Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833. Abolition depended on the British government compensating slave-owners for their ‘property’. The government budgeted £20 million. This breath-taking sum recognised the large numbers of British people directly implicated in slavery through finance, families like the Neaves of Romford.

Compensation claims submitted by the Neave family to the Slavery Compensation Commission included contested claims because slaves were also a ‘financial instrument’ underpinning annuities and mortgages. For example, slave-ownership was normal for wealthy families like the Neaves.

The government felt it wasn’t worth protecting slavery in the Caribbean for families like the Neaves. The expense of keeping the Royal Navy and army in readiness was a drain on the naval budget, a situation that they were sure would worsen over time. Therefore the British slave-owning class was bought off.
The abolition of slavery in 1833 wasn’t an act of generosity. It was the pragmatic recognition of the odiousness of slavery whilst ‘squaring the circle’ about the importance of slavery to the finances of many British people. That was the genius of the 1833 Act. The government bailed-out the slave-owners, avoided costly military campaigns in the Caribbean and took the high moral ground.
Addendum: from the parliamentary debate 1833

“They were beings of the same flesh, bone, and muscle as ourselves—they were imbued with the same immortal spirit—they were rendered heirs, by the same blood, to the same glorious eternity as we—and was it to become in these days a question and a doubt whether they were entitled to the first birthright of mankind—freedom? He would put a case: suppose that the hon. member for Lancaster who had so ably and eloquently defended the cause of the West Indians, was taken prisoner on his way out to the West Indies, by a corsair, and sold for a slave, should he remonstrate and say he had primitive as well as rational rights which interdicted his being considered as a slave, he would doubtless be told there was a law in that country making him a slave, and thirty-nine lashes would be his least reward for talking reason to his master.” Mr O’Connell Col. 316 HC Deb 3rd June 1833 Ministerial Plan for the Abolition of Slavery 1833

Sources

This £20 million is subject to lurid inflation calculations which range from £1 billion (http://discoveringbristol.org.uk) to David Olusoga’s £16 billion (Guardian 12th July 2015). These calculations serve little purpose and are ‘tabloid’ headline grabbers.

UCL Legacies of British Slave-ownership A superb on-line database

Admiral Fleming HC Debate 3rd June 1833 c. 326 see also http://www.abdn.ac.uk North East Story: Scotland, Africa and Slavery in the Caribbean

Parliamentary Papers 1836
For an excellent site which also deals with the Neave family see http://www.friendsofdagnampark.org.uk/

Havering council is awash with committees. There are nineteen altogether, some of which have no other function than providing allowances. What’s needed is a spring clean. This would create savings and make Havering a better governed borough.

The Highways Advisory Committee has been scheduled for 22 meetings since 3rd July 2018. Nine have been cancelled. Brian Eagling, the chair, is a workaholic compared to Michael Deon Burton and Ciaran White. They have chaired the Joint Venture Working Party. Since 22 October, 2018 it’s proceeded at a leisurely pace with three further meetings up to 14th January, 2020. The pay £7,650. Interestingly in Appendix A they state the Working Party’s ‘Meetings will be held at approximately two month intervals’.
Michael and Ciaran are Damian’s cronies.

Ciaran receives more than £2500 an hour. Yet another White, Michael, is chair of the Governance Committee. His committee has had 22 meetings since May 2018: six have been cancelled. He receives £7,650 but as he’s a fellow member for Damian’s ward that’s to be expected.

A clear out of these committees, and others, is long overdue. The fact is allowances look like quasi-bribery (though not with Bob Perry) isn’t the only story. Councillors are wasting their time. Vital issues are buried and the topic opportunity is moribund, notwithstanding the fact that it’s a necessary part of the councillors’ job to enhance their communities.

Source

Click to access Appendix%20-%20JV%20WP%20Appendix%20A.pdf

Chris

Looking over the estate from my fifth floor balcony I’ve seen many changes. In the last five or six years, a new drugs dealing phenomenon has begun. It began quite unobtrusively. Cars came briefly onto the estate. A quick chat, handshake and that was that. Now it’s far more sophisticated. Those with money and know-how, simply ring their drug dealer and within minutes cars they’re on the estate. Their windows are down and like a “Pizza Delivery” within seconds the deal is done, and they’re gone.

Dialling 101 to report these incidents is slow. There’s a considerable delay before speaking to a police assistant. Fifteen or twenty minutes of hanging on isn’t unusual. By which time the drugs deal has been done. It’s very dispiriting and you lose all motivation. Phoning 999 leaves you trying to explain that it’s a ‘sort’ of emergency. This is because there’s a focus on drug related violence not social degradation. They’re not interested and you’ve wasted everybody’s time.

More concerning is who are the customers of the drug dealers. Young and old and adults with children: no boundaries. Tellingly those same people often want to ‘borrow’ money using spurious excuses. Needless to say, “The school of hard knocks,” soon teaches you not to subsidise addicts even if they do have children.

The rights or wrongs of addiction, are debatable. But it seems, with the reduction in police numbers and Community Police since 2010, drug dealers know they’ll have to be very unlucky to get caught. Austerity has emboldened criminals and brutalised our society. And it’s not just on my estate: it’s Gidea Park, Harold Wood and every other place in Havering. It might not be as blatant as it is on my estate but it’s everywhere.

Mike

Source

Crime and Disorder committee 30th October 2019 minutes on 27th February 2020 https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g6201/Printed%20minutes%2027th-Feb-2020%2019.00%20Crime%20Disorder%20Sub-%20Committee.pdf?T=1 item 19

Although being educated is compulsory up to 16 years old, going to school isn’t. The Government permits home schooling. Home-schooling is incomprehensible as a viable educational option. It’s not only a scandal it’s a form of child abuse. Let’s reduce that statement to this: would you have been happy to have spent your entire childhood with one or both of your parents?
Children are protected from maverick teachers by the National Curriculum. British state education is well-funded, well-organised and coherent. Britain allocates £75 billion for secondary and primary schools. This investment is subverted by this:-
Section 7 Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age –
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable— (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and (b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. (my emphasis)
Any parent, regardless of skill, aptitude or personality, can ‘educate’ their child. Home-schooling parents can ignore the National Curriculum, the gold standard for education in Britain. Havering Council has no right to monitor parental performance (section 7 above). Home education puts children at risk of obsessive parents, slacker parents and incompetent parents. Teaching the National Curriculum demands expertise and a huge amount of resources which aren’t available to parents home-schooling their children. Parents are neither professionally mentored or given in-service training. GCSE is optional. There’s no way anyone can know whether a home schooled child is benefiting from an efficient education.
Sixty thousand home schooled children in Britain are at risk from their parents. Does Havering know how many live in the borough? How extraordinary! Home education is a child protection issue where the child’s rights have been destroyed by dogma. Once home-schooling is redefined as a possible ‘at risk’ scenario then Havering can access their closed world.
ADDENDUM (1)
Obsessive parents who devote themselves to developing their children are not necessarily abusive unless you regard absolute control as abuse, which I do. Ruth Lawrence (b. 1971), a mathematics prodigy, was home schooled with her first experience of formal education being Oxford University, which she entered at twelve years old. A stellar Oxford career was rounded off by her Ph.D when she was eighteen. Her obsessive father is now estranged from Ruth, who has repudiated home-schooling for her own four children. Another famous and tragic example of home education is that of Dylan Seabridge (b. 2003). He died, aged eight, from scurvy. His parents, quite legitimately, barred access to Dylan from both medical and educational authorities and deny that he died from scurvy. Notwithstanding the controversy about Dylan’s death, there is no evidence that section 7 (see above) was adhered to in any shape or form. Meanwhile there are a further 59,998 children about whom nothing is known.
ADDENDUM (2)
Dylan Seabridge wasn’t murdered by his parents but there seems little doubt that he could have thrived in a different family situation. There are about 210 deaths, which “were actually attributable to abuse or neglect”, which demonstrates that being ‘a parent’ isn’t a guarantee of love and kindliness. This is the situation which is current in the UK and the government have legalised total, unmonitored control by parents.
Sources
For the cost of state education see https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-education/
For the 1996 Education Act see http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1996-education-act.pdf
For monitoring home schooled children see http://www.home-education.org.uk/faq-carers.htm that home education was not in itself a risk factor for abuse or neglect – but recommended creating a register of home-schooled children to keep tabs on them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682048/Boy-eight-died-SCURVY-denied-basic-human-rights-parents-refused-let-doctor.html
*****See https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-service/factsheet-child-killings-england-wales-homicide-statistics.pdf pp2-3 2014

Havering is close to being a failing council. The Leader of the Council was unequivocal when he linked appointments as chair to campaigning. This is political patronage. Political patronage is explicitly barred by the government’s statutory guidance. (Addenda One and Two)

Conservative councillors are either being paid to campaign or offered an inducement to campaign. The Special Responsibility Allowance is significant. The council defies statutory guidance outlawing control by the executive, “as a tool of political patronage, and the committee itself should remember its statutory purpose when carrying out its work.” (Addendum Two) In brief, both sides are in breach of the guidance. The one for offering political patronage and the other for accepting it.

Havering’s Overview and Scrutiny committees are a farce. Chairs don’t understand their statutory role and the council’s policies don’t have robust scrutiny. This isn’t a formality. A critical friend usually improves policies. Bob Perry’s resignation, 26th February 2020, wouldn’t have happened if car parking charges had been subject to alternative viewpoints.

The council’s statutory officers are asleep at the wheel. Damian White, the Leader of the Council, is drifting into regrettable territory. Statutory officers must take evidence and rule on the events at the Conservative party group meeting of January 14th 2020.

Addendum One: The Conservative group meeting of 14th January 2020
Councillor [Bob] Perry said: “We were at a meeting on January 14th, Councillor White shouted across the room that we all had to go out and go campaigning or we would lose our chairmanship position.
“Someone then stated ‘what happens if you are ill?’. Councillor White responded by saying that they had to bring in a doctor’s note.

Addendum Two: The government’s statutory guidance is unequivocal***
“This is statutory guidance from the Ministry of …. Local Government. Local authorities …. must have regard to it when exercising their functions. The phrase ‘must have regard’, when used in this context, does not mean that the sections of statutory guidance have to be followed in every detail, but that they should be followed unless there is a good reason not to in a particular case.” p5

“The executive should not try to exercise control over the work of the scrutiny committee. This could be direct, e.g. by purporting to ‘order’ scrutiny to look at, or not look at, certain issues, or indirect, e.g. through the use of the whip or as a tool of political patronage, and the committee itself should remember its statutory purpose when carrying out its work.” p9

“…reports and recommendations being submitted to full Council rather than solely to the executive. (my emphasis) Scrutiny should decide when it would be appropriate to submit reports for wider debate in this way, taking into account the relevance of reports to full Council business, as well as full Council’s capacity to consider and respond in a timely manner. Such reports would supplement the annual report to full Council on scrutiny’s activities and raise awareness of ongoing work.”
pp10-1

Sources
Bob Perry’s poor performance is identified here https://havering.blog/2019/08/31/haverings-overview-and-scrutiny-sub-committees-a-weakness/
and that of Maggie Themistocli here https://havering.blog/2019/12/14/haverings-environment-overview-and-scrutiny-committee-3rd-december-2019/
For Bob Perry’s statement see https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2020/02/14/conservative-councillor-calls-council-leader-a-bully/
For the government’s statutory guidance see the whole document here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800048/Statutory_Guidance_on_Overview_and_Scrutiny_in_Local_and_Combined_Authorities.pdf

If government achieved local government’s effectiveness, public services would be exemplary. Local government serves the people and is responsive to direct feed-back to its decision-making. Parliament is consumed by hubris and belief in sound-bites.

The last ten years have wrecked the British economy. George Osborne’s response to the 2008 banking crisis was the ‘Age of Austerity’ programme. This exacerbated the dire economic situation and Havering has paid the price ever since. Havering’s government grant has been reduced by more than half since 2010. Austerity forced Damian White and Roger Ramsey to make despicable decisions, punishing the disabled and the most vulnerable.

Blair’s wars, 2003-10, look cheap in comparison to implementing Universal Credit. This was extended to 2023 for an additional £500 million. Johnson’s go-ahead to HS2 is a £100 billion gamble. Trident’s unusable missiles soak up £100 billion and Chris Grayling’s reformed probation service cost £500 million before being binned. Theresa May gave a billion to the DUP for 10 votes in 2017. A billion! Meanwhile no-one knows the cost of Brexit.

Government is an albatross around Havering’s neck. At least Johnson has promised to tackle the ridiculous Council Tax bands. Multi-million mansions will, hopefully, pay a realistic amount. The broad shoulders of house owners in Emerson Park, for example, will take some of the load that the poor suffered in the 2019 Havering budget.

Sources
For Afghanistan see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/30/afghanistan-war-cost-britain-37bn-book
For Iraq see https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/blood-and-treasure-costs-iraq-war
For the 2008 banking crisis see https://www.theweek.co.uk/87574/ten-years-on-the-financial-crisis-in-numbers
For the effect of the Age of Austerity on local government see https://www.ft.com/content/9c6b5284-6000-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
For Universal Benefit see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500248772/Universal-Credit-costs-leap-by-more-than-20-to-158bn
For HS2 see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-cost-buy-billion-nhs-education-brexit-a9293021.html

February’s ‘Living In Havering’ breaks new ground. Damian White’s photo presence is reduced to ‘only’ six but this isn’t the principal change. ‘Living in Havering’ is sponsored by Wates Residential and reads like a PR newsletter. They completely dominate the magazine. So the obvious question is: did they pay for the entire production and delivery costs?

Wates Residential control the feel of ‘Living in Havering’. They have corner adverts on 13 pages, acknowledgements on the front and back cover and six pages of editorial content. Page three has a ‘promo’ photo facing page two alongside further Wates Residential mentions. Wates Residential’s presence is 24 of 40 pages.

So what? If ‘Living in Havering’ requires sponsorship and Wates Residential demanded a pervasive presence then that’s the price of business on this occasion. But why did Havering need sponsorship? ‘Living in Havering’ issued a special South Havering edition last August. This emptied the budget. Did Havering have to go cap in hand to an important partner? Having begged for sponsorship of ‘Living in Havering’ and then having bowed the knee, did they have to take whatever terms they were offered?

February’s ‘Living in Havering’ is a humiliation for this borough.

Havering’s car parking charges controversy concluded at the Council meeting, 22nd January 2020. The 30 minute grace period was irrevocably cancelled. Additionally a root-and-branch review was initiated by Osman Dervish in ‘Living In Havering’, February 2020. The principal question remains however: what is a legitimate use of profits from car parking? This contested issue can only be satisfactorily dealt with by hypothecation.*

The government restrict the use of on-street car parking profits. They state there are three legitimate uses of profits, (1) supporting public transport, (2) highway improvement projects and (3) environmental improvements.** Councils must budget separately when using car parking profits.

Damian White said: “It’s of course never popular to take tough decisions like raising car parking charges but when our residents told us they want our roads, pavements and pools – this was the only way we can fund it.”***

Damian is implementing his party’s ‘Austerity’ programme by using stealth taxes. These are necessary to survive.+ Another tactic was imposing despicable increases in council tax for the disabled and the vulnerable in 2019.

Damian’s car parking charges are a stealth tax as part of his implementation of the government’s Austerity programme. Motorists will see where the profits from the car parking charges are actually spent once the forthcoming budget has to identify the money as a separate item.

* ‘Living in Havering’ p7; hypothecation is an income stream dedicated to a specific programme.
** https://onthewight.com/council-gives-view-legal-use-car-parking-income/
*** https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/councillors-vote-against-free-parking-in-havering-1-6479735 Spending money on ‘pools’ is illegal.
+ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/writev/parking/m42.htm
See also https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/22/residents-high-court-barnet-council-parking-permit?fbclid=IwAR32BnLrTegPHXiUjDz5QajF-16HDn7vTTZTVqCC8GmskUdwYyuFj3J-NUI
And https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/councils-make-record-1-billion-parking-charges/
Eric Pickles gave government guidance in 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-calls-for-more-town-centre-parking-spaces