Forum Topic

ANOTHER BOGUS "CONSULTATION": HAVELOCK ROAD S

ANOTHER BOGUS CONSULTATION: HAVELOCK ROADHow many of you knew that the Havelock Road consultation began on August the 10th?  I learnt about it only when it appeared on Ealing Today on 28.8.20.  If I had relied on the Acton website, I would not know about it at all. Anyone who has taken part in one of these “consultations” knows they are hypocritical exercises to give an appearance of democracy to decisions already made.   We have a tick-the-box opportunity to express our opinion.  There is no possibility of dialogue in these consultations, of having one’s arguments responded to.  And who will assess the results?   Julian Bell will, along with senior council officers, who naturally will not wish to offend the great man, their boss. They will “summarise” the results, which allows them to put their spin on them.  These “summaries” are also where unique or substantial contributions can be lost to avoid having to deal with them.    As to the present matter, Bell was already in favour of changing the name the minute he received his “instructions” from Mayor Khan in early June.  Well, he would be wouldn’t he: he is kept in power by Southall votes.  The move was “welcomed” by MP Virendra Sharma, Mr Bell’s former/present (?) employer, who is evidently unaware of the custom of MPs’ keeping their nose out of local politics.  I can find no evidence of a council meeting at which the proposal was discussed and adopted.  This should have happened and information about it should have headed any proposal for consultation. This is this local government by dictat.  The proposition is put in positive terms.   It is to celebrate the birth of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism.  A new tradition?   Can someone direct me to Abraham Road, Jesus Road, or Ron Hubbard Road?   The enterprise has of course the negative purpose of getting rid of the name “Havelock” (at least on the designated stretch of the road).   It is part of a cultural replacement agenda.  No case is made for expunging “Havelock”.  It should be.We shall no doubt have to pay for the work in changing the signage, but residents of the road will not be compensated for the changes they will have to make to documentation etc.. That is unjust. The blurb gives an account of the history and ethos of Sikhism, including its treatment of women, but fails to mention a matter that brings Sikhism into the news:  honour killings.  Such events are rare in the UK and “honour killing” is not a feature of the religion’s ideology, indeed it is contrary to it.  It is a cultural not religious matter.   However, if attitudes to women are what is being discussed, it should be mentioned if only to deal with it and make the points I have just made. Sikhism is not a problem, certainly not in Ealing.  Julian Bell is our problem.  He is pursuing this matter to follow instructions  from Khan, out of self-interest (votes) and with the approval of one of his “cash points”, Sharma.  

Andrew Farmer ● 1698d3 Comments

For me to airbrush uncomfortable parts of history is wrong. We should have a board up to explain why a road has that name and also the difficult parts of that history. It would educate and enlighten and also show that there is a recognition of the good and the bad in our history. as for limiting the consultation to locals then that is perhaps better than the west london tram when no one close to the route were consulted by ken. in fact croydon dwellers were overwhelmingly in support because they related it to their own positive experience. as for the royal mail will letters and addresses in havelock no longer get their post??? in one way this change could be positive but we must be careful to understand our history

Peter Chadburn ● 1694d

Bell promised a “commission” into the renaming of roads.  No sign of that.  Even the procedural rules  for holding a consultation of this kind were not established.  Bell went ahead and decided for us.  He claimed a “statutory” consultation would be held.    I have taken part in those (planning proposals).  In the documentation, contributions of respondents are given as they accumulate.  None of that here.  We need to see responses so we can consider them in our contributions.  It should be an open debate.  More importantly, we need to see them so we can judge the honesty of the council’s response in its summary.

vincent paul wrigley ● 1697d

Try filling the consultation in.It is only accepting Local addresses to Havelock road.But it should be open to all Borough Council tax residents whether in Acton or Greenford, Northolt or Ealing.Especially as the rest of the Borough even the other rather neglected and impoverished bits are subsidising Southall to ensure it's MP stays it's MP So it certainly looks like a fix. And of course is discriminatory against those many local citizens of Southall who have adverse opinions to Sikhism and find it offensive in just the same way as Havelock is being declared offensive.So in a community which often teeters on volatile, surely prudence would suggest a completely neutral name not based on any culture or partition.?But any voice of compromise or reason is being excludedThis is a long held despite by the MP.  He's raised this as a councillor a long time ago about several street names.There ought to be a complaint to the appropriate body.This is yet again sadly showing the council leaders conniving bent towards politicising everything and dividing to rule.

Raymond Havelock ● 1698d