Showing posts with label Tom Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Miller. Show all posts

Saturday 20 May 2023

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt accused of having Scrutiny chairs 'in his pocket'

The Annual Meeting of Brent Council which had proceeded with its ceremonies as expected burst into life this week when it considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Council Constitution based on their interpretation of the 2017 recommendations of the  House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 'Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees '(Extract above) Link to full report.
 
Cllr Georgiou moving the amendment said that that there needed be a real and visible indpendent role for scrutiny and proposed that Scrutiny Committe recommendations should be discussed at Full Council, rather just Cabinet. Further, the Liberal Democrats felt that just having two scrutiny committees, unlike some other councils, meant that their agenda were too packed for effective scrutiny. They proposed a further 3 scrutiny committes to spread the load and make scrutiny more effective. Given the political makeup of the council 3 should be chaired by Labour councillors and the other 2 by a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative  councillor. The leader of the Conservative group backed the call.
 

 

 
Responding, Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt said that this was a Labour Council chosen by the people of Brent. Gesturing to his Labour colleagues he said that on his side of the chamber 'we have the people's choice', and went on:

I have two great Scrutiny Chairs who are doing a superb job...we have no need to make any changes.

The Liberal Democrats had not taken account of the expense and officer time need for 3 more committees when there were financial constraints. The Labour Group would oppose the amendment.
 

 
 
Exercising the Lib Dem's right of reply Cllr Paul Lorber said:
Thank you for the advert for democracy in the borough.
He then jumped on the possessive ' I ' that Butt had used and asked, 'Are they [scrutiny chairs] excellent because they are independent or because they are in your pocket? Which is it Cllr Butt?'

Addressing all the councillors he said that non-executive councillors all had a responsibility to ensure there was effective scrutiny:

If the leader of this council has 'my' chairs of scrutiny in his pocket there can be no confidence that the scrutiny process is independent and fair because of the words he used. Because of the words of the leader we now know that scrutiny is a rubber stamping of everything, a 'yes' to everything and no effective scrutiny.
 
Cllr Miller raised a point of order asking that the Mayor (chairing her first council meeting)  should make Cllr Lorber apologise for his 'unparliamentary' language but this was ruled out on a technicality by the council's legal advisor.
 
Cllr Kelcher, chair of the planning committee, raising another point of order/information said that the chairs of scrutiny were elected  within the Labour Group on a vote that excluded members of the executive. Therefore a misleading picture had been painted about their independence.
 
The motion was put to the meeting and lost with as far as I could see only Lib Dem and Conservative councillors voting for it.
 
A  futher Lib Dem amendment on  the 6 Brent Connects area suggested that Wembley being much larger that the two others should be split into 2.  In addition, reflecting the  political representation in the areas that one of the Wembley areas should be chaired by a Lib Dem councillor and the kingsbury and Kenton by a Conservative councillor.

That amendment was also lost so the 5 Brent Connect areas remain chaired by Labour councillors.
 
 
 Extracts from the House of Commons Report (LINK)

We have found that the most significant factor in determining whether or not scrutiny committees are effective is the organisational culture of a particular council. Having a positive culture where it is universally recognised that scrutiny can play a productive part in the decision-making process is vital and such an approach is common in all of the examples of effective scrutiny that we identified. Senior councillors from both the administration and the opposition, and senior council officers, have a responsibility to set the tone and create an environment that welcomes constructive challenge and democratic accountability. When this does not happen and individuals seek to marginalise scrutiny, there is a risk of damaging the council’s reputation, and missing opportunities to use scrutiny to improve service outcomes. In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures.


Our inquiry has identified a number of ways that establishing a positive culture can be made easier. For example, in many authorities, there is no parity of esteem between the executive and scrutiny functions, with a common perception among both members and officers being that the former is more important than the latter. We argue that this relationship should be more balanced and that in order to do so, scrutiny should have a greater independence from the executive. One way that this can be achieved is to change the lines of accountability, with scrutiny committees reporting to Full Council meetings, rather than the executive. We also consider how scrutiny committee chairs might have greater independence in order to dispel any suggestion that they are influenced by partisan motivations. Whilst we believe that there are many effective and impartial scrutiny chairs working across the country, we are concerned that how chairs are appointed can have the potential to contribute to lessening the independence and legitimacy of the scrutiny process.

 

The Centre for Public Scrutiny states that:

Legally, the Chairing and membership of overview and scrutiny committees is a matter for a council’s Annual General Meeting in May. Practically, Chairing in particular is entirely at the discretion of the majority party.


Majority parties can, if they wish, reserve all committee chairships (and vicechairships) to themselves ... the practice of reserving all positions of responsibility to the majority party is something which usually happens by default, and can harm perceptions of scrutiny’s credibility and impartiality.

 

Chairs from a majority party that are effectively appointed by their executive are just as capable at delivering impartial and effective scrutiny as an opposition councillor, but we have concerns that sometimes chairs can be chosen so as to cause as little disruption as possible for their Leaders. It is vital that the role of scrutiny chair is respected and viewed by all as being a key part of the decision-making process, rather than as a form of political patronage.

 

Newcastle City Council where all scrutiny chairs are opposition party members, states that:

This has taken place under administrations of different parties and we believe that it adds to the clout, effectiveness and independence of the scrutiny process; it gives opposition parties a formally-recognised role in the decision-making process of the authority as a whole, more effective access to officers, and arguably better uses their skills and expertise for the
benefit of the council.

 

Tuesday 3 March 2020

Councillors move to improve Brent Council's scrutiny process


Scrutiny is more than just a band!
Following my article about failures in Brent Council scrutiny processes LINK local resident and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant took up the issue with councillors. Concerns centred around the Council not meeting the standards outlined in the Centre for Public Scrutiny's  Good Scrutiny Guide.  Indeed the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee's Recommendation Tracker showed only ONE response from the Cabinet to the Committee's 18 reports for 2019-20 and that was merely to 'note' the committee's recommendations on the vital issue of air quality, rather than provide any responses and action commitments.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have a Recommendation Tracker so it is difficult to assess the impact of its recommendations which are often made after very detailed questioning of officers and lead members. At the last meeting which I attended the committee members did not raise any issuers under 'Matters Arising' from the Minutes which would be one way of checking on any actions arising from recommendations.

These are the responses Philip  Grant has received which indicate that the matter is being considered by at least two councillors.

Philip writes:

Cllr. Miller  Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement, responded to my email  but he did not say whether he was writing on behalf of the Council Leader and fellow Cabinet members, or just in a personal capacity.

Among the points in his email, I welcome his statement that:
'I wish to agree with the point that Scrutiny reports should not simply be ‘noted’. Often when there are 20+ recommendations etc it can be difficult to go into great detail in responding, but generally where an action or decision is requested I feel that the cabinet should record its response, if not its basic reasoning.'
He went on to say:
'... if cabinet disagrees with a scrutiny recommendation, then we should make an effort to say why. My officers will shortly report back to the Chair of the knife crime scrutiny task group, Cllr Kabir, on progress against her report recommendations, for this reason. I would like to see this embedded in our practice more officially.'
I have replied to Cllr. Miller, saying:
'I welcome your agreement that the Cabinet should do more than just "note" recommendations from Scrutiny Committees. The findings of those committees, who have the time to consider particular issues far more closely than the Cabinet can do, should be respected and implemented by the Leader and Cabinet, unless there are very good reasons why that should not be the case. Scrutiny is one of the important "checks and balances" which a well run Council democracy needs.'
Hopefully, the points raised by Councillors Nerva and Mashari at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January, and Martin's highlighting of them , will see better treatment by Brent's Cabinet of recommendations by the Scrutiny Committees in future.

I have received the following email from Cllr. Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that Martin's efforts in highlighting this matter in his blog, and mine in sharing my concerns with councillors, may not have been a waste of time:
'Thanks for your continued interest in this matter:
I have had several meetings on the subject with the most senior officers in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that it is something I take very seriously.

A new system will be in place for the next couple of meetings of my committee and I am sure you will see a significant improvement.'



Monday 8 July 2019

Brent Council statement on the weekend's fatal incidents in Wembley

A message from Cllr Tom Miller, Lead Member for Community Safety at Brent Council

The fatal incidents we saw in Wembley over the weekend are truly shocking and our sympathies go to the victims and their loved ones.

While the full details are still emerging, I know that many of us will be alarmed by the violence which is sadly not unique to our borough. Despite these terrible incidents, it’s important to recognise that violent crime has been falling in Brent with 13% fewer serious violent offences compared to the previous year. The council’s community safety team is working closely with the Police and I would like to reassure residents that there will be more Police officers on our streets over the coming days to make sure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Anyone with information about what happened should contact the Police on 101 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111. Please don’t assume that somebody else has reported it.

Friday 26 April 2019

SAFER KIDS: Brent parents launch petition to local politicans calling for immediate action on 'daily threats' their children face



Local people have launched a petition demanding that Brent's three MPs  and local councillors  act quickly to ensure that

We demand immediate solutions to the daily threat our children face through:
·      More police/security details patrolling the Kensal Green, Kensal Rise, Queens Park and Harlesden area, especially at key points in the day
·      More CCTV in key locations
·      The creation of a positive action network consisting of schools, residents and local businesses that raises awareness and encourages positive, social behaviour within the community.
We also demand long-term solutions such as investment in local youth centres and helping the youth committing these crimes to become part of the community, rather than fighting against it.

Why is this important?

We the undersigned residents of Brent demand our streets be made safe for our children. We are writing to you to demand you immediately address the radical increase in muggings and assaults on children in our local area. Lawlessness is rampant and impunity is now rife in our neighbourhood. Our streets feel like the Wild West - anything goes, and no one can do a thing about it.
Muggings and assaults on children are now occurring daily, often between 2pm and 7pm on the peripheries of schools, in parks and around the Chamberlayne Rd area. These crimes are committed by youth, at times in balaclavas, often using knives, sometimes using steel bars as a threat, other times using direct violent assault - and all this in broad daylight.
In the cases where adults have tried to intervene, they too have been violently assaulted. One parent was recently punched in the head in Roundwood Park numerous times in front of his son, and another parent had a plank of wood smashed into his face, loosing several teeth in the Queens Park area - also in front of his children.
Sadly, many cases go unreported as the victims are fearful if they tell, they could be putting themselves in more danger. Moreover, parents at times fear nothing will be done as the police rarely turn up, or if they do it’s 30 minutes late, when the perpetrators are long gone.
At an age when our children should be cherishing a newfound independence, they now have to fear for their safety. They must ask themselves: Will I be attacked on the way home from school today? Is it safe to take my phone? Do I have to walk in a big group to be safe? What should I do if I get assaulted? Will they knife me?
No child should have to ask him or herself these questions. We want our children to:
- be able to walk to school and home from it
- go the the park/skatepark
- walk to a friend’s house
- go to the corner shop
- catch a bus/ the tube etc...
without having to worry that they will be assaulted or mugged.
The effect of daily fear in these young minds, if not addressed, is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in anxiety, depression and isolation in our local community.
May we remind you, in 1991 the UK signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the nine core UN human rights treaties. The CRC protects the rights of children in all areas of their life, including their rights to “freedom from violence, abuse and neglect”.
It is tragic that almost three decades later, in this supposedly civilised society, our children are not protected from violence or abuse in their very own neighbourhood.
It is tragic, that due to austerity, our society is now one in which crime is rampant, impunity rife and our children - our future - are the ones having to suffer the devastating consequences.
It is tragic that they must now live in fear in their own community.
We demand you make our streets safe for our children. We demand action and we demand it now.
Yours sincerely,
AC Collet on behalf of Safer Kids



UPDATE: Responding to a request for a comment by Wembley Matters, Cllr Tom Miller, lead member for community safety said:
We are broadly sympathetic to the aims of the petition and I've offered to meet with the organisers and anybody they would like to join with them.

Thursday 4 April 2019

Cllr Tom Miller reacts to Tuesday's Wembley stabbings

Brent Council Press Release

Two men were stabbed in Wembley on Tuesday night. Our thoughts are with the victims, who are recovering in hospital, and we are assisting the police to understand what happened.

Like most of us, I am appalled by the violent crime epidemic sweeping the country.

Since the beginning of the year, more than 100 people have been murdered on the streets of the UK - with nearly half of those being stabbings.

Each death is a huge waste of a life. It's a brother or sister who won't come home, a parent who won't be able to raise their kids, a bright future taken away. Each life taken leaves huge gaps, ripples of grief that spread as the family and loved ones try to pick up the pieces.

Two of the murders this year, the death of Jodie Chesney in east London and Yousef Makki in Greater Manchester, sparked a national debate on knife crime. While some say the reduction in police numbers has no bearing on the level of knife crime on the streets, I'm not convinced.

As the money central Government gives councils continues to be cut, the safety net gets even more stretched. Young people are more vulnerable to getting caught up in the 'county lines' drug trade. Every time a recreational drug user smokes a spliff or does a line of coke they should seriously consider that their pleasure could be threatening the life of a young person from a much less privileged background.

In Brent, we are not immune to this national situation. On Tuesday night, passers-by witnessed a double stabbing on Empire Way, while two men were recently charged with the murder of Florin Pitic's who was attacked at Queensbury Tube Station in early March. But I'd like to reassure everyone that we are working extremely hard to minimise incidents like this.

We are working in partnership with the Police to divert criminals from re-offending. We are out and about on the streets coordinating interventions and activities to support not just known offenders, but also those at risk of being exploited or drawn into a life of crime.

We recently compared monthly knife crime offences in Brent between August and December 2018 with the same months in 2017. The drop is around 29%. Brent has also seen a large fall in knife injuries in young people - the second biggest in London. This is down to some great preventative work and shows good progress, but we must continue on this trajectory.

That is why we work closely with families like the Serunkuma-Barnes' and the Hansons' - who both tragically lost their sons in unprovoked violent attacks - to explore more ways we can tackle violent crime together as a community.

While I welcome the recent police funding announcement, I know that enforcement alone isn't going to solve this problem. We need to look at the whole package and that means more prevention - not less. We need the resources to enable us to work more closely with teachers, social workers, parents and young people themselves to prevent the bloodshed on our streets before it happens rather than just locking people up afterwards.

Violent crime affects us all, be it directly or indirectly. The sooner we realise this and see it as a problem that we all need to try and prevent together - rather than just an enforcement issue - the better it will be for the people who are dying on our streets.

Cllr Tom Miller

Lead Member for Community Safety, Brent Council

Monday 11 March 2019

Bellowing Butt loses his cool and sees red over South Kilburn

David Kaye of Kilburn Labour Party clearly hit  raw nerve when he began his speech at tonight's Cabinet Meeting. He had begun to say that a problem with the Brent Cabinet (all Labour Party members) was that they didn't, on the South Kilburn issue and others follow Labour Party policy.

Hardly were the words out of his mouth then Muhammed Butt bellowed across the room, 'THIS IS NOT A PARTY POLITICAL MEETING!' When Kaye tried to elaborate a furious Butt continued to shout him down.  Eventually Kaye made his contribution moving on to the details of the South Kilburn Carlton/Granville scheme and the feeling of the local community that their views hadn't been taken into account ,and the role of the South Kilburn Trust (Watch video below)


However, in apparent contradiction of his earlier claim, at the end of the contributions from the public Cllr Butt did allow Cllr Miller to make a speech about Labour Party policy in reply to what David Kaye was not allowed to say!

In a nutshell the community wanted the Cabinet to approve Option 4 for the Carlton-Granville site which would contain community space and no housing. The Cabinet were  recommending Option 3 which would build 23 social housing homes on the site. Leslie Barson thought that the combination wasn't practical and that complaints about noise from the community centre by the new neighbours would curtail its activities and make in unviable. There was less community space in the proposals then there had been before and the new developments on the estate already did not provide enough community space.

Not for the first time the issue of the South Kilburn Trust came up. Pete Firmin for the local tenants' association put it succinctly: 'The problem with the South Kilburn Trust is that South Kilburn residents don't trust it.' It had no elected representatives on its board and was not truly independent of the Council. Contrary to the views of residents it had supported the installation of an HS2 vent in Canterbury Road.

A speaker from South Kilburn Trust claimed that of the 8 trustees three were local residents and one was the former tenant of South Kilburn Studios. After the Cabinet had, inevitably, approved Option 3 there was an altercation in the public gallery when residents challenged the Trust on this claim - they were appointed, not elected, and not representative. This conflict has arisen elsewhere in the borough when such organisation appear to be a non-elected buffer between residents and councillors.

Lesley Benson, head of Granville Nursery Plus, said that the school had eventually accepted demolition of its prize winning extension as part of the development plans. She said that she was no cheer leader for the Council but they had been involved with other stake holders in an innovative way of working where 'robust' conversations had taken place.

As with the Kings Drive 'residents garages replaced by home's controversy there was a tension between the need to build new homes  for those on Brent's massive waiting list and the impact of the new homes on existing residents and their facilities. Such conflicts are likely to increase as Brent Council continues its policy of in-filling on estates.

Cabinet members said they had taken notice of residents' concerns by discarding a proposal for a denser build of 63 homes on the site. Residents asked why they had not ensured that the hundreds of other homes being built on South Kilburn were not  let at social rent.

As we left the Civic Centre we were surrounded by the huge blocks and towers of Quintain's unaffordable Tipi 'built for private rent' development advertised by pseudo Russian Revolution style posters...


Wednesday 19 September 2018

Vigil tonight 9pm outside Cricklewood Islamic centre after last night's attack by a car mounting pavement

Cllr Tom Miller, lead member for Brent Council for Stronger Communities, speaking about the incident last night when a car drove into the crowd outside  Al-majlis and Al- Hussaini halls on Edgware Road, Cricklewood, said:
It's not clear that Islamophobia was the actual reason why the incident developed, but it may have had a role as it went on. There's not much more information for now, but I'd just like to reassure that we don't believe Muslims are being deliberately targeted.
The Guardian reported:
Three people have been injured after a car ploughed into a crowd outside a north London Islamic centre, in an incident that is being treated as a hate crime.

The collision took place at Al-Majlis Al-Hussaini centre at the junction of Oxgate Lane and Edgware Road in Brent, which had been hosting a religious event.

Simon Rose, the local police commander, said at 12.30am voluntary stewards and members of the security team challenged a group of people who were in a car park around the corner from the centre. 

The volunteers and stewards were allegedly subjected to Islamophobic and racist abuse and there was an altercation.


 “The people who had been challenged then drove at members of the community in a car,” Rose said. “The car mounted the pavement twice and two people have been seriously hurt. Their injuries at this time are not believed to be life-threatening.”


He added: “It’s being dealt with as an Islamophobic hate crime. It is not at this time being dealt with as a terrorism incident, although that is as always subject to continuous review.”
A spokesman for the Hussaini Association, which organises Islamic lectures at the centre, told ITV News : "We are in deep shock at such an attack taking place on our community but remain proud to live in a diverse and tolerant society."

There will be a vigil outside the centre tonight from 9pm:

North West London Stand Up To Racism urged local people to join the vigil in solidarity with the victims. Vigil at 9 p.m tonight at Al-majlis and Al- Hussaini halls, 403-405 Edgware Road, NW2 6LN.

Monday 30 April 2018

Lesley Jones, former Mayor of Brent has died. Willesden Green election will take place at later date.

Cllr Lesley Jones after adopting a cat from the Mayhew
Cllr Tom Miller, has announced the death of his Willesden Green ward colleague Lesley Jones. Cllr Jones is a former Mayor of Brent.

On Twitter Cllr Miller said:
So very sad to hear of the passing of my comrade, ward colleague and partner in crime, Lesley Jones MBE. A beatnik in her youth, she was a warm person who took duty seriously - as a ward Cllr, a cabinet member, and as Mayor. Someone to look up to. Thinking of her family.
Lesley Jones was a candidate in Thursday's election. The Willesden Green ward election will now take place within 35 working days of the scheduled May 3rd election. There will be no need for nominations to be resubmitted. The decision was made by Brent Electoral officers in line with Electoral Commission guidelines:
If proof of the death of a validly nominated candidate at a contested election is received before the opening of the poll, the notice of poll is countermanded and the poll does not take place. The PARO must hold a new election.
Brent Labour Party has suspended all campaigning for the rest of the day as a mark of respect to Lesley Jones.

Monday 19 March 2018

'Brent is no place for hate' - Islamophobic letters condemned by Council & Brent MPS




Brent Council has issued the following annoucement

Recent threatening, Islamophobic letters sent to addresses in towns and cities have shone a spotlight on the national conversation around hate crime and the targeting of faith-based communities.

Brent Council and the Metropolitan Police Service have condemned the Islamophobic threats made in letters encouraging violence against Muslims.
 
Cllr Tom Miller, Cabinet Member for Stronger Communities said:
Brent is no place for hate. Let me be clear: these disgusting messages and their attempts to normalise hatred towards Muslims will absolutely not be tolerated. We are in close contact with the Metropolitan Police Service and are working hard to support residents to feel safe in Brent.

We are proud to be home to one of the most diverse communities in the UK and if anyone believes they have been the victim of a hate crime or knows someone who has, I would urge them to contact the local police force on 101 or 999 for emergencies. Reports can be made by community advocates or faith groups on behalf of those involved
In 2016 Brent Council launched the Time to Talk Campaign, giving people the space to talk openly about difficult issues.

Since then, the council has widened the remit of referral services and its community support officer to include hate crime and has commissioned a hate crime manual. An online portal has also been developed to learn and report different types of hate crime.

Advice and guidance on what to do if you are the victim of or witness to a hate crime is available here.
 
You can also report Islamophobic hate crime to TELL MAMA, an organisation dedicated to recording anti-Muslim incidents and bringing them to the attention of the police.

Wednesday 20 September 2017

Out of sight, out of mind: Voices from Cricklewood on PSPO’s

Guest post by Scott Bartle, Brent Green Party

Resistance to poverty

Guest post by Scott Bartle

 
In March, Cllr Tom Miller, Brent Labour’s ‘Cabinet Member for Stronger Communities’ announced in the local newspaper a £2million splurge on CCTV and expansion of the use of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). 

This week, it was announced that the council has extended the PSPO ‘borough-wide’, with further claims from Cllr Miller of obtaining the ability to:
“create a borough that residents feel safe and protected in, and the introduction of this borough-wide PSPO will boost our efforts to get rid of street drinking and anti-social behaviour in Brent, whilst making sure that those who need help for substance abuse are given the support they need” LINK
Protection Orders (PSPOs) were created under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and allow councils to criminalise, non-criminal behaviour. Where Anti Social Behaviour Orders (Abs's), introduced 16 years earlier in 1998 (under the Crime and Disorder Act) were directed at individuals, the PSPOs are zonal and cover anyone within them.

PSPO’s are instead selected as a means to tackle called ‘undesirable or antisocial behaviour’, as they require less consultation than byelaws and are easier to enforce. A breach in a byelaw requires a trip to court & to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, whereas breach of a PSPO is determined merely by a ‘reasonable belief’. There is also limited scope to scrutinise or challenge a PSPO despite their use to target minority or vulnerable groups and curtail their human rights. 

Cricklewood Consultation 

Last year Brent Council offered a consultation on extending the use of PSPOs as a ‘crime reduction initiative’ around Chichele Road in Cricklewood. On this occasion, the target of the PSPO were people congregating on a road seeking work at a place where there was this tradition for nearly 150 years. Historically these were Irish people, but a recent Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) suggested it was now people originating from Eastern Europe. Those who offered people work were from a variety of backgrounds, including British, Asian, Eastern European and others. 
The results of the consultation indicated that a whopping 91.67% of people strongly agreed / agree with extension of the the PSPO scheme. This left only 4.17% of people who strongly disagreed / disagree with it continuing. As such, the Labour run council, in disservice to the origins of its party name voted for an extension of the PSPO with a nonchalance for workers best placed within an England of a century ago.
“We are not concerned with the very poor. They are unthinkable, and only to be approached by the statistician or the poet.” E.M Forster (Howards End, 1910).  
Lies, dammed lies and statistics 

As with most statistics, the devils in the detail and its noteworthy the 4.17% who responded and strongly disagreed, were actually only one person (myself). This left only 23 people who strongly agreed to the scheme and agreed with the proposals. 14 of these people left comments and it is these voices of Cricklewood that are worthy of further examination. 

Voices from Cricklewood
  1. Male, aged 25–34 identifying as Asian British / Pakistani
“It’s necessary. This whole thing about people picking up casual workers causes the roads to get blocked as well during times of high traffic and this can cause buses to be delayed. It’s also problematic when the people looking for work just stand on the pavements and are in the way of people trying to walk and get somewhere. Really, this PSPO should be a permanent thing” 
This person’s concerns related to public infrastructure, claims that people seeking work were responsible for bus delays and the use of pavements. 

2. Male, aged 45–54 identifying as Mixed/Dual heritage, White & Asian.
“I have heard too many local anecdotes from neighbours that there are still too many instances of casual workers causing public disturbances in the local area.”
The definition of anecdote is ‘accounts regarded as unreliable or hearsay’. For many, rush hour for most people is a time of public disturbance. 

3. Female, aged 35–44 who did not wish to disclose ethnicity
“I don’t think its safe when I see large group of casual workers coming off a coach or waiting to be picked up on the road” 
This person felt scared upon witnessing the demographics of casual workers. It is unsaid if this is a fear of men, or a fear of particular men (i.e. people from eastern Europe). Yet, perhaps conflating the behaviour of a small minority of violent men with all men or people from Europe. 

4. Male, 55–64 identifying as White British
“It should be applied wherever and to the extent necessary.”
No qualifications but to the ‘extent necessary’, might be everything or nothing. 

5. Male, 45–55, identifying as White British. 
“I think this is important to continue to help improve the safety of people in the area”
This person cites safety which is relational to an unspecified danger. Is this person also scared of men or just ‘mostly Eastern European men’? 

6. Male, 55–64, identifying as White British
“What needs to be stopped is groups (almost exclusively male) of people continually and regularly gathering and drinking on the streets (particularly Cricklewood Broadway & Cricklewood Lane (particularly on the grassed area outside B&Q)”
This person identifies ‘street-drinkers’ as a problem, which is nothing to do with workers on Chichele Road. As detailed earlier, ‘street-drinking’ is an indicator of other social problems.

7. Male, 55–63, identifying as White British 
“This has to be kept going to safeguard surrounding areas as well as Cricklewood. Thank you.”
‘Safeguarding’ occurs a response to a perception of risk, danger or fear. 

8. Female, 35–44, identifying as White British
“I would be very grateful if this were extended. I am a woman who lives on (a nearby) road and used to feel very intimidated by the often large groups of men congregating on the corner of Sheldon Road and Chichele Road and stopped walking down Sheldon Road as a result. Since the PSPO order came into effect, the sizes of the groups has reduced and I feel able to use the road again”.
This person felt intimidated by ‘large groups of men’, over-estimating danger?

9. Male, 45–54, identifying as Mixed / Dual Heritage.
“It’s really important to have this in place and enforced properly. The gangs of men who still gather there are very off putting to the local residents and businesses. And note they still gather there despite the order currently in force.”
This person highlights the PSPO as ineffective, but wishes to prevent people or ‘business’ from experiencing ‘off-putting’ or unpleasant feelings. 

10. Female, 45–54, identifying as White British
“There are still large numbers of men waiting on the corner of Sheldon and Chichele Roads for large parts of the day. I haven’t seen any evidence of them being moved on by the police.”
Another person reports that the PSPO has been ineffective. 
11. Female, 35–44, identifying as White British
“I would still like something to be done about rough sleepers in Gladstone Park. I would also suggest that casual labourers are not the only source of ‘antisocial behaviour’ in Cricklewood. We are subject to near weekly racist abuse as Muslims on Cricklewood Broadway and in Gladstone Park — I do not walk in the park alone with my kids any more and have not done so for over 6 years because every time I went someone said something offensive to me. I am English. I am local. I do not feel safe or comfortable on Cricklewood’s streets. Please do something about this.”
A local woman who doesn’t feel safe on Cricklewood streets or Gladstone Park because of regular abuse relating to their religion, perhaps as a consequence of wider societal issues. 

12. Female, 55–64, identifying as White British
Without the PSPO in Cricklewood it is intimidating trying to walk in the area because of the large groups of migrants loitering looking for work. They also hang around the street corners at the weekend but when there is no work, drinking and loitering and it is not pleasant.
Here the fear of ‘large groups’ has been specified as ‘migrants’, indicating support for a PSPO based upon wider negative societal attitudes. ‘Loitering’ is an interesting term as its defined as ‘without purpose’ yet these people at Chichele road were ‘looking for work’.

13. Male, 55–64, who did not wish to disclose ethnicity.
“Please extend to include undesirables, loitering dealing in questionable substance on the street”.
This person does not specify the ‘undesirables’ and those ‘dealing in questionable substance’ are by definition not the people looking for work. 

14. Female, 45–54, identifying as White British.
Situation better but still not cured. Can be very intimidating to walk along the pavement where these people gather. Please extend the PSPO
This person, whilst supporting the PSPO indicates that its use has been ineffective. This person wishes for a PSPO to solve intimidation and fear of people gathering. 

In summary 

The intention of the PSPO was to prevent people congregating on a road seeking work, at a place where people have done so for nearly 150 years. Yet the voices from Cricklewood introduced us to people in fear of ‘men, migrants or groups of people’ as well as ‘loiterers’ and ‘undesirables’. The voices of Cricklewood sought for the the PSPO to be used as a a mechanism ‘where-ever’ for the benefit of ‘business’ to tackle social problems ranging from ‘drinking’ to ‘racism’ on ‘hearsay’. Yet similar to ‘crackdowns’ from time immemorial on other societal ills such as ‘gambling’, ‘drugs’ or ‘prostitution’, voices of Cricklewood identified that the PSPO was ineffective. 

So what to do? 

Across the country, from Newcastle down to, Brighton, Exeter or Hackney The Green Party have been vocal in their objection to PSPOs. This is because CCTV & PSPOs merely displace social issues & criminalise people who are of minority groups or are vulnerable. 

The voices from Cricklewood indicated a number of people feeling scared and intimidated walking around their local streets. Yet, the people themselves identified that these issues were wider than people seeking work. Racist or religious abuse are considered hate crimes, yet despite government initiatives reports of hate crime are said to be increasing. Societal issues can’t be tackled by a PSPO anymore than they could be tackled by an ASBO. 

If we take the current headline example of ‘street-drinking’, In guidance produced for Police Commissioners, Mark Ward of Alcohol Concern highlighted that ‘Street drinking’ is often an indicator of other problems.At the end of August, Brent Food Bank told the Brent and Kilburn Times that provision of food for people in poverty has increased by 200% in 3 years. Shelter reported a there are millions only one pay check away from not paying their mortgage or rent. Understandable, given average rents in Brent are 75% of average earnings and homelessness has doubled between 2009 and 2014. In addition, Brent has the 13th highest rate of unemployment in the country.

People will need to seek work to get money and support their families and the ‘men’ or ‘migrants’ of Chichele road are no different. Others, might understandably struggle with the pressures that society places upon them and turn to ‘street-drinking’ or end up homeless. In cold weather, Alcohol Concern report that the people ‘street-drinking’ do so because they are homeless. 

The common thread of what does work to help ‘street drinkers’, according to best practice relates to the building of trusting relationships. Coercion in any relationship can be toxic and it is understood that legal coercion, such as that occurring as a consequence of PSPOs aggravate factors associated with social exclusion and undermine individual motivation to change.

Claims such as that made by Cllr Miller above, that people should be criminalised for their own support or protection is an example of what sociologist John J Rodger describes as the criminalisation of social policy. It is evidence of a neoliberal philosophy in action, where the criminal justice system and its associated sanctions are used in place of social welfare. Furthermore, placing people at risk of a criminal record and a £1000 fine as offered by a PSPO burdens people with more problems to get back on track.

If the problem is people congregating for work: how about provision of somewhere safe to do so? If the problem is littering (which is classified as anti-social behaviour in the ‘crime’ figures) then is it not the councils responsibility to provide bins? If roads are congested, isn’t Transport for London & the cities infrastructure under shared ownership?

If a report in the paper was true that people were ‘defecating’ or ‘urinating’ outside, how about Cllr’s remembering that the provision of public toilets is vital public service. Brent is similar to other Councils across the country who do not see toilets as a priority. Brent has a mere 12 public toilets listed that do not include Library’s leisure centres or the civic centre. Yet its not just these workers who are affected, its older people and those with disabilities.

If we recognise a theme of all of these issues relates to poverty, then its time to vote for a political party that will offer a basic income. In the meantime, this borough-wide PSPO needs to be scrapped as criminalising people affected by the poor decisions of government is not a proportionate response. Especially given, the Cricklewood Consultation indicated that implementation of the ‘borough-wide PSPO’ may in part be based upon both fear of and negative societal attitudes towards people perceived as ‘migrants’.