Labour councillor denounces the anti extremism Prevent strategy

de'athThe last Labour Government launched the Prevent strategy designed to combat Islamic extremism and violence. It aims to limit the risk of radicalisation of Muslims and the resulting terrorist threat.

The programme has continued under the Conservatives and has cross party support.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council says:

“We are fortunate to have dedicated tools available to support schools with this duty, and to help them tackle radicalisation and extremism.”

It adds:

“What is the Prevent Strategy?

Prevent is part of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. Prevent works at the pre-criminal stage by using early intervention to encourage individuals and communities to challenge extremist and terrorist ideology and behaviour.

The Prevent Strategy makes clear the important role that schools have to play in achieving these aims. It is an extension of the same safeguarding processes which the education sector already employs in order to effectively safeguard children from drugs, gang violence, alcohol abuse, and other forms of harm and crime.”

So it was disappointing that at the Council meeting on Wednesday evening one Labour councillor – Cllr Alan De’Ath – attacked the programme as “Islamophobic”. Of course he is entitled to attack Council policy – he is not a Cabinet member and thus not bound by collective responsibility. Constructive criticism is always welcome. But to undermine the Council’s work in this particular way was pretty irresponsible. His comment was absurd – the strategy involves boosting mainstream, moderate Muslim groups.

Ian Heggs, the Council’s Director for Schools emails me to confirm:

“We do indeed fully support and participate in the Prevent strategy.”

Not that De’Ath’s outburst was the worst of the evening. His fellow Fulham Broadway Labour councillor Ben Coleman made some astonishingly crass comments during a discussion on anti-semitism.

In a brave speech by Cllr Joe Carlebach about his personal experiences. “I know what it is like to stand outside a synagogue and have sharpened coins thrown at you,” he said.

Coleman’s speech immediately followed. He said: “Sometimes people in the Jewish community think they are the only Jew in the village.” For good measure he then said that concern about anti-semitism in the Labour Party were “overblown”. Really disgraceful.

Emergency lighting failed during Shepherd’s Court fire

firetwoOn August 19th there was a fire at Shepherd’s Court on the Charecroft Estate on Shepherd’s Bush Green. Thankfully there were no serious injuries. It was caused by a faulty Indesit tumble dryer. The manufacturers Whirlpool still advise they are safe to use.  But the London Fire Brigade – who don’t give out this sort of warning casually – have urged those with the relevant brands to unplug them and stop using them until the company carries out the modification.

What about the role of the Council, the owners of the block?

I was concerned to hear that during the fire some residents had to escape via the lifts as the lighting on the emergency stairs was not working. There is some dispute over whether the lights were broken or simply inadequate to cope with the smoke – one of the ward councillors, Cllr Adam Connell, understands its the latter. Either way it needs to be sorted out.

Also the fluorescent numbering of staircases should have been visible and was not.

I asked for the most recent Fire Risk Assessment for the building which the Council sent me. The document from October 2015. There was a long list of deficiencies listed in the “Summary of Significant Findings and Action Plan”. Some had been sorted out before the fire but others had not.

Norman Whyte, the Health and Safety Manager for the Housing and Regeneration Department says:

Dear Cllr Phibbs

Thank you for your enquiry, we have looked into the case and can now response as follows:

With regard to the “Summary of Significant Findings and Action Plan” please advise which of the actions specified had been undertaken before the fire took place

The following items from the significant findings were undertaken before the fire at Shepherds Court:

  • The latest five-year electrical test certificate that we have is dated January 2016
  • The lightning protection system test documentation was up to date and the latest certificate is dated April 2016.
  • Ventilation – automatic dampers were fitted to all grills (controlled by smoke detectors and an intelligent fire alarm control panel).
  • Dry riser testing – there is a dry riser testing programme in place. These were used during the fire with 5 hoses taking water from the dry risers and no issues were found during their use.
  • Fire stopping – our fire surveyor didn’t agree that a non-fire rated product was used for fire stopping in the electrical cupboards. Consequently, this product/material was not removed. The work we did carry out made the area even safer than the work recommended as we upgraded the fire doors, door closers and seals to the fire safety cupboard.
  • A suitable testing procedure for emergency lighting is in place, with various testing carried out every month as per the British Standard. The last test before the fire was carried out in July 2016.

     Further general information

The overall risk rating identified in the Shepherd’s Court FRA was tolerable, as defined by the risk rating evaluation within the FRA, any issues identified on FRA’s as high risk are undertaken immediately. The Fire Risk Assessment cycle for communal areas in residential buildings six stories and higher are carried out annually.

The follow on works in the Shepherd’s Court FRA will be progressed together with the fire damage works, which have been scoped by our contractor, a quotation raised and work agreed. We aim to have all the work completed by the end of February 2017.

Yours sincerely

Norman Whyte

Health and Safety Manager

One of the ward councillors Belinda Donovan believes the back stairs lights are still not working properly: “God forbid if there were a fire tomorrow we might have casualties as a result of this non action,” she says.

Chris Took, Chairman of the Charecroft Tenants and Residents Association says:

“The passive smoke system has been boarded up and I am not aware of any automatic valves in the building.

There is a Section 20 notice (PPM0076), issued on 6 January 2014, for AOV Installation and External Louvre Replacement across the Charecroft estate.”

I agree with challenging Whirlpool but as the landlord the Council also needs to take action after this alarming incident.

H&F Council only agrees to take 10 unaccompanied refugee children

In August the Hammersmith and Fulham Council leader Cllr Stephen Cowan went on a publicity seeking visit to the Calais Jungle.

With the Labour leadership contest under way at the time he felt it was an appropriate opportunity to boost Owen Smith’s campaign with a swipe at Jeremy Corbyn. He said:

“Yes, I’m attacking Corbyn – it’s not coming from the frontbench of the main parties and it should be.”

But soon he warmed to his more familiar theme – telling us what a caring and moral person he is and how uncaring and immoral the Conservatives are. Cowan declared:

“This is a crisis. I don’t think we can walk by on the other side of the street. There’s a moral imperative that we act. We want to do more than our bit. We can’t look the other way.”

Once the camera’s stopped rolling the facts began to emerge.

The Council has only agreed to take ten unaccompanied children. Even then terms and conditions apply. Central Government must pay the full costs. The children won’t be placed in the borough – simply managed by the Council’s social workers.  So far as the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement scheme is concerned the Council has only taken three people. That is over a year after it attacked the Government’s national total of 20,000 over five years for being too low.

The Council has not yet written to residents inviting them to offer accommodation. It hasn’t even put a link to this document from the Hammersmith & Fulham Refugees Welcome committee on its website. That document gives practical advice. The Council just keeps putting out boastful press releases.

So the reality is that the Council is walking by on the other side. It is not doing it’s bit – let alone more than its bit. It is looking the other way.

Will Cowan apologise for such staggering cynicism? Don’t hold your breath.

Labour’s H&F councillors back squatters

In February there was a serious problem for residents in Ravenscourt Gardens after squatters invaded the Ravenscourt Park Hospital site. There was an incident later this year with squatters in the Bradmore Centre in Bradmore Park Road.

An early incident in a family centre in Shepherds Bush involved lengthy delay and council resources on legal fees to obtain an eviction.  In fact there have been various instances of squatting across the borough including in Sands End.

At the Hammersmith and Fulham Council meeting on Wednesday evening the Conservative Group put forward the following motion:

“This Council:

1. Notes recent difficulties over squatters in the borough on non-residential and public land.

2. Welcomes the fact that squatting has been made a criminal offence on residential land and buildings.

3. Calls on the Government to extend the law to make it a criminal offence on non-residential and local authority land as well and thus avoid the delay involved in civil proceedings during which time the police are unable to act.”

squatamendI had hoped the Labour councillors would support these changes. But it turned out they were in Corbynista mode.

Of course genuine housing needs must be met but squatting is not the answer. Indeed it is often more of a political statement – with  middle-class youths, who could probably afford to pay for their own housing, seeking the radical chic of an “alternative” lifestyle as their protest against capitalism.

So instead the Labour councillors pushed through a “wrecking” amendment which even opposed the existing law of squatting being a criminal offence in residential property.

By voting to placate left wing activists in their own Party these Labour councillors made clear they are not on the side of residents.

Corbyn appoints Slaughter to be the Shadow Housing Minister

Andrew Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, has returned to the Labour front bench. Jeremy Corbyn has appointed him as the Shadow Minister for Housing and the Shadow Minister for London.

This is a rather extraordinary turnaround.

Here are a selection of “Tweets” from Slaughter over the summer detailing his opposition to Corbyn.






Here is Slaughter resignation letter to Corbyn from June:


What has changed since June 27th? What has Corbyn done to win Slaughter’s confidence? Is Corbyn now the “best person to maximise support” for Labour?

Local Labour supporters even hosted a rally for Owen Smith at the Lyric Theatre. Slaughter stood next to him as personal attacks were made on Corbyn – including when at one stage Smith seemed to call Corbyn a “lunatic” while Slaughter smirked and the audience tittered. Smith later apologised

Of course Corbyn and Slaughter do have much in common – for instance their views on Hamas. Nevertheless the circumstances are bizarre. Slaughter resigned in June on the grounds that the Leader wasn’t up to the job. A principled resignation. Labour have the same leader who still isn’t up to the job. Yet without any explanation here we are in October and Slaughter has returned.

Football hero George Cohen to be made a freeman of Hammersmith and Fulham

cohenbookTomorrow there will be a special Council meeting to make George Cohen a freeman of Hammersmith and Fulham.

His excellent autobiography makes for fascinating reading – not only about his life as a footballer but also his later life and the early days growing up in Fulham.

Cohen was born in Cassidy Road in Fulham then moving to a Walham Green council flat.

Times were hard – although quite as hard as he momentarily thought. He recalls:

“After the street market at North End Road had closed in the evening I would see old women collecting scraps of vegetables, cabbage leaves, that had fallen from the barrows and I imagined that they were eking out a very slender diet. ‘Oh these poor people,’ I thought, ‘poking around to find something to eat.’ But my brother Len explained that the vegetables were to feed the rabbits which were kept in the little backyards of flats, and were, because of their energetic breeding habits, a wonderful addition to the food supply. You have to remember that in those days a chicken was a rare delicacy. I didn’t taste one until I was eleven years old.”

Jellied eels were his passion.

Cohen was public at Fulham Central School in Fulham Palace Road (later absorbed into Henry Compton). He says that the corporal punishment of the time “the slipper” did not do him any harm. Indeed he adds:

“This was especially so when the slipper was administered by Mel Roberts, a maths teacher and running coach. Roberts was, when I think of it, one of the key men in my development as a boy of good physical gifts who make just make it as a professional sportsman.”

He played for Fulham Football Club between 1956 and 1969 (his highest weekly wage after tax was £80). He was also in England’s victorious 1966 World Cup squad. After the match Nobby Stiles gave him a “big toothless” kiss. “What the bloody hell do you think you’re doing?” said Cohen. “It’s like being kissed by a liver”. 34 years later they were each awarded an MBE.

After being forced to retire from football due to injury at the age of only 29 he went on to work for the Cecil Gee clothes shop. (“What are you doing here?” one of his customers, Chelsea fan Sir Richard Attenborough asked.)

Another job was with a building firm Brickman Properties. “Fortunately my education at Fulham Central had been technical so I could make sense of the drawing and do some of my own,” he said. “I also had to learn about planning law, which meant that a lot of my time was spent reading the works of Sir Desmond Heap.”

He went on to set up his own business, with some success. Although later on there was a serious setback when a scheme to build retirement homes in Tunbridge Wells was blocked by Kent County Council despite “conforming to all their demands.” Despite this it did not go through: “We were devastated. We had put so much time and money and now the purchase of the school and grounds was a waste of money.” He had to sell his house: “My capital had been destroyed.”

Worse was to come. His mother was killed by a juggernaut on the junction of North End Road an Lillie Road in 1971 at the age of only 62. Then in 2000 his brother Peter was killed in a nightclub he owned in Northampton by a gang of thugs.

In the 1980s George Cohen overcame bowel cancer and went on to help  cancer and dementia charities.

Earlier this month his statue was unveiled at Craven Cottage.

So a fascinating life of triumph and tragedy. I am pleased it is being honoured.


Will H&F Council take a Business Rates windfall while more shops are forced to close?

Property values in London (especially closer to the centre) have for years been increasing faster than the rest of the country. This means that a revaluation of Business Rates will results in higher bills in Hammersmith and Fulham – while bills will fall in, for example, Yorkshire and the north east of England.

We don’t yet know what the transitional arrangements will be. It is expected the changes will be phased in over a number of years. Nor do we yet know the impact on council finances. Initially the money is likely to be redistributed among councils so there won’t be much impact. However it is likely in the coming years Hammersmith and Fulham Council will be able to keep a growing share of Business Rates revenue.

Hitesh Jolapara, the Council’s Finance Director tells me:

“Initial figures from the Valuation Office show a 36% increase in rateable values for Hammersmith and Fulham.‎ The increase is not uniform. It will vary according to different property types, such as commercial or retail, and location and by rateable values The government are consulting on transitional arrangements that cap the level of increase in any one year. It is also not yet known what the change will be in the business rates multiplier (the rates payable is based on the rateable value x the business rates multiplier). The unknown  but potential impact on the Council finances is likely to be an increase in appeals. From a finance perspective detailed work is now in progress to determine the impact on businesses, on the council as a ratepayer and schools.”

A big increase in Business Rates threatens to drive more shops and pubs out of business. The Council could already use its discretion to cut this burden on small firms. But so far has refused to do so. It will be quite wrong, and in the long run self defeating, for the Council to allow itself a revenue windfall of increased revenue from Business Rates but with more and more shop fronts boarded up along our high streets.