Corbyn statement on council cuts presents problem for local activists

The statement from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell stating that local council have no choice but to implement cuts is going to present a real problem for local activists, long critical of Brent Council’s ‘dented shield’ approach, who have joined the Labour Party and got involved in Brent Momentum. And, 'Yes' the actions of the Green minority council in Brighton presented similar problems for socialists in the Green Party'

From the Guardian article:

The statement from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, published in the Guardian LINK  essentially sets out the 'dented shield' strategy - that Labour councils are better placed to make cuts 'fairer' than those that would result in them being carried out by council offers or the Tory Secretary of State:

In a letter sent jointly with John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and Jon Trickett, the shadow communities secretary, Corbyn points out that councils must set a balanced budget under the 1992 Local Government Act.

The letter says: “If this does not happen, ie if a council fails to set a legal budget, then the council’s section 151 officer is required to issue the council with a notice under section 114 of the Local Government Act 1998. Councillors are then required to take all actions necessary to bring the budget back into balance.”

Failure to set a balanced budget can lead to action against councillors under the code of conduct, a judicial review and, more significantly, intervention by the secretary of state, the joint letter states. It continues: “It would mean either council officers or, worse still, Tory ministers deciding council spending priorities. Their priorities would certainly not meet the needs of the communities which elected us."

This is essentially what Muhammed Butt and Michael Pavey have been arguing as they have made cuts in successive years.

A Green Left colleague commented on the Labour leadership's statement:

No doubt JC & JM feel that they “have no choice” as 95%+ of their councillors support this approach. But it does undermine those trade unionists and campaigners actively arguing for them to stand up to the Tories. It implies there is no choice, when of course there is a choice. Labour has over 100 Councils. If Labour nationally opposed the cuts and organised some or all of its councils to refuse to implement them, there is absolutely no way the Government could send in Commissioners to run them all. It would provoke a huge national debate on the cuts and local democracy, and have the potential to force the Government to back down partly or wholly. As it is, right-wing Labour councillors are tweeting the letter to attack anyone on the Left campaigning against the cuts.

In the end, the problem with the JC letter is that it completely understates the scale of the attack on local government and local democracy. This is not “business as usual”, a few nasty cuts etc.  This is a once in a lifetime, permanent dismantling and shrinkage of the local state, a huge extension of privatisation of local services and an undermining of local democracy itself - there is little point in having locally elected councillors if their job is (from Nicholas Ridley’s famous quote): “to meet once a year to hand out the contracts”.

The only silver lining in the letter is its appeal for councillors to support local campaigners (even if this is clearly contradictory to their councillors supporting cuts budgets!) and to be organising mass campaigns against local government cuts. This gives an opportunity to campaigners to point out that Labour councillors are only doing one half of the message from the JC letter, and not the other.

But it really could have been so much better.

According to the Guardian some Momentum branches have been pushing for a more radical approach:

It is known that Corbyn’s office has discussed various forms of defiance strategy with council leaders, such as setting a needs-based budget. This idea has been raised at some meetings of Momentum, the pressure group set up by Corbyn supporters to retain his support in the wider Labour movement. According to a Socialist party account, some Momentum group meetings are backing illegal budgets, and are planning to call for them early next year.

The account states that a conference is being planned to oppose budget cuts: “Given that we were told that Bristol has the largest Momentum group outside London, with a network already of over 800 names, there is real scope for a conference to be an important milestone in our campaign. It was explicitly agreed within both the Action Hub and the plenary session that part of the campaign against local authority budget cuts should also involve writing to every Labour and Green councillor and candidate, demanding that they refuse to comply with any cuts budgets."

Since the local government cuts began the idea of setting a needs-based budget has been raised, with a softer position being constructing a needs-based budget in parallel with a cuts budget. The former could then become a tool in campaigning for a budget (and thus funding) that really meets local needs whilst at the same time setting a balanced budget that fends of government intervention.

Can any real campaign be built between Councils, some of which like Brent are not exactly stuffued with Corbyn supporters, and labour and trade union movement and the wider community?

After all, Brent Council leader Muhamemd Butt, said that budgets for the next two years will be 'cutting into the muscle, if not the bone, of local services.'

A critical approach to Prevent in Brent

Following on from the Public Meeting on 'Prevent in Brent' on December 10th I accompanied members of An-Nisa Society to a meeting on Tuesday December 15th with Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, Cllr Harbi Farah and Chris Williams, Brent Council Head of Community Safety to express our concerns. This was the day after Brent Council Cabinet had approved the 'Stronger Communities Strategy' LINK  and just before the GLA Policing and Crime Committee issued its critical report on Prevent. LINK

An An-Nisa Society spokesperson issued the following statement after the meeting:

There was a frank exchange of views when we met with Cllr Butt and we made it clear that we thought the Prevent Strategy should be abolished and that a strong statement should be made by Brent Council about its short comings.

The top-down whole community model stereotypes the entire Muslim community, makes it open to surveillance and increases Islamophobia. Naturally this produces suspicion and fear and undermines an individual’s sense of self and belonging. We believe the emphasis should be on developing social cohesion and tackling inequality - not creating social division. While recognising this, Muhammed Butt said that the Council was limited by its statutory obligation and the threat of government takeover of local implementation if the borough was deemed not to be delivering Prevent properly.

The Council was not able to modify the WRAP (Workshop Raising Awareness of Prevent) training and had to keep secret much of their Prevent work. This lack of transparency is a concern we raised at the meeting and at the Public Event.

Arising from the meeting Muhammed Butt promised to issue a public statement on Prevent and to invite the Monitoring Prevent in Brent organisers to address cabinet and senior officers on their concerns. He would also help facilitate a meeting with Brent headteachers.

On Wednesday December 16th, Cllr James Denselow, Lead Member for Stronger Communities, published the following blog on the Brent Council website LINK :

The threat of terrorism isn’t new to Londoners but is now fresh in our minds following the rise of the self-proclaimed ‘Islamic State’ and the Paris attacks and the stabbing at Leytonstone tube station. 

Cases in the courts and in the news have highlighted Brits travelling abroad to receive terrorist training. 
We’re now awake to the concept of ‘lone-wolf’ attacks, by people radicalised over the Internet without having any solid links to organised extremist networks.

It’s worth remembering that there is as much of a difference between Islamic extremist terrorism and the faith of the vast majority of Muslims as there is between the Ku Klux Klan’s cross-burning lynching parties and your local Christian vicar’s tea party and charity tombola.

In addition to the threat of terrorism there is also the challenge of the pernicious growth in the number of random anti-Muslim attacks in the UK in the aftermath of extremist incidents.  
Let’s call them what they are – hate crimes.

Brent is Britain’s most diverse borough, so this isn’t an abstract worry for us – it is real, and immediate. In the 12 months up to this October, there were 509 racist and religious hate crimes recorded in Brent, up from 460 the previous year.  Ten a week makes this a substantial issue.

This is an issue all across London, and Brent is still a safe and welcoming place to live, with crime rates falling.  We’re determined to maintain and enhance that.

We know how events that happen on the streets of Raqqa can travel around the world from Syria to our part of North West London within minutes.  Social media and 24 hours rolling news have made a big world feel very small sometimes.

The risk of hidden extremism in our neighbourhoods is painfully real.  It’s no good just wringing our hands – it’s the job of those of us elected to public office to do something about this.

At a national government level, the strategy designed to stop individuals being radicalised, whether from right-wing extremists or, so-called, Islamic extremists is called Prevent, and it’s our legal duty as a local council to cooperate with central government, the police and others to advance its objectives.

It’s important though to remember that Prevent is not just about Islamic Extremism – it tackles radicalisation from whatever direction, including far-right extremism.  Indeed, around 30 per cent of ‘Channel’ cases (catching signs of extremism early amongst young people) are about far-right activity.

As ever, when there’s a tricky issue, the first step is to acknowledge that there is something real that needs to be dealt with.  Ignoring one wrong in the process of tackling a second wrong has never worked well in the long-term.

Whilst public services have a central role in dealing with these issues, we can’t deal with them on our own.  We need local communities, neighbourhoods, families and individuals to come together to tackle extremism, together.

We need communities – and faith groups in particular – to acknowledge that religious extremism is a real issue, and that some young people are at risk of being attracted to it.  We need this to be talked about in community centres – and yes, in Mosques too.  We need to challenge extremism if and when we hear it.  Many of our faith leaders are already leading the way.

We need families to accept that they have a responsibility too.  Do you know where your children are and what they’re up to?  Are they falling in with the wrong crowd?  Are they being taken advantage of, groomed even?  It happens rarely, but it should be as worrying if your child was being groomed and lured into religious extremism as if they were being groomed for drugs, gang violence or sexual exploitation.  Sadly, too often several of these threats go hand in hand.

It’s our job to support communities and families in this.

If a community leader has a concern, they need to know there is someone they can go to who will take their concern seriously, and look into it, but without overreacting.

If a family member or a neighbour has a concern about a young person being led astray, they need to know there is someone they can speak to who can offer practical help, but without labelling them a bad parent or their child a criminal.

We need to work harder, but we need this to be matched increasingly by our communities and every individual playing their part. 

Considering this all together, that’s why we’re trying something genuinely new here in Brent.

In our Stronger Communities Strategy which we agreed this week, we’re not just doing more of the same.

We’re not turning our back on Prevent – but we want to go much further, and to build an approach that our community owns and engages with, not one that some feel is being done to them by a distant government that doesn’t understand.

Our new approach in going further is to say to our communities: we’ll work with you to construct your own solutions.  If you’re uncomfortable feeling that you’re being done to – now’s the chance to take control and ownership yourselves.

This model of co-production has worked well in other areas of social policy – but this is the first time such an approach is being taken on the streets of London to an issue like tackling violent extremism.

In the meantime, we need all to accept responsibility for challenging anti-Muslim prejudice and violence.  Not only is it just plain wrong, but it also does more harm than good – throwing up barriers between communities that we ought instead to be breaking down.

Problems this big require solutions just as big.  These are problems that affect all of us, so we all need to be part of the solution too.

Let’s start by talking about it.

This does not amount to a 'strong statement on the short-comings of the Prevent Strategy but perhaps that is still to come.  There is certainly much to discuss, including addressing the issue of a community feeling under surveillance.  This is from the Brent Stronger Communities Strategy about the 'Community Champions' Brent intends to recruit:

The new Community Champions will form part of a small network of non-statutory partners who will help other partners to act as eyes and ears in the community relaying messages in both directions.

It is interesting to recall that in the 1980s the tabloid press railed against 'Spies in the classroom' when Brent Council 's DPRE was attempting to challenge racism in education. Now some are seeing the Prevent Strategy as a spying system with teachers and social workers in the role of intelligence officers.

In her statement on the GLA Committee report, Green Assembly Member Jenny Jones aid:

[Prevent] may hinder the development of the counter-narrative in classrooms and colleges as communities withdraw from discussions in those controlled spaces.

Meanwhile Monitoring Prevent in Brent will continue its work. It can be found on Facebook HERE

Kensal Green By-election Result

Chris Alley Conservative 255
Jumbo Chan Labour 931
Sarah Dickson Lib Dem 417
Jafar Hassan Green Party 102
Juliette Nibbs UKIP 38

Labour achieved 53% of the vote.
Turnout 20.3%

FULL RESULT

Planning Committee sinks plans for a swimming pool at the former Brent Town Hall

The Kilburn Times has reported LINK that Brent Council Planning Committee has refused permission for the fee paying Lycee International de Londres Winston Churchill to build a 5 lane swiming pool sunken into the garden area in front of the former Brent Town Hall bulding, adjacent to Forty Lane and the Paddocks.

There were few objections to the plans and the Planning Officers' Report recommended approval  LINK  and continued to do so after members of the Committee visited the site and raised various issues  LINK 

The Kilburn Times quotes a Brent Council spokesperson: “The Planning Committee voted unanimously to refuse the proposal based, in particular, on concerns about its effect on the setting and views of the Grade II Listed Building on this prominent frontage site.”

This is an impression of the new pool building included in the planning application:

The refusal comes as a surprise and some local people and schools had been looking forward to the promised public access when the pool was not being used by the French School.

Around the corner there is some uncertainty over the promised community swimming pool, and the extent of public access.  on the site of the former Dexion House. This would be a 2,500 m2 pool in the basement of one of two new buildings which are given over to student accommodation.

Sweets Way Solidarity Rally, Willesden Magistrates Court, 1pm Friday

From Sweets Way Resists

JOIN US TO STAND UP AGAINST SOCIAL CLEANSING AND THE CRIMINALISATION OF PEACEFUL PROTEST!

On 23 and 24 of September, the Sweets Way estate was evicted by dozens of High Court bailiffs and 7 vans of London Met police. Nearly a hundred occupiers of dozens of homes were turfed out, as was Mostafa, the last original resident of the estate. Supporters peacefully attempted to stop Mostafa's eviction, many of whom were arrested. Fifteen now face criminal charges for obstructing High Court Enforcement Officers.

Their trial is scheduled to take place over three days, from 10am on Wednesday, December 16, through Friday, December 18. Supporters are encouraged to attend the hearings each day, but we are calling a solidarity rally outside Willesdon Magistrates Court for 1pm on Friday, December 18 to take a stand with those who were arrested for standing up to social cleansing.

Decline in air pollution masking major problems in UK cities

From the British Heart Foundation

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) is disappointed with the air quality plans released today and concerned that new emissions data might be interpreted positively when the UK population continues to live with a serious air pollution problem.

While the BHF is pleased to see that the new emissions data also released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) today shows a continuing decline in emissions in the UK as a whole, the charity argues this is a distraction from the localised air quality problems that the Government has so far failed to act upon.

The Supreme Court order handed down to Defra earlier this year clearly shows that the UK is breaching its duty to clean up the UK’s dirty air yet the BHF feels that the Government’s air quality plans are not strong enough to effectively tackle these localised air pollution problems.

Laura Thomas, Head of Policy at the British Heart Foundation, said:

While pollution levels as a whole are declining, air pollution hot spots in many UK cities are seriously damaging our health. The devil is in the detail and the Government cannot use general statistics like this to shirk its responsibilities to clean up the UK’s dirty air. This is particularly worrying when we know how dangerous air pollution is for a person’s health – raising their risk of a deadly or disabling heart attack or stroke.

While these figures are superficially promising, they’re so shrouded in smog they’re harder to navigate than Oxford Street on Christmas Eve. They mask the major air quality problems faced by people living or working in UK air pollution hotspots such as areas of London and the Midlands.

The public deserves clean air that will not harm their heart health. We’re disappointed with the lack of ambition shown by the Government in this plan to clean up the UK’s air. Proposing five clean air zones where polluting vehicles will be allowed to drive as long as they pay to do so will harm heart health.

Since 2010 the BHF has provided nearly £7 million for medical research that will help us better understand the link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease. We have learnt that air pollution can make existing heart conditions worse and cause cardiovascular events in vulnerable groups. Recent studies have linked air pollution to increased incidence of heart attacks, strokes and a worsening of heart failurw/

There are 7 million people in the UK living with cardiovascular disease and the likelihood of their exposure to air pollution is high. It is therefore imperative the governments and administrations around the UK ensure they are meeting European Union air quality limits and targets as soon as possible to improve air quality.

Find out more about air pollution and heart health at bhf.org.uk/airpollution

Jenny Jones refuses to support the GLA report on Prevent: 'Prevent is failing to reach the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach'

Jenny Jones, Green London Assembly Member, has decided not to support the GLA Police and Crime Committee report on Prevent. This is an unusual move but indicates the seriousness of the issue.

The full report plus Jenny's statement is available HERE

I am concerned that no upfront definition of what is meant by extremism is made for the purposes of the report. However, I recognise that, along with the Government's definition of 'radicalisation', these are very contested words and not all Members of the Committee would be able to agree a common definition. Flexibility is obviously required when professionals seek to define what is and isn't 'extremism', just as flexibility is required when debating what is 'Britishness', and the interpretation will often vary according to local circumstances. But there are obvious dangers to this. For example, the Met Police have previously included at least one member of the London Assembly and several journalists in their database of 'domestic extremists'. This shows how words such as 'extremism' can be interpreted in a surprisingly broad brush way.

I am also unhappy that while the report references the concerns raised about the Government's focus on non-violent extremism, this is not reflected in the recommendations. There is academic evidence that the 'conveyor belt' idea, which underpins the Government's new approach to Prevent, is not a valid one. These academics argue that violent terrorists do not grow out of a culture of non-violent extremist ideas. If these academics are right, then I believe there are three ways in which Prevent could be counter-productive. First, it could alienate people who have 'extremist' ideas but would be potential allies in the fight against violent extremism. Second, it may hinder the development of the counter-narrative in classrooms and colleges as communities withdraw from discussions in those controlled spaces. Finally, I believe the larger the number of people being monitored as 'extremists', the thinner the spread of Met Police resources becomes. I believe there should be consultation about whether the emphasis in Prevent on linking violent and non-violent extremism is having a detrimental effect on the work of those trying to engage in their communities and develop a counter-narrative.

I am concerned that the recommendations in the report avoid questioning the Prevent Strategy adopted by the Government. I believe the most significant barriers which the professionals and organisations are facing all stem from the way Prevent is being framed. If we believe that counter terrorism increasingly relies on information gathered from communities, and less on intelligence services at home and abroad, then we need to radically overhaul programmes like 'Prevent'. If decent, law-abiding people view these programmes as counter-productive and we wish Prevent to be more successful on the ground, then it needs to address any fundamental problems in its approach which are creating barriers to implementation. Prevent is failing to win the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach.

For these reasons I am unable to support this report.

GLA Committee says 'secrecy' over Prevent hampering community engagement

This story has been published by the BBC on its website HERE It will be of interest to readers following the public meeting on Prevent last week and the subsequent meeting with Brent Council

Secrecy surrounding anti-terrorism work is hampering efforts to halt extremism, the London Assembly has said.

Its Policing and Crime Committee called for more transparency around implementation of the government's Prevent strategy.

Cooperation between boroughs was "patchy" and the police needed to step back if the public were to have more confidence in the scheme, it found.

The Met has been approached for comment.

Under Prevent, which aims to stop people supporting or becoming terrorists, local authorities have a statutory obligation to monitor signs of extremism in schools and public services.
But the committee said this was proving a "challenge" for teachers, and some young people were afraid to take part in discussions about extremism for fear of being "put on a list".

'Narrative battle'

"For the public, transparency about what Prevent is for and what activity is taking place is critical," it said.

The committee echoed previous criticisms of Prevent, when it was dubbed a "toxic brand" which aroused suspicion among communities.

"We know that community engagement is hampered by suspicion and fear, and much of this is the consequence of the secrecy that surrounds the delivery of the Prevent strategy."

Committee chairwoman Joanne McCartney said "a strong counter-narrative which condemns violent extremism" was one of the most powerful ways to counter online radicalisation, "but attempts to deliver this have been lacking so far."

Through social media, groups such as the so-called Islamic State (IS) were "telling a better story" in a fight where "narrative is actually almost everything", Lord Carlile of Berriew said.

'No oversight'

The committee said London could learn from Birmingham's success in co-ordinating Prevent.
In the capital, Counter-Terror Local Profiles, which set out risk in a particular area, are highly confidential documents often only seen by a borough commander and council chief executive.

In Birmingham and Manchester, the information is shared with public services "without giving away anything of national security importance".

Communities in London should have a say in how best to prevent extremism, and the police should only intervene when necessary, according to the report.

It criticises 'patchy' co-ordination between London boroughs.

"There appears to be no London body that has overall oversight of what is taking place at any one time," it said.

"It is difficult to establish what, why and how decisions have been taken in respect of preventing extremism."

In some boroughs, such as Waltham Forest, the quality of work was "extremely high", Lord Carlile told the committee. In others, it was "rather less high".

Green MEP warns Cameron's EU renegotiation could mean race to the bottom on environment and health

In discussions on the UK’s future place in Europe, Green MEP Molly Scott Cato today warned the European Parliament that Cameron’s renegotiation agenda risks bargaining away citizens’ rights and creating a race to the bottom on environmental protection and health standards. She also said that the many in the UK who want the country to remain as part of the EU back a genuinely positive vision for the future; a vision based on a stronger, more effective European Parliament with greater decision-making powers and upholding the rights of citizens.

Molly Scott Cato was speaking during a plenary session in Strasbourg ahead of a European Council meeting later this week. The Council meeting will include a discussion on the European referendum and address some of the remaining political issues before a concrete proposal is adopted in February. David Cameron wrote to Council President Donald Tusk in November setting out four areas where he is seeking reforms as part of negotiations on the UK’s membership of the European Union.

In her one minute address to the Parliament, attended by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Nicolas Schmit, representing the Presidency of the Council, Molly Scott Cato said

I am speaking about the very serious threat that my country may soon leave this Union. David Cameron wants us to believe his renegotiation ‘vision’ is the only show in town when it comes to EU reform. His pro-austerity, regulation-lite, anti-migration rhetoric is more nightmare than vision. And it appears he now wants to export and inflict this nightmare on the rest of Europe. 

But it is clear that his fake negotiation is unravelling. His pledge to ‘reduce red tape’ sees him doing his bit for the corporations, eager to eliminate anything that stands in the way of their profits. And his support for dodgy trade deals like TTIP show he is happy to see a race to the bottom on workers’ rights, environmental protection, and health standards.   

But many in the UK want to be a part of a genuinely reformed Europe, with a stronger, more effective European Parliament with greater decision-making powers and scrutiny over the Commission and Council.

Greens say yes to the EU, yes to real reform, and yes to upholding the rights of all citizens which Mr Cameron is so keen to bargain away.

Talks to take place on Prevent Strategy with Cllr Butt after Cabinet approval of Stronger Communities Strategy

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, has agreed to meet some of the organisers of Thursday's public meeting on the Prevent Strategy on Tuesday afternoon.

Meanwhile this evening the Cabinet approved the Stronger Communities Strategy of which Prevent forms just one part along with domestic violence, female genital mutilation and gangs.

Introducing the document Cllr James  Denselow (Lead Member  for Stronger Communities) said that diversity was one of Brent's strengths and the Council was instigating a community led approach, based on the Manchester model,  where 'Big Question' events were held to involve the public and voluntary organisations.

The approach was aimed at the twin challenges of preventing terrorism and Islamophobia.  A version of Prevent had begin in Brent in 2011 but now the state of the world was different and the strategy had become a statutory responsibility of local authorities.

If the Government deemed that Brent Council was failing it its Prevent Duty it could take over implementation of Brent in the borough.

A community led approach would mean that 'we would be doing things our way' and would help mainstream Muslims challenge extremism on their own terms.

Michael Pavey reiterated his opposition to the top down version of Prevent coming from the government but said the Stronger Communities Strategy was about much more than Prevent as it also covered domestic violence, female genital mutilation and gangs.

Cllr Denselow in response to a question from Cllr Roxanne Mashari replied that they would work with young people through schools using a non-traditional approach and that he would discuss with Brent Safer Neighbourhood Teams the recording of hate crime, including those aimed at Muslims.

The Stronger Communities Strategy report is HERE

King Edward VII Park, Wembley - an explanation from Brent Council

The following explanation has been sent to Cllr Stopp regarding the works in King Edwrd VII Park, Wembley

The works taking place at King Edwards Park are to improve the quality and drainage of the five football pitches, and the cricket pitch on site, which have historically been of poor quality. This project commenced in August, and was originally expected to be concluded with 5-6 weeks; however, a number of issues- including the discovery of a buried electricity power cable and an unregistered gas pipe running across the site- resulted in delays whilst we liaised with the utility companies, and unfortunately the colder and wetter weather we're now experiencing means that the final cultivations (which rely on dry ground conditions and higher temperatures) cannot currently take place.

The specific status of the works is as follows:

Part A: Site remodelling of King Edward VII Park

All works have been completed aside from final cultivations, sand amelioration and seeding.  Final cultivations rely on dry ground conditions and as expected, ground conditions are unsuitable for these works.  These works will be completed at the earliest opportunity in Spring once the soils have dried sufficiently.  It is envisaged that these works will take a maximum of 3 weeks to complete before seed is in the ground.  Once seeded the pitches will be green within 1 week to 10 days.

Part B: Maintenance of Football pitches (not including Cricket square)

The maintenance works will begin once the seed is germinated and ready to cut.

Part C: Cricket square construction

This element of the works have been completed in full

Part D: Cricket square maintenance

The maintenance works will begin once the seed is germinated and ready to cut.

The contractors will ensure the site is secure before winter. They will also come to site in the next couple of days to verti-drain and overseed the track way and make good damage caused by the caterpillar digger.


Unfortunately therefore, it is now unlikely that some of the works will be concluded before better weather in the spring, and the temporary fencing will need to remain in place until then.

We have asked for some fresh signage to be placed on site explaining the delays, and hope that this will be in place within the next week or so.

We are also attempting to locate the source of the smell that is being reported.

Clearly there is a need to keep yourselves, the Friends of Group and all interested parties abreast of the latest developments.

I am sorry this has not properly happened to now. I will personally schedule regular updates.

Another meeting about Sudbury Primary School on Thursday

 

Teacher and non-teacher unions have called a meeting for parents and carers of Sudbury Primary School pupis at the Partyman Play Centre at Vale Farm on Thursday at 4.30pm - a time they say was chosen to enable the maximun number of parents to attend to find out what is going on at the school.

The unions say they hope for a big turn-out of parents, with some governors and councillors too, and that the meeting will lead to a solution that will avoid strike action.

Shahrar Ali: It's not about Corbyn or Caroline - it's about Cameron's War

Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party, speaking at 'Stop Bombing Syria' Downing Street demonstration yesterday.

Brent councillors to get 8 hours Prevent training

Although Cllr Harbi Farah has promised to arrange talks about concerns over the Prevent Strategy in Brent the Council is going full steam ahead in its implementation. Tomorrow's Cabinet is due to adopt a paper on 'Stronger Communities' which includes radicalisation in a bundle which also covers female genital mutilation, domestic violence and gangs. Councillors are also attending an 8 hour Prevent training on December 22nd.

The Council strategy fro Stronger Communities has for main objectives:

1. Promote common ground
2. Encourage participation in civic life
3. Tackle intolerance and challenge extremism  and other harmful practices
4.Promote our vision and understanding of cohesion.

Which all sounds well and good but clearly the strategy in the document which I publish below needs careful scrutiny, particularly in the light of the criticisms of Prevent set out at the public meeting.

In an Appendix the Council does seem to recognise some of the problems:

Brent is one of 43 Home Office “Prevent Priority Areas” of particular national concern for fermenting extremism and radicalisation. As part of the Prevent programme, Brent receives funding from the Home Office to tackle radicalisation through a range of supportive projects and interventions.

The Prevent and Channel programmes have been seen by some communities, in Brent as elsewhere, as a means of demonising Islam and for spying on youths. The concerns raised by communities must be heard and it is precisely this perceived one-sided approach, which undermines cohesion and divides communities. Indeed, the Government has acknowledged that ‘Prevent depends on a successful integration strategy, which establishes a stronger sense of common ground and shared values, which enables participation and the empowerment of all communities and which also provides social mobility.’

Brent will seek to minimise the risk of extremism by recognising that the drivers for extremist behaviour lie in the marginalisation of voices from the public square and that a positive approach, celebrating diversity while improving our diverse communities’ ability to recognise the signs of extremism and early radicalisation will foster resilience and reduce the risk of extremist behaviour. We will also recognise the geo-political drivers of extremist behaviours and create safe spaces for dialogue and debate, whilst challenging hate speech and those who seek to divide our communities.

However its Equalities Impact Assessment on the impact of the Strategy (which deems it positive) seems complacent in the light of fears that Prevent is fuelling Islamophobia (Christianity not listed):

Religion or Belief – impact: positive

According to research conducted by Brent’s Business Intelligence team; the main faith groups in the borough are Hindu (17%), Muslim (12%), Judaism (3%) and Buddhist (1%). Achieving the four strategic objectives would ensure that the strategy is fully inclusive of residents of all religious and faith backgrounds. Furthermore, inter-faith dialogue is a key outcome of this strategy

The December 22nd event at the Civic Centre to which all councillors and some council officers are invited is entitled 'Prevent: Ideology and Radicalisation in Depth by FIDA Management and the Al-Saddiiq Foundation.'

Session One from 10am to 4pm will be 'providing advanced training on extremism and related global terrorism' to include':

• Ideology and its Development
• Theology, Politics and Violence
• Radicalisation (Concepts and Typologies
• The Core Narrative of AQ/ISIS
• Understanding Jihadist Narrative/Group
• Case Studies and Group exercises
• Assessing Vulnerability to Radicalisation
• Extremism and Behaviour

After what I imagine will be a much needed half hour  break Session Two from 4.30pm to 6.30pm will be run by the Al Saddiiq Foundation delivering 'A local perspective: extremism and support for terrorism gaining traction with the borough of Brent' Apparently this will involve 'case-based scenario workshops.'

Here is the paper going to Cabinet tomorrow:

Councillor pledges to arrange talks on community concerns over 'counter-productive' Prevent Strategy

Cllr Harbi Farah pledged to arrange talks between community organisations concerned about the Prevent Strategy and Cllr James Denselow (lead member for Stronger Communities) or Cllr Muhammed Butt (leader of Brent Council).

The pledge was made at a public meeting where strong objections to the Strategy; which makes it a statutory duty for the Council, schools, colleges, health and social services to report anyone thought to be in danger of becoming an 'extremist' to the authorities; were voiced.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who was attending another event sent a message to the meeting:

I think Prevent is completely flawed. At best it is patronising to our Muslim communities and at worst it is utterly alienating and therefore completely counter-productive.

Cllr Margaret McLennan had also indicated her opposition 'for obvious reasons' while Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, told the meeting on Syria a few weeks ago that the Labour Party was critical of the government's Prevent programme. It was a top-down model rather than the bottom0up approach that could harness forces at a community level.

However, Humera Khan of the An-Nisa Society, which has run a Muslim Sunday School at Park Lane Primary School for 30 years, told the meeting that they had repeatedly asked the council to arrange a meeting with headteachers to establish a meeting where a constructive dialogue could take place with headteachers about the issues involved. There had been no response and eventually An-Nisa had given up. This was despite the fact that the Strategy was supposed to be 'community led'.

Humera juxtaposed the impact of the Prevent Strategy on the Muslim community with the requirements of Brent's 2015 Equality policy. The default position of Prevent was that Muslim=Violent Extremism, the whole community was being stigmatised and marginalised.

Khalida Khan, of the An-Nisa Society, emphasised that teachers were not a branch of the Intelligence Survey.  Reminding the audience of institutional failures over child protection she suggested that there was a huge potential for institutional failure on Prevent and gave the example of a primary school where the first names of pupils felt to be in danger of 'radicalisation; were publicly released.

The danger is that the Prevent Strategy is helping fuel Islamophobia. A recent Public Attitudes Survey had found that 71% of those surveyed thought that Islam was incompatible with British culture and 45% of Britons think there are too many Muslims in the country.

Khalida said that Muslim parents were now worried about the normal 'wierd or funny' things that all children say might now get them into trouble.  Sympathy for the plight of refugees could now be seen as extremist.

She spoke of the effect on the Muslim community, which already felt excluded, of their children and young people being monitored. It would affect mental health and feelings of exclusion and negatively affect parenting.  Making people afraid to speak out would damage the Muslim psyche and undermine self-respect and sense of belonging.

The Strategy put communities against each other and the promulgation of 'British Values' implied that only the British had these values, while in fact they were universal.

Khalida suggested that the ultimate goal was to abolish the Prevent Strategy, for the Council to work with others to pressure the government for its abolition, and meanwhile find ways of legally working around it. There was a need to adress the needs of Muslims as citizens.

Rizwan Hussain, speaking for Brent Anti Racism Campaign and the community organisation Jawaab, gave the example of a young man, Abdul, and how he was experiencing the present climate.

Abdul had been stopped and searched on the way to his mosque. This was an invasion of what he thought of as his 'safe place' - a place of solace and a constant in his life which offered protection and role models.

Abdul was scared about the attitudes he was now encountering which included attacks on his hijab wearing sisters. His personal and social spaces were being invaded by Islamophobia.

Rizwan said that in Jawaab's work with young people discussions of foreign policy figured but there were also  major concerns over mental health and unemployment that needed to be addressed. Young people needed safe spaces where they can gain empowerment to become leaders, develop the skills to tackle difficult situations, develop self-empowerment to make change in their own lives.

These spaces could not be created under Prevent, because people like Abdul won't engage with that strategy, but created by organisations experienced in this area. Facilitators would help youth use their experience to create resilient young people, educating them but giving them power to make decisions.

Bill Bolloten, from Education Not Surveillance, welcomed the meeting as a 'conversation about Prevent' and a way of arriving at strategies to deal with the issue.  There were different experiences at different ages in the education system with Prevent starting at the Early Years Foundation Stage. The Ofsted requirement that schools should pay 'due regard' to the Strategy  and that this was part of the Ofsted inspection, meant that nursery and school staff had to monitor children for extremism/radicalisation and provide evidence that staff had been trained in the Strategy.

Training materials were not openly available and there was no empirical evidence justifying the theory behind the 'signs and indicators of radicalisation'  that trainers gave.

Counter-terrorism experts had said that the Prevent Strategy indicated a 'shallow understanding of the radicalisation process'.

Despite the short-comings referrals to Channel (the conduit for passing on concerns about individuals and families) had gone up from 20 in 2012 to 424 last year, half of which had come from education.

Bill agreed that prevent was fuelling anti-Muslim prejudice. A survey of 6,000 pupils had found  widespread anti-Muslim feeling. Pupils had estimated an average figures of 36% for the Muslim population of the country whereas it was actually 5%.

Bill concluded with the recommendation that we should ensure schools are safe places for Muslim pupils. We should make sure that they feel they belong. A dialogue with school headteachers and governors should be established. We need better ways of understanding our duties under the Equality Act.

Rob Ferguson of the NUT and Newham Stand Up to Racism said that Prevent also applied to supplementary schools and classes and was a bridgehead to attack the whole community through young people. The Newham statement (see below) had been conceived at a local level by Muslim and non-Muslims to put pressure on the council to break with the Prevent agenda.

Rob said that both Newham and Brent were in the top 10 for attacks on Muslims on London. There had been a 300% increase in attacks.  He spoke about the fire bombing of the East London Mosque and how hate crimes were being unreported. Muslim teaching staff were avoiding using public transport and not wearing the hijab in public. Parents were telling their children to keep silent in class - 'Don't mention the War' was no longer a joke.

After the softer Post 9/11 versions of Prevent where organisation took government money to promote social cohesion the Counter Terrorism and Security Act in February amounted to state promotion of Islamophobia. He warned that the next round of legislation citing 'reasonable justification' could be widened to a whole group of other issues.

Kiri Tunks speaking for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on the impact of Prevent on education about the issue said, 'If you can't talk about Palestine, there's something wrong with our society'.   A film about Palestine for classroom use had been attacked as being anti-Semitic as a way of silencing discussion. Now in the current situation  students tended to be silent and teachers frightened. Tis emphasised the need for schools to provide 'safe spaces'  for children to talk about contemporay issues.

Hank Roberts, of the ATL, speaking from the floor commented that even during the worse of the IRA bombing campaign teachers had not been asked to spy on Irish children in the classroom for signs of IRA sympathies.  We need to see through this nonsense, and incidentally reclaim the term 'radical' - 'there's nothing wrong with Radical. 'I'm a radical'.

Malia Bouattia from the National Union of Students was unable to attend but send this message:

We're encouraging Student Unions and student officers to take up a stance of non-compliance with PREVENT and working with academics and staff to undermine the implementation of the Prevent duty and essentially, make it unworkable in practice.

We've had over 30 Student Unions now pass policy to this effect.

The NUS Black Students' Campaign have produced a student handbook to PREVENT and campaigning against it which is available online.

We're also encouraging students to lobby their university/college to come out against PREVENT but so far we're at early days of the campaign and are prioritising raising students' awareness of PREVENT and getting them to build opposition amongst students and academics on their campuses.

Shahrar Ali,  deputy leader of the Green Party told the meeting that the Prevent Strategy was counter-productive on its own terms. he said, 'You can't fight injustice by perpetrating injustice'.

Commenting that  the Secretary of State can direct universities to comply with the Prevent Duty he asked,  'How can you not encourage contestation of ideas in universities? Students must be free to explore and discuss.'

Shahrar described the Prevent Strategy training he had undergone and the spurious video example of of extremism.

He concluded by pledging the Green Party's opposition to Prevent.

Cllr Harbi Farah, who attended after Cllr James Denselow (Lead member for Stronger Communities) and Cllr Liz Dixon (leading on Prevent) had been unable to attend, stressed that he was not t the meeting to defend Brent Council. He said that the Muslim community itself was diverse and many in it do not even know what Prevent is. The Council had a statutory responsibility to operate the Strategy but because secondary schools were now all  academies (MF or faith schools) the council had little influence over them.

Harbi committed himself to try and improve the relationship between the voluntary sector and the Council and arrange a meeting with Cllr Denselow or Cllr Muhammed Butt.

In addition to the proposed meeting with councillors it was also decided to formulate a statement similar to that from Newham (see below) and develop the Monitoring Prevent in Brent Facebook so that people could report what is happening on the ground.

What will McDonnell say about Brent Council cuts on Sunday?

From the current Kilburn Times

On Sunday at 1pm  John McDonnell MP, the anti-austerity Shadow Chancellor, will hold a street meeting at the Jubilee Clock in Harlesden with Labour councillors and activists before they go off to canvas for the Labour candidate in the Kensal Green by-election. (Kensal Green ward covers a large part of Harlesden)

On Monday at 7pm Brent's Labour Cabinet will be setting in motion consultation on the latest round of cuts and increased charges and fees as they implement the Conservative's austerity agenda.

Rather than challenging the cuts agenda they will be operating a bidding war where supporters of different services compete with each other for survival - rather than unity against the Tories attack on local government this will be divisive. According to Michael Pavey's comment it could be those with the loudest voice who will win out : 'If the public is up in arms about any one of these issues we will talk it through and if necessary we will change it.' On the surface this sounds reasonable but leaves those who are most vulnerable and lack a voice at a disadvantage.

There appears to be little appetite for a change of policy in the Labour Group. There are only one or two who have lined up with the recently formed Brent Momentum  LINK while others have joined the anti-Corbyn Labour International. Brent Momentum is urging its members to attend Sunday's event and canvas for the Labour candidate but the effect will be to elect a 55th Labour councillor (out of a total council of 63) who will vote for cuts. If he wins they will hail this as a victory for Corbyn's Labour - all rather contradictory.

This is why the election of Jafar Hassan as a single Green councillor pledged to oppose cuts and hold the dominant Labour group to account would be a much better outcome in Kensal Green.

Sudbury Primary School staff call for formal ballot on strike action

Statement from teaching and non-teaching unions at Sudbury Primary School

On Wednesday a packed meeting of staff from Sudbury Primary in Brent, expressed anger that, after their overwhelming vote of no confidence in their Headteacher LINK  the governors had not acted. They voted to call on their unions to move to a formal ballot for strike action. The vote was 43 in favour and 2 against.

The meeting also agreed that parents should be properly and fully informed. It was agreed that an open meeting should be called by the unions to which all parents, staff and governors would be invited to enable full discussion to take place.

UPDATED; What on earth is happening in King Eddie's park?

Local residents have contacted me to ask if I know what is happening in King Edward VII Park in Wembley where the sports field remains a churned up soggy mess surrouneed by fencing.

One resident wrote:

The main field of King Edwards Park is STILL fenced off (nearly 4 months now, despite a notice saying some disruption for up to 5 weeks) The West side of the park smells really bad….(drainage still an issue??)  Lots of the regular users  the joggers, walkers, dog owners, have stopped using it, and its getting quite ‘creepy’ walking in itdue to the big pile of sand, and the fence you can’t really see  whats around the corner…..especially on these dark afternoons and mornings…

Also there has been a particularly unsavoury character hanging around the ‘bunker building’  who shouts and spits at passers by.

I’ve tried Brent Council, Parks dept.  the local councillor but no response…so I was just wondering if you had any suggestions? 

The short reply is that poor drainage is being replaced but why the delay is a mystery. Weather may be blamed but actually it has been unusually mild or perhaps a spring has been discovered under what used to be a meadow. Whatever the answer what is not in doubt is that this is costing a considerable sum of money.

An FoI request got this response from the Council:

-->

The total cost is approximately £300k of which £93k is grant funding from the Mayor of London (via The Football Foundation) sports facilities fund and Sport England ‘s Protecting playing fields fund.

Which leaves £207,000 from Council funds.

UPDATE

Since publication Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) has written to the appropriate Brent Council Officer as below:

I have previously made enquiries (although not directed to you) about the situation in King Eddie's Park, Wembley Central. Several residents have brought to me concerns about developments in the park and I am asking that the Council clarifies matters.

Residents have raised a number of concerns, including the unexplained fencing off of the main field in the park, as well as a foul smell in the west side of the park (associated with drainage issues).

Please could we have some information about what on earth is going on? Ward councillors have not been informed and residents deserve to know. It was not that long ago that we saved the park from being built on - I had hoped its importance to the community would be better recognised as a result.

BRENT’S INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES (Don’t mention a ’C’ word unless you’re asking for a cheese sandwich)

Guest blog by Peter Murry
 

As a disabled Brent resident, I was invited  to the International Day For People With Disabilities event held in Brent Civic Centre on 3^rd December 2015. Attending this event was my second visit to the Civic Centre since its opening in June 2013.

The event gave certain Brent Councillors, (Cllrs Butt, Hirani & Pavey), an opportunity to grandstand Brent Council’s achievements for People with Disabilities. Perhaps because many in the audience may not have understood some of the speeches, or were attending as paid carers for other audience members, the councillors were able to express their concerns for People with Disabilities without anyone asking any awkward questions, like:

·       How will the London Borough of Brent implement central government austerity policies without harming People With Disabilities or other vulnerable Brent residents?

Or

·       Will Brent Council make any effective attempt to resist these central government austerity policies or even visibly protest against them, in view of the fact that these policies are now forcing even more severe cuts than those that Brent has already carried out?

We heard a lot about ongoing improvements to Brent Civic Centre, which was apparently still the ‘greenest public sector building in Europe’. It is indeed an impressive edifice, but I suspect, most Brent residents use it even less frequently than I have; still it’s nice to think about the council workers having such a wonderful warm spacious atrium to sit and eat their lunches in, instead of being outside on cold, wet, winter streets.

The various stalls from a variety of organisations at the PwD event were quite useful although the display table shared by Unison and the GMB, didn’t seem to have many anti-cuts leaflets on it.

The Choir and Dance group, both featuring performers with disabilities, were good and it’s nice for a diabetic like me to get a few sweet biscuits  once in a while; however once I’d had my free cheese sandwich lunch, I’d had enough, so I never found out if the elephant in the Civic Centre trumpeted and stomped on Councillor Pavey during his closing address

Brent councillors join criticism of Stop the War Coalition and Lucas steps back from involvement

Brent Labour councillors Neil Nerva, Bernard Collier and Sam Stopp have signed an Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn launched today by a new organisation called Labour Internationalists.

The letter LINK urges Corbyn to pull out of the  Stop the War Coalition dinner he is due to attend on Friday and states;

We believe that StWC stands apart from the Labour movement’s values of Internationalism, anti-fascism and solidarity. The vast majority of Labour MPs who heard Hilary Benn’s powerful speech in parliament last week (regardless of how they voted), supported his broad argument that fascism must be defeated, and that the UK must be prepared to join coalitions to do this.

and concludes:

We urge you to distance yourself from this organisation. We believe that Labour Party unity, and electoral credibility in the face of a Conservative government that is pursuing a right wing domestic agenda, would be advanced if  you pulled out of this event.

Meanwhile it was announced today that Caroline Lucas, Green MP, had stepped back from her involvement with Stop the War Coalition a few weeks ago.

The spokesperson said:

Caroline stepped back from the Stop the War Coalition a few weeks ago. Her busy parliamentary and constituency schedule means that she doesn’t have time to fully engage with the role of a Patron and, in light of some recent StWC positions that she didn’t support, she felt standing down was the responsible thing to do. Like the Stop the War Coalition, Caroline is opposed to British bombing in Syria because it will neither keep Britain safe nor help bring about a lasting peace in Syria.

Caroline was specifically troubled by some Stop the War Coalition statements after the Paris atrocities. Though the pieces were subsequently taken down she felt unable to associate herself with them. 

She was also concerned that some Syrian voices were not given an opportunity to speak at a recent meeting organised by the StWC in Parliament.

StWC has played an important role in building the anti-war movement in Britain, and Caroline will continue to work in support of peace.

That view is not necessarily the view of the Green Party as a whole. Policy is made at its twice yearly conference rather than by its MP or leader.

Many Green Party members support the StWC through attending its demonstrations and meetings, although this is not uncritical support.

Shahrar Ali, Green Party Deputy Leader,spoke at the Stop thr War 'Don't Bomb Syria' demonstration at the end of November. LINK

Whatever criticisms we can make, Stop the War Coalition remains the single strongest anti-war organisation in the country and I don't doubt governments, both Labour and Tory, would have engaged in more military adventures if it had not been for StWC's ability to mobilise large numbers in opposition.

Stop the War, as its name states, is a Coalition, and contains people of many different parties, religions and philosophies and is a vital part of a movement that challenges increasing aggression and militarism. It has come under attack from media and right-wingers as a means of undermining its fundamental challenge to the flimsy basis of  Cameron's.

At such a time they deserve our support.

Lucas differs from Labour Internationalists in her anti-bombing position. She said in a recent Huffington Post article:

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister make his case for why the UK should join the bombing campaign against Isis. The debate in the House of Commons was thorough, and the horror and revulsion at recent atrocities in Syria, Paris, Beirut and elsewhere is shared by MPs from across the political divide. 

Yet I have still to see any evidence to suggest that UK bombing Isis targets in Syria is likely to increase our security here in Britain or help bring about a lasting peace in the region in question - to the contrary, the evidence appears to suggest it would make matters worse.

Nerva, Collier and Stopp appear to be supporting military intervention, if not the bombing operation itself.