Hackney-wide Controlled Drinking Area consultation

Below is the text of an email I nicked from the Hackney Solidarity Network email list about the Council's proposal to create a 'Controlled Drinking Area' throughout the borough. So Stroppy will have to stay indoors on future visits, then.

I agree with the points in this email, and, having just filled in the consultation, I would also add that:

(a) The issue with harmful behaviour is the behaviour, not whether it is alcohol-fuelled or not. If someone is abusive or violent to me on the street, is it somehow more OK if they are sober?! No.

(b) The questions are loaded. One of them asks what type of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour I witness most often. I replied that I could not answer this question as I would not know if most of the behaviours listed were alcohol-related or not. For exampe - noise nuisance. If my neighbours are yelling at each other or paying loud music at 3am, how do I know if they are pissed or not?

=====

Please help stop Hackney Council introducing a Controlled Drinking Area across the borough.

I know it is nearly Christmas but please spare a few minutes to participate in this online consultation exercise. The deadline is Christmas Eve so we have to be very quick! You just need to go to www.consultationfinder.com/hackney and select the "Borough Wide Controlled Drinking Area Survey". You can look at their background information there and participate in the online survey. There's only a few questions and basically it would be very helpful if as many of us as possible could register our opposition to this.

The council are consulting with residents on whether they should make the whole borough a Controlled Drinking Area. This would give the police the right to challenge anyone they see drinking alcohol in public - who will then have to either surrender their alcohol for them to pour away or risk getting a fixed penalty fine.

• Not only is this a gross infringement of our civil liberties, and a reinforcement of the powers of the state against the freedom of the individual, but it would have a particularly harsh impact on some of the more vulnerable sections of the community.

• A CDA would give the police an easy opportunity for discrimination and harassment. Experience in other boroughs has demonstrated that the police use this power selectively and only target homeless people or other people who they view as undesirable.

• It can also be understood as part of a whole process of criminalising homeless people. If you have no home you cannot drink "at home" - which is particularly difficult if you have a serious alcohol problem.

There is a lot more to say about this matter but there's only four days to go. So please try and fill in the survey - it really does only take a few minutes. And please forward this to any sympathetic Hackney residents who you know, thanks?

====

Hackney peeps - do the consultaion, go on. Other folk - the comments box is yours.

Friday Fuckwit: Abbott Promotes Private Privilege

Some of us have long doubted Diane Abbott's credentials as a "left-wing" MP.

And here she is, at it again ...

Dear Friend,

I am writing to you about a full fee scholarship for the Sixth Form of City of London Boys School http://www.clsb.org.uk. I have been asked to find applicants for this. City of London Boys School is one of the best boys schools in the UK. It has wonderful facilities and regularly comes near the top of the examination league tables. I can vouch for the school because I sent my own son there!

They have a full fee sixth form scholarship available. This has been especially funded by Linklaters the top City law firm. The scholarship means that the boy selected will be able to attend the sixth form of City of London free of charge. There are two main criteria.

The first criterion is that the applicant should either be living, or be at school, in the London Borough of Hackney. The other criterion is that he should be an academically gifted young man. He should be predicted to get at least six As at GCSE.

So, if you know of a gifted young Hackney schoolboy who would benefit from attending one of the best schools in the country for sixth form, please get back in touch with me and state his name, address, predicted grades at GCSE and why you think that he would benefit from attending Sixth Form at this school.

Happy Holidays
Diane Abbott MP

Frankly, I am appalled that a supposedly socialist MP is promoting a fee-paying private school.

She would be better off fighting for more funding, places and accountability for Hackney's state schools so that all the borough's boys and girls can benefit, rather than offering one youngster a leg-up into privilege.

Another Chance to See Me Talk About My Book!

Janine Booth gives a presentation about her new book, Guilty and Proud of it! Poplar's rebel councillors and guardians 1919-1925.

Wednesday 4 November, 7pm
Venue: Pages of Hackney bookshop, 70 Lower Clapton Road
Sponsored by Hackney TUC

Free entry. Refreshments provided. The book will be on sale at this event at the reduced price of £10 (RRP £12.95)

Please email Eleanor at Pages of Hackney to book your seat.

=====

In the aftermath of the First World War, thirty Labour councillors went to prison rather than accepting an unfair funding system. With unemployment rising in 1921, Poplar Borough Council could not help provide relief drawing only on the limited wealth of one poor London borough.

Poplar councillors, including future Labour leader George Lansbury, demanded that rates from richer areas should help. So Poplar refused to pay over rates to the London County Council, and thus began the Poplar Revolt. In contrast, Hackney Council - led by Herbert Morrison - refused to confront the law and insisted on remaining 'respectable'.

This book tells the story of the support mobilised by Poplar Council, beginning when newly-enfranchised working-class voters elected Labour to run the Council in 1919. For the next two years, it improved life for Poplar residents, coming into ever-increasing conflict with the central authorities and the local government funding system. The crisis came in 1921, when Poplar Council refused to levy a portion of its rates.

Poplar's fight took its Councillors to prison in September 1921. After six weeks, the courts released them from prison and the government changed the law to redistribute funding from richer to poorer boroughs: they had won!

With local councils today once again preparing to cut services and/or increase rents and charges, this book - and this event - tells a story that is very relevant and inspiring today.

=====

The author is the former President of Hackney TUC, and Secretary of RMT's London Transport Regional Council.

ABC: Against Brook Cuts

Angry parents have vowed to fight budget cuts at Brook Community Primary School in Hackney.

The school, which serves one of the country's most deprived areas, and whose kids have a variety of needs, faces a cut of £75,000. This will hit staffing, with Numeracy and Reading Recovery teaching provision in the firing line.

As the cuts were explained to a meeting of the Parents, Carers and Staff Association last week, parents refused to discuss how the school should implement the cuts, and instead declared their intention to fight them.

A meeting this evening decided to launch a campaign called ABC - Against Brook Cuts. Parents plan to write to MPs and councillors, to march to the Learning Trust's offices, and to work with the teachers' and support staff's trade unions. We have been inspired by campaigns such as that waged by Lewisham Bridge parents, and are determined to fight and win.

Please email messages of support to me.

Stoke Newington Goes To The Polls: Nominations Please

Stroppyblog's favourite London neighbourhood - ooh, it has such a villagey feel - has been thrown into political turmoil as Stoke Newington Labour Councillor Jamie Carswell (he in the picture) has resigned.

More than a mere Councillor, Jamie was indeed the Deputy Mayor, responsible for such hideous and unpopular policies as 'Estates Plus', under which the Council plans to flog off patches of estates to housing associations at a fraction of their worth, allowing them to build new homes to squeeze in ever more people into already-crowded estates, covering up green spaces and blocking your view of the sky. Such policies have so impressed Tower Hamlets Homes - the Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) that runs housing in our neighbouring borough - that it has lured Jamie away from his £48k post in Hackney's Town Hall for one which we can only assume pays a little more.

So, Stokey residents will soon being voting in the consequent by-election, and Stroppyblog's readers are hereby invited to suggest candidates. Will Dave Osler volunteer himself for the Labour nomination? Will Paddy the Puritan stand, attracted by the prospect of creating more non-drinking zones in N16's streets? Or perhaps Mark Fischer, determined to fight off such reactionary moves and defend his right to lurch around Stokey High Street? Does Stroppybird spend enough time in Stokey to qualify as a resident and stand as a 'We hate Stokey' candidate? And will Clive write a really gripping TV series about the whole affair?

Over to you ...

Deleted Without Being Read

There is no doubt lots of serious stuff going on in the news, but I've just got back from me hols, so commenting on world-shaking events will just have to wait. Among the 200+ emails awaiting my attention was this little classic:

Your message

To: Jennette Arnold
Subject: Loud announcements from Hackney railway stations
Sent: Mon, 5 May 2008 05:31:17 +0100

was deleted without being read on Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:56:40 +0100

Now, I wouldn't expect the average Stroppyblog reader to be hugely interested in the sleep deprivation caused to me and my neighbours by loud announcements from our local railway station, but I thought you might be interested - in a not-very-impressed sort of way - with a New Labour GLA member's commitment to representing her constituents. Yes, for those of you wondering who Jenette Arnold (pictured) actually is, she is GLA member for North East London, which includes Hackney.

What do you do if someone emails you about a quality-of-life issue that obviously matters to several people whom it is your job to speak up for and represent? Er ... Ignore it for three months, then delete it without reading it.

And Labour wonders why its base in working-class communities is shrinking to virtually nothing? (OK, something to do with generalised attacks on the working class, privatisation, cutting public sector pay, unpopular wars, sucking up to the rich, failing to protect us from the credit crunch etc, but you get my point ...)

Hackney Council Withdraws Door-To-Door Recycling

It takes a lot to shock me, especially when it comes to Hackney Council, but my gob was well and truly smacked when I got a letter through my door telling me that the Council is stopping door-to-door recycling on my and other estates.

Apparently, we now have to take our recycling to the bank of recycling bins on the other side of the estate. Problems:

1. That's not so easy, for example for those of my neighbours who have mobility problems, or those who can't just 'pop out' with a big bag if they have babies or young children.
   
2. You can only recycle paper, glass and tins at the recycling bank, whereas the door-to-door service additionally collects plastic containers, clothes, shoes, batteries and food waste.

The result will surely be a significant reduction in the amount of waste recycled in Hackney, with all those plastic milk bottles, old clothes etc now going in the bin and onwards to the landfill rather than in the recycling. The loss of food waste recycling is a further blow, as it has a proven effect of reducing rat and other vermin infestation on estates.

The Council's excuse? Two, actually: door-to-door collections were only a trial, and that trial has come to an end; and the boxes might possibly constitute a fire hazard in blocks with a single staircase.

Firstly, the whole point of trials, I should think, is to continue them if they are successful. According to the Hackney Homes website, these trials had a massively positive impact when they started, and there is no reason to believe that this did not carry on.

Secondly, the issue of fire hazard may be valid for some blocks, but it is no excuse for withdrawing door-to-door collections from street-level homes. Neither can I see that it is a reason to withdraw food waste recycling, as it would surprise me if the very small food waste box could realistically be considered an obstruction or a potential source of fire. It seems to be that the concerns expressed by the fire authorities have been taken by Hackney Council and used as a convenient pretext for a much larger withdrawal of recycling services.

I'm sure (not) that it is entirely coincidental that this move falls halfway between elections. Two years ago, Hackney Labour's election material boasted of its commitment to recycling with so much vigour that it seemed that little else mattered. It used recycling as its 'left flank' - so Hackney Council might be allowing estates to crumble, but hey, it was saving the planet with its super-human recycling efforts. With the next election a comfortable two years away, the planet-saving stuff can be allowed to slip. Maybe six months before the next election, they will restore door-to-door recycling and then boast in the election about how much they have increased recycling in the last year!

Two days after receiving the letter, I got my Hackney Homes magazine through the door, the front page of which reminded me to recycle as much as possible. I also remember that in March last year, recycling became compulsory for all street-level homes in Hackney. So Hackney Homes and the Council intend to browbeat us to recycle, but then take away our facility to do so.

What a waste.

Graffiti Attack on Hackney Synagogue

Graffiti has appeared on Hackney synagogues declaring, amongst other things, 'Jihad to Tel Aviv'.

If anyone would like to put the case that this action is not anti-semitic but actually legitimate criticism of the Israeli state, then the comments box is open. You'll have an argument back from me, though.

In much the same way, if someone daubed 'bomb Iran' on the walls of a mosque, I'd consider that to be an Islamophobic action (a term I've never been very comfortable with, but does seem to have properly entered the vocabulary now).

Victory: Hackney Gazette Will Not Publish BNP Advert

Here's the letter I (and probably everyone else who wrote in) got from editor Mick Ferris.

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Hackney Gazette and advertisements from the British National Party.

All Archant titles firmly uphold the principles of neutrality, free speech, and compliance with the law. Although supporting democracy and freedom of speech we would not accept any advertisement from any organisation if the advertisement was any in way racist, homophobic, or stirred up religious hatred.

Irrespective of the aims and views of the BNP the advertisement complied with all legal requirements, regulations, and industry guidelines. The BNP is a legally constituted political party placing advertisements in the run up to the May 1st local elections in London. The decision to reject the BNP, for which we hold no brief, should be made by rational argument and at the ballot box, not by censorship by newspapers. That remedy lies with the legally elected politicians at Westminster.

Our decision on whether to publish or not is based on the nature of the local community. Our editors have to balance the need to be consistent in our approach with a desire not to damage the community in which they operate, a process which has been made more difficult by a clearly orchestrated campaign of complaints.

We have concluded that it is not in the best interests of the community to publish the advertisement in the Hackney Gazette. Nor is it right to give the BNP further publicity through a prolonged public debate about the merits of the organisation and its advertising campaign.

The balance of arguments in this debate has been extremely difficult but we believe that we have come to the right conclusion.

Mick Ferris
Editor
Hackney Gazette

Hackney Gazette To Run BNP Advert?

It seems that the owners of the Hackney Gazette are forcing the paper to publish an election advert from the BNP in the forthcoming edition.

As we discovered a wee while back, many readers of this blog live in Hackney, particularly the more salubrious part, N16. So please, everyone, click here for more information and contact e-mail addresses of the people who need to receive your protest. Please send it today.

Below is the email I sent to the paper's owners about 20 minutes ago. I'll let you know if I get a reply. Maybe a barrage of emails will persuade them. Better still, maybe the workers on the paper - or its typesetters, printers or distributors - could refuse to handle the filth.


Dear Mr Jewson and Mr Fry

I have heard that Archant intends to force the Hackney Gazette to publish an advert from the loathsome British National Party in the run-up to the forthcoming Greater London Assembly. I hope that this is not true - if it is, I strongly urge you to reconsider.

Perhaps you feel that the BNP has a right to free speech and that therefore you must publish its advert. I, too, believe very strongly in free speech. However, the BNP is well able to produce its own propaganda: its right to free speech does not oblige your company to publish its material. I would also ask you to consider what respect for free speech the BNP extends to its political opponents and those (many) groups of people that it despises. How much editorial freedom do you think your newspapers would enjoy in a society governed by the BNP?

The BNP's election advert may or may not be explicitly racist. If it is, I would like to think it would be obvious to you that you should not publish it. If it is not, though, I still believe that you should not, because doing so would assist the BNP in its manipulative, deceitful project of presenting itself as 'reasonable'. Behind that 'reasonable' facade is a fascist organisation determined to achieve its aims through scapegoating, violence and repression of democracy, a party that poses a direct physcial threat to many people, and to a big majority of Hackney residents.

The BNP has built support over recent years by presenting itself as the champion of white working-class people. Sadly, the fact that government policy has cut and privatised many NHS services, and has neglected housing estates, has given the BNP the political space to do this, lying to people that it is ethnic minorities, rather than government policy, that have caused the inadequacies in our public services. Do not assist the BNP in perpetrating these racist, anti-working-class lies. Where the BNP succeeds in doing so, communities become divided and physical attacks increase.

The purpose of the BNP's advert is not harmless electioneering, but as a platform to organise a physcial threat to our communities. We have a right to defend ourselves against this threat, including to demand that our local newspaper does not assist those who threaten us.

Yours

Janine Booth
President, Hackney Trades Union Council

Even When You Choose A Non-Religious School, Religions Still Get A Say In It

I recently discovered that by law, local Councils which have a Scrutiny Commission responsible for education must co-opt representatives of religions onto that Scrutiny Commission with voting rights (scroll down to paragraph 52 of the link - it refers to Section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000). My own local Council, Hackney, has gone a step further and appointed three extra religious reps, presumably because if you are going to privilege religion, then why not privilege them all equally?!

My first gripe is that any post in government that has any power should be elected. Voting rights for unelected people is anathema to democracy.

But the main issue I want to take up here is the involvement of religion in education. What if you have a complaint about your school or your borough's education system that, for example, it is giving too much of a platform to religion? What if you want the Scrutiny Commission to look at improving sex education? Will you get a fair hearing? Who will speak up for secularists, even for atheists?

And what of 'choice'? Several times on this blog, I have taken issue with the very existence of religious schools. But even if you accept or defend religious schools, this law goes a step further - it gives religious organisations a say in education whether you want them to or not.

My partner and I chose to send our kids to a secular school, Brook Community Primary School. Many defenders of religious schools make their case on the basis of 'parents' choice'. I invite any of them to explain what happened to my 'choice' when unelected religious representatives still have a say in my kids' education even when I opted for a non-religious school.

Consultation, Hackney Council style

At the end of last year, Hackney Council consulted tenants about rent increases. The 'choice' the Council offered them was a 5% rise, 10% rise or 12% rise. What a fabulous choice! Between rises that you can't afford, really can't afford, and really really can't afford. It's a bit like the local burglar consulting you on whether s/he should rob some of your stuff, most of your stuff, or all of your stuff.

The result of the survey? 62% responded in support of the 5% rise. Hackney Council's Cabinet then took a long, hard look at the survey results, concluded that 62% was 'just over half' (?!), and voted to increase rents by 6.7% (a figure not even included in the consultation)! Blimey, if we'd know we could go for figures not mentioned in the consultation, everyone could have written '0%' on the form.

Lucky tenants have just received a letter from Councillor Laing telling them the good news.

That is what is so marvellous about 'consultation'. It's a different beast from 'democracy' or even 'negotiation'. The consulting body seemingly feels free to ignore any result that it does not like. Trade union reps will already be familiar with this phenomenon. As are Hackney people who were 'consulted' about the Homerton becoming a foundation hospital. And Hackney residents who were 'consulted' about whether we wanted our homes taken over by an ALMO.

Seems like another small patch of forest has been sacrificed in vain.

Going Walkabout

After the Home Secretary said she would be scared to walk around Hackney at night, local MP Diane Abbott took some fellow politicians for a stroll in the borough.

All well and good, except that they went for their walkabout in Stoke Newington! Not much to be scared of there, unless you nurse a fear of literary types beating you about with polysyllabic words, or live in terror of being knocked over by a local yummy mummy taking Hugo and Poppy for a power-push in the latest three-wheeler buggy. Honestly, the worst fight you are likely to see on Church Street is Mark Fischer, Dave Osler and Clive Bradley arguing over the last bottle of Shiraz in Clissold Wines.

Ok, so she also took them to the Smalley Road estate, site of a murder last year. But what about visiting the Pembury, or 'murder mile' in Lower Clapton, or numerous other places? Or how about walking around without a camera crew following you? It's not like most attackers like to be caught on film, is it?

Or how about encouraging a constructive discussion on tackling Hackney residents' fears, rather than some cheap publicity stunt?