LETTER: Hunger strikers are being subjected to cruel injustice - at least Barry Gardiner has been willing to speak out.

 

The Hunger Strikers

Dear Editor, 

With the ongoing situation of dangerous inaction, and criminal neglect from the British government in response to the hunger strike, it was refreshing to see Heba Muraisi's MP, Barry Gardiner, speak up for his constituent Heba, in the Houses of Parliament on 7th January 2026.

Heba Muraisi has been on hunger strike since 3 November 2025. Today, she has been on hunger strike for a staggering 73 days, which raises extremely grave and immediate concerns for her life, concerns of the utmost seriousness. She was among the first to go on hunger strike. She has vowed to continue with her hunger strike, and hasn't paused it, even temporarily. This means that, out of the group, she has been on hunger strike for the longest duration. She is at risk of dying suddenly at any given moment. After her prolonged hunger strike, she is at high risk of irreversible physical effects, such as organ failure, neurological damage, hearing loss and sight loss. The UN has issued serious warnings about the hunger strike, confirming what's already known: that the Prisoners for Palestine on hunger strike are at risk of immediate, serious and irreversible physical effects, and sudden death. 

Qesser Zuhrah paused her hunger strike, after severe health complications and hospitalisation, as did Amu Gib, who was also hospitalised, with the risk of organ failure and other acute complications. Umer Khalid, who has muscular dystrophy, paused his hunger strike due to life-threatening effects, but recently restarted his hunger strike, leading to renewed fears for his life and health. Lewie Chiaramello has type 1 diabetes, and is on hunger strike on alternate days, which still carries a very real risk of death. Even when a hunger strike is stopped, the refeeding process can be deadly, if not approached correctly with medical supervision. This means the prisoners who paused their hunger strikes are still not out of the danger zone.

It's been the biggest coordinated hunger strike in prison since 1981. Bobby Sands died after 66 days of hunger strike, in Northern Ireland's Maze Prison, and nine other deaths followed. 

Heba Muraisi began her hunger strike after being moved from HMP Bronzefield, to New Hall Prison in Wakefield, Northern England, without justification or explanation. She is hundreds of miles away from her constituency of Brent, her family and support system. As Barry Gardiner stated in Parliament, Heba's disabled mother can't make the journey to visit her.

Now New Hall has agreed to transfer Heba back to HMP Bronzefield, but the decision remains with Bronzefield as to whether they will accept her transfer. This has led to further, unnecessary delays, as Heba is fighting for her life with every hour that passes, and time is of the essence.

Along with the other individuals known as the Filton24, Heba's demands are as follows:

Immediate bail 

End to all Censorship of Communications in Prison  

Right to a Fair Trial, including disclosure of relevant documents that have so far been kept hidden 

Deproscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation  

Shut Elbit Systems down and all its subsidiaries in the UK 

So far, Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy, has refused to meet with any of the hunger strikers' family members or legal representatives, despite widespread calls that he does so. Shockingly, he's chosen to ignore the hunger strike. He has failed in his duty of care to these prisoners of conscience, and his actions have been nothing short of wreckless, showing arrogant disregard for the lives of the hunger strikers. 

The deterioration of Heba's health, and that of the others currently on hunger strike - Kamran Ahmed, Teuta Hoxha, Lewie Chiaramello, and Umer Khalid, who recently restarted his hunger strike after a brief pause - was fully preventable, had David Lammy and Keir Starmer intervened early on.

Their deaths now seem imminent. But the circumstances leading to their continued hunger strike could have been addressed by the British government, whose actions, or rather inaction, indicate that they would prefer these brave activists to die. These prisoners of conscience have not been convicted of anything. Their loved ones and supporters wake with dread every day, scared that they'll hear the bad news they have died. 

Going on hunger strike must be regarded as the very last resort of prisoners of conscience, whose rights have been denied repeatedly. They have exhausted every avenue available to them, and been met only with discrimination and unlawful treatment. By denying them their fundamental human rights and subjecting them to such cruel injustice, the actions of the British government are tantamount to inflicting murder upon them. The government has had ample opportunity to act, and must be held to account. They are answerable to the public, and their response to this emergency is not simply optional, but a requirement of their roles. 

The hunger strikers ask only for their basic human rights and the government must be compelled to grant them, as the government itself is shamefully breaking the law with regard to these young people, whose lives are hanging by a thread. In a broader sense, the active complicity and participation of the British state in the genocide of Palestinians, is the underlying cause of the avoidable tragedy unfolding with the hunger strikers in UK prisons. 

Barry Gardiner has shown himself to be one of the few MPs of conscience who's willing to speak up. We call on him to continue to exert pressure on Keir Starmer and David Lammy, to grant the hunger strikers immediate bail and their other legitimate demands, and uphold their human rights, and the rule of law. David Lammy must meet with the hunger strikers' family members and legal representatives. We request in the strongest terms that Barry Gardiner uses his influence as an MP to raise the concerns that the hunger strikers are at immediate risk of death, and immediate action must be taken by the UK Government to prevent their deaths.

We also call on all people of conscience to write to their local MPs, even if they've already done so, to highlight the urgent need to take action to save the lives of the hunger strikers, before it's too late.

Saba Chaudry

(Address supplied)

Sarah Wooley (BAFU) to speak at Brent Tades Council AGM - Januay 21st 7pm online

 

BREAKING: Woodfield Special school strikes paused while negotiations take place

 The NEU has paused the long-running strikes at Woodfield Special School in Kingsbury as the dispute goes to ACAS. The strike pause is in exchange for the academy trust  pausing the staffing restructure while negotiations take  place.

Greens take up key scrutiny roles on Brent Council as new appointments announced ahead of tonight's Council EGM

The full list of Cabinet and Committee changes has been published ahead of tonight's Extraordinary General Meeting of Brent Full Council.  The changes follow the creation of a Green Group when 5 former Labour councillors made the positive choice to transfer their allegience to the Green Party.

Cllr Ishma Moeen (Wembey Hill ward) will succeed Cllr Harbi Farah in the revised portfolio of Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion. Cllr Moeen has wide outside interests in addition to her councillor responsibilities:

 

The full changes are appended but it is  worth noting that Cllr Nerva is replaced by Cllr Farah on the General Purposes Committee and that Cllr Dixon comes off Planning. Cllr Dixon becomes Chief Whip succeeding Cllr Ahmadi Moghaddam who has joined the Greens.

The need for effective scrutiny and full transparency has long been a theme of the Green Party in Brent Cllr Mitchell, leader of the Green Group) is on the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Ethapemi on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Gbajumo joins the Audit and Standards Committee and Advisory Committee.

Cllr Bajwa, currently revelling in the role of Deputy Mayor, comes off the Licensing Committee and is replaced by Cllr Ethapemi.

Greens now take over the role of second opposition party from the Lib Dems.

The appointments come on the eve of what I understand is a return visit of the Campaign Improvement Board that made the Labour selections for May 2026. 

 

Proposed Stopping-up Order near Olympic Steps - Does Brent Council really want to embarrass itself in Court?

Guest Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The meeting where submission of the Stopping-up Order application was approved.
(Note the date!)

 

In a guest post on 1 January I asked: Why does Brent want to Stop-up “highway” near the Olympic Steps? I have had a couple of email exchanges with Council Officers about this matter since then, the full texts of which are included as “FOR INFORMATION” comments under that article (along with several comments from WM readers).

 

In the latest response, from a mid-ranking Council Officer on 8 January, it was suggested that if I had wanted to challenge the application for Brent’s proposed Stopping-up Order, I should have sought a Judicial Review of a decision made by Brent’s General Purposes Committee nearly four years ago! That was nonsense – any member of the public has the right to be heard when the application is actually made to the Magistrates’ Court.

 

The hearing is scheduled for 2pm on Thursday 22 January. But as I’m convinced that even making the application is a mistake, and unnecessary (and I can be very persistent when I feel strongly about something), I have tried one final attempt to make Brent Council see sense. As I had failed to convince them with words, I decided to use pictures as well. This is the text of the email that I sent on the morning of Monday 12 January to Brent’s Public Realm Director, Chief Executive and Director of Law (and I have asked Martin to include the “pictures” attachment below this post):

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Mr Whyte, Ms Wright and Ms Henry,

 

I have tried, in my emails of 2 and 8 January, to persuade Council Officers in words why Brent Council need not, and should not, pursue this Section 116 Highways Act Stopping-up Order application. 

 

I realise that it must be frustrating when an ordinary resident seeks to tell Officers that they are "going down the wrong road", but when I can see that the present course is wrong, and that there is a right way, I feel I have a civic duty to draw this to your attention. 

 

If my words cannot persuade you, I hope that my pictures will, so please look at the attached document. It shows that the areas of highway, which the proposed Order seeks to remove the legal right for pedestrians and vehicles to cross over, are in everyday use by the people of our borough and visitors to it.

 

Does Brent Council really want to embarrass itself in Court, by claiming that these areas of highway are unnecessary?

 

I realise that Brent Council, and Quintain Limited, wish to resolve an outstanding problem over these areas of land as "adopted public highway", and Highways Act 1980 does provide the right way to do that. It is Section 256, not Section 116:

 

 

 

[From Highways Act 1980 on www.legislation.gov.uk ]

 

 

I sincerely hope that reason and good sense can now prevail, and that the Council will withdraw its Stopping-up application from the Willesden Magistrates' Court list for Thursday 22 January. I look forward to receiving your reply, in good time before that date. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

LETTER: When is 9.9% NOT 9.9%? Brent's core funding increase claim challenged.

 

Dear Editor,

On 21 December Wembley Matters posted a story based on Labour spin.

Stating that Brent is to get an increase of 9.9% in “core funding”.

Sadly this is not true.

The Labour Government has juggled Grants and other Government funding and came up with a figure for Brent’s ‘core spending power’.

The 9,9% assumes that the Council imposes the full 5% Council Tax rise. So the 9.9% core spending increase includes the extra local people will need to pay as part of the latest Council Tax rise and at a briefing with Finance Officers we were told that the Council Tax rise represent about a 3rd of this 9.9%. So only 6.6% - and NO Labour did not simply invert the numbers. The Labour Deputy Leader was simply not telling the truth.

The situation is even worse than this. 3 months ago we were told the overspend this year stands at £9 million. Now the Cabinet is being told on Monday the most up to date overspend is £12.5 million. An increase of £3.5 million! 

And the reason for the £3.5 million is mostly in social care - care packages more expensive because providers are passing on the higher costs of energy and staffing. And why is cost employees going up? - because Labour hiked up employers National Insurance. So Local Government is being hit the same way as the hospitality sector and any other service reliant on people to provide it.

Because these extra costs are recurring year on year the so called 9.9% (actually only 6.6%) has already been wiped out.

So the Brent Labour claims that things would get better under a Labour Government are pure fiction. 

The Lead Member for Finance is clearly completely out of her depth. Tried to mislead us on the true figures, has no control of the Brent Budget and should  resign or be sacked. 


All the best,

  
Paul Lorber (Leader of Brent Council Liberal Democrat Group)
 

London pensioners launch mass petition defence of their Freedom Pass including proposal to limit it to buses only

 

London Councils is to conduct a formal review of the provisions of the Freedom Pass LINK, the free travel pass for London Pensions that gives free transport on buses, the tube and railway networks withing the GLA boundary.

They cite an expected 12% rise in the cost to London councils in 2026-7 and a total expenditure of £372m.  One possibility is reducing the provisions to buses only.

The proposal has produced a speedy petition response (LINK TO SIGN) currently with more than 44,000 signatories.

THE PETITION 

The Issue

 

I am 71 years old, and my only income is the state pension. This means my budget is tight, and every penny counts. The Freedom Pass, as the name suggests, grants me something invaluable—freedom. This pass allows me to access not just buses, but also London's tube and overground networks. These services enable me to participate fully in the community, visiting friends, attending hospital appointments, and engaging in social activities that keep me vibrant and connected to the world.

Recent proposals to limit the Freedom Pass to buses only would be a significant blow, not just to my independence, but to thousands of pensioners and individuals reliant on this essential pass. Restricting access to trains and the tube would confine many of us to our homes, making London's vast and culturally diverse landscape inaccessible. The social isolation that many seniors already battle could deepen, and life's simple joys and necessities could become major logistical challenges, affecting our mental and physical well-being.

The Freedom Pass is a cherished entitlement for senior citizens across the city, and any move to curtail its scope jeopardizes the quality of life for those who have contributed so much to society throughout their lives. London's transport system is the lifeline for older adults, offering the independence and encouragement to stay physically active, mentally engaged, and socially involved.

Let's remember that inclusivity in mobility is a hallmark of a compassionate society. The City of London has a reputation for valuing its residents, and this means ensuring everyone, regardless of age, has unrestrained access to its robust public transportation network.

Instead of cutting back on Freedom Pass access, there should be efforts to strengthen it, ensuring the elderly remain integrated into the urban fabric. Maintain the inclusivity and respect the dignity of our senior citizens by safeguarding their ability to travel freely across the capital.

Please sign this petition to urge the local government to halt any attempts to restrict the Freedom Pass to buses alone, preserving the freedom and dignity of London’s seniors.

Lawyer Monthly LINK has pubished an interesting detailed review of the statutory and legal risk of the proposal. Here is a key extract:

The potential for civil unrest or political backlash creates a reputational risk for council leaders that extends beyond simple accounting.

Reducing mobility for the elderly has documented second-order effects on public health, which may eventually increase the burden on the National Health Service.

Local government insurers often look at social stability as a metric for risk assessment.

A sudden removal of transport rights could lead to increased social isolation, potentially triggering higher claims in social care sectors that the boroughs are also responsible for funding.

The debate has already spilled into the public sphere, highlighted by high-profile social media disputes involving media figures and authors.

These public-facing conflicts serve as a bellwether for the level of scrutiny any legislative change will receive from the broader electorate.

Strategic irony lies in the fact that the more successful the Freedom Pass is in encouraging travel, the more it threatens the solvency of the councils providing it.

This "success trap" requires a fundamental rethink of how concessionary travel is valued in a modern urban economy.

Institutional investors in London’s infrastructure are watching these developments closely.

Any sign of a breakdown in the cooperation between the Mayor of London and the boroughs could signal broader instability in how the capital manages its essential public services.

 

Together Against the Far Right - campaign building meeting January 28th 7pm Chalkhill Community Centre