Philip Grant has written to Cllr Muhammed Butt drawing his attention to the letter published in last week's Kilburn Times (see below) .
Philip said, 'You
are welcome to reply to it, either to the newspaper or personally to
me, if you feel that I have misrepresented anything. I look forward to
hearing from you.'
Butt’s statement on the
Rosemarie Clarke case, which Philip’s letter in the newspaper was responding
to, was originally issued privately, just to Brent's councillors in their
weekly "Members' Information Bulletin", claiming to set out the facts
of the case, allegedly in the light of 'untruths' and 'misrepresentation of the
judgement' by unnamed persons. Those people only had the chance of a
"right of reply" after his statement was leaked to "Wembley
Matters".
Readers will remember that there was a broad-based campaign opposing the Barratt Home development on the banks of the Welsh Harp Reservoir at West Hendon. Mainly low-rise social housing was to be replaced by luxury private tower blocks close to a nature reserve and SSSI. LINK
Unfortunately the campaign did not succeed and Barnet Council went ahead with the scheme. West Hendon Estate residents through their Our West Hendon campaign are fighting what they see as social cleansing of a community and working with Sweets Way residents to challenge Barnet Council Their passion can be seen in this video taken at a Barnet Council Meeting on July 28th when they presented their petitions:
Walking the Kingsbury side of the Welsh Harp on Sunday it became clear what an intrusive eyesore these blocks will be. Sold on the basis of the wonderful green view of the Kingsbury bank that the new residents will see, on our side we will see tower blocks the tallest of which is 24 storeys.
The Minutes of the last Joint Welsh Harp Consultative Committee highlight some of the issues that are emerging during the building works for resdients and for the Nature Reserve.
Looking across from the Kingsbury side to West Hendon, the nature reserve is on the stretch of water in between
Extract from Minutes:
It It was noted that the outcome of the
public enquiry regarding the Compulsory Purchase of the West Hendon Estate was
due shortly and further information would be circulated to all members with the
minutes of the current meeting.
·
A short written update was provided by Terry Garner (Principle Planner, LB
Barnet) regarding the position of SSSI Warden. It was commented that this
information had been shared at the last meeting of the committee. The London
Wildlife Trust (LWT) would be hosting the position and the queries regarding
whether any charge would be made by Barratt London for the provision of office
space remained outstanding. Dianne Murphy (Chair, LWT Barnet) advised that the
job description for the position was due to be signed off imminently; the post
would be advertised in the coming weeks with interviews being held in September
2015. It was anticipated that the Warden would be in position in time for the
next committee meeting in November.
·
Concerns were raised regarding the level of noise from the development and the
impact on the birdlife of the Welsh Harp. The committee agreed with the view
that the planned measures to inhibit noise were ineffective. It was further
noted that the contractors were not complying with the restrictions on working
hours as stipulated in the conditions of the planning permission. Roy Beddard
(Welsh Harp Conservation Group (WHCG)) noted that there had been no discernible
impact on bird populations as recorded by the monthly monitoring surveys
conducted by the WHCG. It was agreed that the results of these surveys could be
circulated to the committee and the Chair agreed to explore this issue and
provide an update to the committee prior to the next meeting.
·
Clive Cohen (LWT) raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on
water quality and suggested that officers explore funding opportunities to
enable regular monitoring to be conducted. A member highlighted that the
Environment Agency (EA) did undertake monitoring of water quality. The Chair
agreed to seek comment on this matter from the relevant officers.
·
The committee reviewed the written update from Nathan Smith (Barratt London)
regarding the use of prohibited roads by contractors. Members of the committee
reported that the issue was ongoing. The Chair encouraged members of the
committee to report any incidents. It was noted that it was not always
practical to take down the necessary details to enable accurate reports to be made.
Possible solutions were discussed by the committee including the installation
of cameras by Barratt London and the continued use of banksmen as it was
possible that this acted as a deterrent. It was agreed that the continuation of
this problem would be raised by the Chair with the planning officers in Barnet
and Barratt Homes. Representatives from Barratt Homes would be asked to attend
committee meetings in the future.
·
Councillor Langleben raised the issue of the impact of the Brent Cross
Regeneration works on the Brent River Stream. The Chair undertook to write to
Barnet Planning for an update to be provided at the next meeting.
"I
am the principal of a secular, non-denominational school that has a large
majority of Muslim students. This does not make the school a Muslim school
where segregation of gender should be pursued."
With Crest Academy due to switch to mixed aged classes in September the principal, Mohsen Ojja, has taken to the pages of the Times Education Supplement LINK to justify the change. Some parents had protested at this decision and organised an on-line petition against it when it was annonunced in July. LINK . However they do not appear to have gathered much support over the school summer holiday. 219 people had signed the petition bu July 10th and the total stands at 227 today. LINK This is part ofwhat Mohsen Ojja wrote in TES last week:
Interestingly, whereas
students and staff have been overwhelmingly supportive of the change to a
co-educational model, parents have needed more reassurance and support. Many
recognise that the move will help to ensure that our teaching and learning is
of better quality and will provide a better education as a result. Others fully
accept the importance of boys and girls learning and socialising together, so
that they are properly prepared and have confidence when they leave us – be
that for university, for work, or further training.
But there are some who
feel the change is not what they signed up to: single-sex
education. The onus is, of course, on us to work with the
parents who have reservations about a co-educational model, and to be open and
transparent about what the changes mean in practice, and how we transition to
this new system.
I am proud to say that
after a successful induction process, where we planned every aspect of the
transition, the feedback from students and staff has been outstanding. And in a
couple of weeks’ time, induction days in September will see us revisit our
vision and values and start to work together.
With these measures in
place, I am confident that we will be able to win over the vast majority of
parents, and all the more so as the impact starts to flow through our results
and enhances our students’ life chances.
For me, the status quo
was simply not sustainable. Running two schools in parallel, split by gender,
was tantamount to unhealthy segregation. The move to a single, multi-faith,
proudly diverse school is the first important step to integration. Moreover, I
am the principal of a secular, non-denominational school that has a large
majority of Muslim students. This does not make the school a Muslim school
where segregation of gender should be pursued. I have had to remind many
parents that, in Islam, segregation of gender in education is not essential.
Indeed, the large majority of schools in the Muslim world operate a
co-educational model.
The most challenging part
of this integration process is communicating to some parents that although
parental choice plays an important part in children’s education, in isolation
it does not always result in genuine educational value. In future, everything
we do will be defined by three pillars: the improvement of student outcomes;
the improvement of teaching and learning; and preparing our students to be
successful in their lives beyond school and university.
Critics of the concept of
British values complain that it is too amorphous and lacking in precision. It
defies a tick-box approach, and is undoubtedly not something that the
consultants can rack up billing-hours for (though I am sure they will try).
Ultimately, the concept of British values is about a set of positive behaviours
that celebrate the cultural richness of this country. With our structural
changes in place we can now start living and breathing those behaviours at the
Crest Academy. We will then, hand on heart, be able to say that we are
educating our young people to the very best of our ability, in the broadest
sense.
The first Allotment Fair at Birchen Grove Allotments, Kingsbury went off well today with many members of the public touring the site and chatting to the gardeners about their produce. Many enjoyed sampling my mulberries.
There were not that many entries for the competition and it wasn't taken as seriously as on some allotments where there is intense rivalry and accusations of skulduggery. This was a relaxed affair with tongues firmly in cheeks for most of the time and plenty of humour.
The only controversey reported by Cllr Roxanne Mashari, one of the judges, was whether you could measure around the bend of a runner bean to establish its length or just measure a straight line from top to tail. I can't remember what the ruling was but modesty prevents me from telling you the winner!
As voting begins for the Labour leadership the Burnham Campaign has sent Brent Labour Party voters this message from Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council. Note that Muhammed appears to have made a mistake in the spelling of his own name.
In the next few days, you should be receiving your ballot
papers for the Labour Party leadership contest. I wanted to write to you to
explain why I absolutely believe that Andy Burnham is the right choice.
This election is now a contest between two big visions for
the future of our Party and our country.
I've worked closely with Andy and we know he has what it
takes to lead our Party; someone who is Labour through and through, who can
unite us and who can win back the support that we’ve lost.
Andy’s vision is one that our movement can believe in. His
manifesto offers credible economic alternative based on a high-wage,
high-skilled economy. An economy that drives growth through a new industrial
strategy, where unions are partners, not demonised by government. A truly
comprehensive education system with opportunity for every child that isn't
determined by the postcode of the bed they are born in. An ambitious
house-building programme to ensure that everyone has an affordable home to own
or rent. And a national health and care service that is there for you from
cradle to grave, with social care full integrated into the NHS.
This is a vision built on true Labour values. It can win in
2020 and deliver the Labour Government that our country so desperately needs.
Repeated polls have shown that Andy is the only candidate who Labour voters and
the general public will get behind.
As a council leader, I have seen first-hand what five years
of Tory policies have done to the capital - we can’t go on opening more food
banks than schools. We need a Leader who can take the Tories to task, fight for
Labour values and deliver a Labour victory. That leader is Andy. So let’s unite
together, move forward and move our focus to beating our real opponents: the
Tories.
Will you say you’re with Andy and be part of the change?
We were crossing our fingers down at Birchen Grove Allotment near the Welsh Harp this afternoon - not over the weather for tomorrow's Allotment Fair (Noon to 3pm) but because we recognised that the warm, damp weather is ideal for late blight which affects potatoes and tomatoes.
In previous years we have left our healthy looking spuds and tomatoes late afternoon and found the lot brown and withered the next day on our return. The blight goes through the allotment like a tsunami with only the greenhouse tomatoes surviving. Even then they often eventually succumb.
On a positive note the rain has brought the runner beans on beautifully and courgettes should do well.
So fingers crossed that all will be well tomorrow and we can celebrate National Allotments Week in optimistic mood and maybe persuade some people to start growing their own.
Please do come along. There will be music, vegetable class displays, light refreshments, tea cakes and biscuits for sale, insect and bird homes for sale and to make and a chance to have a look around this pretty and busy allotment site.
Bring a container if you fancy doing some blackberrying between the allotment and the Greenhouse Garden Centre or over on the Welsh Harp. I sampled some this afternoon and they are beautifully juicy after the rain.
PS I wonder how Jeremy Corbyn's allotment is doing while he is otherwise engaged?
The Birchen Grove Allotment has a fascinating history. The land was set aside for a Lawn Cemetery and a Shelter and Chapel built but was never used. The land is still consecrated:
This popped up on my Facebook page and I thought it was worth sharing. I hope Tariq won't mind me posting it here.
THE CORBYN FACTOR As Stalin discovered early on in his political
career the last thing he needed was inner-party democracy. It appears
that the bulk of the PLP, virtually every ghastly pundit from the Tory
idol, Ganesh in the FT, to Pollyfiller Toynbee in The Guardian,
Murdoch's minions, all with with a sprinkling of bland Runciman sauce
and even worse ingredients are horrified by this experiment in party
democracy. It works so well in the US primary system and the French
Socialists used it to elbow aside candidates marginally more left than
Sarkozy. The operative word is marginally. So why not England. This is
not so much the Mediterranean effect, but the Scottish one. England's
youth are repeating the Scottish experience albeit within the framework
of the LP. Would it have happened had JC not stood? Abandon the thought.
The commentariat trying to boost the creepy Cooper is comical beyond
belief. Blair's ghoulish appearances have been helpful. The best
thing possible if/when JC wins would be a mass desertion of Labour-Libs
and Lab-Tories to their real homes. A single party that unites the
Extreme Centre is in their best interests. What would speed the process
is further democratisation by restoring the rights that the Blairites
confiscated from CLPs. They should be allowed to choose their own
candidates and not have them removed or imposed by the NEC. Once this is
in place then they can elect the Shadow Cabinet or whatever. Once this
is implemented the Labour-Tories will leave or split. They're unlikely
to do the decent thing UKIP-style and force by-elections because they'll
be scared of losing though not all will. So if they think that the
programme of measures outlined by the JC Left are too ultra, why not let
the electorate decide in a mini-election? If JC loses which I hope
he doesn't then the choice depends on our side. A continuing campaign on
these issues is fine but does not offer a medium term solution. For who
will represent these forces in parliament. JC and the dozen or so MPs
who really support him? Of course but that is not enough. Try and win
next time? But the Blairites and Brownites (b&b's) are bound to end
the democratic experiment . I think this excellent campaign has shown
the Labour Left the direction they should be taking with the unions who
want a different route map. When structures are outdated new foundations
have to be laid. It's a big leap forward, but has to be discussed
openly. Meanwhile, fingers crossed.
Philip Grant wondered if Wembley Matters readers could stand another posting on 'The Two Questions' when he submitted this guest blog. One of Brent Council's strategies is to continue to stonewall until complainants give up. Philip's persistence is admirable and should be supported.
Some “Wembley Matters” readers
have been following the saga of my two questions to Christine Gilbert about the
probable “pay off” by Brent Council to its former Director of HR, Cara Davani,
and the explanations given as to why she cannot answer them. This is the latest
round. Anyone who wishes to see the earlier rounds can find them at LINKandLINK and LINK.
If you are interested enough to
read the exchange of emails below, I would welcome your comments. Are the
reasons given by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer reasonable? Even if you think they
are not, do you feel that I should give up now, and let those at the top of the
Council get away with what appears to be a cover-up? Or do you support my
efforts to get to the bottom of this matter? If the latter, then please show your support, not
just by adding a comment below, but by emailing your local councillors to say
that Brent must answer Philip Grant’s two questions, and explain why it
believes that any “pay off” to Cara Davani is justified, and not a misuse of
funds that the Council should be spending instead on services for local people.
Thank you.
Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-
Dear Mr Grant
I am replying to your recent
correspondence to the Chief Executive and myself.
It is accepted that, under the Data
Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it
is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest
justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of
staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence
and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.
In relation to your separate question
regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not
yet determined any compensation award and, as such, it would not be appropriate
to comment further at this stage.
I will provide a copy of this response
to Councillors Warren and Kansagra.
Regards
Fiona Alderman
Chief Legal Officer
Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-
Dear Ms Alderman,
Further to
my acknowledgement of the email which you sent me yesterday evening, I am now
writing to reply to the latest reasons you have given for Brent Council not
answering the two questions which I put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July 2015.
My
questions were raised in the context of serious concerns which many local
people, including Council staff, expressed when rumours emerged two months ago
that Cara Davani was to receive a “pay off” from Brent. The Council had
announced that she was leaving at the end of June, to take a “career break”, so
there appeared to be no reason why she should receive any further financial
benefit.She was already a controversial
figure, who many thought should have resigned when her actions against
Rosemarie Clarke in 2013 became public knowledge, through the publication in
September 2014 of the Employment Tribunal judgement. It seemed inexplicable
that Brent appeared to have taken no disciplinary action against her then for
gross misconduct.
The
possibility that Cara Davani might also be “rewarded” when she finally did
leave the Council generated those serious concerns, and I sought answers from
Christine Gilbert to find out whether the rumours were true, and if so, what
was the justification for any such “pay off”. Those are still the matters which
need to be resolved, and they will not be resolved by the Council continuing to
be evasive over providing the answers. I realise that you are probably only
carrying out the wishes of those above you in trying to defend that
prevarication, and I will explain now why the reasons you have given do not
stand up, by reference to the questions that I still believe Brent must answer.
1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there
will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection
with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration,
other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015? YES or NO.
You have said:
‘It is accepted that, under the Data Protection
Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is
necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification.
However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a
legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not
appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.’
It is already in the public domain that Cara Davani, former
Director of HR and Administration, left the Council at the end of June 2015,
and that there was an agreement with her, even though ‘the council
cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s
departure’, which are presumably contained in that agreement. By simply
answering “yes” or “no” to my question 1. above, the Council would not be
breaching any ‘reasonable expectation
of privacy and confidence’ that Ms Davani might have, especially given the
context of this matter as outlined above (which I believe does provide ‘an overriding
public interest justification’).
As I have said before, to Christine Gilbert, if the honest
answer to question 1 is “yes” (i.e. that there was no financial payment other
than her normal salary up to 30 June 2015), that is the end of that matter.
However, if the answer is “no”, then Ms Gilbert does need to explain what
justification there is for having made an additional payment (even if the
amount of any such payment can only be given, in confidence, to those Council
staff and councillors who need to know it). If the Council cannot show that
there is a valid justification for any additional payment to Ms Davani, then
such a payment could be a misuse of Council funds, and should be open to public
challenge. That consideration must surely override the “privacy” of a person
who may have received such a payment.
2.Can Brent Council confirm that it has not
agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs
made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from
Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which
she and the Council are named parties? YES or NO.
I have
already dealt with your ‘expectation of privacy
and confidence’ point above, but you also say:
‘In relation to your separate question regarding
compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet
determined any compensation award and, as such, it would not be appropriate to
comment further at this stage.’
I thought
that I had already covered this point in my email to you and Christine Gilbert
on 3 August, making clear that the fact that the remedies hearing has not yet
been finalised does not prevent Ms Gilbert from answering my second
question. However, I will spell it out again here.
If the
Council has not agreed, and will not agree (as it should not, for the reasons
below), to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is
“yes”, and that is the end of the matter.
If the
Council has agreed to fund all or any part of any award which the Tribunal may
make against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “no”. The question is not
asking for any amounts, so it does not matter that those are ‘not yet
determined’.
I accept
that the Tribunal has not yet made any awards in this case, but given its
findings in favour of Rosemarie Clarke in the judgement of September 2014, it
is likely to make awards at the remedies hearing. It may decide to make its
awards solely against the first respondent, the London Borough of Brent, the
employer. However, as Cara Davani is a separately named respondent in the Employment
Tribunal proceedings, it is open to the Tribunal to make an award against her
personally. If it does that, it will be doing so on the basis of its findings
of fact, after reading and hearing detailed evidence.
In these
circumstances, I believe that it would be wrong, and a misuse of Council funds,
if Brent were to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally. That is why
it is important that my second question is answered, and answered now, so that
if the honest answer is “no” Ms Gilbert can explain why she, or whoever on
behalf of the Council agreed such an arrangement, considers that it is
justified for Brent to pay any such award
I am sure
that the Tribunal will only make an award against Ms Davani personally, if it
does make such an award, if it believes that award reflects her own liability on
the facts of the case, and not that of the Council. Surely it is right that
councillors and the public should be able to challenge any possible misuse of
Council funds. To conceal the facts, when they have been openly requested, in a
way that does not require the Council to breach its secrecy agreement with Ms
Davani over the details, just as surely cannot be right.
I am
copying this email to Cllr, Kansagra and Cllr. Warren, and will forward a copy
to the other councillors who were copied into my previous correspondence with
Ms Gilbert on this matter. I will also make it publicly available, as I
informed you this morning.
In
conclusion, I hope that you will now provide the two “yes” or “no” answers to
my two questions. If you do not feel you can do so in Ms Gilbert’s absence,
please confirm that you will advise her to provide the answers on her return
from annual leave, and let me know, please, when that is expected to be. Thank
you. Best wishes,
