Commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day in Brent: In words and in spirit

Rwandan survivor, Ndiho Sean Obedih addresses Brent Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration, Town Hall, 22 January 2012. (Chief executive, Gareth Daniel and borough Mayor, Cllr Aslam Choudry also on stage, l-r).

Performance of 'Viva La Libertad' by Kensal Rise Primary School Ethnic Contemporary Classical Orchestra.

Today's event was well attended and a huge success. I found the programme, put together by the Brent Multi Faith Forum, an excellent combination of historical overview, reflection and meditation, yet something to lift the spirit, too.

Ndiho Sean Obedih (pictured) spoke emotionally, yet eloquently, about the period in 1994 when he and his family escaped with their lives. He started by confiding in us that he hadn't "been able to open the vault of the bad memories" which he held. He punctuated his description of his eventual flight from the home where murderous gangs repeatedly visited and finally burnt to the ground with, "Had we been there [that day], I wouldn't be here today." Mr Obedih's insights were painfully authentic: "I could name a thousand names whose lives have been wasted because of hatred," and he spoke of how when first asked his tribe he did not know the answer, nor could it have been known, or important, amongst the friends he had made before then .. and still. I was impressed with Obedih's articulacy of the evil which men (and it is generally men) do: "No one is born a saviour or a murderer." He ended with a quote from Anne Frank, "I don't think of all the misery but the beauty that still remains."

The performance by the young orchestra from Kensal Rise Primary school was a fitting close to the proceeding, all of which was ably compered by Gareth Daniel. I did wonder whether somebody else might have wanted to perform that link role, but Daniel does have his own charms (describing himself self-effacingly at one point as a "front man")

We do not have enough opportunities in Brent for demonstration of community cohesion and solidarity, but at least this was one almost perfectly managed. Whilst enjoying, as a borough, the most diverse society in the country this was a perfect place to demonstrate the inclusive purpose of the Memorial Day, which has sometimes gotten unduly politicised elsewhere.

Brent Commemerates Holocaust Memorial Day: 22 Jan 2012

Brent Council's Holocaust Memorial Day Commemoration takes place at the Paul Daisley Hall, Brent Town Hall, on Sunday 22 January 2012 at 11am-12noon (following taken from Brent's invitation, also available here).

Holocaust Memorial Day is an opportunity to remember those who lost their lives during the Holocaust and those affected by genocide all over the world. It is an interfaith event which is open to all to attend. The national theme for this year is "Speak Up, Speak Out", and we will be encouraging our guests to reflect on the impact of genocide in the past and to consider how we can act to challenge acts of prejudice, persecution and genocide today.

Please find details of our programme below:

11.00am Welcome by The Worshipful Mayor of Brent, Councillor Aslam Choudry

11.05am Introduction by Gareth Daniel, Chief Executive, Brent Council

11.10am Lighting of the memorial candles by members of Brent Youth Parliament

11.15am Rwandan survivor, Ndiho Sean Obedih ‘Speaks Up’ about his experience during the Rwandan genocide

11.25am The London Cantorial Singers perform ‘Schoch'nei votei Chomer’

11.30am A performance poem by Adisa the verbaliser

11.35am A talk by Frank Dabba Smith. Ernst Leitz of Wetzlar: A German Industrialist Helps the Persecuted During the Holocaust

11.45am Memorial prayer in Hebrew and English led by Reverend Anthony Wolfson, accompanied by The London Cantorial Singers. Followed by a one minute silence

11.55am Performance of ‘Viva La Libertad’ by Kensal Rise Primary School Ethnic Contemporary Classical Orchestra

12-12.30pmTea & Coffee and viewing of exhibitions

All communities are welcome so please encourage your friends, family and colleagues to attend the service and support this very important cause.

Contact Louise Inder for more information.

Willesden ACF: Brent Budget Presentations and Civic Centre Costs

Leader Ann John addresses the Willesden ACF, with Cllr Hirani chair (second from right) and Deputy Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt (right).

The latest of the area consultative forums took place in Willesden on 18 January 2012. The main item was presentation of the Council budget. This consisted of a double act by Leader Ann John and Deputy Cllr Muhammed Butt. Unfortunately, the attendance was poor. I counted 26 in the audience, including some ward councillors, with a few latecomers thereafter. Papers for the budget item could have been better distributed if placed alongside the agenda papers as people entered instead of tucked away on a display table.

Ann John is a formidable politician and her presentational pitch was nothing if not disarming. She spent a good while framing the cuts which her administration was implementing in terms of coalition government edicts – no surprise there, but added in a cocktail of other contextualisers, such as record high income ratio differentials nationally (neglecting to mention past Labour government policies), lamenting the prospect of multi-borough councils (along the lines of a West London Alliance, that Brent was already taking a lead on for other reasons) and the consolation of Diamond Jubilee celebrations on our doorstep in 2012 (Wembley Stadium). She has a straight-talking manner and one can easily warm to her. Somebody said to me afterwards, "How come she makes the worst decisions sound like they're so wonderful? Does anyone believe her?"

Cllr Butt, on the other hand, struck me as uncomfortable with his brief – which went into greater specifics about the figures. In this context, that's actually a compliment. I've heard him speak passionately and confidently in the previous administration, but now as a key front man he looks conflicted and nervous about what he's doing. I've not heard him speak from the heart lately, only with his calculating brain (eg. asking a question about legal licence at a key meeting in which the fate of local libraries was being sealed with his vote among others). I pity when I see politicians with a conscience risk losing it like that. I especially pity the people who have to forebear the consequences of bad decisions.

I raised a clarificatory question about the financing for the Civic Centre, which was heralded in the presentation of a revenue-raising venture. The Council's basic contention is that the co-location of 12 buildings, mostly with soon-to-expire leases, into one civic centre will cost the council less to run overall. We were told that "within 3 years it will be delivering £3.5m savings each year". However, this did not sit easily with previous assertions that the capital cost of the project would be paid back over 25 years – wouldn't these putative savings be used up in repayment of that debt, costing at least £4m year on year over 25 years? I was referred to an officer both at the meeting and invited to speak to him during the interval, which I took up. I was told that over and above these putative savings, another £3m per annum was already being offset against the cost of the debt repayment, although I couldn't be given the term of this repayment – it would have to be considerably more than 25 years. Nor could I be supplied with hard calculations since these were "confidential".

Ultimately, I don't see how we can have confidence in these savings assumptions without being able or allowed to scrutinise the devil of the details and assumptions behind them. Even if savings could have been expected through co-location, why then squander the larger part of them on repayment of a building, a large part of which is going to be allocated to private occupancy? Why not use the £20m expected to be raised through sale of the Town Hall on a more modest building? Even after such a sale, I was told, the debt will be £105m. How can the Council be counselling, and implementing, service cuts in the front line, such as local library provision, without this debt worsening the situation?

Moreover, even if were to rely upon the £3.5m per annum net savings figure from 2016 (3 years after opening), that means a net cost to us at least until then. Brent claims that it needs to make £100m of savings over the next four years – but surely this financial pressure is made worse by the civic centre costs in the interim?

Even on their own terms, the current costs associated with financing the debt is substantial (repayment plus interest). In answer to a recent FOI request about this cost, I was told:

“The actual monthly contract costs of the construction of the Civic Centre are now being published as part of Brent’s commitment to Open Data:

http://www.brent.gov.uk/opendata.nsf (a prize to anybody who can locate the relevant lines?)

The cost of financing the debt is published in the council’s Statement of Accounts as required by International Financial Reporting Standards. Prior to the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards the interest paid on the debt was £67,496.75.” (FOI, 27 Sept 2011)

Finally, it’s hardly comparing like with like to calculate a net savings figure in 2016 using 2012 as a baseline, when Brent’s use of space would have significantly reduced by then due to redundancy and downsizing (much of which will be controversial). The correct comparison would surely be against how many of the 12 buildings would still have been required without co-locating?

At the Council Executive on Monday 16 January, two days earlier, we heard the Audit Commission present its annual audit of Brent Council. Unfortunately, we were advised, in understated yet authoritative tones, that Brent had had "difficulty" in presenting its accounts, which had been found "incomplete, inaccurate and untimely". This had necessitated payment of an additional fee of £50,000 to help bring in order. Improvements were said to be required in financial reporting and reserves. The annual Audit Commission letter is available here.

The final in the latest round of ACFs takes place in Kingsbury on 7 February 2012. (Oh dear, this date seems to be changing continually! It was advertised first as 8 February, then misadvertised for January (including by Ann John last night) and now I see it has changed yet again. At this rate, who will know?). My colleague, Martin Francis, reports on the Wembley ACF here.

PS. Here is a useful meetings diary, difficult to find on the site, but currently does not list the Kingsbury ACF at all.

Letter of the Week: Anti-HS2 Campaign Will Continue

Shahrar Ali's letter in Brent Times, 12 Jan 2012 edition (p. 20), 'Our anti-HS2 rail campaign will continue'.

Transcript follows:

'Our anti-HS2 rail campaign will continue'

The notion that there may be a silver lining on the cloud hanging over residents who would be adversely affected if the HS2 high speed rail proposal got the go-ahead is a dangerous one, (‘Campaigners pledge to step up battle if HS2 goes ahead’, 5 Jan 2012).

The fact that a light rail scheme for north west London could take advantage of a new station at Old Oak Common IF HS2 went ahead is hardly cause for celebration for residents of Camden, Kilburn, Wesminster North and Kensal Green who would have to contend with a tunnel being built under their homes.

The HS2 proposal, even though given the all-clear by the government this week, would have a long way to run in terms of public consent and planning approvals. It would surely be better for proponents of light rail not to risk having their campaign recruited by proponents of an ill-conceived HS2 plan – unless, that is, they are in favour of the HS2 in its own right, too, or would wish to prioritise it?

John Whitelegg, Green Party spokesperson on sustainable development, and an expert in the transport industry has said: "The reasons for opposing the current set of proposals revolve round the flawed business case, the damage to environmentally sensitive areas, the forecast increases in car and air transport that are associated with high speed rail demand forecasts and the very poor performance of high speed rail in reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Brent Green Party supports light rail as part of an integrated transport solution for the borough, together with better pedestrianisation and cycling routes.

However, together with a growing number of organisations and individuals campaigning nationally under the banner of STOP HS2, we continue to campaign vigorously against HS2. It would also represent a massive cost which none of us can afford.

Shahrar Ali
Green Party London Assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow
PO Box 54785
London NW9 1FL

See John Whitelegg's latest article in the Huffington Post: 'HS2 is Socially Regressive, Environmentally Damaging and Bafflingly Irrational' (11 Jan 2012)

Brent Times: Council won't rule out private parks

Martin Francis pictured and quoted in story on Brent Parks Service privitisation rumours (Brent Times, p. 2, 12 Jan 2012 edition)

Continuing Opposition to HS2 High Speed Rail: Brent, Chilterns and Beyond

I recently visited a part of the Chiltern Hills (tree pictured), threatened with development if the HS2 high speed rail proposal went ahead. What price the despoilation of our beautiful countryside? The Green Party has been taking a lead, amongst all the political parties, in opposing this ill-conceived plan. (See STOP HS2 campaign site here and here, my report on recent public meeting in Brent, and a letter in Brent Times). The campaign against HS2 was also highly visible in the village of Great Missenden (on the approach to the Chilterns, google map below), from where these posters present the case against succinctly.
Great Missenden says Stop HS2. Why? "No business case. No environmental case. No money to pay for it."
Gt. Missenden: "The country's broke. Axe HS2"

View Larger Map

National press and media reports yesterday of Network Rail endorsement of the HS2 plan paving the way for a Government approval is cause for alarm (e.g. Channel 4), if only for fear that the government has already made up its mind and is trying to soften the blow by media management. NR were already firmly in the yes camp before the consultation concluded.

Local press reports this week, 'Brent light railway campaigners to 'step up' fight if HS2 goes ahead' (Brent Times, 8 Jan 2012) surely risk distracting attention away from the campaign to Stop HS2 proper. The planning approvals, even if an all-clear is given by the government, have a long way to run. I think it would be good for proponents of light rail not to risk having their campaign recruited by proponents of an ill-conceived HS2 plan. Any hint that there may be a silver lining on the cloud hanging over the residents of Camden, Kilburn and Kensal Green (and that's just our locality, see proposed route) because of an additional station that could be used by both schemes, is hardly going to compensate for the negative impact of having a tunnel built under them!

John Whitelegg, Green Party spokesperson on sustainable development, and an expert in the transport industry has said: "The reasons for opposing the current set of proposals revolve round the flawed business case (e.g. assuming that people do not work whilst on a train journey), the damage to environmentally sensitive areas, the forecast increases in car and air transport that are associated with high speed rail demand forecasts and the very poor performance of high speed rail in reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Brent Green Party will continue to monitor developments in the HS2 proposal and to argue the case against.

Public Rally: Ten Years of Guantanamo Injustice

On 7 January 2012, peace and human rights campaigners converged on Trafalgar Square to mark ten years of injustice at Guantanamo Bay. Impassioned peeches included our own Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London (pictured below). I joined the visual display by wearing an orange jump suit and black hood, as part of a line of would-be Guantanamo detainees (pictured above, from the line). We had our numbers and names read out in turn, as we passed to the front of the line, then returned to the back of the line to continue the process again, until all 171 names and numbers of the currently detained were read out in public. Though this process continued for only ten minutes, the sense of dehumanisation from under the hood was already palpable. (London Guantanamo Campaign callling for this action.)

One can hardly imagine the suffering and degradation which these unjustly detained men are having to endure, and have done for up to ten years. Moreover, British resident Shaker Aamer and former resident Ahmed Belbacha are being impeded for return to this country by the current British government.

When I sought to explain the injustice of Guantanamo to sixth formers during the Bush years, their response was one of incredulity, "Surely they must have done something wrong?" No, that's the point. No charge. No trial. Now we must persevere to fight this injustice even whilst Obama breaks his pledge to end the regime.Shahrar Ali and Jean Lambert MEP at the public rally, Trafalgar Square.

Local meeting on Guantanamo injustice: As part of Brent Stop the War meeting, Monday January 9th 7.30 pm at Brent Trades Hall, 375 High Rd, Willesden NW10 2JR. Aisha Maniar, steadfast campaigner, will speak on Ten Years of Guantánamo Bay.

More photos from the action day.

Navin Shah and Brent Library Campaign

My letter questioning Navin Shah's position on the local library closures and associated campaign to save them was published in this week's Brent Times (5 Jan 2012, Letters, p. 14). The position to which my comments were directed appeared on Mr Shah's website on 22 Nov 2011, 'Libraries are community hubs'. Another public affirmation of Mr Shah's position has since appeared here (6 Jan 2012). However, support for the local library campaign surely includes the key goal of over-turning Brent's closure decision - and the latest step in the legal battle means taking this to the Supreme Court (see my previous posting, 19 Dec 2011). Does Mr Shah support the campaign's aim to have this decision overturned? Support only for a contingency library facility, say, without proper public funding, is controversial for reasons of principle, precedent and strategy.

A transcript of my published letter appears below:

Unfortunately, Navin Shah finds himself in the awkward political situation of trying to distance himself from the decisions of his own party and to defend them at the same time in one of the boroughs which forms half of his GLA constituency.

In November 2011, writing on his website about the six library closures across Brent, Mr Shah says, “I’m not a Brent Councillor so as such have no powers or vote on Brent Council. Brent has been placed in an impossible position by the stringent cuts worth £60million next year alone imposed by the Tory and LibDem Government.”

Firstly, the position was not “impossible”. Nor was it inevitable. It was a political decision made in the Council chamber, specifically by the Brent Executive on 11 April 2011. That night we heard from dozens of petitioners. We heard from young, we heard from old – invariably eloquent and impassioned - exercising their speaking rights against the proposals, for two hours solid. Yet the Executive could not even bring themselves to raise their hands when voting for the Library Decimation Smokescreen, which they have the gall to describe as a “Transformation Project”.

Secondly, if the safeguarding of our local libraries does not count as a “frontline service”, that Mr Shah claims to want to defend, then what does? Young and old alike are being deprived of access to essential educational resources – and those harmed include some of the most disadvantaged in our community, looking to improve their lifechances. Nor is the erection of a new Brent HQ in Wembley at a cost of £102.4million worth foregoing frontline services for.

No, compare Brent Council’s reckless disregard for the People of Brent, continued in the Courts, to the commitment shown by Southwark Council. Southwark also had exactly 12 libraries, but instead of decimating them to six, they have just opened a new facility in Canada Water to bring their complement up to 13. Shame on Brent Council!

I can understand the embarrassment of Mr Shah’s political situation. But make no mistake, the decimation of our libraries is happening on his patch, and I think we do deserve a proper condemnation of it from him; instead of misplaced loyalty to his party and trying to pass the buck only to the Coalition government.

Shahrar Ali
Green Party London Assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow
PO Box 54785
London NW9 1FL

Picture top: part of Preston Library Wall of Shame on 7 Nov 2011 (since dismantled, see Wembley Matters).

Calling Planet Earth on Boxing Day: So Many Beautiful Things So Little Time!

Shop till you cash-or-credit-card-accepted-at-this-till drop on Boxing Day: "So many beautiful things, so little time."
So many beautiful things. So little time.
Boxed in on Boxing Day: "I didn't find it. It found me." Honest. Wow, all that lovely green foliage on the side of the building!
BBC interviewing shopaholics on Oxford Street. Camera later trains in on their shopping bags, "Wow!" says interviewer. "Hope you get some time to do some shopping later!" couple tells film crew as they leave. So little time!

New Year Message from Brent Greens

Brent Greens would like to wish the People of Brent a peaceful and productive New Year. The following is an address by Martin Francis, originally commissioned by Brent Times (22 Dec 2011 edition, p. 2):

"I hope that readers will have some quiet time to reflect over the holiday on what has been tumultuous year. The way the community has rallied in defence of libraries and other local services has been magnificent but more difficulties will face us next year. There is likely to be a big rise in evictions and subsequent homelessness in the new year which will impact on young families - they will need all the support we can give them."

"At a broader level we need to rethink the way our economy works so that basic needs of work, warmth, food and shelter are provided for all and the wants of rampant consumerism and greed are challenged. Meanwhile extreme weather events in many parts of the world remind us that Climate Change is an ever-present threat which needs unprecedented international action to ensure our children have a future."

Picture: Martin Francis in polar bear suit at Willesden Green, ahead of climate change march, Nov 2011.

Wembley Central By-election 2011: Labour Hold No Cause for Celebration

The results for the Wembley Central by-election held on 22 December 2011 are as follows:

Krupa Sheth - Labour Party - Elected with 1402 votes 48.1%
Afifa Pervez - Liberal Democrats - 1022 votes 35.0%
Madhuri Davda - Conservative Party - 349 votes 12.0%
Martin Francis (pictured) - Green Party - 130 votes 4.5%
A total of 13 votes were rejected with a turnout of 27.58% (2,916 papers).

Source: Brent Council with vote share percentages calculated by me.

The group picture shows the Labour team in jubilant spirit at the delcaration. Libdems looked particularly dejected (identifiable in foreground for that reason alone) and had clearly cottoned onto the fact, fairly early in the count, that it wasn't going to be as close as they expected. In the event the margin was quite large.

I had spent some hours on polling day on a walkabout with the Green candidate, Martin Francis. We canvassed two streets until all the leaflets were gone, visited polling stations, shared friendly discourse with tellers from opposition parties, and solicited latest polling figures. By late afternoon we were predicting a very low turnout. In the event, turnout must have picked up in the evening rush hour better than we expected. After taking postal votes into account, I estimate that each of the four polling station venues (serving 7 polling districts between them) must have seen on average around one voter per minute pass through their entrances in the last six hours of polling. I should imagine that Labour's knocking up operation was particularly good - and we passed Cllr James Powney twice during the day.

Although Councillor Sheth and Brent Labour are to be congratulated on their win - only as a matter of electioneering - local and vocal opponents of the cuts agenda will be left wondering how they managed it - more important, politically - or what it would have taken for Labour to have lost this byelection, given how much discontent has already been caused by the local library closures, with the threat of yet more pain to come; in particular, when housing benefit caps come into force in the new year with little prospect of a fight by the Labour administration. The result is little cause for celebration but rather greater cause for trepidation that Labour might feel emboldened in its current course.

The LibDems will also be left worried about their prospects in Brent, given that they had already taken this ward at the byelection in 2009 and weren't short of leaflets this time round either.

The Greens have much to proud of in their campaign. Our aim was modest, in a part of Brent where we have not been active in the past, and we managed to increase our vote share on both the 2009 byelection (3.5%) and the 2010 local elections. We canvassed only a part of the ward, with a small team, and could see the fruit of this labour when one of the ballot boxes in particular was sorted. Martin Francis served us proud!

A word about Brent's statistical analysis. The following shows percentages rounded to the nearest integer. However, such rounding is neither de rigeur nor, in my opinion, advisable. Figures should be expressed to at least one decimal place (Brent is already calculating the turnout to 2 decimals so why the discrepancy?). Firstly, one could then distinguish between candidates getting 0.3% and 0.7%, for example, and one would hardly want to round 0.3% downwards. Secondly, totals would then come to 100%, even after taking any spoilt papers into account. Therefore, I have expressed percentages at the top of this post to one decimal place. The Greens vote share went up 1.0% in this election from 2009.

Let me take the opportunity, on behalf of Brent Greens, to thank our voters at this byelection. We will be back for your vote in the May 2012 GLA elections, and then some!

First thoughts on result on Wembley Matters by the candidate Martin Francis.

Weekly press: Brent Times edition 22 Dec 2011, reflection on the year by Martin Francis (page 2) and letters (page 14) by Shahrar Ali (on HS2) and Martin Francis (on Willesden bookshop).

Brent Libraries Decimation Smokescreen: The Fight Continues

On 19 December 2011, the People of Brent lost their Appeal in the High Court against Brent Council in their determination to see half of the borough's libraries returned to use (previous postings).

The Judge almost whisphered his verdict. Public speaking training may be required, or maybe this is the accepted technique for swallowing words for conclusions which don't follow from the arguments presented? I collected a copy of the Judgment (since available on-line) so I could convince myself that he hadn't misread the conclusion. Indeed, two of the three judges say in the report that they "would dismiss this appeal" and the third says he agreed for reasons given by the first two. However, as an example of the kind of bizarre logic presented in the Judgment:

"So that is the real question: whether the council did have due regard. This has to be decided as a matter of substance, not form. Thus in any particular case it is not necessarily fatal if there is no EIA [equalities impact assessment]; and likewise it is not necessarily conclusive if there is an EIA." (LJ Davis, para 92)

But this is to set out, in form [sic.], that an insubstantial EIA - ie. none - will not count against a consideration of whether due regard has been taken with respect to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (in particular, as this relates to indirect racial discrimination of a community disproportionately affected by the closures). Doesn't deployment of this bizarre substance/form distinction beg the question about what weight is to be given to such an EIA, particularly when the Appelants have contended that the Council has paid insufficient regard to its duties under the Equality Act?

The library campaigners congregated in the corridor outside to hear from their solicitor, John Halford of Bindmans LLP (pictured, with papers). He gave an account of what happened and articulated options for the campaigners to consider. An emergency motion was moved by the campaigners to continue the fight in the Supreme court and to instruct their solicitors, in the first instance, to prepare a petition to have the case heard there. I also felt as though our solicitors had public interest in their sights and the requisite, and reassuring, level of impassioned commitment to the cause - without this clouding their judgment.

The campaigners' solicitor, John Halford, of Bindmans LLP said today:

"Today's Court of Appeal ruling is very difficult to reconcile with what Parliament intended when it enacted the equality duty that obliges Brent, and all other local authorities, to properly grapple with the impact withdrawal of local services of this kind has on communities. The Court of Appeal appears to accept that there is a risk of indirect discrimination against significant numbers of people in Brent resulting from its plans to impose devastating cuts on local library services, but it has excused the Council from properly taking that risk into account before deciding to make those cuts. Our position is that this is simply wrong in principle. If the Supreme Court is willing to hear this case, we anticipate the outcome being very different."

Dr Shahrar Ali, Green Party London Assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow said:

"This is another sad day for the People of Brent in their collective aim to get the Libraries' Decimation Smokescreen exposed for what it is. In an unconscionable raid on some of our few remaining community spaces, the Council would deprive its people of the best part of their educational resources and have the audacity to pretend that we simply don't understand that this is really for our own good! The People of Brent will not stand for it; we will prevail in the Courts the third time!"

My colleague Martin Francis is posting at Wembley Matters.

Harlesden Gallery Artist Group Exhibition @ The Tricycle - Kilburn

Harlesden Gallery Artist Group Exhibition @ The Tricycle - Kilburn

January 9th – February 4th 2012 | Private View – 12th January 2012 - 6.30 - 9pm

Harlesden Gallery presents: A Graphically Illustrative Concept…

The Harlesden Gallery artists are back at the Tricycle with an exhibition of digital, illustrative and graphic art.  This exciting exhibition will feature works ranging from the conceptual and iconic to the ironic and bizarre. The show combines the dreamlike illustrations of Alex Stewart, Cos Ahmet and Stuart Alexander with the iconic imagery of Ben Oakley and the digital composites of urban artist ‘PIKY’. Meanwhile the humorous subtlety of Gabriel Parfitt and Will Parker’s pieces are a non-confrontational poke at the ordinary and everyday.

Harlesden gallery was borne out of a project called the Harlesden Town Charter, compiled by local residents as a means to deliver regeneration of the area with funding from various sources. The charter identifies the absence of cultural space. So, as there is no actual gallery, we've created a virtual one instead, resulting in the recruitment of a group of talented artists that wish to promote Harlesden and the NW10 area. Harlesden Gallery represents a talented mix of artists, both from NW10 and elsewhere, creating a fascinating network of talented individuals, and providing a comprehensive artist resource, using the combined knowledge, links and contacts of those featured to promote the group under the 'Harlesden Gallery' banner.

Our aim is to exhibit all over the London area and beyond, creating a commercially successful art group while also being a great benefit for the Harlesden locality and community. Harlesden Gallery serves the purpose of creating an interest and awareness of the area, and our aim is to secure the funding for a cultural space that arlesden so desperately needs and deserves.

Gabriel Parfitt: Gallery creator and coordinator

Featured Harlesden Gallery Artists:

Cos Ahmet: www.cos-ahmet.co.uk | Stuart Alexander: www.stuartalexander.net |
Alex Stewart: web.mac.com/alexanderjs | Will Parker: www.worldofparker.com | Piky: www.piky.co.uk |Ben Oakley: www.benoakley.com | Gabriel Parfitt (Curator): www.gabrielparfitt.co.uk

Contacts and Links:
Website: www.harlesdengallery.co.uk
Curator: Gabriel Parfitt | gabrielparfitt@hotmail.com | 077 8686 5356
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harlesdengallery/
Venue: The Tricycle Theatre | 269 Kilburn High Road | London NW6 7JR | 020 7372 6611 | www.tricycle.co.uk

North West London and Ealing NHS Hospital Trusts Selling you More for Less

This picture shows notes from a break-out group discussion (with advocates of merger plans in the background), taken towards the end of a public consultation meeting on 12 December 2011 at the Sattavis Centre in Brent. The meeting was hosted by Brent LINk on behalf of the Ealing Hospital Trust and North West London Hospitals NHS Trust. A full report of the meeting is given by my colleague Martin Francis here and a previous posting describes the running down of the Central Middlesex Hospital's A&E department.

Due to a speaking engagement, I was not able to hear the presentation but residents will be able to attend another consultation meeting in Harrow on 12 January 2012 at Premier House Banqueting, Canning Road, Harrow, HA3 7TS (5.30-8pm).

Unforunately, judging from the discussion I did witness, there is some cause for alarm. Martin Francis asked, "Won't you have a problem if there was a major incident? How would you cope?" He was not satisfactorily answered. A woman, waving a merger plan, asked why the motivation to cut costs was not made transparent in their proposals. Reading the briefing document, "Stronger together", I can attest to the fact that this motivation is not made properly explicit. The obvious question then arises whether core and specialist services won't suffer, if the main driver is cost savings. Under "financial drivers" the merger proposal states:

"While the key driver for merging our organisations is to improve clinical quality, we also have to consider what financial benefits merger will bring. Our services need to be affordable, as we know there will be a reduction in hospital income when resources shift to the community. We need to match our services to this change in funding."

This is a very odd way of expressing cost-cutting as a driver and it's certainly difficult to decipher cause and effect from this statement. Instead it sounds like the decision to "shift resources" has already been made. If the merger advocates had said, "Sorry, we need to run these services for less therefore we can't maintain the level of health provision across the board. Sorry for any inconvenience or damage to health caused," we might all know where we stood.

But to pretend that 800,000 residents can receive more for less seems to rely on some perverse logic. Perhaps, instead, the status of this "consultation" is revealed on the penultimate page:

"Whilst we do not have to formally consult with the public about the merger, we would still like to hear your views.."

So much for the patient-centred care ethic, even if the Trusts were right about their interpretation of their duties to consult.

Notice of refusal to collect refuse in Wembley Central ward

This picture was taken in Wembley Central ward on 10 December 2001, whilst out canvassing. Clearly not all residents are favourably adjusting to the new waste disposal regime (previous posting). The notice of refusal to collect this waste states:

"Today you left extra waste next to your landfill waste bin. We only collect waste that is inside the bin. Put it in your landfill waste bin next time. We will not empty your landfill waste bin if it is too full and cannot be shut."

Unfortuantely, that means that this particular resident could be facing a catch-22 situation. They cannot put the waste inside the bin, since it is full and will not be emptied if overfull. But they cannot leave the waste outside the bin either, since it will not be collected. Presumably they should be collecting their waste indoors until or unless they have spare capacity in the grey bin every fortnightly collection?

Is this rule being sensibly applied in this case? The bearer of the notice (Brent's subcontractor) is acknowledging that this waste is meant for landfill but it is being left to stand on the street exposed to the elements and interference from foxes, with the inevitable result that dispersal will result.