. If a charity is given facilities and services for its own use which it would otherwise have purchased, these must be included in the charity’s accounts when received, provided the value of the gift can be measured reliably.

6.14. Measuring donated services using fair value would not be practical as such services cannot be resold and the use of fair value may result in an overstatement of the value of the donation to the charity. Donated facilities and services are therefore measured and included in accounts on the basis of the value of the gift to the charity.

 6.15. Value to the charity is the amount that the charity would pay in the open market for an alternative item that would provide a benefit to the charity equivalent to the donated item. Value to the charity may be lower than, but cannot exceed, the price the charity would pay in the open market for the item. Accounting and Reporting by Charities Page 62

6.16. Donated facilities and services that are consumed immediately must be recognised as income, with an equivalent amount recognised as an expense under the appropriate heading in the statement of financial activities (SoFA).

6.17. Facilities such as office accommodation or services supplied by an individual or an entity as part of their trade or profession can usually be reasonably quantified and must be included in a charity’s accounts.

6.18. Charities often rely on the contribution of unpaid general volunteers in carrying out their activities. However, placing a monetary value on their contribution presents significant difficulties. For example, charities might not employ additional staff were volunteers not available, or volunteers might complement the work of paid staff rather than replace them. These factors, together with the lack of a market comparator price for general volunteers, make it impractical for their contribution to be measured reliably for accounting purposes. Given the absence of a reliable measurement basis, the contribution of general volunteers must not be included as income in charity accounts.

6.19. However, it is important that the user of the accounts understands the nature and scale of the role played by general volunteers. Charities must include a description of the role played by general volunteers and provide an indication of the nature of their contribution in a note to the accounts

 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

 

If substantial – and the Council implies this by always refering to providing the Barham Park Charity with a subsidy – the services provided by the Council to the Charity must be valued and shown both as Donated Income on one side and ‘deemed’ expense on the other.

 

While the net impact is £0 any reader of the accounts become aware of the true cost of managing the Charity.

 

NETTING OFF OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE?

 

Do the trustees know or understand what the figure described as cash advance” of £27,092 represents?

 

According to the report the £27,092 is actually a net figure made up of the remaining balance of rent owed by one of the tenants of £39k offset by an unpaid consultancy fees of £12k due to the Architects for their recent work on the ‘hypothetical’ project.

 

It is described this way in the Report:

3.11 As at 31 March 2023, the Trust had a rental debtor of £39,625 and a £12,533 payment that was due but not yet paid. These have been recognised as debtors and creditors on the Council’s side and the Council gave a net £27,092 cash advance to the Trust in order to aid the Trust’s cashflow position and avoid a detrimental effect of outstanding debt on the Trust’s financial position. In 2022/23 the cash advance has been reported on a separate line in the income section to aid transparency. The Council has also paid interest to the Trust on the cash advance. The Trust continues liaising with tenants and expects all arrears to be cleared by March 2024.

 

In my view the netting off of these two figures and their presentation is wrong. Income should be shown in the Income section and the Expense in the Expense section. More importantly it hides the fact that £12,533 of consultancy costs on top of the £8,711 already shown in the accounts (Total £21,244) – and there may be more paid and charged in 2023/24 to the Barham Park Charity when they should NOT be.

 

The treatment of the estimated costs of £25,000 for the architects working on the recent Barham Park vision study was agreed and confirmed at the Trust Meeting of 27 January 2022. This is what the minutes say:

Having authorised officers (in September 21) to prepare a financial strategy in respect of the Trust, approval was now being sought to the appointment of an architect in order to lead development of a more holistic options appraisal relating to the feasibility of improvements to the buildings comprising the Estate and impact on current occupation uses and tenancies.  The cost identified for the architectural services required had been £25,000 which it was proposed to fund from the Council’s Capital Programme rather than directly by the Trust, given the existing commitments on its available restricted and unrestricted funds.

 

CLEARLY AN ERROR IN THE 2022/23 ACCOUNTS

 

If it was agreed to charge the Architects cost to the “Council’s Capital Programme” why are £21,244 of the costs charged to the Barham Park Charity in its 2022/23 accounts.

 

The Charity’s surplus for the year and its unrestricted funds are clearly being reduced by this substantial amount.

 

The 2022/23 Accounts are therefore materially wrong on this point alone and need to be corrected.

 

OTHER CUMULATIVE ERRORS IN THESE ACCOUNTS

 

I will just list a few issues here that need investigation, should concern the Trustees and should lead to more questions.

1.      The Barham Park Charity has been deprived of correct Interest Income. The amount paid to it by Brent Council for the use of over £500,000 of cash balances does not represent a fair arms length price. I estimate that in the current year The Charity has been deprived of at least £5,000 of extra income and the amount will be at least double that if this is allowed to continue.

 

2.     The so called ‘arms length’ rent paid by the Council to the Charity for the use of the former Children Centre has not changed for years. As the sub lease has expired a true market rent should be charged each year. The Council has failed to follow correct procedures in ensuring that an ‘arms length rent’ is paid.

 

3.      It is also not clear why the Children Centre is not paying service charges for services such as refuse collection, water etc that it receives. There is no reason why the Charity should be paying for this.

 

4.     There has been a failure to implement rent reviews due some years ago. The cumulative cost of this failure runs into tens of thousands of pounds in lost rental income to the Charity.

 

5.      The Charity has had a benefit of NCIL Grants to upgrade the QE II Silver Jubilee Gardens and the Pond in the Park. The value of these Grant is well in excess of £100,000. The accounts for the current and previous years for failing to reflect both the Grant Income received and the expenditure on which the Grant was spent on.

 

6.     The Accounts fail to show enough detail in relation to the expenditure line of “maintenance and wardens”. This heading includes some expenditures which have nothing to do with maintenance and include items which should be included in the lines – including utilities, waste disposal etc. Without this information the Trustees and others cannot be certain if some of these costs should not have been recharged.

7.      

Why is the Charity incurring an insurance charge of £2,500 – should not some or all of this have been recharged?

 

Conclusion:

 

I have tried to engage with Council officers to highlight these issues. My views and concerns have been ignored. As a result the revised Accounts as presented are fundamentally wrong.

 

1.     They are prepared on the wrong and inconsistent basis.

 

2.     They do not comply with acceptable accounting policies as advised by the Charity commission.

 

3.     The figures are wrong.

 

4.     They understate the Charity’s Income

 

5.     They overstate the Charity’s expenses

 

6.     As a result of 4 & 5 above they understate the net worth of the charity (its net assets).

 

These accounts should NOT be approved or submitted to the Charity Commission in their current state.

 

Councillor Paul Lorber

25 September 2023

 

 

Murder investigation after Olympic Way fatal stabbing late yesterday. Witnesses sought by Met

 

From the Metropolitan Police

Detectives are appealing for witnesses and information following a murder in north London.
Police were called just after 23.00hrs on Sunday, 24 September to Olympic Way, Wembley to reports of a stabbing.

Officers attended the location where they discovered a man – aged in his mid-20s - with stab injuries. They immediately commenced CPR ahead of the arrival, a short time later, of colleagues from the London Ambulance Service, who continued to treat the victim. He was taken by ambulance to a north London hospital, but was sadly pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
 

The victim’s next of kin have been informed, however we await formal identification at this time. A post mortem examination will be held in due course.
 

Detectives from Specialist Crime North have launched an investigation and are carrying out various lines of inquiry as they attempt to identify those responsible.

No arrests have been made at this time.

Detective Chief Inspector Mark Rogers said: 

"My team are working at pace to establish what has led to this tragic incident, and as we continue to carry out numerous inquiries to trace and speak to witnesses, as well as analysing CCTV footage, we are appealing to the public to help us.

"We understand the victim was chased and attacked by a group of suspects. Were you in the area at the time? Did you see anything suspicious? Any detail – no matter how small – could assist us with our investigation so please do come forward and speak to police. Information can also be passed on anonymously via Crimestoppers.”

Chief Superintendent Dan Knowles, who is in charge of policing in Brent, said:
 

“My thoughts, and those of all my officers, are with the family and friends of this young man who has very tragically lost his life far too soon. I know that this incident will raise serious concern and worry in the community, and want to assure the all those affected that our colleagues from the Specialist Crime Command are working tirelessly to find those responsible, and local officers are assisting them in every way possible.

"The public can help us in this endeavour by speaking to officers if they have any information which could be relevant to the investigation. There will be more officers in and around the area in the coming days to provide reassurance. Please do speak to them with any concerns you have or information you would like to pass on."
 

Anyone with information which could assist the investigation team is asked
to call the incident room on 0208 345 3715 or 101 - quoting CAD7764/24Sep. To remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555  111

Butt again refuses representations on Barham Park. Time for the Charity Commission to intervene?

 

 Thanks to Rucksack Traveller for this video taken a year ago LINK

 

The Barham Parks Trustees Committee meets again tomorrow (10am Brent Civic Centre) as a result of the Trusts's accounts being pulled from the last agenda because of a considerable number of errors. 

 

Francis Henry requested to speak at tomorrow's meeting but the request was refused by Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council and Chair of Trustees.

 

It is normal practice that representations can be made to local council committees on items that are on the Agenda of a particulat meeting. At the previous meeting Muhammed Butt refused representations (and indeed stopped Francis Henry from making them) on the plans for the future of the parks that were on the agenda. This time Butt refused despite the fact that the only item on the agenda is the accounts and Henry's submission deals  with serious shortcomings regarding them.

Surely it is time for the Charity Commission to look into compliance issues around the Trust. LINK

 

Henry wrote to the Council to express his diasppointment:

 

 

It is disappointing that once again Councillor Butt is refusing to listen to a local representative of local people who uses and cares about Barham Park.

 

It is clear that he wants to hide and not acknowledge that Barham Park is being neglected and mismanaged and faces ruin under his stewardship.

 

We will not allow this to happen.

 

I enclose a summary of the issues I want you to present to the Trustees and to be reproduced as a submission (in full )as part of the minutes of the meeting.

 

Regards

Francis Henry

 

 

 

Dear Councillor Butt and other Trustees

 

I am writing in my capacity as Chair of a recently formed Friends of Barham Park (FoBP). The President of FoBP is Allan Barham who is the great grandson of one of Titus Barham's cousins. His grandfather worked for Arthur Barham (brother of Titus Barham ) who was the Managing Director of United Dairies (later Unigate). in the late 1800s and early 1900s both Titus and Arthur lived in the buildings currently occupied by Friends of Barham Library and the other tenants. He is concerned about what his going on with the Titus Barham bequest and wishes that the memory of Titus and his contribution was better looked after.

 

In the short time since its creation FoBP has signed up 150 supporters. The number is growing every day. We also have the support of numerous local groups operating in the Sudbury and Wembley area.

 

I originally came to speak to the Barham Park Trust Meeting on 5 September following an invitation from the Council. That invitation did not give any restrictions on what issues I could speak on.

 

It has always been the practice for invited representatives of existing tenants to speak on any issue of concern on the Agenda. The minutes of previous meeting (Page 1 of the Agenda that was before you) make this absolutely clear.

 

I came  to speak on behalf of Friends of Barham Library (FOBL) - an active community organisation providing invaluable services to local people from our premises in Barham Park.

Despite of this you both interrupted my contribution and them prevented me from speaking. I came to raise concerns about the recommendations before you that will deprive Barham Community Library, run by FOBL, of our hard won space in Barham Park.

 

FOBL, and the tenants were neither informed or consulted about the proposals before the Meeting on 5 September. What are now described as "hypothetical" proposals require all tenants to be removed with no guarantee of return.

 

Officers failed to advise you that the proposals could not be implemented in the foreseeable future because has ACAVA has 6 years remaining on their Lease and FOBL has 8 years to go. There are no break clauses in favour of the Trusts and the tenants have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - i.e. no noisy or disruptive building work permitted. The £20,000 + cost of this consultancy work (apparently charged to the Trust) has been wasted. While the recommendations may be "hypothetical" the large sum of money spent is real and could have been used on much needed repairs instead.

 

There have been earlier consultancy "vision" exercises and condition surveys in the past 10 years. These also recommended pie in the sky ideas - a large pond with a viewing platform for example. This was never implemented for obvious reasons - it was a mad idea.

 

Recommendations to carry out essential repairs and maintenance to the plaster work and wooden features of the buildings and repair and upgrading of the crumbling paths and walls have never been carried. Instead of undertaking essential works the Trust under your stewardship has wasted around £40,000 on these type of pointless consultancy exercises.

 

Barham Park is neglected and faces ruin. Yet the bronze option which was meant to develop a repair and maintenance plan has been inexplicably dropped.

 

The excuse for this is the claim that the Trust is not generating enough income. This is partly because it is YOU who decided to implement a policy of rents based on social value and because officers have failed for years to collect the correct income that is due to the Trust. ACAVA was allowed to build up rent arrears equal to much more than their annual rent due. They were not charged interest on these arrears. Their rent review due in 2019 was overlooked - losing the Trust in excess of £5,000 in rent each year since then. (£20,000 lost income in the 4 years since). Who made the decision to forget or ignore the terms of their lease?

 

There are many more examples where correct income has not been charged or recoverable expenses have not been recovered. Officers do not bother to tell you and none of the Trustees bother to find out the truth.

 

Local people love Barham Park and are angry at the way Brent Council as Trustee and Managers of the Park allow it be neglected and run down. 

 

Those local people, with much greater local knowledge than either you or the other Trustees, are ignored or not allowed to speak at the Trust meetings.  

 

The Accounts presented to the Trustees are misleading and fundamentally wrong. They had to be pulled at the last moment on 5 September. The revised Accounts are still wrong as they do not reflect the reality and are completely misleading.

 

Where for example in those accounts or those for previous years does it show the Income (grants) received to undertake the work on the Barham Park Pond or the ongoing work on the QE II Silver Jubilee Garden and where is the expenditure shown and included. The total sums involved exceed £100,000 and yet the accounts do not show any of this financial activity. In both cases the Accounts should show 'restricted' income and the ongoing expenditure that the income is being used for.

 

As Paul Lorber has already pointed out to officers the 2022/23 revised Accounts being presented are wrong and misleading. The Trustees should NOT approve them and ask for an accountant with knowledge of Charity accounting & reporting to review the financial affairs of the Barham Park Trust and assist in the preparation of accounts that reflect the true position of the Income & Expenditure of the Trust for the year to 31 March 2023 and the Trusts financial position as at 31 March 2023.

 

There is a long list of failures to highlight in the way Barham Park has been mismanaged and money wasted. The Trustees are not being told the truth and you and the others are failing to ask the right questions.

 

If you either want to know the truth and have a genuine commitment to improve Barham Park and its building and recreation of local people as Titus Barham intended, then you have to start listening and engaging with people who know a great deal about Barham Park and whole heartedly care for its future.

 

Regards

 

Francis Henry

for Friends of Barham Park

representing the views of local people

 

Readers having been present at the last meeting or seen the video or media reports may be interested in how the Minutes record what happened.

 

 

That's entertainment! Muhammed Butt's second quarter Gifts and Hospitality valued at £420

 Second Quarter Hospitality and Gifts - Note nothing from funfairs!

Click bottom right to enlarge.

Some October local history to look forward to

Guest blog by local historian Philip Grant

 

The Opening Ceremony for the 1948 Olympic Games at Wembley Stadium.

 

Brent Culture Service always has a good selection of events for both adults and children in the Council’s local libraries. You can find out about them, and book your place (usually free!), on their Eventbrite website. I thought you might like to know about a few highlights from its programme for October 2023.

 

I must declare a personal interest in the first of them, as I’m presenting the illustrated talk on “Wembley’s 1948 Olympic Games”, at an Ealing Road Library coffee morning on Tuesday 3 October, from 11am to 12noon. I did write a short piece about it last July, when I was giving the talk at Wembley History Society to celebrate the 75^th anniversary of the Games. The October listing wasn’t available then, but you can reserve your free place at this talk now, and you will be very welcome if you are able to come along to it.

 

Poster for “Tracing Black Ancestry” by Paul Crooks.

 

The following day, Wednesday 4 October from 6.30 to 8pm, Paul Crooks will be sharing his experience of discovering his roots, and the history of the transatlantic slave trade, in “Tracing Black Ancestry”. This free event is at Willesden Green Library, and you can “click” here for more details and to reserve your place.

 

Willesden Green Library is also the location for “Home from Home: Exploring the legacies of British-Nigerians in the UK”, on Tuesday 24 October. There will be two 1-hour sessions, beginning at 12noon and 2.30pm, with story-telling and arts and crafts workshops for children and families, ages 7+. Again, this is a free event, but you need to reserve your spot. You can do that here for the 12noon to 1pm session, and here for the 2.30 to 3.30pm session.

 

“Mary Seacole”, reading her story to children in a library.

 

Another event during the October half-term week, suitable for children and families, is “The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole”, the 19^th century Jamaican nurse who lived the latter part of her life locally, and was buried in St Mary’s R.C. Cemetery at Kensal Green. These half-hour story-telling sessions, presented by the Florence Nightingale Museum, will take place at Kilburn Library. The date(s) and time(s) are not yet shown, but you can get further details and reserve places here.

 

A composite of Anti-Apartheid images.

 

On Tuesday 31 October, from 12noon to 1pm, there will be a lunchtime illustrated talk at Willesden Green Library on “Brent, London, and the struggle against Apartheid”. Long time Brent resident Suresh Kamath was Vice-Chair of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and chaired the organising committee of the two Mandela concerts at Wembley Stadium. I was privileged to hear him give this talk at a Wembley History Society meeting in January 2019, and wrote a piece for “Wembley Matters” ahead of it. If you have not heard Suresh speak about this important, and ultimately successful, struggle I can really recommend this talk. You can reserve your free place here.

 

 

It's not just Brent Libraries which offer history-based events, but the borough’s local history societies as well. Willesden Local History Society’s monthly meeting, at 7.30pm on Wednesday 18 October, has an illustrated talk on “Willesden’s Post-War Prefab Homes” (I must declare an interest again!). The meeting will be held in St. Mary’s Parish Church Hall, Neasden Lane, London NW10 2TS, and is free for the Society’s members. Visitors are also welcome, for a small charge.

 

Wembley History Society’s October meeting, on Friday 20 October at 7.30pm, is an illustrated talk, with some “finds”, by Dr Will Rathouse (Senior Community Archaeologist with the Thames Discovery Programme) on "The Archaeology of the Thames Foreshore". This meeting will take place at St Andrew’s Church Hall, Church Lane, Kingsbury, London NW9 8RZ. Again, visitors are very welcome to attend, for a contribution of £3 towards expenses of the meeting.

Philip Grant.

Appreciating Ken Livingstone and his contribution to Brent and London

 

 

 

 I tweeted the above this afternoon when I saw the image on the Brent and Kilburn Times website and the accompanying story was little better. The quote was from a short-term Liberal Democrat councillor who was later disowned by her own party. She made no impact on Brent politics, certainly not on national politics and did little for the Brent people. To choose her to comment on someone who for all his faults did make one hell of an impact is beyond belief. To use the quote as a headline just leaves me speechless.

 

As someone who spent a considerable amount of time caring for a parent with dementia I would like to express my personal sympathy, support, solidarity and respect to Ken Livingstone and his family.

The story https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/23801998.ex-london-mayor-ken-livingstone-suffering-alzheimers/ does not even mention his period as an MP for Brent East or his leadership of the GLC where he became, from his office across the river from Parliament, a highly effective thorn in the flesh of Margaret Thatcher with his criticism of her politics and a powerful banner campaign.

It was a sign of his efefctiveness that the Tory Government moved to abolish the GLC and the Inner London Education Authority.

Ken pioneered policies that tackled racism, sexism and homophobia and funded grassroots groups at the forefront of those issues.  I was one of a group of teachers, called All London Teachers and Racism (ALTARF) that won a  GLC grant that enabled us to employ a full-time worker to spearhead our work on an anti-racist curriculum, producing several books and even a BBC Open Door programme. It is work, along with that of other funded groups,  that has stood the test of time.

 

To give a fuller picture I reproduce below, with permission, an article from Jewish Voice for Labour. First published on their websute HERE. 

 

 

On Ken Livingstone

We publish here a tribute by Graham Bash to Ken Livingstone, who has sadly been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. 

Graham recalls Ken’s achievements as leader of the Greater London Council until its abolition by Margaret Thatcher in 1986 and as Mayor of London 2000-2008; his immense talent as an intuitive practical politician; his uncompromising anti-racism;  his ability to cut across political divisions and build alliances. Graham notes Ken’s weaknesses, which at times infuriated left-wing friends almost as much as his successes enraged adversaries on the right. He also records the shameful behaviour of many erstwhile allies who failed to show Ken the solidarity he deserved when facing totally unfounded allegations of antisemitism.

 

 

 

by Graham Bash

Breaking the mould of British politics

The news that Ken Livingstone has Alzheimer’s disease and is now in retirement is very sad and we in JVL send him our very best wishes.

It is all too easy to forget the enormity of the achievements of the Greater London Council of which he was leader in the 1980s. It broke the mould of British politics, gave hope to millions of the most disadvantaged people in London and showed that a determined socialist administration could take on the Tories and win mass popular support.

And this was achieved against Thatcher’s vicious Tory government -and with a GLC Labour Group that had nowhere near a left wing majority. That was testimony to Ken’s greatest strengths – his immense talent as an intuitive practical politician and his ability to cut across political divisions and build alliances.

His other great achievement as leader of the GLC was his commitment to equalities and the liberation of the oppressed – to Black people, women, Irish, lesbians and gays. He played a pivotal role on the issue of Ireland, tirelessly fighting for peace and building links with Sinn Fein.

He helped to introduce a new vocabulary into our political discourse. As he was later to write: “It was only with the 1981 GLC administration that they [equalities] finally took their rightful place alongside and integrated with the traditional agenda of the left”.

And those of us old enough to remember will recall those wonderful banners on County Hall facing the Houses of Parliament, such as “74% of Londoners Oppose GLC Abolition: LONDON’S NOT FOR TURNING”.

Ken had his political weaknesses. He was a wonderful practical politician – but he lacked that ideological tempering that would have avoided the worst mistakes of his volte face on rate-capping, for example, and ended up in an alliance on this critical issue against the left.

But there was a second and third coming of Ken – as a left wing Labour MP for Brent East (1987-2001) and as Mayor of London. As Mayor, he again showed his political weakness when he urged RMT members to cross a picket line in a London Underground dispute, a move which angered many trade union and party activists. Yet also as Mayor, he had the considerable achievement of introducing the Congestion Charge – in the teeth of opposition which involved fighting a court action.

The congestion charge raised revenue that was used to increase the numbers of buses, their routes and timing. That shifted transport provision towards low-income and no income people, who proportionately rely more on buses than trains and tubes. Other transport improvements were improving cycle routes and giving interest-free loans to buy bikes – even though he didn’t know how to ride a bike himself!

He was perhaps the greatest anti-racist leader the Labour Party has ever produced. So the allegations of antisemitism were in my opinion an obscenity. His crime was telling the truth about the Haavara Agreement in the 1930s – in which some Zionist organisations played a role in breaking the anti-Hitler trade boycott that threatened to bring the new Nazi regime to its knees.

Yes, his formulations were clumsy and his intervention was tactically unhelpful. But his essential point was true, as can be seen from the book by the Zionist, Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement.

Ken was let down by the Labour Party and by many of his comrades on the left who forgot the simple word – “solidarity”. It is a shame we must not forget.

We wish Ken well in what we hope will be many years of retirement.

Mike Cushman adds:

As a Londoner, I celebrate how Ken changed the city I live for the better in many more ways than those already mentioned in Graham’s appreciation. These are just three

1.    The transformation of the South Banks (in cooperation with much missed Tony Banks) from an arts centre for an elite who were already immersed in prestigious culture to an arts and social space enjoyed by a vast swathe of Londoners exhibiting artistic endeavours reflective of many experiences. This turned spaces, cold and empty outside performance times, into somewhere warm, lively and busy

2.    The development of a bike hire scheme that was only due to be completed after he left office and were misnamed Boris Bikes

3.    The Popular Planning Unit which transformed how local authorities could get involved in economic development with the engagement of local communities and which supported many initiatives with environmental aspects thirty years before they became common concerns

And of course the Olympics which only came to London because of his hard graft and which he was spitefully excluded from in 2012

Madeleine Kingston adds:

I worked with Ken for several years when he was Mayor of London. I was a middle aged woman and he was always lovely to work with, extremely egalitarian, never patronising and always generous, courteous and respectful. He always related to me as a comrade and a friend.

 

The Barham Park Trust – Brent’s “answer” to my two important questions.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

On 21 September, Martin published an open email I’d sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, seeking replies to two important questions I’d asked in an open letter of 4 September. My email said: ‘These two questions are still fundamental ones, which need to be answered, and the answers considered, before the Trust, or Brent Council, spend any more money on the Strategic Property Review.’

 

 

On 22 September, I received the following reply from Kim Wright, and as I have publicised my questions, I think it only fair that you should be able to read her reply. It is set out in full below:-

 

 

Dear Mr Grant,

 

Thank you for your email. I apologise that your previous correspondence has not been responded to.

 

You make reference to the proposal to redevelop the buildings at Barham Park, and ask two specific questions in relation to that. 

 

At this stage the proposal is hypothetical, intending only to show what might be possible and/or necessary in order to upgrade the buildings and safeguard their future over the longer term. There is nothing definitive or decided at this stage so there is no actual development against which to ask those questions.

 

As you are aware, the buildings are in poor condition and need significant investment so, at the Trust meeting on the 5th September, it was simply resolved that officers should seek to further develop these plans to establish whether an improvement project is even viable. They are some way off completing that work, given that decision was only made a couple of weeks ago.

 

It was further resolved that a more detailed business case, which will of course take into account any relevant legal and planning obligations, should be brought to a future meeting for consideration. Any decision at that point will be fully informed by advice on lawfulness and alignment with the Local Plan/planning policies.

 

Next week’s meeting will not consider this matter, not least because it is too soon. The meeting is convened simply to consider the Trust’s accounts.

 

I hope this is helpful background and I thank you for your ongoing interest in Barham Park.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Kim Wright
Chief Executive
Brent Council

The Barham Park Trust – two important questions that still need answers!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

On 4 September, ahead of the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting the following day, Martin published (with my permission) a copy of an Open Letter I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and the members of the Committee. I will ask Martin to attach the letter again, below.

 

Ground floor plan for the “Silver”, preferred option, redevelopment of the Barham Park buildings.

 

The Trust had already spent £25,000 of Brent Council money on a feasibility study, described as a Strategic Property Review. This was basically a plan to redevelop the Barham Park buildings, estimated to cost £3.2m, to generate more income for the Trust. It would do this by creating offices (in blue), shops (pink), a café (orange, where the present Barham Community Library is located) and two community spaces (light green, but which would be expected to pay commercial rents). The first floor plan showed all commercial business uses.

 

My Open Letter had raised two fundamental questions, which Council Officers and Trust Committee members did not appear to have asked themselves. If the answer to either of those questions was “No”, then any expenditure on this project (which the Trust still claims is ‘hypothetical’) would be a waste of money, because it could never happen.

 

Although Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the Chair of the Trust Committee, had acknowledged receipt of my Open Letter, I’ve received no answer to the questions, and there is no evidence that they have even been considered. With another meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee scheduled for Tuesday 26 September, I sent this email to Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, this morning (Thursday 21 September):-

 

‘Barham Park Trust Committee on 26 September - Fundamental Questions to which answers are still needed

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Ms Wright,

 

I am addressing this email to you, as you are the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Brent, which is the Sole Trustee of the Barham Park Trust.

 

I'm attaching again a copy of an open letter which I sent to you, and the members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, on 4 September. I realise that time was very short to answer the two questions my letter raised, before the Trust Committee meeting on 5 September, and they were not mentioned or answered at that meeting. ( And they have not been answered since then.)

 

These two questions are still fundamental ones, which need to be answered, and the answers considered, before the Trust, or Brent Council, spend any more money on the Strategic Property Review. 

 

1. Would it be lawful for the Trust to carry out the proposed redevelopment? 

 

2. Would the proposed redevelopment comply with Brent’s Local Plan? 

 

The 5 September meeting resolved to allow the Director for Environment and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to spend more money, without considering these key points. If the answer to either, or both, of these questions is "No", spending more money on this "hypothetical" project would be a reckless waste of Council and/or Barham Park Trust funds.

 

These two questions need urgent consideration, and I would urge you to arrange for the relevant Council Officers to consider them, honestly, and present reports, and any recommendations, on them to the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on 26 September. 2023.

 

I realise that these questions are not on the agenda for the meeting, but I am sure you can arrange with the Head of Executive and Member Services (I'm afraid that I don't know who she is now) to include them under item 7, Any Other Urgent Business. The urgency is to avoid the risk of unnecessary and wasted expenditure.

 

I would hope that the Committee Reports on these two questions can be published, with the agenda on the Council's website, by Monday afternoon, 25 September. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’