Forum Topic

Renaming Havelock Road Council corruption

Renaming Havelock Road may be a trivial issue. The way it was achieved is an illustration of how Ealing Council at its highest level goes about its business: dishonestly. The decision to rename the road Havelock Road was made by “two pillars of the community”, Julian Bell, Council Leader, and Paul Najserak, CEO.   Bell suggested the idea (10.6.20.)  Why?  He doesn’t live on the road or in Southall.   ANSWER:  he depends on Southall councillors for support and is in the pay of the local MP.    Self-interest. On 14.7.20 the matter appeared on the agenda of the Cabinet, never having been discussed by them before.  The Cabinet had it all done and dusted there and then.   They decided a council officer could make the decision. Democracy?  No. Decisions should be made by our elected representatives, not by council employees.  Paul Najserak made the decision.  Between Bell making the suggestion and Najserak making the decision what occurred appears to be a conspiracy to subvert due process so that Southall could be given what Southall wanted -  FREE.FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST I have been trying to get straight answers about what occurred for weeks.  I am still trying. A Freedom of information Request is needed to secure the minutes of meetings and internal memoranda. I believe someone has already made one.  If that person is reading this, would they please let us know the result - if there was one.Meanwhile: LETTER SENT TO BELL “Dear Julian Bell, Why did the Cabinet deal with renaming Havelock Road rather than leaving it to a resident to make an application?   There was no reason a resident could not do so and it is the routine way for such applications to happen?  Your sincerely, Andrew Farmer”

Andrew Farmer ● 1205d10 Comments

I have set out my analysis of what occurred and sent it to the cabinet members to give them a chance to respond.  The situation at present is that, if the work to rename the road goes akead we shall have to pay for what is,the cirumstances considered, Bell's ""bribe" to keep Southall councillors on his side when the next vote of confidence in his leadership comes. As a reminder, here is an "executive summary of the affair:SUMMARY1. The name-change, affecting Southall, was suggested by Julian Bell (10.6.20). He depended on Southall councillors for support and was in the pay of Southall MP.  He knew they wanted the change. Motive?  SELF- INTEREST. 2.  The Cabinet considered an application to rename the road (14.7.20), but no application had been made by a member of the public. If the Cabinet wanted to adopt the proposal, it should have made an application, just as members of the public would have to do.  FAILURE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS.  3. Council officer Axe was put in charge.  He was allowed to decide whether the road should be renamed.  UNDEMOCRATIC.  Such decisions should be made by members whom the public can vote out.  The only proper role for a council officer is advisory. 4. A safe-guard was put in place.  Axe was to decide along with the cabinet members who had the relevant portfolios.  They were Bell and Southall councillor Anand, both INTERESTED PARTIES. 5.  An information pack prepared for the Cabinet gave MISLEADING INFORMATION of the relationship of Havelock and the Sikhs.  The Sikhs had fought along with the British against the Hindus in the Indian Rebellion . The existing name commemorated “old comrades”.  The pack also LACKED the requisite MAP and COSTING of the scheme.  6.  Advice from the fire brigade was offered to the Cabinet.  The Council IGNORED it.  7. Rigging the rules.  The Cabinet updated the Street Naming protocol (14.7.29).  The existing protocol did not allow road names with historical associations to be chang0d.  THE RULES THAT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED WERE ONES THAT APPLIED WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE.  They were RIGGED to allow the name change to go ahead.8. The matter was rushed through.  It was claimed this was “to enable this important topic to be addressed by the Council, in line with current high levels of public interest and concern”.  That was a reason for taking time to consider it properly.  The idea that there was any urgency in a matter such as renaming a road is inherently ridiculous. 9. Having rigged the rules by improper means, instead of allowing a resident on the road itself to make an application as one now well could and which was the natural thing to happen, the Council decided to further the project itself and foisted upon the council tax-payers of Ealing an expense that should have been borne by an applicant on the road itself.  This financial FAVOURITISM shown to a small group of people in a small area of the Borough was a MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS.  10. A consultation was held. People assumed it was the Statutory Consultation promised by Bell.  It did not yield the hoped-for result.  It was then described as only a “preliminary” consultation, a “survey”, a “non-statutory consultation”.  Why had it not been presented to the public as that?  The PUBLIC had been MISLED.  10. A “Statutory Consultation” was then offered.  It was no such thing.  It was merely to allow the public to comment on an Order made to enact the result of the non-statutory consultation.  The statutory consultation, promised by Bell NEVER OCCURED.11. The results of the “consultation” were presented to the public in purely statistical terms.  The substantial objections made by the public were SUPPRESSED.  The results were NOT REPORTED to the Cabinet.  These were pointless CONSULTATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  They did not even conform to the legal advice given to the Cabinet in respect of consultations. 12. The decision should have been made by Axe along with the portfolio holders.  It passed to CEO Najserak.  He wrote a minute of the “meeting” at which the decision was made.  The meeting took place AT MIDNIGHT, lasted ONE SECOND and NAJSERAK WAS ALONE.13. We still do not know the COST to US of renaming the road.  WE SHALL BE PAYING for Bell’s GERRYMANDING GIFT TO SOUTHALL and BRIBE TO KEEP SOUTHALL COUNCILLORS ON SIDE when the next vote of no-confidence comes.

Andrew Farmer ● 1172d

As promised, here is the FULL STATEMENT re renaming Havelock Road.  It begins with the Summary I have already posted. THE RENAMING OF HAVELOCK ROAD BY EALING COUNCILThe renaming of the road was suggested by Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council.  It was decided by Paul Najserak, the CEO.  Bell and Najserak.  The top team.  The manner in which it was achieved illustrates how Ealing Council operates at its most senior level:  DISHONESTLY.  This was an exercise in devious maladministration amounting to corruption.WHAT HAPPENEDSUMMARY1. The name-change, affecting Southall, was suggested by Julian Bell (10.6.20). He depended on Southall councillors for support and was in the pay of Southall MP.  He knew they wanted the change. Motive?  SELF- INTEREST. 2.  The Cabinet considered an application to rename the road (14.7.20), but no application had been made by a member of the public. If the Cabinet wanted to adopt the proposal, it should have made an application, just as member of the public would have to do.  FAILURE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS.  3. Council officer Axe was put in charge.  He was allowed to decide whether the road should be renamed.  UNDEMOCRATIC.  Such decisions should be made by members whom the public can vote out.4. A safe-guard was put in place.  Axe was to decide along with the cabinet members who had the relevant portfolios.  They were Bell and Southall councillor Anand, both INTERESTED PARTIES. 5.  An information pack prepared for the Cabinet gave MISLEADING INFORMATION of the relationship of Havelock and the Sikhs.  The Sikhs had fought along with the British against the Hindus. The existing name commemorated “old comrades”.  The pack also LACKED the requisite MAP and COSTING of the scheme.  6.  Advice from the fire brigade was offered to the Cabinet.  The Council IGNORED it.  7. Rigging the rules.  The Cabinet updated the Street Naming protocol (14.7.29).  The existing protocol did not allow road names with historical associations to be chang0d.  THE RULES THAT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED WERE ONES THAT APPLIED WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE.  They were RIGGED to allow the name change to go ahead. 8. A consultation was held. People assumed it was the Statutory Consultation promised by Bell.  It did not yield the hoped-for result.  So, it was described as only a “preliminary” consultation, a “survey”, a “non-statutory consultation”.  Why had it not been presented to the public as that?  The PUBLIC had been MISLED.  10. A Statutory Consultation was then offered.  It was no such thing.  It was only to allow the public to comment on an Order made to enact the result of the non-statutory consultation.  The statutory consultation, promised by Bell NEVER OCCURED. 11. The results of the “consultation” was presented to the public in purely statistical terms.  The substantial objections made by the public were SUPPRESSED. The results were NOT REPORTED to the Cabinet AT ALL for them to decide.  These were pointless CONSULTATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  12. The decision should have been made by Axe along with the portfolio holders.  It passed to CEO Najserak.  He wrote a minute of the “meeting” at which the decision was made.  The meeting took place AT MIDNIGHT, lasted ONE MINUTE and NAJSERAK WAS ALONE. 13. We still do not know the COST to US of renaming the road.  WE SHALL BE PAYING for Bell’s GERRYMANDING GIFT TO SOUTHALL and BRIBE TO KEEP SOUTHALL COUNCILLORS ON SIDE when the next vote of no-confidence comes. FULL STATEMENT  1. PROPOSAL SUGGESTED1(i)  The Mayor of London announced a commission to review diversity in London’s public realm (9.6.20).  Bell made a statement (10.6.20).  Without proper consultation -  the Cabinet had not even discussed it -  he had decided that Ealing would go along with the Mayor’s proposal.  1(ii)  In his statement, Bell narrowed the issue to the renaming of roads. He even made a specific suggestion:  renaming Havelock Road.  Out of all the roads, in all the wards, why choose this one? Answer:  SELF-INTEREST. Members of the Southall community had been agitating to have the road renamed.  The Southall MP Virendra Sharma wanted the road renamed. Southall councillors wanted the road renamed.  Bell relies upon Southall councillors for support – he had recently done so to survive a vote of no-confidence - and he was in the pay of the local MP.  His obvious self-interest in the matter should have made him refrain from making any such suggestion.  Bell promised a Statutory Consultation into the matter.2. THE CABINET. 2(i)  The next thing the public knew the Cabinet was considering an application to rename the road (14.7.20).    No member of the public had made an application. 2(ii)  The rules for renaming roads are clear.  There is an application form. It must be accompanied by a map of the affected area and, before the application can be progressed, an application fee and the assessed the cost of the physical and administrative cost the work involved in renaming the road needs to have been paid up-front.  2(iii) The Council itself can apply to change a road-name, just as it can make a planning application.  It is unlikely it would make a planning application unless a large-scale development was involved.  This name-change involved a small stretch of road and a few people in Southall.  In in either case, planning or name-change application, the Council must make it in the prescribed manner. The Cabinet FAILED TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS. It failed to make an application in the prescribed way. 2(iv) Bell was asked why the Cabinet made the proposal rather than allowed a member of the public to make it.  He IGNORED the correspondence.  Instead of making an application the Council had been making “plans”. 3. THE COUNCIL OFFICERS INVOLVED3(i)  Council officer Edward Axe was asked to handle the project.  As Director of ICT, ID, CIO and Property Services, renaming roads is part of his brief.  His advice to the Cabinet should have been: “You need to make an application before proceeding any further.”     He did not do that.  He was either IGNORANT of the rules, that is professionally INCOMPETENT, or unwilling to impede the Cabinet in the course of action it clearly wished to take. 3(ii) A member of the public asked Mr Axe to produce evidence of an application’s having been made.  The responses ranged from the grossly misleading to the risibly fanciful.  It was first claimed the application was made in May 2020.  The person who, it was claimed made it, was recently dead!  No member of the public had made an application.  Then it was explained that it was nor not a “formal” application.  What is the difference?  Making an application is itself a formality. An application is an application. It was then suggested that it happened because the Council was “aware” of a “wish” to have it done. It was admitted – incautiously - that it was the wish of Southall councillors (email 24.11. 20).  Finally, it was stated that the Council did it of its own volition.  So, of its own volition,the Cabinet breezed ahead and failed to make an application as if the rules did not apply to them.”  A high-handed FAILURE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS. 4. THE CABINET MEETING OF 14.7.204(i) The next thing the public knew the Cabinet was discussing a proposal to rename the road. They had never discussed it before but a substantial information pack had been prepared by Mr Romeo Lipizzi.  It follows that a proposal to change the name must already have been made for him to have been asked to do that.  His pack comprised legal advice and the “case” for renaming the road.  4(ii) The case for renaming the road rested upon historical material.  Mt Lipizzi’s duty as a public servant was to be IMPARTIAL, to present the Cabinet with a balanced account of the historical facts, NOT to act as an advocate for renaming the road. However, he merely passed on an account supplied by the party who wanted the change.  He should have been more circumspect and done research.  As a result, the historical information with which the Cabinet was supplied was not only UNBALANCED, it FAILED to present the true FACTS of the matter.    Mr Lipizzi did not need to make enquiries in Southall to discover the truth.  A visit to Wikipedia would have been enough to enlighten him and for him to enlighten the Cabinet.  Mr Axe was asked who had supplied this material.  His ridiculous response (20. 11,20) was: “The wording in the Cabinet report was contributed to by a number of different people”. EVASION.  4.(iii) Members of the Sikh community knew that, far from “Havelock” being an inappropriate name, nothing could have been a happier choice of name.  Sikhs fought alongside the British in the Indian Rebellion.  Havelock was something of a hero in supporting them against the Hindus. They were “old comrades”.  Members of the Sikh community were soon pointing this out when a consultation was held, but the information in their responses was withheld from the Cabinet and public. And the Cabinet was kept in convenient ignorance by the subsequent FAILURE of Axe to report the consultation findings to them.4(iv)  The information pack did not contain the requisite COST of the work involved.  Why bother?  It was the council-tax payer who would have to pay, a gerrymandering gift of our money to Southall agitators and Southall councillors.  4(v) The Cabinet was not supplied with a map of the road.  4(vi) The information pack contained a response from the fire brigade.  It was IGNORED. 4(vii) Ignorant of the historical facts and the cost of the scheme to council-tax payers, the Cabinet went ahead and made a decision .  Whether it bothered to discuss these issues is not on record.  The minutes of the meeting are worthless.  They record only the decisions made, not the deliberation that gave rise to them if, that is, anything of the kind occurred. 5. RIGGING THE RULES 5(i) At its meeting of 14.7.20, the Council was asked to accept an updated Street Naming protocol. Logically, for the Cabinet to be discussing an Application/Proposal to change the name of the road at its meeting on 14.7.20, an Application/Proposal of some sort must have been made BEFORE then, some time before then for Mr Lipizzi to have had time to write his information pack.THE RULES THAT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED WERE THE ONES THAT APPLIED WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE. 5(ii) The protocol at the time the proposal was made was that “streets or pedestrian way names with historic connections should not be expunged”.  It should have been the one that applied.  It was expunged to allow the name-change to go ahead. It is unconscionable that a person or organisation can make a proposal/application and then change the rules to allow it to succeed.This change to the protocol that Axe proposed and the Cabinet happily want along with was an act of CORRUPT MALADMINISTRATION.  5(iii) A member of the public repeatedly asked Lipizzi and Axe when they first became involved, which would obviously have been AFTER a proposal to change the road had been made.  The motive for their obdurate refusal to answer is clear.  They wanted the matter to remain nebulous.  LOGIC, as invoked above, cuts through their OBFUSCATORY failures to answer a simple question to which they must have known the answer.      6. MAKING THE DECISION 6(i)The Council allowed Axe, a council officer, to make the decision.  This was UNDEMOCRATIC, contrary to a fundamental principle of democracy: decisions should be made by those we can vote out and only by them.  However, despite this shameless abrogation of accountability, the Council remains responsible for what happened because it permitted what happened. 6.(ii) A supposed safe-guard was put in place.  Axe was to make decision along with the relevant portfolio-holders of the Cabinet.  Who were they?  Julian Bell and Southall Councillor Anand, both INTERESTED PARTIES.  When it came to making the decision, it was made by default by CEO Najsarek.  See below.  7. THE FIRST CONSULTATION 10 August to 7 September 20207(i) Julian Bell promised a statutory consultation.“A consultation” was announced.  It conformed to the requirements that distinguish a Statutory Consultation from a Consultation. People assumed this was the Statutory Consultation Bell had promised.  7(ii) For several reasons, the consultation was dubious.  Legal advice was that the consultation should begin when the proposal was at the “formative stage”.  This one began when the proposal was so far advanced that the officer in charge was already making recommendations to the Cabinet and the Cabinet had it all settled on the same day! 7(iii)  Further legal advice was: “Where a change is contentious, councils may wish to provide opportunities for people to set out their views in detail, rather than simply expressing support for or opposition to a proposal.” The implication of this is that they will be taken account of by the body responsible for what was happing.  The body responsible was NOT Axe.  It was the Cabinet despite their shameless attempt to shuffle off responsibility on to him. 7(iv) The public would have expected Mr Axe to report the results to the Cabinet.  He failed to report back to the Cabinet. There was new material in the public responses that it was essential the Cabinet should know about, including the happy association of the name “Havelock” with the Sikh population.  Mr Axe may have been mandated to make the decision re Havelock Road, but that did not excuse him from reporting back to the Cabinet in respect of the consultation.  That is the custom in respect of consultations and no dispensation had been granted him to resile from precedent.  It is what the public would have expected.  The legal advice in respect of consultations was: “The law relating to consultation requires that the council consults in the way that it has done in similar circumstances elsewhere …. as this is what potential consultees will reasonably expect”.  That means follow precedent.  PRECEDENT WAS IGNORED. 7(v) The result of the consultation that was put online was a head-count.  The substantial comments of respondents were SUPRESSED.  They were later set out in an undated document that was never put online.  It was disclosed by the persistence of a member of the public’s asking for material relating to the consultation.  Axe did not report the results to the Cabinet at all. The Cabinet was kept in convenient ignorance of the many objections that were made and set out by respondents at length. The results of the first Consultation was NEVER DISCUSSED BY THE CABINET nor even by the portfolio-holders.  What then was the use of the consultation for which council-tax payers paid?  We’ll consult you but won’t consider your responses was the attitude. 7(vi)  The First Consultation did not yield the result that was hoped for. The Council immediately attempted to diminish its status.  It had only been a preliminary” consultation, not even a consultation, only a “survey”.  By the time it reached Najserak, it was a “non-statutory consultation”.Why had it not been described in this way when it was put before the public?  The public had been MISLED.8. THE SECOND CONSULTATION 21 October to 21 November 20208(i)  The statement that accompanied the announcement of this consultation was: “Letters to all residents of Havelock Road are in the process of being sent out”.  The rest of the Borough, whose responses to the first consultation had been so inconvenient to Axe, were evidently now EXCLUDED or to be KEPT IN THE DARK.  8(ii)The public would have expected this to be the “statutory consultation” Bell had promised (and open to all).  IT WAS NOT.  It was merely a consultation seeking comments on an ORDER made to enact the findings of the first consultation, which the Council was now describing as a “non-statutory consultation.”8(ii)  The only substantive consultation that had taken place was the “preliminary” one.  The feedback to that was statistical, a head count.  Now we were assured that the feedback to the second consultation would not be a head count.  WHERE IS THE FEEDBACK TO THE SECOND CONSULTATION?  What was the statistical result?  What was the substantive response in the form of respondents’ comments?No feedback. No answers.  No report back to Cabinet or public.  CYNICAL SCORN OF THE PUBLIC’s RIGHT TO KNOW.  What would Axe care?  The Cabinet got what it wanted and was not likely to find fault with him.  What do the people of Ealing matter!  Why would a council officer care when, however devious a job an officer does, the Council will support him if his “work” serves their purpose? 8(iii) So, the first consultation was not the promised statutory consultation. The second consultation related only to the that non-statutory consultation SO, WHEN DID THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION THAT BELL PROMISED TAKE PLACE?  IT DIDN’T.  All we were offered was Mr Axe juggling his consultations in the hope we didn’t notice the one we were promised wasn’t there.  Again:  NO REPORT BACK TO THE CABINET 8(iv) How did the second consultation conform to what is expected of a “statutory consultation” when its results were not even reported to the Cabinet or announced to the public?  It is NOT even LISTED in the Council’s list of “Past Consultations”!  So, how will anyone know it ever took place!9. THE DECISIONAxe was to make the decision along with the portfolio holders of the Cabinet.  When it came to making the decision, it was made by default by CEO Najsarek at a “meeting”.  His minute of the “meeting” is interesting.  It was made IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, lasted ONE MINUTE and NO ONE ELSE WAS THERE.  10. CONCLUSIONThis is the standard of honesty and openness that prevails at the top of Ealing Council.  We are left ignorant of the COST to US of renaming the road.  We shall be PAYING for Bell’s GERRYMANDING GIFT TO SOUTHALL and BRIBE TO KEEP SOUTHALL COUNCILLORS ON SIDE when the next vote of no-confidence comes.Is anyone surprised?  Not, I suggest, anyone who knows the reputations of Najserak and Bell who bookended the operation. 

Andrew Farmer ● 1194d

THE RENAMING OF HAVELOCK ROAD BY EALING COUNCILThe renaming of the road was suggested by Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council.  It was decided by Paul Najserak, the CEO.  Bell and Najserak.  The top team.  The manner in which it was achieved illustrates how Ealing Council operates at its most senior level:  DISHONESTLY.  It was an exercise in devious maladministration amounting to corruption.WHAT HAPPENEDSUMMARY1, The name-change, affecting Southall, was suggested by Julian Bell (10.6.20). He depended on Southall councillors for support and was in the pay of Southall MP.  He knew they wanted the change. Motive?  SELF- INTEREST. 2.  The Cabinet considered an application to rename the road (14.7.20), but no application had been made by a member of the public. If the Cabinet wanted to adopt the proposal, it should have made an application, just as member of the public would have to do.  FAILURE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS.  3. Council officer Axe was put in charge.  He was allowed to decide whether the road should be renamed.  UNDEMOCRATIC.  Such decisions should be made by members whom the public can vote out4. A safe-guard was put in place.  Axe was to decide along with the cabinet members who had the relevant portfolios.  They were Bell and Southall councillor Anand, both INTERESTED PARTIES. 5.  An information pack prepared for the Cabinet gave MISLEADING INFORMATION of the relationship of Havelock and the Sikhs.  The Sikhs had fought along with the British against the Hindus. The existing name commemorated “old comrades”. The pack also LACKED the requisite MAP and COSTING of the scheme.  6.  Advice from the fire brigade was offered to the Cabinet.  The Council IGNORED it.  7. Rigging the rules.  The Cabinet updated the Street Naming protocol (14.7.29).  The existing protocol did not allow road names with historical associations to be chang0d.  THE RULES THAT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED WERE THE ONES THAT APPLIED WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE.  They were RIGGED to allow the name change to go ahead. 8. A consultation was held. People assumed it was the Statutory Consultation promised by Bell.  It did not yield the hoped-for result.  So, it was described as only a “preliminary” consultation, a “survey”, a “non-statutory consultation”.  Why had it not been presented to the public as that?  The PUBLIC had been MISLED.  10. A Statutory Consultation was then offered.  It was no such thing.  It was only to allow the public to comment on an Order made to enact the result of the non-statutory consultation.  The statutory consultation, promised by Bell NEVER OCCURED. 11. The results of the “consultation” was presented to the public in purely statistical terms.  The substantial objections made by the public were SUPPRESSED.  The results were NOT REPORTED to the Cabinet AT ALL for them to decide.  These were pointless CONSULTATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  12. The decision should have been made by Axe along with the portfolio holders.  It passed to CEO Najserak.  He wrote a minute of the “meeting” at which the decision was made.  The meeting took place AT MIDNIGHT, lasted ONE MINUTE and NAJSERAK WAS ALONE. 13. We still do not know the COST to US of renaming the road.  WE SHALL BE PAYING for Bell’s GERRYMANDING GIFT TO SOUTHALL and BRIBE TO KEEP SOUTHALL COUNCILLORS ON SIDE when the next vote of no-confidence comes. THE FULL STATEMENT IN WHICH THESE ASSERTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED WILL FOLLOW. 

Andrew Farmer ● 1195d