Traffic safety measures installed at Asda/Forty Lane in Wembley

The Yellow Box has now been installed at the junction of Asda slip road/Forty Lane/King's Drive following concerns over pedestrian at the crossing.

Pedestrian lights and a yellow box have also been installed further along Forty Lane at The Paddocks junction which should ensure a safer crossing from the bus stop outside the French School (formerly Brent Town Hall) and the Chalkhill Estate.

Serious scrutiny requires review of how Brent works with residents on regeneration

This is the full version of Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight. Not all of it was delivered due to the time limit on presentations.

I’m the chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury tenants and Residents Association on the South Kilburn Estate behind Kilburn Park tube station.

We welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns about many aspects of the South Kilburn regeneration. While we thought it rather late in the day, we were pleased when the previous chair of Scrutiny, Dan Filson said there would be a task force set up to look at the issues involved and that residents would have substantial input into that.

He contacted us mentioning many issues which should be looked at, including:

how the decanting process has gone so far, and 

what lessons can Brent (and maybe other authorities too) learn from the project and apply in future schemes. 

whether the properties should have had greater internal usable space  

the disruption during building works  

the amount and nature of external social amenities like play space, open space, doctor surgeries, primary school facilities, community hall facilities or general circulation  

In addition, one of our Kilburn Councillors, Rita Conneelly, suggested to himand us additional issues:

What was delivered and was it the best we could have ?

Whether choosing Catalyst and Willmott Dixon was best for this phase of the development and whether Scrutiny feels Catalyst and Willmott Dixon have breached significantly enough of their contract for Scrutiny to recommend they not be used in future commissions (remembering that Willmott Dixon failed to remain enrolled in the Considerate Constructers scheme, failed to manage their site and minimise impact on residents and failed to deliver the project any where near on time; for example).

What concerns were raised by residents when the regeneration plans were first publicised- and how have these borne out- and most importantly, still not been resolved in cases (e.g. pressures on parking and community cohesion)

Who has been chosen for future phases and how have we insured we will not have the above problems with them?

whether perfectly good blocks which could have provided good homes into the future with a good refurbishment program were sacrificed so that developers could build private flats on prime land? Whilst the blocks in most disrepair have been left until later phases of the programme leaving many families and children in substandard housing for years unnecessarily. 

The report in front of you says under 6.0:

However it is also considered timely to refresh the Master-plan. Therefore, inconjunction with Planning colleagues it is proposed to consult local residentsand tenants on a revised and refreshed master-plan and accompanying SPD.

Brent will appoint master-plan architects, Cost Consultants and also engagewith the local community in regard to proposals. These proposals will considermatters such as, infrastructure, density, mix and range of accommodation, phasing and also the possibility of incorporating additional sites into the Master plan area.

But it is not just a matter of appointing expensive consultants anddrawing up new plans. They should not be drawn up without critical appraisal with real input from residents. That’s why we hope you will press ahead urgently with the task force which Dan Filson proposed.

Missing from the report in front of you is virtually any mention of problems with the regeneration of South Kilburn. There is just  a passing mention to `slippage’ under 5.0 `Current position’.

Of particular concern for us is that there is no mention of the Kilburn Park Catalyst/Wilmott Dixon development. Yet this is not complete even though it is already over a year late. And there are still several important aspects to deal with, such as the recent discovery that not enough refuse storage was planned to cope with both the new and existing residents. While Brent and Catalyst are arguing over whose fault this is, we are the ones suffering with frequently overfull storage bins.

This is just the latest of the relentless problems we have had with a building site next to us. I’ve given you each a copy of the summary we drew up on April so you can see the scale of the problem at least.

While the last 2 paragraphs in the report highlight contractors working with local residents, our experience on the ground has been the opposite.

For instance, under `Green Space’  (page 3) the report says “there is also a communal garden space, provided as part of the CatalystDevelopment, which will also be available to local residents.” Has it been forgotten that this space is only communal because we had a very long and sometimes bitter row with catalyst who were insistent that it would be only for the residents of the new blocks?

We have wider concerns than just the way in which developers impact on those neighbouring their sites, and have attempted to raise them.

The other document I’ve passed you is a resolution passed by our Tenants and Residents association annual general meeting in July of last year. The issues there fall into 3 categories – the attitude of Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst towards us, but also issues around planning – such as the closeness of new blocks to existing ones, which we raised at the planning stage, and have become more obviously dreadful with construction, and our concerns about what regeneration has meant for South Kilburn in general. We have attempted to get these at least addressed by the lead member for regeneration, but despite frequent requests (and promises by her) she has not engaged with us in the 15 months since it was sent to her.

One small example of the issues which have not been addressed – regeneration has significantly increased the population of South Kilburn. The proposed new  `health centre’ has been given much publicity by the Council, yet this is the bringing together 3 existing GP practices. It is not an increased in GP facilities for an increased population.

The section of the report under 5.0 headed “Salusbury Road Car Park Site” reads as if the siting of the vent shaft is settled (in favour of Canterbury Works). It isn’t and won’t be at least until after Parliament has heard the several petitions residents have submitted against the shaft being sited next to a primary school and in the middle of a residential area. Quite honestly. people in the area are shocked that neither HS2 or Brent even attempted to engage with us while arguing for the site to be changed, even though the opposition of school parents, governors and local residents was known to Council officers.B

Which brings me to my final point - the Council has not ensured that developers listen to and respect residents . Indeed Brent Council itself has declined to enforce its own standards with developers and has failed to seriously consult and involve residents in decision-making. For instance, the report says under `Sports provision’ (4.3) that Land was provided for the construction of a new sports hall facility. Built by Westminster City Council, primarily for the, expanded, St. Augustine’s Secondary School. The Council secured reduced rates for South Kilburn residents as part of the deal”. I checked with other members of our TRA before coming here and no-one can recall having seen this advertised anywhere. At the same ti8nme, we have been arguing for years that residents should have use of the Multi Use games Area attached to St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, which was partly funded by the Council and we are still unable to achieve this. Similarly the Council has said residents were consulted about what should go in the new urban park on Albert Road( where HS2’s lorries will incidentally be passing for years). None of us can remember seeing a consultation.

If you want serious scrutiny and a serious appraisal of how regeneration has gone so far, you could start by arguing for serious change in how Brent works with, involves and respects local residents. A proper task force which looks at the problems and pitfalls would be a useful start to that.

Meet the man who is taking over our schools

The situation at Sudbury Primary school LINK where the local authority has limited powers of intervention because the school converted to academy status in 2012, reveals, whatever the outcome of the independent investigation, problems of democratic accountability for academies and free schools.

With all non-faith Brent secondary schools now academies, Oakington Manor and Furness  primarydiscussing academisation, and the Brent Schools Partnership holding meetings for headteachers and chairs of governors in January 2016 on academy conversion, this is clearly a crucial issue.

So let's introduce you to Martin Post, who is responsible for academies and free schools, in Brent. Never heard of him? Well, he is the ex Headmaster of Watford Grammar School for Boys, and has rather a lot on his plate. He is the Regional School Commissioner for South-Central England and North West London and was appointed in 2014. He bridges the gap between academies and free schools and the Secretary of State for Education. This is the original announcement:

From September 2014, 8 regional schools commissioners will be responsible for taking important decisions about the academies in their area. The commissioners will make decisions on applications from schools wanting to become academies and organisations wanting to sponsor an academy.

They will also be responsible for taking action when an academy is underperforming.

The commissioners will not be involved with academies that are performing well or with local authority-maintained schools. (MF latter no longer the case as you will see below)

Each commissioner will be supported by a board of 5 or 6 outstanding academy headteachers, who will be elected by other academy headteachers in the region.

From being in charge of one boys' school Post is now responsible for academies and free schools in the following areas:

• Barnet
• Bedford
• Bracknell Forest
• Brent
• Buckinghamshire
• Camden
• Central Bedfordshire
• City of London
• Ealing
• Enfield
• Hammersmith and Fulham
• Harrow
• Hertfordshire
• Hillingdon
• Hounslow
• Islington
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Luton
• Milton Keynes
• Northamptonshire
• Oxfordshire
• Reading
• Slough
• West Berkshire
• Westminster
• Windsor and Maidenhead
• Wokingham

Keeping tabs on all those schools is clearly a formidable task and it is hard to see how Sudbury Primary will come to the top of Post's in-tray.  Undaunted Post will be adding to their number under draft guidance for RSCs and local authorities  for schools 'causing concern':

1. Schools that have been judged inadequate by Ofsted – An academy order will be issued for all such schools, requiring them to become sponsored academies. To minimise delays and ensure swift action, there will be a new duty on governing bodies and local authorities to facilitate academy conversion. The process for schools judged as inadequate by Ofsted is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this guidance.
2. Schools that are coasting – Schools which fall within our definition of coasting will become eligible for intervention. Where a coasting school does not have a sufficient plan and the necessary capacity to bring about improvement, the RSC will use the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene. In many cases this intervention will be to ensure that the school receives the support and challenge it needs, but where necessary the RSC will be able to convert the school into an academy with the support of a sponsor. The process for schools falling within the coasting definition is described in more detail in Chapter 3 of this guidance.
3. Schools that have failed to comply with a warning notice – Local authorities and RSCs, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, have powers to give warning notices to schools where they have concerns about unacceptable performance (e.g. below floor standards, or a sudden fall in performance), a breakdown in leadership and governance, or the safety of pupils or staff may be being threatened. Where a school does not comply with a warning notice it will become eligible for intervention. The warning notice process is described in more detail in Chapter 4 of this guidance.

In other words the RSCs will be extending their powers into the local authority maintained sector even though there is no clear evidence that academisation improves performance. Meanwhile academies and free schools will operate under a different framework:

·       RSCs will scrutinise academies’ performance and will require academies to take particular action or face termination of their funding agreement where they are in breach of it and such action is necessary.

We have to remember of course that the RSC, Martin Post, will be advised by a board of academy headteachers and is charged with converting schools to academies. Will objectivity be an issue?

As Brent Council has committed itself to work with academies and free schools to provide the additional secondary school places it claims are needed, it appears that the local authority will be losing any influence over secondary schools. Parents and staff will have to look to the remote RSC who is not democratically elected or accountable, for any redress when things go wrong.

In fact the LA becomes subservient to the RSC  regarding local authority schools designated as 'causing concern' under the wider DfE definition of schools 'eligible for intervention':

Where the school is the subject of an academy order because it is eligible for intervention, the governing body and the local authority will be under a duty to work towards the school’s successful conversion into an academy by taking all reasonable steps towards that end. RSCs can also use the Secretary of State’s power to give the governing body or local authority a direction, or directions, to take specified steps for this purpose. If the RSC has identified a sponsor to run the school, and has notified the school of this, then the governing body and the local authority must take all reasonable steps to facilitate that sponsor taking responsibility for the school.In other words LAs and governing bodies have to hand over their schools to academy sponsors.

Meanwhile the RSC will also be working with free schools. The neutral sounding New Schools Networking (actually an agency for promoting free schools and therefore the privatisation of education) is advertising a meeting with Martin Post that will take place on January 29th:

Join NSN and free schools near you for a networking event with Martin Post the new Regional Schools Commissioner for North West London and South Central.
This event offers a chance to meet other free schools which are open or due to open, share experiences with them and hear from the Regional Schools Commissioner about his role and how it will affect your school. 
If you would like to attend please email open@newschoolsnetwork.org
Please note this event is for free schools in this region only. 
- See more at: http://www.newschoolsnetwork.org/academy-resource-hub/events-and-opportunities/rsc-free-school-networking-event-north-west-london-and#sthash.DqhgSQdb.dpuf

Join NSN and free schools near you for a networking event with Martin Post the new Regional Schools Commissioner for North West London and South Central.
This event offers a chance to meet other free schools which are open or due to open, share experiences with them and hear from the Regional Schools Commissioner about his role and how it will affect your school. 
If you would like to attend please email open@newschoolsnetwork.org
Please note this event is for free schools in this region only. 
- See more at: http://www.newschoolsnetwork.org/academy-resource-hub/events-and-opportunities/rsc-free-school-networking-event-north-west-london-and#sthash.DqhgSQdb.dpuf

·       Join NSN and free schools near you for a networking event with Martin Post the new Regional Schools Commissioner for North West London and South Central.

·       This event offers a chance to meet other free schools which are open or due to open, share experiences with them and hear from the Regional Schools Commissioner about his role and how it will affect your school. 

·       If you would like to attend please email open@newschoolsnetwork.org

·       Please note this event is for free schools in this region only. 

There has been little publicity about these proposals and it is important that they become a matter for public debate.

Mansfied Report report says Shaping a Healthier Future programme threaten fundamental principles of the NHS and provide “no realistic prospect of achieving good quality accessible healthcare for all.”

Hammersmith and Fulham Council have issued this release on the Mansfied Report

One of the country’s biggest hospital shake-ups is deeply flawed, likely to exacerbate a deteriorating situation, a threat to the fundamental principles of a universal NHS and should be halted immediately, according to a landmark report from the Independent Healthcare Commission chaired by Michael Mansfield QC.

NHS North West London’s Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF) programme has already seen the hugely controversial closures of two A&E departments, at Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals and the closure of Ealing maternity unit. Further downgrading of Ealing hospital is planned, along with the closure and sale of the majority of Charing Cross hospital site.

The Independent Commission also uncovered shocking details of spiralling management and consultancy costs. At the same time, a crisis is developing in emergency services, with GP services clearly failing to meet demand across the region, contributing to a crisis in A&E performance.
Independent Healthcare Commission Chair Michael Mansfield QC said:

“The findings of the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London are stark - the reforms, both proposed and implemented thus far, are deeply flawed. There is no realistic prospect of achieving good quality accessible healthcare for all, and any further implementation is likely to exacerbate a deteriorating situation.

“Our recommendations are equally stark. It is the view of the Commission that the Shaping a Healthier Future programme should be halted immediately, and that the affected councils should consider a legal challenge if it is taken forward in the current circumstances.”

“At the very core of any decent civil society is the imperative to ensure that the individuals and communities who make up that society have sustainable access to good quality healthcare. The response from North West London NHS, flowing top down from central government, has singularly failed to deliver on this imperative, with all indications pointing to a further deterioration in the future.

“It is crystal clear that the impact of fragmentation through privatisation is slowly eroding what was a National Health Service, a development that ran like a thread through much of the evidence given at our public hearings. In so many ways, the catalogue of failings, missed opportunities and profligacy we have seen in North West London act as a microcosm of a wider malaise across the English NHS. As such, though this report focuses on the NHS in North West London, it should act as a warning call to the top of government.”

Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Cllr Stephen Cowan said:

“People across west London have been horrified to see their treasured NHS deteriorating so quickly – and so unnecessarily. They have protested, sent in petitions and begged local health chiefs to stop this madness, and are furious that local NHS bosses have ignored them for so long. My council colleagues shared this anger, commissioning the Independent Healthcare Commission, and in doing so keeping our pledge to fight for local health services.

“Today’s report from Michael Mansfield QC is a watershed moment. Rigorous, thorough, detailed and rightly independent, the review provides indisputable evidence that these changes to local health services are badly planned, hugely costly and causing life-threatening failures in local healthcare. The only sane decision is to put a halt to them right now.”

The reports key recommendations are:

• The Shaping a Healthier Future programme must be halted immediately
• North West London local authorities should consider their options for launching a legal challenge if a decision is taken to press ahead with the programme in the current circumstances.
• The report’s key findings are:
• Cutbacks are being targeted on the most deprived communities
• The public consultation was inadequate and flawed
• The escalating cost of the programme (£1bn) does not represent value for money and is a waste of precious public resources
• There is no business plan to show the reconfiguration is affordable or deliverable
• NHS facilities have been closed without adequate alternative provision being put in place
• The plans seriously underestimate the increasing size of the population in North West London and fail to address the increasing need for services

In today’s landmark commission report, Michael Mansfield QC also recommends that:

• Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals must retain full ‘blue light’ A&E services for the foreseeable future
• The decision to close Ealing maternity unit should be reversed with immediate effect
• The A&E department at Central Middlesex Hospital should be re-opened
• The National Audit Office should undertake a review of the value for money of the programme
• A new public consultation is needed as the proposals have changed significantly
• Substantial investment should be made in GP and out-of-hospital services, which are clearly overwhelmed and inconsistent.

Read the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London's final report» (pdf 819KB)

What her constituents are telling Dawn Butler on Syria bombings

As anti-war demonstrators throng outside Labour Party HQ and Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn put their respective views to Channel 4 News on tomorrow's bombing vote it is worth looking at what Brent Central constituents have told Dawn Butler MP on her website survey.  The contributions appear to be running strongly against voting for bombing Syria.

Here are a few of the (unedited) comments from the 18 pages of comments on Dawn Butler's website LINK. Italics denote a new contribution:

The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

We should also reflect on the consequences of previous such interventions. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya continue, and terrorism has increased in all those countries, and many more, in the 14 years since they began.

Two years ago, Cameron lost a House of Commons vote to bomb Syria. Then he wanted to bomb Assad’s forces, but today he wants to bomb ISIS. The truth is that further bombing will do nothing to help the people of Syria. ISIS is a product of war, and has been helped to grow by Western allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

There is no comprehensive and clear EU plan in place to provide humanitarian assistance to the large number of refugees which will result from further bombing. In fact, the EU refugee plan is unravelling and the approach to refugees is highly fragmented. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous UN authorisation for the bombing of Syria.

Plans for military action are not subordinated to diplomatic efforts, but instead largely replace them. Also, it is not in practice possible to direct attacks solely at military targets. Evidence suggests that around 90% of drone strike victims are unintended casualties.

It is important that we learn from history. It is now widely accepted that Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had disastrous consequences. There is no reason to think that Syria will be any different.

 I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that bombing will destroy ISIS; I believe that there is a stronger case that it will harm innocent Syrians more than ISIS. Furthermore, there is no system in place to help Syria re-build, as Assad is terrorising his own people.

 The intervention proposed – to add the UK’s specialised bombing capabilities to the US, which has been bombing Raqqa for months, and France, which has also recently bombed “command and control facilities”, “weapons depots”, “training camps” etc in Raqqa is retrogressive, learns nothing from failed ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and just adds to the sum of total misery faced by civilians there. Just how many “command and control centres” can there be in Raqqa and how is it the US and French etc are so poor in “degrading” them???
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been financing ISIL and offshoots of Al Qaida for years, but because monopoly capital here has too lucrative a relationship with the Gulf states, nothing would ever be done to destabilize that and they are allowed to continue unchallenged. Nor to upset Binyamin Netanyahu, ISIL’s chief recruiting sergeant in the Middle East.
The hypocrisy of Cameron and his cohorts is staggering.
There may well be a case for providing logistical and other support to existing fighters opposing ISIL, such as the Peshmerga in Kobane or the Yazidis in Sinjar, but bombing civilian populations or hoping to annihilate ISIL from the air is macho posturing of the “we must do something” school.

 I believe the root of the problem in Syria is Assad and that once he is removed, the people of Syria will be able to deal with ISIS. Their is no strategy to remove Assad, so no clear strategy on how to deal with the problem. Everybody seems to be aware that bombing will not bring about a solution and that ground troops are needed, yet this is not being proposed by the GOvt. In addition, the amount of bombing missions Britain can perform is negligible and will have very little military impact as a result, it is therefore morally unjustifiable given the almost certain likelihood of death to civilians.

 Islamic State represent an extreme and violent ideology which must be confronted. They will not be interested in any compromise, as they are directly opposed to everything about our way of life. It is vital that we join the international coalition and extend our action in Iraq to Syria too, as this is their main powerbase. The more we delay the confrontation, the harder it will be. The Labour Party has a proud history of standing strong against tyranny, and in this generation the fight is against the jihadist ideology. We must stand firm.

 I’m not a pacifist, so can consider military action as necessary. I am not sure bombing of Syria will be effective and stop Isis. To me it is slightly cowardly because the west is not prepared to put soldiers on the ground to help in the battle. More to the point does the west have a clear strategy once Isis is defeated? History suggests not. A vague idea to replace Assad is not good enough and a constant demand for free elections is a good idea but the west has to accept that elections don’t always go your way. 

To me the only way Isis will be defeated is by a ground war, supported by air power, a clear mandate from the UN, and a clear strategy for occupation, rebuilding and economic investment, and exit.
Finally the government has to say how it will pay for any military action. The history of government over the last 50 years is that we have wars but will not raise taxes to pay for them. I think a lot of people will take a penny on income tax if it increases our security.

 The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

 I was encouraged to read in the Kilburn Times that you are minded to vote against extending military action in Syria and I urge you to vote against the Prime Minister’s proposals.
I am sure that many people in Brent recognise that bombing Syria will recruit more young people to ISIS and increase the possibility of retaliatory action in the UK. It will also cause more people to flee their destroyed homes and country.
I hope you will have the opportunity to urge the government to learn from our interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and press them to work to strengthen those international institutions which contribute to peace.

 1. Bombing countries kills and displaces civilians, destroys the infrastructure, damages the mental health of all involved leading to fear and hate.
2. With so much emphasis on intelligence agencies mass surveillance, there should be a worldwide sharing of information to map out sources of funding for Isis, arms suppliers, customers buying oil from Isis in order take away/block funding, supplies, ability to sell oil and recruit.
3. Block ISIS’s communication channels, delete existing videos, photos, stop them communicating via Internet/satellite and mobile technology.
4. Focus on negotiated settlements between government and rebels. External supporters of government and rebel forces ( USA, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Iran etc ) will need to let go of their own financial/power agendas and priotise fate of civilians.
5. There should be effective mechanisms in place hold media corporations (including the BBC) and individual journalists to account when they spread misinformation leading to hatred, fear and confusion. If there is evidence pointing to countries providing support to ISIS, having agendas for regim change, selling weapons, buying oil etc public should be made aware of it. There should be more coverage of unfolding human tragedy (refugees camps, refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, civian deaths in Syria as a result of all the bombing)
6. Information should be released to public regarding:
i)legality of bombing the Syrian government, providing support to, training, arming rebel groups that oppose the government. Are international laws being broken? What is the UN position.
ii)legal position with respect to action against ISIS in Syria, can anyone go and start bombing Isis in Syrian territory because they are worried about the Isis threat to their own country or people? Does America/France have a legal right to bomb Syria, do we, UK have a legal right to join them? Who else has this right?. I am assuming Russia does have a legal right to be there as they were invited in by government?
I ii)Where did ISIS come from, who are they, are they the result of action in the region(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt). Would removing Assad from power have an impact on support for ISIS?
iv) who are producing/dealing the weapons being used? What roles are being played by those with financial links to arms producers and dealers in this conflict.
v)What are the views of Syrian people? Has anyone bothered to ask those left in the country and the millions displaced across the world.
7. Why has America and France been so heavily involved in this conflict for so many years? Were they fighting Syrian government or ISIS? What led to Russian involvement? Who in the region are involved – why and how? If those involved in bombing are only doing so to help Syrian people, doesn’t any other countries want to join in. How much money is being spent on this conflict – where is the money coming from? Why isn’t there enough money to help feed/support/look after civillians caught up in the conflict – but everyone seems to have plenty of funds to bomb and attack Assad and ISIL.
8. People should be supplied with unbiased facts and evidence. Governments should take views of civilian population into account before entering into military action/war.

 Bombing certain geographic locations will cause great loss of civilian lives and only provide more breeding ground for this terrorist group. IS is not a simple target that can be located in Syria. Instead the terrorist attacks of the last decade and a half have demonstrated that IS has infiltrated our society. Political intervention needs to continue and at a faster pace, not senseless bombing to give the illusion that politicians can protect the public in this way. Bombs are a blunt measure when we need these finances to go to different causes: intelligence to cut off IS funds as well as their weapon, oil and human trade, education to show an alternative, and creating a sustainable economy that will make joining IS unattractive.

Brent Central constituents have really risen to the occasion with many thoughtful comments. It is an exercise in democracy that should not be a one-off. 

Not tuppence a bag but £80 fine for feeding the birds, say Brent Council

I really shouldn't have published that video on Brent Council's 'Sugar Free Tuesday' but it seemed appropriate as the Council has decided to discourage people from feeding the birds. This is the announcement on the Council website:

 Residents are being encouraged not to feed birds in local parks and public spaces, as the leftover food is attracting rats and the animal droppings are damaging the local environment. Some of the borough's parks and green spaces are suffering from visitors leaving bread and other household food waste out for local birds, with Butler's Green a particular area of concern, according to the council.

People who do feed the birds risk an £80 fine. Rob Anderton, Head of Public Realm, "Birds are wild animals and can find their own food. Feeding them makes them rely on humans and even become aggressive when they see people with food. "Leaving out food also makes the area dirty as it decays and then attracts flies and rats. This, together with bird droppings from the overfed animals, creates health issues for other park users and local wildlife, as well as damaging public seating, buildings and even pavements."

Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Lead Member for the Environment, said "Our priority is for Brent to be a great place to live, and we are rightly proud of our wonderful parks and green spaces. "However, the problems caused by a small minority of people feeding birds is causing a problem in some of our parks and open spaces. I urge everyone who cares about our open spaces to not leave food out for birds and help us to make Brent a cleaner and greener borough."

Lucas: 'Burning desire to act' must not ignore consequences of recent interventions

Caroline Lucas has published a piece on Huffington Post stating that she will not vote for bombing Syria LINK.

This is a key extract:

It's critical that the burning desire to act, to stop terrorists and keep us all safe, doesn't result in an approach that ignores the evidence of our recent interventions in the region - or their consequences. The civilian death count from the Iraq war and its aftermath is at least 147,000 and, according to Barack Obama, the resulting instability laid the ground for the rise of Isis. Post-Gadaffi Libya, which also has British fingerprints all over it, is witnessing Isis forces gaining power too. Isis thrives in the chaos brought about by Western intervention, which is why the unintended consequences of the 'War on Terror' must serve as a stark warning to anyone thinking of supporting airstrikes in Syria.

But let's be clear: the choice we're facing is not between military intervention and inaction. The Government can and should play a role in brokering peace and stability in the region. The Prime Minister could start by redoubling his commendable efforts to find an urgent diplomatic solution. Given that Isis flourishes where chaos reigns, renewed effort needs to be made to end the Syrian civil war The talks in Vienna are a start, but the process must be accelerated and continue to involve all proxies to the war. That diplomatic effort must also extend to Iraq, where the Abadi Government must be encouraged to reach out to the neglected Sunni minority - especially in those parts of the country where Isis is recruiting.

The British Government should also immediately suspend British arms sales to the Middle East and commit to a foreign policy that is consistent as well as ethical, particularly when it comes to our relations with countries that undermine human rights.

Updated: No support for bombing Syria at Barry Gardiner's meeting with constituents

Barry Gardiner with Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday's Climate March

In a 20 minute cogent presentation in a North Wembley church hall last night, Barry Gardiner set out his thinking on the Syria air strikes issue. He said that he was not a pacifist and that sometimes military action was justified. He had voted for the Iraq war but later went on to criticise the lack of an exit strategy, was one of only 13 MPs who opposed the bombing of Libya, and had helped persuade a change of policy by Ed Miliband's Labour Shadow Cabinet on the earlier Syria intervention mandate.

Gardiner said that he had a duty to constituents to consider whether an extension of existing UK military intervention would be counterproductive.  He considered the legal basis for intervention on the basis of a request by a state to intervene in their defence. Assad had not made such a request. The British Government had recognised the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people.

He discussed whether the  'Self Defence' criterion under Section 51 of the UN Convention was met. Action has to be necessary and proportionate and demonstrated by the 'overwhelming  necessity' for force to be used.

Finally in discussing UN Security Council Resolution 2249 which states that ISIS 'a global and unprecedented threat' to global security' and calls on member states who have the capacity to take action against them, he concluded that it was not credible to argue that there is no legal basis for UK government action. However, the question was whether it was right to do so.

Countering David Cameron's argument that air strikes on Syria would add capacity to the campaign against ISIS , Gardiner said that the same amount of assets would be deployed but now deployed in Syria as well.  It would not amount to a 'significant' military contribution and according to experts was not a 'war winning campaign' by any stretch of the imagination.

British expansion of the existing intervention in the region may feed radicalisation and do more harm than good.

Explaining that he preferred to use the term Daesh LINK rather than Islamic State, as the latter gave the organisation credibility as a 'state' and illegitimately appropriated Islam as a whole, he suggested that bombing bombing might kill many innocent people without significantly harming Daesh.

A cartoon shared widely over the weekend

Gardiner argued that without ground forces the Government's position was one of 'more hope than intent'. Discussing the current forces on the ground in Syria he said that the US had given up trying to train them and were now concentrating on supplying weapons and ammunition. 'A foolish approach' considering the disparate forces involved.

Cameron's suggestion that there was a 'moderate opposition' numbering thousands was a 'falsification of facts'. There were thousands of fighting forces under arms with different aims and rapidly shifting
alliances.  According the the Select Committee Report  so called 'moderates' had been squeezed out.

 Gardiner suggested that British troops could join a multi-national ground force co-ordinated by thw UN but only in tandem with a diplomatic strategy.

Rather than extending existing action the Government should be contributing to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict through the Vienna Conference.

In discussion, although recognising the legacy of Colonialism and Imperialism, Gardiner denounced as 'infantalism' the argument that history justified Daesh's murderous actions.  Challenged on whether, if the Government came up with a more plausible strategy, he would come back to consult constituents in another meeting, Gardiner said that an MP was not a delegate, and a church hall of people was not necessarily representative of all constituents.  He would read all the reports that constituents were unlikely to have time to read, weight the evidence and reach a judgement which he felt was in all constituents best interests.

On the question of whipping Gardiner said that he would not deserve to be MP for Brent North if he did not follow his conscience on such an important issue rather than the party line.

Responding to a question on the funding and arming of Daesh, Barry Gardiner said that the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia needed to be rethought in the context of its export of its philosophy throughout the region. He said that Britain's involvement in the arms trade was a continuing problem, complicated by the fact that many jobs depended on it, but also needing to be tackled.

When discussion turned to what happened in Brent, Gardiner said that many in the Muslim community felt threatened by media coverage of the conflict. Leading figures in that community who spoke out powerfully against Daesh should be supported. We were fortunate that Brent is such a mixed community that no one group feels they can dominate.  He said that Labour had been critical of the Government's Prevent programme. It was a top down model rather than the bottom up approach that could harness forces at a community level. The thought that adolescent youth, at a stage in life when they were searching for their own identity,  could be inculcated with 'British values' was laughable. He was unable to attend the December 10th Prevent: Protectng Our Liberty?  meeting at the Interfaith Centre in Queen's Park because he would still be in Paris for the climate talks, but he welcomed the initiative.

No one at the meeting spoke in favour of the Government policy, or the approach of some in the Shadow Cabinet.  One woman who had been worried about what the 'French and Belgians would think of us if we did not support them' said that she had changed her mind during the course of the discussion.

The most moving speech of the evening was from an 8 year old girl who spoke eloquently about the bombing killing innocent people: 'It isn't right that some innocent people will be killed because of some bad people.'

Radio 4 Today report on the meeting is at 1.50 here LINK

Full transcript of Barry Gardiner's presenattion at the meeting HERE