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.

Clean Air for Brent and Harrow: Neasden Goods Yard

On 1 December 2011, Shahrar Ali, Green Party London Assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow was joined by Jenny Jones, Green Party Mayoral candidate outside the Neasden Lane goods yards (pictured) in a call for action over air pollution in the constituency. Neasden Goods Yard has been the focal point of the local party’s campaigns to improve air quality locally.

Dr Ali and Jones met with local shopkeepers and residents to discuss how dust from the bay affects their quality of life and business in their community. Recent research has suggested that more than 4,000 people a year die in London prematurely as a result of poor air quality—and the Green Party have discovered that pollution is often are often twice as bad at child height.

This week Green Party activists across London joined their colleagues in Brent and Harrow in collecting signatures for a petition calling on the Mayor of London to urgently reduce air pollution on main roads near schools to protect the health of children in London.

There are 1,148 schools in London within 150 metres of roads that carry 10,000 or more vehicles per day.

Shahrar Ali, Green Party London Assembly candidate said: "Clean air is a basic necessity of life. The particulate matter generated by the goods yards along Neasden Lane is a serious health hazard for the neighbourhood, made worse by the proximity to the North Circular Road. In this campaign I shall be exposing the harm visited upon residents and local traders by unsafe environmental practices. Only the Greens offer the long-term sustainable solutions to improve air quality and quality of life at the same time."

Jenny Jones said: “Shahrar’s experience as an activist committed to improving the lives of those in the communities of Brent and Harrow make him an ideal candidate to represent the boroughs on the London Assembly. Because we are rooted in the community the Green Party is able to make the links between the issues that affect ordinary Londoners and the policies of those in power at City Hall. This air pollution campaign is a perfect example of joining the dots and working together to create a healthier, cleaner, greener London.”

Notes
1. Statistics on air pollution deaths can be found here.
2. Statistics on schools near major roads can be found here.

Report from Jenny Jones at Jenny for London: "Brent and Harrow candidate demands Clean Air Now!"