Helen Carr: Thank you and Goodnight Mapesbury

Cllr Helen Carr has requested that Wembley Matters publishes this farewell statement. Publication does not indicate agreement with the views expressed but given the lack of other public platforms in Brent I have agreed to publication.
 

As you know, I was elected in 2014 under exceptional circumstances and in an extraordinary situation and am now standing down. Thank you everyone – residents, the staff at Brent and political veterans on all sides of the spectrum for their unfailing advice, support and good humour. The indefatigable Martin Frances’ ‘Wembley Matters’ is the go to place for matters of Brent, even for someone like me who avoids social media. I look forward to seeing the Green’s Scott Bartle, who stood against me in 2014, at his first Council meeting in May. Every Council needs a Green.    

What you may not be aware of is my work on the Council of Europe Congress – I was appointed a UK Delegate and last year elected by my European peers Vice President of the Independent, Liberal and Democrat Group. I was asked recently what I was most proud of achieving and I would say without doubt, being elected Councillor of Mapesbury allowed me to defend human rights at a time when certainties such as freedom of speech and association, freedom of the press, the right to freedom from torture – all rights bitterly fought for but taken for granted – are being insidiously eroded in the name of safety, security and stability. History is now being reconstructed to support the arguments and agendas of today’s fascists, idealists, ideologists, politicians et al. Motives and conspiracy theories vary – Germany and Austria have introduced ‘Holocaust Denial’ laws. France’s Sarkozy was accused of trying to attract the Christian Armenian vote when attempting to criminalise denial of the Armenian genocide. Turkey too – with wars within and on its borders - stifles debate not just about its role in the elimination of one and a half Armenians in the period at the end of World War 1, but its treatment and continued suppression of its Kurdish populations, as well as the recent imprisonment of elected politicians, journalists and educators. Russia criminalizes those who discredit the name of the Red Army and Poland has introduced measures imposing a fine or up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of blaming the ‘Polish nation’ for the Holocaust. The murder of journalists in Malta and Slovakia. In the UK, Max Mosley - youngest son of wartime leader of the British Union of Fascists Oswold Mosley – is accused of trying to use data protection laws to gag the press. And so on.

Churchill said it is not for those of us who have not been occupied to condemn and judge those who have. But facts do exist and do matter. It is better to methodically and painstakingly disprove with fact and reason, than fines, force or imprisonment. Ostentatious gestures and actions might seem to make a difference, but quiet conviction in the rule of law have greater pervasive, persuasive and profound influence.  January 27 is Holocaust Memorial Day – the day in 1945 the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. ‘Genocide’ was first used in 1933 in a paper presented to the League of Nations by Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in response to the murder of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918. The term was then adopted by the UN convention in 1948, but continues to be controversial – what constitutes a Genocide and who are victims has become a numbers game and a semantic quagmire. Congesting various issues to an existing memorial day undermines the initial intent. Political interests sully the dignity of the event. In 1946, the term ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ was introduced by Lauterpacht, at the time, resident of 104 Walm Lane, Mapesbury. What would he make of us now that Holocaust Memorial Day also includes other ‘Genocides?’ Will Jews stand alongside survivors of the Israeli campaign in Gaza if claims of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel has committed Genocide are upheld at the International Criminal Court? What of the Poles or the Kurds? The Irish Famine? Or indeed the Nazis and German minority speakers murdered or transported to Siberia by the vengeful Soviets? January 27 is also the day in 1944 identified as the end of the siege of Leningrad where it is estimated more than one million died. What of those victims? And of course, the most recent Genocides in Europe that took place in the Former Yugoslavia. The twentieth century seems to have ended as it began. What have we practically done to prevent atrocity and protect human rights and the rule of law? Concentration camps were not liberated with daisies. 

I am sure we are all familiar with journalist, author and intellectual, George Orwell. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but his was an informed opinion – he fought against Franco’s Fascists in the Spanish Civil War. His statue stands in the BBC’s New Broadcasting House accompanied by one of his many famous quotes ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’

But are we listening? In 1986, the Romanian born Holocaust survivor and campaigner, Elie Weisel, asked the Gypsies for forgiveness for “not listening to your story.” Are we too focused on the minutiae and the quotidian? Founded in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Council of Europe aims to prevent a return to totalitarian regimes and defend fundamental freedoms: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. But have we? Can we? Will we?  

Thank you and Goodnight Mapesbury

Dr Helen Carr is Vice President of the Independent Liberal and Democrat Group of the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. She is Leader of the Independent Group of the London Borough of Brent and Councillor for Mapesbury. Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute, she is a Freeman of the City of a London.  

Lib Dems down to zero on Brent Council and Tories play political musical chairs

Lib Dem councillor Helen Carr introduces herself to Tim Farron

Tonight's Brent Council meeting began with an announcement that the only Lib Dem councillor had decided to become an Independent - ending Lib Dem representation on a Council where they were once senior partner in a Coalition with Paul Lorber as their leader. Carr gave no explanation to the meeting but celebrated her independence by abstaining on most of the votes that took place tonight.

My prediction before the meeting

Joel Davidson after his recent attack on Tory Leader John Warren announced that he was moving to the Kenton Tory Group who now (for how long?) have 4 members to Brondesbury Park's 2. At one point the Kenton Tories were split 2-2 on a vote so three Tory groups may not be faraway.

Tories Kansagra, Davidson, Colwill and Maurice

I am not clear who is now the leader of the opposition, if wonder if the Tories are?

Davidson, the only person who comes close to a Brent Council version of Hugh Grant, was in his element making drawling contributions to the meeting but Cllr Warren once more provided the only real opposition.

Warren raised the fact that the Brent Development Plan hadn't been legally compliant at the time of its approval by the Council and had only been saved by suggested modifications from the Planning Inspector.   He cited the Auditor's acceptance of 5 objections to Brent Council's accounts for further investigation as extremely unusual with most local authority accounts sailing through through the process without challenge.

Perhaps his most powerful intervention was in a motion calling for the CEO to prepare a report on the possibility of Brent returning to a Committee system of governance for consideration by the Full Council. He explained that only eight people, the Cabinet, were really involved in decision making and the other 55, of all parties, excluded.

Warren suggested that the South Kilburn Granville debacle would not have happened if a cross-party committee had examined the proposal.

Rather than actually debating the merits of the proposal Cllr Butt, Labour leader, denounced it as a political ploy to 'take us back to the 80s' and his councillors duly voted it down.

Cllr Warren during the debate had said he had heard that the Labour Group held 'votes on whether to vote' but one of their number told me afterwards that they seldom had votes at all - 'everything is decided by acclamation'...

Mini expenses revolt by two Labour backbenchers

Labour backbencher and former Executive Member Keith Perrin told Full Council last night that he could not vote for an increase in councillor expenses at the same time that the Council was putting up Council Tax. He voted against the proposal and was joined by Cllr Long. They are two of a total of 56 Labour councillors.  I understand that Cllr Helen Carr, Lib Dem, also voted against the increase.

Helen Carr speaks out against 'draconian' PSPO extension in Chichele Road

A proposal to extend the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in Chichele Road and the surrounding area in Mapesbury ward has drawn opposition from Brent's lone Liberal Democrat councillor,  Helen Carr.

The PSPO makes it an offence for any resident or small business to pick up casual labourers within the restricted area, and aims to remove the need for people to congregate outside B&Q and similar areas.

The Community Safety Team are looking to extend the PSPO which expires on March 20th to December 20th 'to allow us to continue enforcement'.

 A 6 week consultation began on January 28th. 

More information can be found HERE and the consultation can be found HERE 

  

Helen Carr wrote:

I oppose this extension on the following grounds: 

This is a draconian measure not originally intended as a response to the complaints of, what I understand it, are a handful of people, albeit they have clocked up more than 400 complaints in a year. This does not mean people should not complain - I myself continually alert the Transport police to Romanian beggars on the underground (a losing battle ..) who when challenged in Romanian, can become aggressive. 

The measure was not successful: at 7am, when I usually set out for work and pass through the Broadway, it did not take long for the small groups of men hoping to gain casual labour, had resumed unchallenged. The measure ensured they congregated elsewhere and in cafes etc. As I understand it, this is an historical issue and originates long before the arrival of Romanians, who are, as I understand it, the new Irish in terms of no skilled and low skilled casual labour. 

I appreciate and agree with residents who claim the police are unable to implement the measure - they have more serious issues to attend to. But this sets a very bad precedent. In the UK, policing is by consent. Servants not masters. In Romania, as in other new democracies of E&C Europe  I have lived and worked in which are only recently free of totalitarian rule, the police are a generally viewed as bodies to be feared. They operate by  a mixture of dazzle, bribery and intimidation: coercion not persuasion and consensus. We need to use these measures sparingly if the tolerance and co operation of our own police are not to be considered weaknesses and vulnerabilities to be exploited. 

Would we be quite so happy to introduce these measures if we called these men 'blacks' not 'migrants'? I think not. 
Many of these men are exploited physically and financially, and to be pitied, not despised.  
Cllr Dr Helen Carr

Standards at Brent Council - An open letter to Carolyn Downs

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

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

Standards at Brent Council – an open letter to Carolyn Downs

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

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

Answer: When you are Cllr. Muhammed Butt.

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

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

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

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

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

THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER

27 November 2015

Dear Ms Downs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

‘© Supporting the Standards Committee:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·      ‘a council in denial’;

·      ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’;

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant

Brent Council Standards: After the 'Missing Minutes' the 'Missing Agenda Items'

The Agenda for the October 1st Meeting of Brent Standards Committee LINK  has now been published and surprisingly does not include any reference to the case of Dr Helen Carr, nor a referral made by Philip Grant.

On September 18th Philip Grant wrote to the chair of the Standards Committee:

Dear Councillor Dixon,

I am writing to you in your role of Chair of Standards Committee.

On 18 June 2015 I wrote to Brent's Monitoring Officer to complain of multiple breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct by one of Brent's elected councillors. I have since made further allegations of breaches, or potential breaches, of the general conduct principles in the Code by the same councillor.

I would be grateful if you would liaise with the Monitoring Officer, please, to ensure that this matter is referred to Standards Committee on 1 October 2015, so that your committee can decide whether the alleged breaches should be investigated. Thank you.Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

I expect we will hear more of this.

Time to ask if Butt is fit to hold office?

The Kilburn Times has published an article LINK on the out of court settlement by Brent Council in the Rosemarie Clarke racial discrimination casewhcih was reported on Wembley Matters last Friday. LINK

Deciding to challenge an employer on such issues is always stressful but Brent Council's stance on the matter has added to the stress as Nan Tewari pointed out in her statement to the Kilburn Times:

Rosemarie is relieved that the original employment tribunal case is over. Her priority now is to try to recover her health, which has hit rock bottom as a result of Brent’s ill-treatment of her throughout the period from her submitted resignation in 2013 right up until the 11th hour of the case being settled out of court. 

The tribunal went through everything in great detail. It went through all so-called disciplinary charges and it was very clear they were made up and supported by documents that weren’t accurate.”

Unfortunately this is not the end and Rosemarie’s recovery will inevitably be hampered by the council leader having effectively caused damage to her reputation by the imputation in a public statement, of a justified finding of gross misconduct against her by the council. She is worried about what the future holds for her and this will inevitably impact on her recovery.

The role of Muhammed Butt, the Brent Council leader in the case is deeply disturbing. He sought to undermine Philip Grant when he tried to raise this matter at Scrutiny LINK , heckled him at an earlier Council meeting and after the last Council meeting interupted me when I was speaking to Helen Carr about her disgraceful attack on Philip. Despite other Labour councillors being aghast at Carr's conduct, Butt gleefully congratulated her on her attack and asked for a copy of the statement she had read out. 

Helen Carr has been made to apologise to Philip Grant and other councillors.

Muhammed Butt has not.

It is surely time for Labour Party Region, the Labour Group and Labour Party members to ask if Muhammed Butt is fit to hold his current office.

Cllr Helen Carr apologises for her conduct at September 7th Council Meeting

This was published as a comment on an earlier posting LINK on September 20th. I publish it here for readers' information.

On 16 September, I received a written apology from Cllr. Helen Carr, addressed both to me and to her colleagues on the Council, for her conduct at the Full Council meeting on 7 September 2015. I have accepted that apology, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter (in as much as it involves Cllr. Carr).

Philip Grant

A salute to Philip Grant for his work on the Davani case

Nan Tewari, who first raised the issue of the behaviour of Brent Council Human Resources on this blog LINK wrote the following comment on the post below about Brent Council settling the Rosemarie Clarke case 'out of court'. I think her comment deserves more prominence.

What stands out in this sorry saga is the power of one individual's tenacious struggle to expose the truth and how that struggle carried out in the public domain, i.e. Wembley Matters, bolstered its effects to ensure a massive degree of success.

Philip Grant's relentless pursuit of matters of fact in this case, together with Martin Francis shining a light on that pursuit, has had the powerful effect of seeing off Cara Davani, Andrew Potts and Christine Gilbert.

After stringing out the Chief Exective 'interim' role for 3 years, Brent Council and Gilbert would have been quite comfortable for her to throw her hat into the ring for the permanent position and for her to have been appointed based on her sterling record of failure to follow basic procedures and nurturing conflicts of interest.

Andrew Potts, business and personal partner of Davani, emerged as a beneficiary of the legal department restructure that had been conducted by Davani and signed (nodded?) off by Gilbert.

Davani herself was secure enough to work on adding such unlikely strings to her bow as taking on responsibility for equality and diversity as well as wanting the acclaim of a Business in the Community award to trumpet the Council's equality achievements as a means of countering the public disgrace at the Watford Tribunal and the public disrepute she brought the council into, for blatant race discrimination.

And Philip's efforts have also exposed for all to see (the video of the council meeting would probably warrant an 18 certificate in the scheme of these things!!) the underlying ill manners and discourtesy of Cllr Butt and Cllr Dr Helen Carr BA (Hons); M Phil (Oxon); Cert TEFL; Dip; DPil who appear singularly unable to understand the balanced deportment required of public figures.

So at a time when it appears that we the public are powerless against those in power, Philip Grant has led the way in showing that we can put the frighteners on public institutions whatever they may choose to admit or however much they may attempt to conceal.

Philip, we salute you.

'Divorced' Tory Groups bicker at Brent Council as Labour continues to subvert democracy

The importance of effective opposition and scrutiny when Labour has a huge majority on Brent Council has been stressed repeatedly on this blog. Following my gagging last night things took an even more ludiucrous turn with Labour using its majority to determine which of the two rival factions of Conservatives would be the 'official opposition'.

Deputy Labour Leader Michael Pavey said on Twitter that the Council had been trying to get the two groups to decide between themselves which of them would take that role for three months without success.

In the event it was the 'old timers' of Kenton who Labour chose much to the anger of John Warren 'leader' of the Brondesbury Park faction.  Warren had done most of the opposing during the meeting - including opposing the Kenton faction.

Warren spoke despairingly about what the Conservatives had been reduced to in Brent and denounced as 'woolly' a motion on the Garden Tax proposed by the Kenton Tories.

The Kenton Tories joined Labour in voting for the 25% allowance increase and the Brondesbury Tories and Helen Carr voted against.

A number of Labour councillors were absent and some of those absences may have been to avoid publicly voting against their party line on allowances. We will wait and see how many donate the increase to charities.