Declaring the ‘Hall Lane Pitch and Putt’ redundant is political revenge by Romford Conservatives. For them everything is political and they hate the Upminster Residents Association (RA) for consistently denying them a majority in Council. Conservatives are in endless minority administrations because of RAs. When challenged, they piously pointed at Havering’s housing plan,¹ as a justification for the sale.

RA councillors made fifteen objections to the sale. These reflect the concerns of their constituents.² House prices weren’t included amongst those objections. However house prices are the life and soul of people living in Upminster. They pretend ‘Pitch and Putt’ is important but no-one’s fooled.³

People who’ve spent a million plus on their homes don’t care about London’s housing crisis. They comfort themselves with the thought that the crisis is an inner-city problem. It isn’t. Many ‘children’ in Havering earn substantial salaries but can’t live near their families. Thirty year old ‘children’ living in the family home is well known.

The re-designation of Hall Lane Pitch and Putt site reflects political muscle. Romford Conservatives actively dislike Upminster RAs. By re-designating this iconic site as development land and forcing it through the democratic process, they’ve illustrated their control of Havering. Inadvertently though, the decision also goes some way towards meeting Havering’s housing needs.

1 The council’s position is here:-

https://havering-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/pp/lp/lp?pointId=4645265#document-4645265

2 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g6182/Public%20reports%20pack%2002nd-Apr-2019%2019.30%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Board.pdf?T=10 see especially pp232-3

3 Hall Lane, The Fairway and Holden Way all have houses in 2018-9 that have been sold at £1 million plus.

Living in Havering magazine is remarkable.¹ Damian is featured in an astonishing seven photographs on page three. Iffy leaders of third world countries routinely do this to establish their personality cults but that can’t be the case in Havering. Or can it? Is this publicity onslaught right and proper in a taxpayer funded Council magazine? Colchester’s Centurion magazine on the other hand sets a benchmark to which Living in Havering should aspire. There are no photographs of their Leader or any cabinet member.²

In Damian’s Living in Havering magazine, we read that council spending on roads and pavements will be £40 million over four years.³ Twenty-two projects are specified. Damian’s ward, Squirrels Heath, garnered 27% of the projects, about £11 million if everything is pro rata. The allocation could have been a surprise for Damian. Maybe it was a fluke. A fluke like the one where all the road repair money is to be spent in Romford constituency.

That Living in Havering is a taxpayer funded Conservative magazine seems fairly clear cut. This is a surprise as Damian leads a minority administration.

1 April 2019 edition. The front cover of Living in Havering has Osman Dervish and Robert Benham alongside Damian. https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20050/council_publications/155/living_in_havering_magazine

Two other council magazines are included in this site and neither are devoted to the stellar qualities of their Leader or cabinet members

2 https://cbccrmdata.blob.core.windows.net/noteattachment/Centurion%20March%202019.pdf

3 Living in Havering April 2019 edition p15

Damian and Roger will be canvassing in the next six weeks. Don’t worry. They’re harmless. You’ll know them by their blue rosettes with ‘Vote Europe’ across the middle. They’re canvassing for Conservative MEP candidates for the Euro elections.

Smiling and saying, ‘Good morning’ is fatal. They’re programmed like a washing machine. Once they start they’re very hard to stop. Roger will tell you the only way to Brexit is voting Conservative. Don’t mention 29^th March, 12^th April, 23^rd May, 30^th June or Halloween Night. It agitates him.

Damian will tell you Brexit will stop us being slaves and the NHS will get £350m a week as a bonus. He’s working hard at understanding this, so cut him some slack.

Damian believes seamless international trade is worse than customs checks and tariffs. Don’t argue. Shout through to the empty room behind you, ‘Is dinner ready yet?’ It always worked with Jehovah Witnesses in the old days, so why not now?

Meanwhile the Conservative Party is gearing up to greet Prime Minister Theresa May at their Party Conference in Manchester on 29^th September. She’ll revive her catch phrase, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ getting rapturous applause from Damian and Roger.

Late News: David Cameron’s autobiography Theresa May: my part in her downfall will be on sale at Conference from 29^th September and at all good charity shops from 5^th October.

Churchill detested the Labour Party and their trade union allies but knew Britain needed a government of national unity in 1940. The Labour leader Clement Attlee became his deputy. Attlee brought trade union leaders with him as part of the bargain. Churchill directed the war effort and Attlee the Home Front. This continued until May 1945.

Churchill made many unpalatable decisions during the war. Entering coalition was one of them. He worked with Attlee for five years. An indication of just how hateful he found this came immediately after the war. His infamous ‘Gestapo’ speech showed him at his rhetorical worst.¹ Campaigning in the post-war election, Churchill said voting for Labour was a vote for Gestapo style politics. Churchill said this about the men he’d successfully worked with throughout the war years.

Churchill aged 23 prior to the battle of Omdurman, 1898

Churchill was a Victorian imperialist. In 1898 he took part in a cavalry charge at Omdurman, in the Sudan. He had Eisenhower imposed on him as Commander in Chief in December 1943. British Armed Forces in Europe were henceforward under American command. All principal military decisions were made by Eisenhower and Roosevelt. Strategy was discussed with Churchill but the ultimate decision was theirs. It was Eisenhower who had the final say over the D Day invasion of France for example. Britain lost military independence permanently from 1943 because Churchill accepted Eisenhower as C-in-C. ‘A price worth paying’, he rightly believed.

The lessons for Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell are obvious. Churchill did things he detested in the national interest. Why can’ t they?

1 https://oedeboyz.com/2015/07/10/winston-churchills-gestapo-speech-4th-june-1945-2/

Buckingham Palace isn’t in Romford but let’s suppose it is. It’s worth hundreds of millions of pounds. You’d expect the Council Tax to be stupendous. You’d be wrong. Council Tax protects the wealthy. The disabled on the other hand have just had their Council Tax increased by about 36.6%. The Conservative administration in Havering has changed government safeguards to the detriment of the disabled whilst at the same time not increasing the general Council Tax by the permitted amount. The disabled are partially subsidising the rich.

Buckingham Palace’s Havering Council Tax, 2019-20, would be £3,457 p.a.,¹ even though it’s worth hundreds of millions. Council Tax protects the rich from meaningful property taxes.

In March 2019 there are many houses for sale in Emerson Park at prices in the range £1-£4 million+.² They pay the maximum Council Tax of £3,457 p.a. This is about 0.2% of the wealth these houses represent. The most expensive house currently on sale is priced at £4.6 million. Its Council Tax equates to 0.15%.³

 

The Conservative administration believes that those receiving benefits are scroungers. Government authorised Council Tax Support (CTS) for the disabled is being corroded. In 2018-9 the disabled paid 15% of the general Council Tax. Havering has increased the 2019-20 CTS to 20%. This is a 36.6% increase in total. It is a vicious, premeditated punishment of the disabled.⁴ Large numbers of people are affected by this decision.

About 18% of working age people living in Havering disclosed that they have a disability or long term illness.⁵

I’d have thought that the disabled had enough to put up with without their lives being made harder by Havering Council.

 

1 https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20000/council_tax/168/council_tax_bands_and_bills

2 https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2189&insId=1&radius=0.0&minPrice=1000000&maxPrice=&minBedrooms=&maxBedrooms=&displayPropertyType=&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

This is the Rightmove site

3 These figures only relate to Emerson Park and there probably are other properties elsewhere in Havering which are priced higher.

4 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s34954/Council%20Tax%20Support%20Scheme%207%20CouncilTaxSupportSchemeOptionsAppendixF.pdf

5 http://www.haveringdata.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/This-is-Havering_Havering-Demographic-Profile_Main-Document-v2.4.pdf p5

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell belong to the European Research Group (ERG). They follow the Rule Britannia theory of Brexit negotiation. Their leaders are Jacob Rees-Mogg and Arlene Foster. Rees-Mogg’s Brexit hard line attitudes are wavering because of Arlene. He said he’d look ‘for a ladder to climb down’ if the DUP changed their position.

Northern Ireland’s DUP are interesting. Their current claim to fame is to be members of the Stormont parliament. This hasn’t sat for 26 months. Arlene Foster, first minister, remains on full pay (£114,000 p.a.). Everyone regards this as untenable¹ except Theresa May, who’s afraid of annoying Arlene.

Arlene Foster drove a hard deal with Theresa May in 2017, when she rescued her from the disastrous 2017 election result. Her ten DUP MPs attracted £100 million each for inward investment for Northern Ireland. A billion pounds of negotiating skill. Perhaps Arlene should accompany Theresa when she goes to the EU?

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell are Havering’s Conservative MPs. They have handed over the economic future of Havering to the most rapacious, bigoted political party in the UK. Julia and Andrew are Arlene’s puppets, as is the government. Perhaps she could advise our MPs on how to get £200 million of inward investment for Havering?

1 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nireland-politics/uk-government-to-cut-pay-of-northern-ireland-deputies-amid-deadlock-source-idUKKCN1LM1H0

see also https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-mlas-salaries-to-be-cut-by-13k-civil-service-getting-powers-to-take-executive-decisions-37289339.html

“An additional £250k is to be built in for investment into CCTV.”¹

Smart phones and private CCTV systems make most of Havering’s CCTV network irrelevant. The 35 year old network needs a root-and-branch analysis. This won’t happen because Havering’s councillors uncritically admire CCTV.²

CCTV is thought to fight crime: does it? The Crime and Disorder sub-committee note CCTV in their reports but don’t examine its effectiveness. Consequently a thorough-going critique of the £250,000 capital investment is required.

The police and Home Office are less trusting about CCTV’s contribution to crime fighting.³

“Overall, use of CCTV makes for a small, but statistically significant, reduction in crime, but this generalisation needs to be tempered by careful attention to (a) the type of crime being addressed and (b) the setting of the CCTV intervention. CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles, while it has no impact on levels of violent crime.”⁴

In other words CCTV wouldn’t have prevented the tragic murder of Jodie Chesney in Harold Hill. Councillors plan investment in CCTV believing they’re fighting crime, absolutely ignoring evidence to the contrary.

“CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles,” this benefit has been overtaken by technology. Cars are more difficult to steal than 35 years ago. The Crime and Disorder Committee in their September 2018 meeting noted that:

Concern was expressed that nearly 20% of victims recorded by police were aged between 11-17, particularly around the Gooshays area – 69% of drugs were initially found by police, 20% by door staff and 10% by CCTV.⁵

The £250,000 is financing weapons to fight the First World War. CCTV is at a historic moment in Havering. Councillors should review CCTV to ensure that its role in 2019 hasn’t been overtaken by events. The £250,000 capital investment in CCTV should be used elsewhere. There would also be an annual revenue saving of £400,000 after a downsizing of Havering’s CCTV, which could be used to fight crime.

1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g6142/Public%20reports%20pack%2013th-Feb-2019%2018.30%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 p46 para 2:3:2 capital programme.

2 https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20096/community/534/community_safety_and_crime_prevention/4

3 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05624/SN05624.pdf This is a Home Office briefing for MPs. The rationale for CCTV is to be found p3 para1:1 The critique of those underpinning assumptions appear on pp4-5

4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-works/What-works-briefing-effects-of-CCTV-2013.pdf p2

5 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=140&MId=4845&Ver=4 Agenda item 3

But! The report didn’t say who’s CCTV was responsible for the 10% of drug discoveries.

Julia Lopez quite rightly used her position as MP for Harold Hill to raise the issue of the murder of 17 year-old Jodie Chesney. What’s interesting is that her questions became subtly different in the three days from 4th-6th March.

Her question to James Brokenshire asked, “If the Government’s serious violence strategy is to work, we need confidence that all parts of the system are adequately resourced, including councils’ children’s services and social services.”¹

Brokenshire replied, “In the last couple of weeks, I have provided £9.8 million for a fund supporting families against youth crime, to help workers to intervene early to prevent such senseless violence.” He clearly believes there is a connexion between resources and knife crime. This is denied by Theresa May.

Compare her question to Brokenshire with the one Julia Lopez asked Theresa May on the 6^th March (full text in Addendum),²

“The public do not want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives; they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime.”

Julia Lopez on Monday 4^th March demanded, “….we need confidence that all parts of the system are adequately resourced…” On the 6^th March she said, “…provide resource if resource is necessary…” Julia Lopez had been told after her question to Brokenshire that the government’s police reduction programme had nothing to do with increased knife crime. This programme has reduced police numbers by 21,000 in the period of austerity, 2010-19.

The government’s protestations that reductions in police numbers don’t exacerbate knife crime have been trashed by two former Police Commissioners, Stevens and Hogan-Howe, as well as the current Police Commissioner. Nine Police and Crime Commissioners on the 7^th March 2019 also denied Theresa May’s self-serving analysis.

Julia Lopez is a rebel when it comes to Europe but she is also a party loyalist in every other respect.

ADDENDUM: Julia Lopez’S question to Theresa May (Prime Minister) 6^th March 2019

Julia Lopez It was with profound sadness that I saw my constituency this week join the all-too-long list of areas across our country to have lost a precious young person to knife crime. The public do not want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives; they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime. I welcome the announcement of an emergency summit, but what action will the Prime Minister be taking after that constantly to drive performance on these issues until we get the result the public rightly demand—to keep children safe?

Theresa May May I say to my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, that any death of a young person at the hands of violence is a terrible tragedy? I recognise, as she says, that her constituency has seen just one of the latest examples of a young life cut short far too early. I also say to her that, yes, as I said, what we are doing is bringing together Ministers, local government, police and others—other agencies. This needs to be a cross-society approach to deal with this issue, because it is not just about catching the perpetrators of the crime; it is about preventing the crime from taking place in the first place.

That is one of the reasons why the Government will be launching a consultation on addressing this as a public health issue. There has been excellent work done under what was Strathclyde police force, now Police Scotland, looking at and using the public health approach. What that does is ensure that all agencies—not just across Government, but in local government and elsewhere—are able to be brought together to deal with this issue. What I want to do at that summit is to hear directly from those agencies what further action the Government can take³, which we can then put in place to deal with the issue.

1 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-04/debates/59F8E888-4DE8-4FD0-AADF-08E0469A9105/OralAnswersToQuestions

Brokenshire is Secretary of state for housing, communities and local government

2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-06/debates/60E51689-B568-44CC-AD5B-27BE49D4DF39/OralAnswersToQuestions

Theresa May’s answer to Julia Lopez’s question is markedly different to her initial reply, 4^th March, when she denied knife crime was related to ‘resources’.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/04/no-link-between-knife-and-police-cuts-says-theresa-may

3 Philip Hammond the Chancellor has said that no more money will be made available to the police. Let’s remind ourselves that Theresa May’s majority is dependent on the £100 million per vote deal with the DUP.

Chris

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell belong to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group (ERG). They abstained in the vote to decide whether to have an extension from the 29^th March, 2019 Brexit deadline. This was passed by 502 to 20.¹ The ERG decided to abstain on this issue. They are an extremist group of Conservative MPs who are fanatical about Europe.

The vote on the 27^th February 2019 split the ERG. The new groupings are:-

1) Extremists: They number about 80 Conservative MPs. It’s this group, which both Julia and Andrew belong to.

2) Ultras: They number about 20.

The difference between the two?

The extremists favour Brexit without a deal and a ban on all immigration except for the highest paid most skilled people.

The ultras agree with the extremists except they probably don’t want any immigration at all. They also seem to favour recreating the British Empire.

1 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-27/debates/78B98FAF-F95B-42F6-848F-5047AEAC46A8/UK’SWithdrawalFromTheEU