You will have seen on the news the death of two young men – both who had been at dance music events at Alexandra Palace on Friday and Saturday. One other young man is in hospital in a stable condition.
The management at the Palace have put out this statement
The key point being that if you were at the Palace and took any substances and do not feel well – then please go to A& E to get checked out.
The police are investigating the incident.
GreenN8 has put together a clip with Stroud Green’s residents and LibDem politicians explaining why the Boundary Commission should leave Stroud Green in the Hornsey & Wood Green constituency and not move it into Tottenham.
Here is the film marvellously put together by Ofer: http://www.youtube.com/GreenN8TV
Myself and many others have spent years campaigning to highlight the issue of domestic violence, and so I was delighted to speak at a conference today hosted by the City of London’s City Bridge Trust, NSPCC and Refuge looking at what can be done to meet the needs of children affected by domestic violence.
There are some great services out there that support thousands of vulnerable women and children, but it is concerning that new research by the NSPCC and Refuge shows children’s views are often ignored and considered second to those of women suffering from violent abuse.
The report highlights some isolated examples of promising work in this area that we can build on, but the researchers found children can be sidelined, and some of the most vulnerable children and young people are the least likely to get help.
We must do more to tackle this issue, and ensure children as well as the women are able to access adequate support, and that children have a role in shaping the services that directly affect them. You can read my full speech from the conference here:
Introduction
Good morning. I would like to start by thanking Refuge and the NSPCC for inviting me here today and giving me an invaluable opportunity to hear from these incredible young people.
It’s easy as a Minister to get stuck in Parliament or in the Home Office, and to simply read reports and meet officials, but it is so important for me to hear first hand from the people whose lives are affected by the issues I am working hard to address.
I would like to commend the panel for having the bravery to talk about your experiences.
I was so moved to hear about your lives and the difficulties that you have overcome. It is truly humbling to stand in front of you to hear about the challenges you’ve faced, but to see that you’ve not let these stop you from moving forward.
Your voices bring this research to life and underscore its importance.
And Michelle.
I am always thrilled to meet successful business women as I’m very aware of the unique challenges they face (especially when dealing with Lord Sugar).
But your success is even more commendable in light of your own experiences as a child. It is a tribute to your character that you have not let this hold you back, and your tremendous success shows that no matter what terrible events you endure as a child, they need not define your future.
However, we cannot let these inspiring stories distract us from the reality facing so many children living with domestic violence and the important messages in your research.
Why is this report important?
As minister responsible for the Government’s action plan to end violence against women and girls, tackling domestic violence is one of my most important responsibilities and one that is always at the forefront of my mind.
The level of violence faced by women and girls continues to shock me – in the last year alone, there were over 1 million female victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales.
That’s nearly 2 women each minute – another 20 victims by the time I finish speaking. This is simply deplorable. It is a scandal and an outrage that over the course of their lifetimes a quarter of women will experience this horrific crime.
But what we forget is that these women often have children and when violence enters the family home, it enters the lives of everyone there. No one is left untouched.
Living with those 1 million victims are many more children, powerless to end the violence that surrounds them and desperate for it to stop.
Whether violence happens in the next room, directly in front of children or involves children themselves, it casts a devastating cloud over their daily lives and stops their childhood instantly.
From speaking to victims myself, I know how hard they try to shield their children from violence, to the extent that they will endanger their own lives further to protect their children.
But we are understanding more and more that when children grow up in a home tainted by violence, their development, their wellbeing and their relationships with both parents – perpetrator and victim – are all adversely affected and the damage is deep and long lasting.
We recognise in law that seeing or overhearing violence to another person in the home is potentially detrimental to children’s welfare, and, as your report identified, this is increasing the notification of domestic violence cases to children’s services. But we need to think more about quite how far reaching the impact is and how differentiated our response to children needs to be.
We know how victims in violent relationships struggle to know what they should do, but too often we don’t acknowledge the confusion felt by children trying to reconcile the image they have of a loving parent, with the violent perpetrator who destroys family life.
We often focus our efforts on moving victims and their families out of violent homes, but do we think enough about the support children need to adjust to new homes and new schools, and the new life these bring.
Listening to the stories of the young people on the panel today, I am struck by some of the particular issues you raised: services rarely open outside school hours – so you can’t access them without missing school; more promotion of sites like The Hideout – the Women’s Aid website for young peopl and the need to treat every child individually with a solution that address their needs personally.
Government strategy and action
So what are we doing? First, let me be clear – the protection of children is a priority for this government and protecting them from domestic violence is a personal priority for me.
To that end we have allocated £28 million of stable Home Office funding for specialist violence against women and girls services until 2015.
The majority of this funding is directed to local areas and is going to support independent domestic violence advisers, and multi-agency risk assessment conference co-ordinators.
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference Coordinators
The key feature of Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences, of which there are over 250, is that they bring together all the relevant agencies to secure the safety of high-risk domestic violence victims.
They facilitate that vital link with child-focused services, helping to ensure the needs of children are considered alongside the needs of their parents.
I was really pleased to read in your report that those areas that used these arrangements offer a better prospect of providing the comprehensive, differentiated response that children living with domestic violence need.
This year we have granted funding for 54 Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference coordinator posts and I hope that this will enable a more child-focused approach to domestic violence.
Independent Domestic Violence Advisers
Victims are represented at these conferences by their Independent Domestic Violence Adviser, an IDVA.
These are trained specialist who provides that crucial tailored support, focused on a family’s unique circumstances, including the effect on any children.
In some areas there are even specialist advisers for children. Blackpool, for example, has a specialist Children’s IDVA Service who provides weekly drop in sessions for young people at local high schools.
We know that these specialists play a crucial role in putting children at the heart of the discussion and having put funding toward 144 posts this year, I hope personalised support is making a difference to the lives of more families, and more children than ever before.
Police
The police also play an important part and have a statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
To strengthen this, we also amended the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill so that Police and Crime Commissioners would, rightly, have child safety as a priority.
Domestic Violence Protection Orders
We are also piloting new powers for the police in three areas – Greater Manchester, West Mercia and Wiltshire.
Domestic Violence Protection Orders address one of the key themes that you identified when talking to children – that in some cases children want to get away, and stay away, from the abuser.
These orders prevent the perpetrator from returning to a residence and from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days, for example.
They give a victim and her children immediate protection and also enable an unstable family environment to stabilise, minimising the disruption that is so damaging and helping children return to the normal life they crave.
If they prove successful, we will look to roll them out more widely.
Government funding
We know that statutory services can do all this better with the support of children’s charities, like the NSPCC.
That is why earlier this year we announced that we would award grants worth £60 million to go directly to fund the voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations that work with children, young people, parents and families.
Over £170,000 of the grant, this year, has been awarded specifically to address the issue of domestic violence.
In addition, the Government has awarded the NSPCC a new grant totalling £11.2 million between 2011-2015 for investment in ChildLine and the NSPCC Helpline.
These services really do provide a lifeline for children trying to survive situations that, as a parent, I can barely bring myself to imagine.
MUNRO REVIEW
But we know we must do more and that our systems do not always function as we would wish them to.
Professor Eileen Munro’s review of child protection services in England showed us that the system is not working as well as it should. And this includes working with adult’s services to tackle domestic violence.
The Government has accepted Professor Munro’s fundamental argument that the child protection system has lost its focus on the things that matter most: the views and experiences of children themselves.
As I have heard today, and seen in your report, we need a fundamental shift in the way the system works.
Children should be at the centre of discussions that affect them, not cast aside and dictated to. They of all people understand best what they need and how they feel about what has happened to them.
They need to be able to talk to skilled adults themselves; they need to be the authors of their own stories.
The Government’s approach to child protection reform is therefore driven by three key principles:
• trusting skilled frontline professionals to use their own judgement;
• reducing bureaucracy and prescription;
• and, most important of all, making the system child-centred.
We need to enable professionals to focus on the needs of children and young people, so they are better protected and their welfare better promoted.
We are not seeking to impose a one size fits all approach, nor introduce a host of new procedures. We believe that local leaders with their partners should have the freedom to design and deliver services.
But we do think that however they choose to meet needs of children and young people, they must put those children and young people at the heart of the decision making process.
And to show our commitment to making this happen, and to address one the key recommendations of your research, I would like to invite all of the young people on the panel here today to come at meet with me.
What I have heard already today has been invaluable, but I’m sure it only touches the tip of the iceberg and you have much more that you would like to contribute.
Please come to the Home Office and we can continue these discussions.
This is my column from the Ham & High published last Thursday:
There was a girl I knew when I was growing up – let’s call her Joanna for the purposes of this column. We shared our growing pains from school dramas, parental clashes (hers) paternal loss (mine) and of course – boyfriend issues.
One such boyfriend turned out to be a nightmare after Joanna had ended their relationship. One night she called me, came over and in tears told me what she was going through: phone calls that never stopped – persistent following. Whenever she came out of wherever she was – he would be outside. One night I remember she called me because he was in the garden outside her flat just standing looking up at her window. She was frightened and felt hounded and abused – as if her life wasn’t her own.
Joanna’s suffering only stopped when she moved abroad. But her suffering, albeit truly dreadful, was of a different order than the experiences of the three women I met on Monday in Manchester.
I was there to launch the Coalition Government’s consultation on stalking. There I met Rachel and Kelly – victims of terrifying stalking themselves – and Sarah. Sarah’s sister Katy had ended up being murdered by her partner. There were countless incidences, police called, social services involvement, family involvement – but none of the interventions held sway. And that is the issue – that despite the fact we have the laws in place to deal with stalking – still victims feel they are being let down.
The tales told to me in Manchester were of clear threats being present and opportunities to address the harm being missed, sentences not passed, agencies not acting, police not taking the issue seriously enough, prosecutors not passing stiff enough sentences, breaches of restraining orders being virtually ignored.
In Joanna’s day (over 30 years ago) – that was just tough. The police weren’t interested and if there was no actual assault – then women (and men) just had to put up with it.
Since 1997 we have had the Protection from Harassment Act (1997). This is the law which is there to protect all of us from stalking in all its forms. The Act was drafted so that it might extend to any form of persistent conduct which causes alarm or distress. However, it doesn’t specifically mention the word stalking or cyber stalking.
Stalking and cyber stalking are included within the Act, but some campaigners and organisations in this arena believe that because the actual words are not mentioned specifically – the police do not always realise that the Act can be used to tackle stalking and fail to take the appropriate action to deal with it.
The definition used in the British Crime Survey is ‘two or more incidents (causing distress, fear or alarm) of obscene or threatening unwanted letters or phone calls, waiting or loitering around home or workplace following or watching, or interfering with or damaging personal property by any person, including a partner of family member’.
According to the British Crime Survey last year almost 1 in 25 women aged 16-59 are a victim of stalking every year. Over a lifetime, stalking affects almost one in five women and one in ten men.
Stalking is an issue which profoundly affects many lives often in the most devastating ways and it is a priority in the Government’s program to tackle violence against women and girls and is underpinned by the ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls – Action Plan which you can see at http://www.homeoffice.govuk/vawg
Stalking removes our most basic of rights – that of feeling safe in our own skin and in control of our own life. The effect of stalking on victims’ lives can be incredibly wide-reaching. Stalking is a crime of power, control and intimidation, with victims denied the right to chose who is in their lives and who is not. It is a crime which can reach into every corner of a victim’s life and every minute of their day.
Whether it is training or attitudes for the police and other agencies, the impact of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines or whether restraining orders are effective or not or whether it is a change in the terminology in the law or both – action is clearly needed.
That is why we need to know what more we can do to ensure that perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice and victims have support. That is why we are consulting to see what more we might be able to do.
The consultation will run for twelve weeks.
The bells of Westminster Abbey pealed as the Service of Thanksgiving to celebrate the Life and Work of Sir Simon Milton came to an end.
I met Simon at a banquet at the Mansion House years ago when I was a London Assembly Member on the GLA. Having looked at the seating arrangements and found who was sitting next to me – I wasn’t particularly thrilled. I was not looking forward to an evening conversation with a Westminster Conservative. You are always at the mercy of who you are seated next to at these things.
But more fool me! After a few minutes of conversation I had to recalibrate my views pretty radically. Simon was intelligent, kind, interesting – and made the evening an absolute pleasure.
Over the years our paths occasionally crossed and like most people, I was shocked by his untimely death.
Simon made a lasting impression on me and hence I wanted to pay my respects to him today in the Abbey.
But what I really wanted to say about today – is that for me it was a great summation of what religions should be about – love. To have both Jews and Christians (for Simon was of the Jewish faith) together in this most significant of Abbeys to celebrate his life was just wonderful. Reverends and Rabbis – Christian prayers and the Jewish Moruners’ Kaddish – together in praise of Simon’s life.
But to add to it all – his lifelong partner Cllr Robert Davis – paid a most moving tribute to Simon. His tribute was one of love for the man – not the politician. And for me it was of huge significance that the loving relationship he described was a relationship of just the kind that any religion would be proud of.
And to hear the love between two men talked of so movingly in Westminster Abbey was a moment of revelation – that love, that commitment and that relationship triumphs over all.
Would that this could set the example of how we can all live together.
We (local residents, Pinkham Way Alliance, the three local MPs: Theresa Villiers, David Burrowes and myself, Liberal Democrats on Haringey Council (ably led by Cllr Juliet Solomon) and others are all fighting against plans to build a giant waste processing plant at Pinkham Way.
Haringey Council were found (as we all had been saying) not to have consulted properly on the Haringey Core Strategy and have been forced to go back and consult again – properly.
I am posting here the Liberal Democrat response to this consultation – the Core Strategy Fundamental Changes (Core Document CSSD-03) and the Sustainability Appraisal Sept-Nov 2011, written by Cllr Solomon. I am supporting this response. It is long – but for those with an interest in this battle – it may be helpful.
We, the Liberal Democrat Group on Haringey Council, are responding to the September 2011 re-consultation on the Local Development Framework. The policy with which we are concerned here is SP8, and, in particular, the designations for Pinkham Wood on the North Circular, (which is already subject to a submitted planning proposal for a waste processing centre).
We have not, rather surprisingly, been formally asked for our views, other than on a “round-robin” email, even those three of us who are ward councillors for the ward containing the site with the contested designation. As elected representatives of the ward, we are clearly major stakeholders; our omission from being formally requested to join in the consultation would be our first reason for suggesting that the consultation of affected stakeholders was, if not inadequate, not completely thought through, as we are treated as though our stake was equal to that of all other councillors, which is clearly not the case.
The new consultation is concerned with Publication of a Development Plan Document (Regulation 27) – additional Regulation 27 on Affordable Housing & Employment Land Designations November 2010 (consolidated with further evidence to support changes to the Employment Land Designations, September 2011)
Section 1. Overall problems.
Following on from the Inspector’s letter after the EIP, the Council has spelled out what it considers to be the key questions that consultees should answer. Some of these are the first points we shall deal with, and they are numbered here, by us, for convenience of reference.
1 Is the document justified?
No. The Council fails to set out clearly the reasons and justification for a change of land-use designation of the Pinkham Way site.. In the post-EIP papers in the planning portal, there seem to be some hints, but that is all.
In their letter of 27th July to PINS, the LDF team says (para 2.5) “The council considered the employment land designations in the Core Strategy of the Friern Barnet and Bounds Green sites are justified by evidence base and are in line with the London Plan and carry through the recommendations as set out in the Employment Land Study.” It is unfortunate therefore that the only justification to appear in the Core Strategy is the following:
“A change in designation will ensure this DEA is targeted towards more traditional industrial uses. Complies with pre-application discussions which have already taken place to use part of site for recycling centre and other part as waste station.”
This is not a justification for a change in designation. The justifications for the designation should be prior to, and independent of, any actual or intended applications. All this says is “somebody wants to develop here – let’s fix the LDF so that it can carry on”. This very approach should in itself render the document unsound as it suggests an order that is contrary to that suggested in PPS 12. (mostly Section 4.2 ff.)
One particularly concerned local resident queried the change in designation, as did a number of others, but the answer he was given by the Council in their letter of 28th June (see below) did not provide the evidence base he was seeking
“The Council felt that the wording was not clear enough, and some of the sites which came under this designation were not suitable for this level of flexibility. If the Core Strategy Proposed Submission draft designations were left unchanged, the concern was that this would lead to applications for uses which would not be suitable for their location. This also accords with the London Plan, and the DRLP.
Therefore, the Council decided that Friern Barnet site and the Bounds Green site needed stronger employment land designation. They were designated as Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). This approach also accords well with the concept of sustainable communities. Both of these sites are in the west of the borough where there is comparatively less industrial land availability. The fundamental changes document (Nov 2010) was consulted on according to planning regulations, and there were no objections to designating this site as a LSIS.”
It should be pointed out, although it may be unnecessary to do so, is that the reason there were no objections was because of the rather secretive way in which this so called consultation was carried out, and the restricted number of people informed. This first consultation clearly did not begin to accord with the Council’s SCI.
Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS)
“5.1.10 These are well established industrial areas and the aim is to retain them solely for uses that fall within B1(b), (c), B2, B8 uses or uses that share strong similarities to this use class.”
In terms of being a “well used industrial area” which is apparently one of the criteria for LSIS designation, an area which has been wild backland for fifty years does not seem to us to qualify for this description. Until a security fence was put up round the site, relatively recently, the area was used for walking, playing, observing wildlife etc., all the kinds of activities that might be associated with small areas of relatively natural open space in the middle of the urban fabric.as well as a certain amount of dumping, much of it (apparently)old Barnet lampposts.
If we now consider some of the Council’s other consultation questions (below) , the answers become relatively straightforward.
2 Is it based on robust and credible evidence? It would seem not.
3 Is it the most appropriate strategy when considered against the alternatives? No alternative is presented.
4 Is the document effective? See 5 below, so in all probability not.
5 At the moment the status of the site as a Grade 1 Site of Borough importance for Nature Conservation is to be kept; we note, however, that this is not mentioned in the consultation document. In the old saved UDP, any employment uses to which it would have been put would have had to make sure that the ecological designation was respected. And indeed we find it hard to see how, if several acres of trees are pulled down (i.e. all the woodland), and the scrub is converted to an industrial site, the Council envisages that this will be possible.
8 Is it consistent with national policy?
Certainly not with the key Government principles on Biodiversity (PPS 9, page3). Almost certainly not with air quality standards, which would fall below acceptable on even more occasions than is currently the case with any increase of traffic on the local roads and A406. Nor does it concur with PPS 12 in that its consultation has been at odds with its own Statement of Community Involvement.
Section 2 Deficiencies in Consultation
Probably our most significant point with regard to the reconsultation, as representatives of the local and affected community, is that, like previous so-called consultations on the same policy, it is simply inadequate. It does not comply either with the letter or the spirit of the SCI. Italicised sections below are just a few of the parts of the SCI which appear to have been entirely overlooked in the consultations.
2.4 (Haringey Statement of Community Involvement, 2011)” As set out in Haringey’s Consultation Strategy, the Council recognises the fundamental importance of undertaking effective community involvement and consultation to ensure that decisions are based on ‘sound’ reasoning, and these are transparent and accountable to the community. The Council defines consultation as ‘a process of dialogue which leads to a decision’, so it is the commitment of the Council to ensure that consultation:
• reaches more people;
• demonstrates to the community that their views are heard;”
Curiously, although for local traffic calming consultations, a leaflet is sent to all those in the area, whether car owners or not, consultation on the use of the Pinkham Way site, which could affect a very large number of people, has not involved all those people living locally, who might reasonably have been expected to be consulted. The Council has, it says, targeted this reconsultation, as with the previous November version, to “those who had made previous representations in relation to Regulation 27 on the original Core Strategy” as well as their Consultees database. This is despite the fact that the Inspector thought the decision to target last November’s abbreviated consultation to those who had made previous representations in relation to Regulation 27 on the original Core Strategy. . .” could appear to be prejudicial to interest of fairness and natural justice.” And also despite the fact that as soon as people knew this was happening, they made it clear that they wanted their views heard.
But the council is targeting this reconsultation to precisely the same people, with the addition of a few who, having heard of plans for the site, have made sufficient fuss. This reconsultation does not just “appear” to be prejudicial; more importantly, it is prejudicial. For this and other reasons, we have asked if there was to be a leaflet drop. The reply was “There will not be a comprehensive leaflet drop in the area. In line with our SCI, community involvement activities will be planned in a consistent way to ensure the methods used are the right ones in each case, recognising that there are limits to our resources. In this case, we are carrying out the consultation in line with how to consult on a planning policy document and not a planning application. We have placed public notices in all of Haringey’s papers and to ensure beyond borough boundary coverage notices have also been placed in both the Enfield and Barnet Independent. “ (Ciara Whelehan to Juliet Solomon, 12/10/2011).
It should, however, be noted that
1) the SCI does not distinguish between policy documents and planning proposals, and suggests that similar consultation methods are appropriate to both, so this comment is spurious, and
2) notwithstanding the importance the Borough claims to give to maximising community response, it should be noted that, for this very controversial policy change and associated proposal, the only paper that is circulated to ALL residents in the Borough, the” Haringey People”, is not included in the consultation; it makes no mention of the issue or, indeed, of the requirement that Haringey should to reconsult in its August/September and October/November editions, which are the only relevant ones.
However, Haringey claim that they have put a notice in the “Haringey People”. “ In addition, press releases have been placed in all of the Haringey local papers, a notice in Haringey People and to ensure beyond borough boundary coverage a press notice has been placed in both the Barnet and Enfield Independent.” Email from Whelehan to Solomon, 23/9/2011.
I reproduce here the only vaguely relevant article that has ever appeared in the Haringey People, in the August/September edition. As can be seen, not only does it fail to mention the LDF and the inspector’s report, but it also fails to use the opportunity to publicise the reconsultation.
“Pinkham Way Plans on hold. The submission of a plan to build a waste processing plant in Pinkham Way has been put on hold following intervention by Haringey Council. The council has lobbied the North London Waste Authority about the lack of detail in its proposals. It has also argued for consultation on the plan to happen after an independent planning inspector has tested the detail of the wide-ranging waste plan for north London. The NLWA will submit a detailed planning application for consultation with residents and consideration by the council’s planning committee after the inspector reports in April 2012. Cllr. Alan Strickland, Cabinet member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion, has promised to hold a thorough consultation once the planning application is lodged.”
This gives no indication of the results of the LDF EIP, or any indication that the Council was going to reconsult on sections of that. By their omission, they are effectively telling the public, in this journal, what amounts to a misleading half-truth.
But The SCI says (Page 4) “2.3 In delivering the vision for Haringey the involvement and participation of the local community and other stakeholders in the preparation of the LDF and processing of planning applications is essential. “
My understanding of the word “essential” is that anything essential is a sine qua non, an activity without which something (in this case the LDF work) cannot continue. And the council knows well that contacting the local community either through the most ubiquitous journal, the People, or through a leaflet drop is probably the only (and therefore essential) way of making sure that this happens. But they excuse themselves from this requirement by saying
“Our Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) clearly states that if anyone wishes to be involved in planning policy/planning applications to contact the Planning Policy Team so their details can be added to the consultation database.”
Two points arise from this. Firstly, the public will not know what is being considered unless they are told; for example, nobody reading the article reproduced above would have any idea about the reconsultation; and secondly, being “added to the database” is surely not enough. People who write in should be sent the material for responding; and we are aware of cases of people who have written to express their interest and not received any response. Where they have, one of the things they have been told is;
“Please note that this a re-consultation exercise on the Core Strategy which is being undertaken following discussions at the Core Strategy Examination in Public for a proposed amendment to a strategic policy, which in respect of Pinkham Way strengthens existing employment policies that already apply to that site. “ Again, this is disingenuous, because while the redesignation may strengthen existing employment policies, it also effectively renders the present ecologically protective designations totally ineffective – and of course, these do not get a mention anywhere in the consultation document. One could ask why.
There are, it turns out, many parts of its own SCI which the council appears not to have consulted, which is a pity as in our view, if heeded, it would be an extremely valuable document. I will not go through the problems of all of these in detail as I believe the overall picture is already clear and I have no doubt that a number of other respondents will reinforce this point. I will merely quote some passages from the (excellent) SCI which I think show how little this has been heeded.
From the SCI page 4
“The council will
• actively engage the whole community by using a variety of formats and
media and be mindful of local avenues for accessing people, particularly
within the voluntary sector;
• give enough time for people to be consulted;
• choose the right method for the type of stakeholders being consulted;
From Page 5
“2.10 It is a legal requirement that all Council set out how they will involve local
communities in planning decisions and plan making process. Additionally, consultation approaches must be tailored to the make up of the local population, the needs and interests of the various community groups in the area in an effort to encourage people to participate in the planning process.
from page 8 The Council are committed to getting less actively engaged groups and individuals involved, and to supporting those who are already involved to support those who are not yet engaged or fully engaged.
p.13 3.5 Local representative bodies will be regularly consulted, when and where appropriate. The approach to consultation will be flexible, accessible and proactive, and the scale of consultation will be equal to the likely impact of the proposed plan.”
As is clear without further comment, all these laudable aims are being overlooked in this case.
Although we have outlined a number of reasons why there are problems with the changes to policy SP8, the one we have emphasised (as has Haringey’s SCI)is the need to involve residents in the policy-making of the borough plans. This rhetoric needs to be put into practice and proper consultation undertaken if the plan is to be passed as a sound document.
To conclude, as shown above, the Haringey Liberal Democrat group not only considers this second consultation flawed but fundamentally the Council has failed to substantiate an adequate justification for the redesignation of the Pinkham Wood site and therefore the Council should abandon its proposals.
Last night I attended the Hate Crime Vigil in Trafalgar Square. As with last year – the roll call of those killed by hate is shockingly long and incredibly moving.
Stuart Milk, Harvey Milk’s nephew came over from the USA to speak at the event. And he really summed it up. Everyone is included in this life with the same rights and same potential to contribute. He said that ‘tolerance’ was not a word to be spoken in this regard – it has to be about an inclusive society – not just a tolerant society. I totally agree.
I paste below my speech.
– since last year when I stood here and exhorted you to report hate crime and get your friends to report hate crime
– there is some evidence that this is happening
– recent statistics from the Association of Chief Police Officers show that more people are coming forward to report incidents of disability and transgender hate crime
– but our overall aim is not just to see a rise in reporting but to see a fall in the incidence of all hate crime
– we continue to work with our partners both in the UK and internationally to develop our response to hate crime and t
– raise awareness of all forms of hate crime
– encourage reporting
– identify those who are most at vulnerable and likely to suffer repeat victimisation and ensure they receive appropriate support to prevent further incidents and
– ensure that those commit these crimes are challenged and punished
– we are developing a new cross government hate crime action plan which sets out our vision and approach for tackling hate crime over the coming years
– the government is taking tackling hate crime very very seriously
– But there is more we all can do
– when I stood here last year
– Listening to the roll call of those killed by hate
– I was shocked by the length of that roll
– Hate is the most terrible of emotions
– It is a destructive emotion
– Evil in its manifestation
– And hate for reasons of sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or race is also pathetic
– It’s ignorant
– It’s about impotence
– It’s about inadequacy
– And it’s about fear
– Only this week, sadly, I witnessed such hatred unmasked
– and there is a frightening insanity that feeds that fire
– and whilst we put have laws around us to protect us from such hate
– and we do have good laws
– we still, sadly, have a long long way to go
– Whilst we may be more civilised, we may walk safely in many areas, we know that round any corner that hatred may be lurking
– And we still have to get to the very heart of that hatred
– and I cannot, literally cannot understand how any human being can hurt another human, because they are frightened or threatened by difference
– as individuals and as a community we should be embracing each others differences, not persecuting each other for them.
– So as well as the law, each and every one of us has a duty to challenge this hatred wherever and whenever we see it and I call on everyone to do so
– And never, ever walk silently by
Having long campaigned for the ending of male primogeniture – I am delighted to see the Prime Minister take up the cudgels so forcefully. I am equally delighted that (according to press reports) the Queen is in agreement. Her Majesty’s views are hugely important and will undoubtedly help the cause at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of State coming shortly.
There was a view expressed by one senior politician – one of the times I raised this issue on the floor of the House a couple of years ago – that it obviously should happen but that it wasn’t a priority. The problem for ending male primogeniture is that it has never been a priority in that way – but it should have been – long before now.
The symbolic resonance of females being pushed out of the way of the line of accession says it all – gives permission to the world (and I do mean the world) to discriminate against women. It’s importance cannot be underestimated.
So I hope and trust that this most basic of examples of discrimination will be set right in the not to distant future.
Joyce Vincent was found dead in her flat in Wood Green Sky City. She had been dead three years. The TV was on and there were Christmas presents still wrapped on the floor.
This was a case that completely mystified me – and the rest of the world – when it went public. How could a woman lie dead for three years in her flat with no one – absolutely no one – knowing or caring? Outside of her personal life – for you never know why someone will retreat from the world for their own personal reasons – what about the rent, the gas, the council tax, the caretaker and the neighbours?
I pursued all of this for a very long time. The Housing Association made changes so that anyone living in their premises on their own had to be visited in person each year. Everyone had a reason why no one had pursued entry to the flat. Out of desperation, having found out that Joyce had been in a women’s refuge a few years earlier – I even tracked the refuge down and visited on my own one evening. A young woman let me in and we talked about the existence there. She said even there – although safe – no one cared if you lived or died. I pursued it with the refuge charity – who said – no they didn’t follow up with women who left. All my efforts – with all of the agencies who should have entered the flat – in the end led to a few small changes but no further enlightenment on the mystery that was Joyce Vincent.
Some while later – a film maker – Carol Morley contacted me. She had been absorbed by this case – as had I – and was hoping to make a film about it. I met her and we talked. Some time later – she contacted me again as she now was making the film – and I agreed to do a piece to camera answering questions. There is a good article today about this here.
When I went to where she was filming – I was gobsmacked at what she had found out about Joyce’s life. How had Carol managed all of this – when the police, the journalists, the media had not? It’s an astonishing story.
Dreams of a Life will be shown at the 2011 BFI London Film Festival. The film has been shortlisted for the Grierson award for best documentary at the LFF. It will go on general release in March 2012. www.dreamsofalife.com
UPDATE: Film will now be released on December 16th!
This week work has started on a zebra crossing to improve the safety of Priory Road in Muswell Hill following a successful campaign by local Liberal Democrats which started over seven years ago.
Cllr Gail Engert and Lynne Featherstone MP, whilst a councillor, started a campaign in 2004 following a series of accidents on Priory Road. Now a pedestrian crossing will be installed on Priory Road and there will be associated works including raised entry tables at the junctions of Park Avenue North and Park Avenue South to improve safety for pedestrians.
Cllr Gail Engert (Muswell Hill) comments:
“I’m glad that local residents will soon have the much-needed zebra crossing to improve safety on this busy road. It is a testament to local residents persistence that we have continued with our campaign for so long.”
Lynne Featherstone MP adds:
“Such a relief that seven years of campaigning for road safety has finally paid off, it’s fantastic to deliver this great solution for local people.”
Lynne Featherstone 