Forum Topic

Am I slow to have not seen this before? The newspaper was opened on this page in my local cafe""Tories kick out councillor for 'offensive comments' Apr 5 2012 By Poppy Bradbury A COUNCILLOR has been kicked out of the Conservative party following controversial comments he made about Southall. Benjamin Dennehy, who represents residents in Hanger Hill, was initially suspended from the party last month after posting an explosive blog on his website. The former Tory now remains on Ealing Council as an independent member.Ealing Council’s board of standards received a complaint about the blog and will decide next week whether to launch an investigation.Mr Dennehy, who is from New Zealand, sparked outrage when he wrote how criminality is ‘endemic’ to Southall, and that the area’s Indian community ‘exploits its own people’.Labour councillors stopped Mr Dennehy from making an apology at the beginning of a full meeting of the council on Tuesday night, asking him to hear their debate on the issue first, and criticised the Tory leader, Councillor David Millican, for his silence on the matter.Mr Dennehy left the meeting before the debate.Mr Millican told the chamber: “Councillor Dennehy has lost the Conservative whip. He now sits as an independent and is under investigation by the party.“It’s disappointing that this council has denied him the opportunity to apologise and atone for his mistake.“It’s never easy to say sorry, and in such a public forum. People who make mistakes in life should be allowed to learn from them. We’ve all done something or said something we regret.”Tory councillors sat tight-lipped as several Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors condemned Mr Dennehy’s comments.Labour’s Hitesh Tailor said: “There has been complete absence of any contrition and condemnation or apology from the Conservatives and that’s what this borough deserves.“We want an apology from Councillor Dennehy and one from Councillor Millican.”Referring to Mr Millican’s predecessor as Tory council leader, Jason Stacey, Mr Tailor added: “I suspect this would not have happened under Councillor Jason Stacey’s watch""

Jim Lawes ● 5106d

It seems to me that Ealing Environment and Customer Services supremo, Keith Townsend, has his hands full sorting out a) the waste collection mess, and b) the fountain in Walpole Park, and he is asking for patience from residents:Ealing Today said: In a news release - issued prior to the problems - Keith Townsend, executive director of environment and customer services, said: “Making Ealing a cleaner place to live is one of the council’s key priorities, working with Enterprise we will be working to improve standards even further.“I would like to thank residents for their continued commitment to recycling helping recycling rates to improve year-on-year.  There is now very little that can’t be recycled from home and I would encourage everyone to cut the amount of waste going to landfill by making full use of all the recycling services available.“We are doing our utmost to ensure refuse and recycling collections continue to run smoothly but we would ask for residents’ patience as the new contractor takes over.”Bearing in mind the thousands of illegal sheds have been building up in Southall and on Ealing's allotments (remember the Allotments Act does not allow structures of over twenty inches on Allotments to stop crops being overshadowed and having their sun cut off and stopping the food from growing) and the precedent set by Keith Townsend that it takes years to sort out a fountain I wouldn't hold out much hope of either the Head of Planning Enforcement or Ealings Allotment Manager sorting any of these illegal sheds soon. Keith has overseen the recruitment and fostering of both the Allotment Manager and the Head of Planning Enforcement and their respective policies of enforcement of illegal sheds...Eric

Eric Stanley ● 5110d

The front page of the Brentford TW8 website now reports on the "plight" of the Heston Bridge people.-----------------------------------------------------"""Over 50 Indian Nationals Sleep Under M4-----------------------------------------------------Hounslow Council urges swifter action from Indian High Commission over plight of homeless-----------------------------------------The London Borough of Hounslow has urged the Indian High Commission to work in partnership with the council and other agencies to help around 50 homeless people living under the M4 flyover at Heston.The rough sleepers in the area are Indian nationals, with no legal documentation to live or work in the UK. They have settled in the area between Southall and Heston under the flyover, with no sanitation, lighting or heating. They do however have access to three meals a day at the nearby Southall Gurdwara Temple. Hounslow Council has been able to offer an outreach service to the homeless people at the site, and during the severe cold in previous weeks was able to offer severe weather emergency provision to ensure that a warm place to sleep at night was offered. However, the council is limited in the help it can offer the group as they have no legal status in the UK.Cllr Steve Curran, Hounslow Council’s cabinet member for housing said: “We have been in contact many times with the large number of rough sleepers sleeping in the Heston area of the borough. “In partnership with key agencies including the Police, UKBA and Thamesreach, a homeless charity, the council has engaged with the rough sleepers, trying to find suitable solutions to their current problem.“The majority of the individuals are Indian nationals who do not hold legal status in the UK and have no access to public funds. We therefore are restricted in what assistance we can offer. “We are making all efforts to secure emergency travel documents with the Indian High Commission; however requesting such papers can take a considerable period of time as investigations can be complex. We would urge the Indian High Commission to speed up the process to ensure these people are able to return home safely.”

Jim Lawes ● 5146d

What an utterly distorted argument.The Declaration is there as a beacon for all civilised communities to work towards creating policies in their own countries to combat poverty.No where have I ever said that the doors to immigrants should be an open gate. The right to enter this country should be very strictly controlled which is not the case, because the Home Office was not fit and also evidenced by T May sacking that senior the other day. Monitoring people exiting the UK is non existent as well and weakens immigration control.So the comparison is to draw from the lessons of earlier poverty and apply them today. There is no difference for those people who actually were or now are in extreme poverty. No one has ever said that there is a moral right to move to the most prosperous part of the world. No one at all, because it is preposterous.The Declaration of Human rights came about because of the suffering and it is now part of Euro law, because it is espoused by people who are horrified by people on their own doorstep at seeing the appalling poverty in their own country. Most decent minded people can’t bear it and so while those M4 dwellers are here they should be looked after properly. I don’t like them there any more than you do. But in itself that is no reason to deport them. They need to be treated humanely. If after investigations they can never be deported, then we shall just have to treat them differently. But you can’t just dump them in the middle of the night on a beach in the Indian continent. Unless you think they are rubbish.I note that you fail to address the point about no identification.

George Knox ● 5147d

@Tony“From what we have been led to believe, those under this bridge should not be in the country, so why are they not deported?”They probably have no official identity or insufficient for them to be accepted by the country they originally came from. And they may think they are better off here because they do get some support – more than they would get in a third world country.http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/ia/removing-factors1/removal-decision?view=Binaryshows the limited powers of the UK Border Agency and how they are trying to tighten up their functions. But even those measures will not stop people apprehended by the UKBA moving to another part of the country. On the one hand if the Council provide shelters, more will occupy the empty spaceson the other hand"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Paris 1948, art. 25)Those people beneath the bridge have lost control.If you had been part of the mindset traumatised by the consequences of the Nazis depriving people of their human rights, and the mindset of those who suffered such appalling deprivation in Europe in the few years after the war, you might have been only too keen to support a policy of never again.

George Knox ● 5148d

Peter Chadburn “Big Business loves illegal staff as they do stuff so cheap that we then have third world conditions in britain and so we are more competative. however when our youngsters can't get jobs and riot people are surprised.”Er, no it doesn’t! The fines are enormous if they are caught. I work as a cleaner and my employers now go through every check they can to make sure each and every one of my fellow employees has the right to work here. I realised that they were trying to avoid employing anyone who wasn’t obviously British until they had no choice. Secondly I am doing “stuff so cheap” because I need a job and the people who take out cleaning contracts want it as cheap as possible. My colleague, who worked the same shifts as me, was made redundant at Christmas. I was then told that my company had renegotiated the contract and I would now be doing four hour’s work for two hour’s pay (my shift had been two hours, working alongside my colleague). I had to point out that, as I am earning the minimum wage, this would be illegal. They have now come to terms with the fact that they will be getting two hour’s work from me during each shift. In the time I’ve worked there I have interviewed prospective colleagues and then worked alongside them. The moment they got the job they began turning up late, if at all, and didn’t seem to think any actual work was required of them . With one exception they have been British and frankly it has been embarrassing. This is what stops us from being competitive – attitude problems. I have never been asked to interview a young person for the job as no one like that ever applies, the job is too menial. I think you’ll find that those riots were as much about free trainers and the chance to cause some grief without any comeback (unbelievably stupid, judging by all the convictions).

Albertina McNeill ● 5148d

Tony Price Navvies weren't a drain on the State because there was no system that they could take advantage of in the way we recognise it today. Individual parishes took the strain or the company that employed them if they were embarrassed into it. "As a matter of interest, how do you show your concern re their self imposed plight." This “self imposed plight” thing, what do you think it takes for someone to leave everything familiar to them and go somewhere as grim like the UK? Utter desperation! I know because members of my own family left Portugal to go almost anywhere they could get work. Where they came from the poor were deliberately kept illiterate to prevent them from fighting for a better deal. No wonder they wanted to raise their kids in a place where they would get a better start. My mother’s siblings aren’t exactly proud that they grew up without shoes. They are fortunate that they didn’t have to escape the threat of torture and murder which was reserved for the few with an education. For the record I have been an active supporter of Amnesty International for twenty years because I believe that a better human rights record in many of the countries of origin of migrants would mean fewer of them here. I would also let these people work because they can hardly be less reliable that the British I’ve had to put up with. What do you expect me to say? That I should drop off a week’s worth of shopping under that bridge now and again? That I should give them every penny I earn? These people want to help themselves out of poverty through work but mostly they want to be where they first came from. So, what are YOU doing to help them Tony?

Albertina McNeill ● 5148d

Comments to, in brackets ):-  "First, many landlords are housing their own employees. ( a dogmatic statement, how do you know it is fact, apart from possible heresay )Second, many residents of beds in sheds have nowhere else to go. ( oh yes they do, they could live in normal housing like other people )Thirdly, many of the residents of beds in sheds are illegal immigrants so they have no other option. ( oh yes they do. If they are illegal immigrants, they should not be in UK at all, so the option is for them to return voluntarily before the Border Agency do so )Ealing Council needs to wake up and smell the roses and realise that there is a big problem here, not in terms of law breaking, but in terms of humanitarian issues. ( sorry, it is not primarily one of humanitarian issues but IS one of illegality ) The dwellers of the beds in sheds are basically being exploited and should be looked after, not persecuted. ( if they are illegally here, they should be deported pronto, no other consideration, and those employing them fined the statutory  amount of £10,000 per person, and those housing them, fined likewise ) Bringing them into the legal economy would be the answer as this would give them access to proper social housing and welfare support ( that is the last thing we want to do, pay illegality, not on your nellie ) as well as putting the slum landlords, gangmasters, and exploiters of illegal workers who got them here in the first place out of business. ( good! )Clearly Ealing Council is failing to support these vulnerable people if there is a demand or need for beds in sheds. ( Ealing and other Councils have one duty, arrange for deportation of illegals and demolish the shanty townships, and fine the  persons owning the land on which these " sheds " exist ) Perhaps we need basic hostel facilities to help this enormous number of hidden "homeless" in Ealing? ( enormous, are the totals known then? )Perhaps the £7.2 million intended for improving Southall should go to address the needs of the beds in sheds people rather than in prettyfying Southall to please a bunch of shopkeepers into giving more to support Vivendra Sharma's and Julian Bell's election party funds? ( no comment apart from the fact Sharma and Bell should be voicing opposition to the shanty township on their patch and taking action accordingly )

Tony Price ● 5167d

A lot of good, interesting points.I've noticed that everyone commenting on this has brought their pet hate into it. There are clearly some visitors to this forum who blame all their misfortune on immigrants, others have concerns about the enforcement of drug laws. I am worried about the impact of illegal building on the environment. I agree with you that poverty has driven this. One of the worst aspects of this issue is the fact that a minority come to this country seeking enough work to raise some cash to send back home where it is desperately needed and end up spending most of it on terrible accommodation. Yet the UK would probably grind to a halt without them because so few want the jobs that they are willing to take.I do not agree with you that poor quality housing does not exist in wealthier areas and speak from personal experience. I grew up in tied accommodation in Knightsbridge, in a house that is now worth close to £2 million. At the time it was my home it was draughty, the roof leaked, the walls were damp and the smell of wet plaster was hard to ignore. We were expected to be grateful for this bijou residence because we lived there rent free but my mother was paid so little that she had to take on extra work. What she saved on fares she spent trying to heat the place with gas and electric heaters. Just because you can't see them it doesn't mean that similar places aren't hidden away in Pitshanger. Our immediate neighbours included a duchess, a Saudi millionaire and a member of Duran Duran.The houses on either side of my present home are "buy to lets" in multiple occupation. One is very well maintained but the tenants pay quite a high rent. The other is less appealing and those living there clearly have no other choice. They are probably one step up from a bed in a shed. In the immediate area there were a number of houses that had been empty for some time following the death of the owners but most of these have been renovated and brought back into use. I suspect this was partly down to pressure from neighbours who were fed up with the presence of rats. It proves that it isn't impossible to do this but it may need a voluntary element to get the research done (ie. trace and contact the owners). Perhaps harnessing the irritation of neighbours might be a way forward.I can see your point that a sudden and unusually efficient assault on all low standard properties would result in a huge need for social housing, one that could not be met under the current circumstances. I've noticed a recent trend in the conversion of office buildings into apartments and hotels which could be the way ahead but the provision of an adequate water supply or stricter controls on water use would have to be introduced at the same time.It is such a complex and challenging issue and there is no single solution but it doesn't really give Ealing's planners an excuse to ignore or fail to deal with back garden development and money making add ons. You might find this interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15776450As for someone else's reference to onion domes, you're right, an appalling architectural innovation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pavilion Total shanty look. Quick, knock it down.

Albertina McNeill ● 5244d

An overall good assessment Tony, but what is the solution. The fact is we are faced with two illegal problems, one of persons and secondly of shanty type constructions, neither of which should be ignored unless we are prepared for " mob rule " and the descent into the disregard for the laws of the land and if so, where do we draw the line.  The number of illegal immigrants is thought to be well over 1 million and I think I read Ealing has 100,000, which seems rather high but could well be true bearing in mind 70-80 % of immigrants come to London and I would imagine the occupants of the " sheds " are of that ilk, so why not raid them and send the occupants back to whence they came. The alternative is to let all and sundry into our country and allow them to drag it down to the standard  of their own country. Why should we allow that to happen.-----------------------------Both 'illegal' problems are for the govt and local authorities to deal with, which they are clearly not doing at present.The trouble with the illegal immigrant population is just that. They are here illegally, therefore there is no way of knowing how many there are. Estimates differ depending on your political persuasion and/or the paper that you read.Because of the failure of authorities to do anything, there is equally no way of knowing whether the occupants of these 'sheds' are legal or not. That again is press specualtion, that you either believe or don't.Imagine the scenario that would exist if they were all raided and torn down, only to find that most, even only some, of the occupants were here legally? What then? It is not as straight forward as raiding the buildings and 'sending them back'. and letting all and sundry in isn't the only alternative, either.

Jeremy Hanson ● 5244d

The problem is poverty, not colour.Look, there is a housing market that is broken, with not enough affordable housing. There is an immigration system that is broken, has no idea how many people it has let in. There is an economy that is broken, recession verging on depression, with high unemployment and cuts in housing benefit that place even crappy privately owned flats out of reach in W.London. There are too many people and not enough housing.Put all these together, and it's clear that a basic human need for shelter is not capable of being met in current market conditions, and nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. It is not just immigrants who face this problem, but they tend to be poorer on average. Asians often do have larger households, yes, but fewer of them than those of us who don't have 3 generations under the same roof. So, duh, you'll find sheds in poor areas, but not Ealing Common or Pitshanger. Not yet anyway. But talk to anyone under 30, and the vast majority are struggling to achieve housing. We'd better get used to extended family living too.Beds in sheds is a market response to this train wreck, albeit illegal. Few people would ever choose to live like that, but whilst they have no choice it's an opportunity that some "landlords" will take advantage of. Others will be less visibly living in awful, overcrowded conditions that break statutory rules.A lot of you seem to be anguishing about the degradation of London to a shanty town and demanding something must be done. Which is fine, but what? A War on Shanty is as doomed and futile as the War on Drugs, for exactly the same reason: the more pressure is exerted on suppressing illicit and exploitative housing, the more unfulfilled demand will increase the profit to be made by acting illegally. Like drugs, it'll just force housing prices up. Which may be Government housing strategy, unless they're too dim to link cause and effect.Housing is even more of an imperative than drug addiction. You can't just medicate the need for a home away, or send people to rehab to cure them of the need for a bed. You can force people to sleep on the street, but then that is another problem you won't like, and rough sleeping is already illegal. If they squat empty houses, you won't like that, and Government is rushing through legislation to make that a criminal offence even as it cuts regeneration schemes and leaves houses empty and boarded up. Nobody has the budget to build new housing, the banks won't lend the money, incomes are being eaten by inflation, councils have 20 year waiting lists, housing is being gobbled by the wealthy for buy-to-let returns... So what - WHAT? - is the solution that you all propose for the day that all these unsightly illegal tenants get evicted, exactly? Internment camps? Prison? Repatriation of foreign nationals who are already exploited in the black economy and whose incomes can't reach anything better?  Punishing the losers just is not going to fix this. And besides, who here is so utterly confident in their good fortune that they might not end up homeless sometime? A lost job, a broken relationship, a breakdown, a bad debt, a business failure is often all it takes. Why don't the planning dept act? Perhaps because they are more capable of joined-up thinking, and know full well that the moment they do, the Council will acquire a large queue of homeless refugees it simply has no resources to cope with.

Tony Sleep ● 5244d

About two years ago I raised the issue of change of use of a property adjoining mine. A business was being run from this house and neighbours had to endure the presence of large vehicles (eg. concrete mixers) on their doorsteps at 6am as the drivers checked in to the office next door. An additional problem was a substantial building that appeared in the back garden of this property which was clearly intended as accomodation. It took several very noisy, vibration filled weeks to build and we were given no warning. It blocks out light and has changed the nature of the space completely. Mentioning this at a ward forum meant that the problem could not be ignored by councillors as it had been by the planning department. Eventually the hardpressed neighbours of this householder were informed that he had applied for retrospective planning permission. I leafleted the area, alerting ten times the number of residents than the official letter had, and got up a petition. I don't know how much impact it had but the planning officer visited the property and denied permission. In spite of this the business continues to operate, the lodgings at the back are still in use and trucks still turn up outside. The planning department is toothless because it is underfunded and understaffed. Apart from that very few of these "beds in sheds" are reported because neighbours don't know they can do that or know how to. There has been some mention in the local press but unless the process is made easier and more accessible irresponsible householders will carry on doing this.

Albertina McNeill ● 5245d