DON'T BOMB SYRIA Demo Saturday Noon-2pm Downing Street

Stop the War's case against bombing is HERE

Barry Gardiner to hold Sunday public meeting on Syria bombing proposal after claiming PM's position 'flawed'

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK reports that Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, has organised a meeting on Sunday to hear constituents' views on the Government's proposal on the bombing of Syria.

The meeting is at 7.30pm on Sunday afternoon  at St Cuthbert's Church, Carlton Avenue West, North Wembley  Directions LINK

Barry Gardiner told the Kilburn Times:

I challenged [the Prime Minister] on his plans because I don’t believe he has yet justified them.

I still feel his position is flawed and don’t believe important questions have been adequately answered.

Any course of action must, in my view, improve the situation for people in Syria and protect Britain from the threat of terror.

I don’t believe anyone wants to see troops on the ground but air strikes alone will not be effective – and we have not been presented with a viable alternative.

So, as it stands, I am not prepared to support the prime minister’s proposals.

This is such a critical issue and decisions we make have the potential to impact so many lives – that I think it is only right to hold a public meeting to listen to the views of my constituents.

Standards at Brent Council - An open letter to Carolyn Downs

Regular readers will be aware of Wembley Matters' attempt to hold Brent Council and its leader Muhammed Butt to account. No one has been more consistent and persistent in this than Philip Grant who has written this Guest Blog. Philip is not affiliated to any political party but deeply committed to upholding standards in public life.

This post is much longer than I usually publish but I urge readers to read it and its attachments so that they are fully aware of the issues involved. The 'Challenge' document lists the full allegations against Muhammed Butt.

Standards at Brent Council – an open letter to Carolyn Downs

In a recent “blog” I referred to the “scales of justice”, which form part of Brent Council’s Coat of Arms LINK. Experience suggests that “scales of injustice” is now a more accurate symbol of the Council, where the interests of Cllr. Butt and his closest allies outweigh the rights of Brent’s citizens (and of its employees who were victims of the Cara Davani HR regime). The inscription that I visualise over the Civic Centre reads: ‘Punish the weak and protect the wrongdoer’. If you cannot see it too, perhaps that is because it has been covered up! I invite you to read this blog, and to add your views as comments. 

Question: When is a breach of Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct ‘outside of the scope of the Code’?

Answer: When you are Cllr. Muhammed Butt.

Five months ago (on 18 June 2015) I made a complaint to Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer, Fiona Alderman, alleging a number of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct by the Leader of the Council. I added further allegations against him in emails of 21 July and 18 September. The breaches included failures to comply with all seven of the general conduct principles which Council members must comply with, under the Code, in order to maintain the high standard of conduct required of them: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

These allegations should have been referred to the Council’s Standards Committee at its meeting on 1 October 2015. On the eve of the agenda for that meeting being published, I was told by the Monitoring Officer that she would not be referring them, as ‘these matters are beyond the scope of the actions or behaviours of an individual member and are therefore outside of the scope of the Code.’ I immediately wrote to Ms Alderman and to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, to challenge that decision, and it was agreed that they would review the case in discussion with ‘the Independent Person’.

After a further two months, I received the result of that review, which effectively restates the Monitoring Officer’s original view, as if it were fact, that the detailed allegations of breaches of Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct which I made do not come within that Code of Conduct. When I read the absolute nonsense contained in Ms Downs email to me of 18 November, I knew that I had to reply, not only to show that it was wrong, but to set out in detail why it was wrong.

As well as being serious allegations which quite clearly related to breaches of the Code by Cllr. Butt in the performance of his role as a Council member, the Monitoring Officer’s failure to follow the rules in Brent’s Constitution and its adopted Standards procedure meant that the allegations could not be dealt with openly and transparently. My allegations against Cllr. Butt were being covered up, and the Standards Committee (the body which could be held publicly to account for its decisions) was being prevented from dealing with them. I was also concerned to find, when trying to discover who the ‘Independent Person’ was who had been consulted over my challenge, that Brent does not appear to have had a properly appointed ‘Independent Person’ for Standards purposes (under the Localism Act 2011) for the past 18 months!

I am setting out below, in the public interest, the text of my open letter to Carolyn Downs. The appendices to the letter are in a pdf document attached, as is the text of my “challenge” to the Monitoring Officer of 23 September. How Brent’s new Chief Executive and Brent’s Standards Committee (whose members have also been sent copies of these documents) deal with my letter will tell us much about their openness and integrity.

THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER

27 November 2015

Dear Ms Downs,

Failure by the Monitoring Officer to refer my allegations of breaches of Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct to Standards Committee

I am writing in reply to your email to me of 18 November 2015. You will see that I am treating this as an open letter. I intend to copy it to the members of Brent’s Standards Committee, for reasons which I will explain below, and to make it publicly available, in the interests of openness and transparency.

I do not accept the justification(s) which you have given, on behalf of the Monitoring Officer and the ‘Independent Person’, for why the detailed allegations which I made to the Monitoring Officer on 18 June, 21 July and 18 September 2015 should not be referred to Brent Council’s Standards Committee. I will set out my reasons for this at 1. and Appendix A below. As some of my points refer to a document which I sent to you and Ms Alderman on the evening of 23 September, I am attaching a copy of that document, for ease of reference.

By not referring my allegations to Standards Committee, the Monitoring Officer has failed to abide by Brent’s Constitution, and the Standards procedures adopted by the Council. My reasons for this statement are given at 2. below.

There also appear to be irregularities, and a possible breach by Brent Council of the Localism Act 2011, over the ‘Independent Person’ who is said to have been consulted over my allegations, as set out in Appendix B below.

1.1  I believe I have shown, both in my “challenge” of 23 September and in Appendix A of this letter, that the statements made, as if they were facts, by or in support of the Monitoring Officer’s view, are arguments which are plainly incorrect. The serious allegations I have made, in good faith, are allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct by Cllr. Muhammed Butt, and cannot be dismissed as if they were matters which do not fall within that Code.

1.2  To give one example, the serious nature of my complaint of 18 June can be seen by the fact that the allegations include improperly conferring an advantage on two senior Council officers. One of those officers (according to separate allegations which are in the public domain, and for which Ms Alderman’s department may hold at least circumstantial evidence) may have had a “hold” over Cllr. Butt, which in turn may have influenced his behaviour as a Council member. If the Council’s Leader is party to actions which do not serve the public interest, but instead serve the mutual self-interests of himself and one or two senior officers, that would be a very serious breach of the principle of selflessness, which the Code requires all members to follow.

---

2.1  As I pointed out to Ms Alderman, by reference to Part 5 of Brent’s Constitution, in my email of 24 July, and repeated on 23 September at paragraph 1.3 of my “challenge” (attached), the Monitoring Officer has a duty to refer those allegations to Standards Committee. It is that committee which then decides ‘whether to ask the Monitoring Officer to investigate allegations … or to take no further action.’

2.2  The position I have just set out is confirmed in Part 2 of the Constitution. Article 9.3 states:

‘the function of the Standards Committee is to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors and co-opted members and hear allegations of misconduct against members.’

The functions of the Monitoring Officer, at Article 13.5, include:

‘© Supporting the Standards Committee:

The Monitoring Officer will contribute to the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct through the provision of support to the Standards Committee.’

By not referring my allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct to Standards Committee, Ms Alderman is not supporting the functions of that committee, she is usurping them. The committee cannot carry out its function of hearing allegations of misconduct against members if those allegations are concealed from them by the Monitoring Officer.

2.3  Although Ms Alderman has not referred to it in her correspondence with me on this matter, I am aware that there is a “Procedure for dealing with complaints under the Members’ Code of Conduct”, which was adopted by the Council in July 2012. Section 4 of that procedure (“Will the complaint be investigated?”) does give the Monitoring Officer the right to review every complaint made, and to decide, in some cases, to take no further action over the complaint. However, that is not a power which she can use at her own discretion - she can only do so within the detailed rules set out in Section 4.

There are three possible outcomes for complaints which are allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct. The first two are:

(i)             ‘No formal investigation and no further action paragraph (4.6) below;

(ii)           No formal investigation and local resolution paragraph (4.8) below.’

The nature of my allegations does not fall within those listed at 4.6, and they are not matters which could be dealt with by local action under 4.8 (and have not been dealt with as such).

The third outcome is that the allegation will be dealt with under Section 5, which begins:

‘5.1 Where a complaint does not fall within paragraph 4.6 or 4.8 the case shall be referred to the Standards Committee for a decision as to whether the complaint merits formal investigation.’

If the Monitoring Officer had been following the proper procedure set out by the Council for dealing with Members’ Code of Conduct complaints, 5.1 would have been the outcome.

2.4 The failure by the Monitoring Officer to refer my allegations to Scrutiny Committee also goes against the principles of openness and accountability (which are supposed to be enshrined in Brent’s Constitution, through the purposes set out at Article 1.4). In order for Brent’s residents to have confidence that high standards of conduct are being promoted and maintained in the borough, it must be seen that Standards Committee is considering allegations made by citizens (or by other Council members). The committee needs to carry out its role openly, rather than the matter being secretly covered-up by a Council Officer, so that there is an effective means of holding those who make decisions on such allegations to public account.

2.5  It appears that the Monitoring Officer’s treatment of my allegations against Cllr. Butt may not be an isolated case. I am aware of a complaint made on behalf of a residents’ association in February 2015, against another Cabinet member. The Monitoring Officer’s reply, received more than two months later, was that ‘the complaint does not fall within the Brent Code of Conduct.’ When the complainant challenged this, on the grounds that the member had failed to comply with the Code’s principles of accountability and openness, the reply remained:

‘I do not accept that this falls within the Members’ Code of Conduct …’

3.1 Throughout this matter, I have put my points to the Monitoring Officer, and since 23 September to you also, in a reasoned and reasonable way. In response, I feel that I have been “fobbed-off”. That is why I am making this letter publicly available, and copying it to the members of Standards Committee. I hope that the committee will be able to persuade the Monitoring Officer to properly refer all of my allegations to them, where I have failed to persuade her. I do not personally expect to receive a reply to this letter from you, other than an acknowledgement that you have received it. You may, however, need to reply to any points arising from this letter raised by others who may be concerned by its contents.

3.2  I hope that you will treat this letter as a complaint, although it is not a complaint to which I require a formal answer. I do not wish this complaint to be directed at a single individual, but I would like the various errors I have highlighted to be properly considered, and lessons learned from them. I realise that you have been Brent’s Chief Executive for less than three months, but (as I tried to say in the Deputation to Full Council, which I was not permitted to present on 7 September) I believe there are problems with the “culture” which Senior Officers and members have allowed to develop at Brent Council in recent years.

3.3  Here are some quotations, which I am sure you will recognise from your former role at the Local Government Association:

·      ‘a council in denial’;

·      ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’;

·      ‘some members have not set and modelled the high standards expected of those in public life’;

·      the council ‘has a culture of suppressing bad news and ignoring difficult issues’;

·      the council ‘goes to some length to cover up information and to silence whistle-blowers.’

Although not in the same context, I believe (from my own experience) that these criticisms are as applicable to Brent Council as Louise Casey found them to be in her “Report of Inspection of Rotherham Borough Council”, published in February 2015. 

I wish you luck in your efforts to turn Brent Council around. Promoting high standards of conduct, and dealing properly with breaches of those standards, must be a key part of the necessary improvements.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant

Green candidate Jafar Hassan offers a posiitve choice in Kensal Green By-election

Brent Green Party has selected 28 year old Jafar Hassan, a strategic consultant, as its candidate for the December 17th Kensal Green by-election. Jafar has lived in Brent for 25 years.

Jafar said:

The Green Party came second to Labour in Kensal Green at the last council election so it's vital that everyone in the area goes out to the polls on 17 December to make their vote count. Brent Council needs change and I believe I'm the right person to do that. Whether in Parliament, the GLA or on London councils such as Islington, the Green Party has proved that though few in number we can make a huge difference.

Brent Council is dominated by weak Labour councillors, a divided Conservative opposition, and a single ineffectual Liberal Democrat. The Green Party can win in Kensal Green so I hope that the people here will vote for me  on 17 December.  I will hold the Council to account and put forward positive ideas to fix Brent’s lack of affordable housing, shortage of school places, poor handling of regeneration projects and the cluelessness when it comes to tackling fuel poverty and making homes energy efficient.

The Green Party beat both Liberal Democrats and Tories to come second behind Labour in the  May 2014 local elections.

Green Party stands up for Further Education ahead of Spending Review

The Chancellor's Autumn Spending Review is predicted to include cuts in Further Education, an area of education which is already the Cinderella of the education sector suffering from poor funding and cuts in vital ESOL courses, as well as the casualisation of its teaching force.  The College of Northwest London and Harrow College do an excellent job in the face of these problems.

In a posting on Left Foot Forward today LINK , Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party said:

Unlike the chancellor, the Green Party knows the importance of further education. Colleges educate and train 2.9 million people in England, they train half of all construction, engineering and manufacturing apprentices and 71,000 16 to 18-year-olds undertake an apprenticeship through colleges.

We want George Osborne to adopt the Green Party’s policy in restoring the Education Maintenance Allowance for 16 and 17-year-olds and we would prioritise training in the skills needed to build a low-carbon economy.

Strike threat at Sudbury Primary School

Staff at Sudbury Primary School in Brent passed a vote of no confidence in the headteacher and governance of the school by 43 votes to 3 last night. The headteacher is currently suspended, which is deemed a 'neutral act', while allegations are investigated.

Staff from NASUWT, ATL, GMB and NUT approved the following resolution after a lengthy discussion about events at the school:

This meeting expresses no confidence in the headteacher and governance of Sudbury Primary and calls for the immediate removal of the headteacher from her post.

If this demand is not agreed we call on our unions to ballot us for sustained strike action.

Union sources said that they were concerned that an attempt is being made to undermine the independent investigation report that led to the suspension of the headteacher and the sequence of events that should flow from the report.

Sudbury Primary is the only Brent primary school to voluntarily convert to academy status. It became an Academy in September 2012. Academy status means that the local education authority has limited intervention powers.

Staff unions are currently challenging moves by Oakington Manor and Furness Primary schools to convert to academy status.

Tulip Siddiq outlines her concerns on Syria bombing

Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn has set out her views on Syria in a detailed letter to a constituent. I reproduce it below. I have offered, via Twitter, Barry Gardiner MP Labour, Brent North, an opportunity to put his views but have heard nothing back so far:

-->

I am writing in response to your email about the ongoing conflict in Syria, and in particular whether the UK should extend its air strikes against ISIL into the region. I appreciate the gravity of this issue, not least given Britain’s history of military conflict in the Middle East, so I hope you will forgive a substantive response reflecting the broad concerns you have raised.

To give some important background, the humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict in Syria has been catastrophic. Various estimates suggest that since the civil war began in 2011, some 210,000-320,000 people have been killed, some 7.6 million have been internally displaced within Syria, and a further 3.9 million have fled the country as refugees. This is the worst humanitarian crisis in decades, and it is clear that many factions in this conflict,  not least the Assad regime, are guilty of war crimes.

This is now a complex and fast-developing conflict involving a range of internal factions, each of which have support from various external actors. At present, reports suggest that Assad’s grip on the country is weakening. He has lost control of half his territory, having ceded lands in the west to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; in the north to more moderate opposition groups; and in the east to ISIL, who declared a Caliphate stretching from Syria to Iraq in June 2014. No longer able to draw revenues from Syrian oil fields, his regime has become dependent on financial support from Iran and Russia; and Shi’ite Hezbollah militant groups and Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to be becoming increasingly influential in his army. Regrettably, the recent involvement of Russia, who are now launching air strikes against all of Assad’s enemies, even moderate rebels, looks set to bolster his regime, increase the death toll and, ultimately, prolong this bloody conflict even further.

As you will know, in August 2013, following the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, there was a push on the part of the British Prime Minister and the US to launch air strikes to support rebel groups in the country. There were two important Commons votes on military intervention in Syria. Although I was not an MP at the time, I would have voted against these two motions. Whilst the US did ultimately initiate a programme of air strikes in Syria, I was glad when Labour MPs joined with backbench Conservatives and Lib Dems to ensure, against the wishes of the then-Coalition Government, that the UK did not participate in these operations. Incidentally, I also personally marched against the Iraq War back in 2003. I remain mindful to this day of the tragic effects that this war has had on the people in the region.

Since the vote in 2013, the situation has developed even further. ISIL has emerged as a formidable and dangerous force in both Syria and Iraq, and indeed in September 2014, Parliament voted in support of a targeted international bombing campaign in Iraq to fight ISIL forces, in support of Kurdish forces and the incumbent Iraqi government. Reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) also suggest that the Assad regime has continued its use of chemical weapons, launching chlorine attacks in Syrian villages; and has also withheld a portion of its chemical weapons stockpile, failing to report it to the OPCW. Efforts to broker a peaceful settlement at the Geneva II peace conference in February last year have also failed, in no small part because of al-Assad’s intransigence.

In the House of Commons in July 2015, in light of the continued conflict, the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon MP suggested that Britain might consider extending its air strikes against ISIS to Syria, joining the existing US operation there. Thankfully, the Defence Secretary has confirmed that should the Government decide to push for military action again, there would have to be another Parliamentary vote. Although the Prime Minister went back on this plan some months afterwards, with the recent tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, it looks like there may soon be another vote on this matter.

Were a Parliamentary vote indeed to take place, I appreciate that I would have a very significant decision to make as your MP, and I thank you for taking the effort to raise your concerns with me ahead of this. Personally, I am concerned about some of the rhetoric people have been using in support of intervention, and I will be pressing the Government to explain more clearly their rationale for further military action. I have four main concerns, which I have outlined below.

Firstly, I feel that neither the Government nor some in the press quite appreciate the complexity of this conflict, and how the situation has changed since the Parliamentary vote of August 2013. Indeed, in my view, subsequent events have entirely vindicated the cautious, multi-lateral approach of Parliamentarians during the vote in 2013. MPs at the time highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist rebel groups, and warned that bombing strikes could intensify the conflict, the later emergence of ISIL as a key force in the region only confirms this. Indeed, it is curious that the renewed calls for air strikes are being justified on the basis of a need to combat ISIL even though, in 2013, the target was the Assad regime, the Government have refused to acknowledge this, and many Ministers are conducting themselves as if we are to simply repeat the vote of two years ago.

Secondly, and linked with this, I disagree with the attempts of some Ministers and others to conflate this issue with the ongoing refugee crisis. Military intervention against ISIL would not solve the refugee crisis, if it could, it would have do already, as the US and others have been bombing Syria since August 2014. Furthermore, the bulk of the displaced people in Syria are the result of Assad’s attacks and not those of ISIL bombing ISIL forces will do little to address this problem. Regrettably, scant regard is also being given to the fact that as significant as Syrian refugees are in the ongoing refugee crisis, they are not the only source of refugees: last year, Britain accepted more asylum applications from Eritrea and Pakistan than it did from Syria.

Thirdly, any action that is taken in Syria must be multi-lateral, and pursued at a UN Level. I agree with Labour Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn MP’s calls for a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. He is also right, inclusive in this resolution, to push for the referral of suspected war crimes to the International Criminal Court,  this should include Assad. As a way of resolving this bloody conflict, I support the formation of a unity Government in Syria comprising more moderate factions in the country.  It is clear from their gruesome conduct that neither ISIL nor Assad himself can play a part in this negotiated solution. But the only way to secure this is if we work with our UN partners to achieve it, and Hilary Benn was right to call on the Prime Minister to push for this at the recent UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Finally, there is an important humanitarian element to the conflict in Syria, and I do not feel that enough is being done to help those who should be the key focus of our concern: the innocent Syrian civilians themselves. Whether they are still in Syria, have been forced to neighbouring states by war or have made the treacherous journey into Europe, they are deserving our help. I disagree with the Prime Minister’s decision to opt-out of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees programme to help the refugees in Syria, and also his decision to deny help to those refugees already in Europe. I have written him a letter calling on him to reverse his position on these twin issues. Hillary Benn MP was also right to call, as part of the UN resolution, for the establishment of Safe Zones within Syria to shelter those displaced by war and relieve the pressures on refugees.

Please be assured, therefore, that I will continue to monitor this situation closely and update you on future developments. I will press the Government on the need for humanitarian aid and a negotiated, multi-lateral solution to the conflict in Syria, and challenge Ministers and others on some of the points they have made in justifying military action. I also remain ever mindful both of the consequences of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and also the points raised by Parliamentarians at the important vote in August 2013.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this issue, and do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any further queries or issues.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Don't bomb Syria - weaken ISIS by cutting off its funds and arms supplies

I am publishing this letter to Dawn Butler from local activist Sarah Cox as a Guest Blog in the light of Dawn Butler's call for constituents to give her their views on the bombing of Syria. Butler's poll is HERE

 I have just sent this email to Dawn Butler. Please email her too. You can do it through the Stop the War Coalition website Home or write your own email LINK
 
Dear Dawn Butler,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply to my previous email to you about the possibility of Britain joining in the bombing of Syria. I would like to ask you to consider again how dangerous and indeed counterproductive such a course of action would be.

I am sure you agree that policy decisions should be evidence based, not the result of knee jerk reactions or simply about this country's position in the world, so I am asking you to consider the following facts:

The US has been bombing ISIS positions for a year now and far from reducing the number of ISIS fighters or the area of land they control, both have increased. In fact it has been argued by some Middle East experts that US bombs act as recruiting agents for ISIS.

The bombing and invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and stability to that country, in fact ISIS was born out of the divisions in Iraqi society introduced by the US sponsored Iraqi government.
The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan have not brought peace or stability to that country, nor did NATO forces succeed in their stated aim of eliminating the Taliban, which still controls large parts of the country.

Allied bombing of Libya has not brought peace or stability to that country, in fact it has resulted in the creation of a chaotic failed state in which ISIS is able to recruit and organise.

Only today we learn that Turkish forces have shot down a Russian plane, claiming it was over Turkish airspace, while Russia insists it had not left Syrian airspace. How sensible is it to send more planes into the already crowded airspace over ISIS positions in Syria?

There are up to six million civilians living in the areas under ISIS control. Do you seriously believe that US, French, Australian, Jordanian, Russian and, if this country joins in, British bombs can distinguish between innocent civilians and ISIS supporters any more than the bombs dropped on Dresden (arguably a war crime by today's standards) did between Nazis and ordinary people suffering under Nazi rule?

Can there be any justification for dropping bombs on ISIS because they behead and inflict other barbarous punishments on the people in the areas they control, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other states which also behead and inflict barbarous punishments on people living in their countries? Saudi Arabia does behead people publicly, contrary to what David Cameron says, earlier this year they advertised for eight more executioners and recently sentenced a Sri Lankan woman domestic worker to be stoned to death, yet Britain regards Saudi Arabia, which arms and supports ISIS as a friend and ally.

Surely Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that the priority must be to cut off funding, support and arms supplies to ISIS and to seek a political solution to the immensely complex situation in Syria?

As for the threat of terrorist attacks in this country, I believe that indiscriminate bombing and increasing Western intervention in the Middle East make these more likely and that cuts to police funding will make us less safe. At the same time, a climate of rising Islamophobia, cuts to youth services and policies like the Prevent strategy that seek to silence debate about foreign policy or issues like Palestine could increase disaffection among young Muslims.

Thank you for taking the time  to read this. Please vote against further bombing of Syria and support policies that weaken ISIS by decreasing or stopping its funding and its arms supplies.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Cox