Government investigates Tower Hamlets again

Apparently people like Sylvia Pankhurst and Danny Boyle are among a high-profile string of supporters of the Raine’s Foundation Trust and Steering Group and the many grateful parents and pupils who happily attend the school.

This new investigation is mainly concentrating around the illegal attempt by Tower Hamlets council, trying to close Raine’s Foundation, Church of England Secondary school and Sixth Form prior to a consultation.

Tower Hamlets Council made an application to the Government Schools Adjudicators in May for a zero published admission number (PAN), cutting the future pipeline of the school. A final decision on this application was due for February 2020. Yet the council already and illegally informed all new year 7 pupils, who had been given confirmed places for the year 2019/20 at Raine’s, that they had to leave Raine’s and be placed in other schools, mainly Oaklands.

Whilst the council told parents at meetings that there were only 29 viable applications for a year 7 place at Raine’s, for 2019/20, further evidence suggests that there were actually 70 – 100 pupils applying for places.

Incidentally all year 9s were also told by the council they could not progress to year 10 within the Raine’s Foundation school and should continue their education at Oaklands school.

Raines Foundation Interim Executive Board (IEB)

Whilst the previous board of governors were dismissed, acussed of being unable to run the school, an Interim Executive Board was put into place.

The school advertised a position of parent governor but we were told at the last meeting with the borough that no suitable person could be found to fill the post. I had applied for it. As a former LEA school governor, I should be more than qualified. But I suppose they didn’t want anybody on the board who would want to put a spanner in the works of their devious plans.

In the interests of ‘transparency and openness’it might be interesting to see what the Interim Executive Board (IEB) of Raines Foundation secondary school have been getting up to and you can download all ten documents here.

Raine’s Foundation hired Irwin Mitchell Solicitors who went to the High Court and obtained a judgement including directions to Tower Hamlets Council that they have to write to all parents and pupils who were originally told that they cannot continue their education at Raine’s that they now can continue their education there.

Yet, the council, to date, has not followed that order of the judge.

There are now new applications in preparation to again go to the court for further orders by the solicitors Irwin Mitchell.

It seems very strange that the council tries every trick in the book to dismantle the only traditional school with a 300 year history in the borough.

Please also see a good article from  Wapping Mole though I would not want to go so far as to call for a return of Lutfur Rahman.

It is just really sad that our current Labour council under John Biggs, makes such dreadful decisions. John Biggs. It was a seriously political and administrative mistake to illegale incite the closure of a traditional Church of England school in Tower Hamlets. It will cost the Labour Party a lot of votes.

Advertisements

Keeping the poor in poverty

This government’s employment, education and housing strategy is mainly aimed at keeping the poor in a position of legal servitude. We have entered the age of modern slavery.

“The government had an opportunity to help support the most disadvantaged people in the UK but has instead wasted over half a million pounds,” said Lord Jay, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

The government even refuses to spend £3.5 Million of Eurpoean Union Funding for the alleviation of child poverty and already had to hand back £580.000 of unspent cash, given by the EU as funding to the UK.

So all those Brexit arguments saying we could spend money we give to the EU on ourselves, is simply a lying trick to hype up the Brexit agenda. They have no intention of making things better for our poor families.  See source article. 

Yet in Tower Hamlets

Whilst I am positive about the Labour win in Peterborough for tactial Brexit reasons, I must say that the Labour council here in my home borough of Tower Hamlets has caused a lot of concern to local parents, pupils, teachers and school staff for wanting to close down a Christian Secondary school to amalgamate it with a non Christian council run school, which mainly caters for Muslim pupils.

Please sign an online petition against the closure.

The way the council goes about this is illegal. Also the Council has published a petition against the closure on its website without telling anybody in writing that it was there. So nobody signed the petition on the Council’s website but thousands of people signed the petition on change.org as aboe.

The closure was announced to parents and pupils at a highly stressful time. Just prior to year 11 pupils sitting their GCSE exams they received a letter from the council’s Corporate Director for Children and Culture Debbie Jones stating that the school is to close.

This caused immense stressed to the pupils who didn’t know anything about this.

What is also worth mentioning that the letter was addressed to pupils directly and not to the parent or carer of the pupil.

The new term to start in September 2019 has pupils who have applied for year 7 places and the Cabinet member for Children, Schools and Young People, Labour Councillor Danny Hassell has written to me defending his decision to cancel all year 7 places because the school is undersubscribed and because the school was visited by Ofsted and found to be in need of improvement. Also our local Labour Councillor Sirajul Islam supports the closure of this Christian school in Tower Hamlets.

It is obvious that there are many other solutions rather than close the school. The council refused to finance another Church of England headmaster financially who was drafted in to help.

At the same time the council has decided to close the school and disperse and transfer current pupils to the nearby Oaklands school or other schools by 2020.

Yet, yesterday on Facebook, the Council’s post, which promoted healthy air in the borough stated that no decision about the closure of the school has been taken yet and the decision is put off because of a pending public consultation.

The Council’s website lists the process here

The consultation is now open till 24. July 2019.

I think that the council has acted unlawfully and already decided about the closure of the school prior to even running the public consultation, which is not open yet.

Parents were invited to a meeting 7. May 2019. which was very badly conducted. In fact the council officer running the meeting, kept on grinning and smirking at parents.

There is now a public demonstration planned outside the school on

14. June 2019 between 3 – 5 pm. Approach Road, London E2

It has to be said that Raine’s Foundation has a brand new state of the art building, which cost millions to erect and is only about 4 years old. The school is in a lovely location, near Victoria Park and has a great quality of location to it.

Unfortunately only 1 Conservative councillor and 1 Liberal Councillor are prepared to support the school staying open. It is very sad that the Labour Council sees it as an easy option to close a Church of England run school with Christian values.

It seems that only a Judicial Review will help this problem. Please get in touch if you can help. And please we do not want a radical atmosphere during the demonstration.

The school has found support by other publications.

Further reference from East London Lines.

East London Advertiser 

 

Peterborough for Labour

I must say I like it that Labour won Peterborough ahead of the Brexit Party. It is a clear indication that people voted against Brexit in an area that previously was predominantly pro-Brexit.

Now, that most of the lies and rumours about how glorious Brexit is, have been dispersed, people vote for remain.

I think Brexit was all along a red herring to keep people’s attention on a right-wing nationalist agenda for the purpose that the Conservative government could re-create Victorian values in Britain.

The Conservatives lost many councils in the recent council elections for the reason that people are fed up to the teeth with the cut-backs they have to suffer to do with care for the elderdy, children, schools, rubbish collections and so forth.

Councils are running out of money and its this Conservative goverment that is responsible for it.

Whilst the government keeps on saying people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because the Conservatives failed to deliver Brexit, the reality is that people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because of the severe cut-backs on local council spending and overall policies.

Policies, which saw the wider introduction of Benefit cut-backs for the disabled, the Universal Credit, that left people queueing for Food banks to be able to survive, Zero hours contracts and a reduction in overall wages value by 6%.

Obviously Nigel Farage was very deflated about the second place in Peterborough but I think it indicates the line of pro and against Brexit voters in favour of the against.

Yesterday’s D-Day 75. Anniversary, saw veterans in tears over Brexit planning because they fought for freedom in Europe and want to keep it that way.

This article is not meant to be a blank cheque of support for Labour, who have many faults but it just shows that on the political strategy people voted tactically for the party that could counter the Brexit party in that local by-election.

Added on 7/6/19, the newly elected MP Lisa Forbes was caught into questions over alleged anti-semitic behaviour.

 

 

Humanity at risk from extinction

It certainly sounds true if scientists say humanity could extinct itself. There is little that can be said about it because a lot of things are forbidden to be said.

Looking at known behaviour pattern it is proven that when things go wrong they go wrong in a big way. Hitler for example gotten 90% of support from his people. Smokers came out in a big way and also around 90% of people smoked at one time. Now there is a big threat from bio experiments and what goes in our food chain is influencing our lives more than we even can control at the best of times.

Mass hysteria is a great factor. And of course the press is in charge too much. They practically are making sure that nobody says a tiny wrong thing that could change human behaviour for the better.

One thing can be said, that is, that we are gradually phasing out human reproduction by introducing gay marriage laws.We are also ensuring that our environment continually deteriorates. Especially here in Britain, laws have been changed to make reproduction for poor people impossible.

Boris makes a stand

I must say I rather admire Boris’ attitude towards opposition that does not use quality questions and arguments to dismantle his plans. That is what I would have expected in a quality argument and political debate. Boris called them scientific names, oooh.

Much more important for us all, is the fact that Boris came out with information that he is following advice from senior London Fire Brigade leaders that recommended cutting down on fire stations and reducing the number of fire fighters in London.

Now that is something interesting. I just wonder where this information is, who are the senior officers that gave the advice? That is a basis to have discussions but not fast moving amendments that are based on the lack of or late attendance of a County Hall board member to move a vote.

I am rather disappointed with the general press reporting from the BBC. I have not had any decent tables, statistics from them but the usual lukewarm reporting that stimulates political adventurous argument with little substance.

Since yesterday it was also more difficult to find the actual article on the BBC website that explains why the Mayor rejects the budget change move.Of course Boris is under a clear duty to follow the advice of senior Fire chiefs, who recommend cuts in services. I want to know the details of those recommendations Boris, who said what and when. Perhaps it is to find on the LFB website where the policy papers are displayed. I have not read them yet, as I only have so much time to read and browse, I am already kept busy with BBC articles, from which I expect a certain depth and content.

Boris argues quite correctly that if he has recommendation from Senior Fire chiefs to cut services, that it would be a fruitless exercise to ask rate payers to pay even a penny more to keep services that are not needed. It would have been much better to bring quality questions to the Mayor to publicly demand those services stay with quality statistical arguments rather than move a fast motion. That doesn’t raise my confidence in the opposition at all.

PS: I am a little confused about the original article I read this morning because now an article appears, saying that Boris’ plans had been pushed back and there is now consultation.

BBC correspondent Iain Watson calls benefit recipients scroungers

This how I have to interpret this article found on the BBC website. I quote the whole sentences as published together and it says: ”

The BBC’s political correspondent Iain Watson said: “Next week, Labour will vote against government proposals to cap the rise in most benefits to just 1%.

‘Tough and fair’

“So they’re keen not to be seen as ‘soft on scroungers’ and to show they have their own solution to bringing down the benefits bill.”

I think its rather strange that a BBC correspondent should call benefit recipients scroungers. After all it is the government’s policy to favour redundancies, which are made by companies to increase profit and reduce worker in their companies, the so-called efficiency sackings and redundancies. A company is always allowed to reduce a work force to satisfy shareholders and increase profits and the workers who lost their jobs are then called scroungers.

But, at 9:36 the BBC completely re-wrote the article and the parts quoted above are no longer on their site.

Obese get a star on their coat

Oh no, I forgot to mention the government doesn’t just plan to hunt down all obese people, they only want to punish those obese people who are on benefits. This news has turned up on various news sites and I first thought it was a joke, but the more I search, the more it creeps up in mainstream media. There is the BBC article, the Mail online and the Guardian, to name a few. As far as I understand current comments, all those reporting sites think the idea is bonkers. Bonkers is in fashion lets not forget it.

I am just wondering how this is to work in practise. In my experience a vast amount of obese people work in the health service and in social services, council services and other related community care services. Would it look like this that if an obese benefit claimant comes for their money, that an obese worker can tell them the benefit claimant is too obese to get the money but the obese worker can stay in their job obese simply because they got a job?

Currently the government already suggest to discriminate against overweight police officers and wants to stage police pay according to physical fitness. But that is already questionable; yet to apply the same principle to benefit recipients would mean that benefit recipients get treated like government employees to some extent as both police officers and benefit claimants would get a reduction in pay because of obesity.

Yet other employees can happily stay fat.

This however means that the demand on health services would be higher from obese employed persons rather than those on benefits. Isn’t that just discrimination?

Well, I remember well the picture in my mind, that Hitler forced young men to do wheelies on a beach to keep fit. I know plenty of gay people who are perfectly slim and they are then model citizens to us all because they are gay but slim?

It seems that this government concentrates on benefit claimants and puts them under more and more pressure. But the amount of health care employed people use also affects the benefits others can get because health care costs are part of the common pot of money that is available to us all.

Lets not forget very efficient service providers want to cut costs all the time, they want to cut jobs, all that will create jobless and those jobless are going to get treated like outcasts simply because they fell victim to the latest economy drive. So it can happen, that an obese worker one day tells an obese benefit claimant is unable to get their money but when the obese worker finds themselves out of a job, they get no benefit either. People we are all in the same boat so to speak.

I think it would be much more clever to ask ourselves why people feel so stressed that they feel a need to over-eat, over-drink, over-smoke and do other things in excess too.

New Year’s Honours

I think that it is quite remarkable how the BBC makes public opinion in a not so good way. The BBC tried very hard to concentrate on the problem that occurred for Mr Hogan-Howe as Met Police Commissioner and the Pleb Gate affair. For Mr Hogan-Howe the Honour bestowed to him by the Queen in the 2013 New Year’s Honours list could not have come at a better time But just as the BBC closely reported on the Pleb-Gate affair, it would have been better, I think, to also report in head-line news that Hogan-Howe has gotten Knight  Bachelor and the wording on his honour says, I quote: “Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM is a role model for single-minded crime fighting. He oversaw a 30% fall in crime over three years as Chief Constable of Merseyside; anti-social behaviour fell by 20% in a single year. Now Metropolitan Police Commissioner, he has brought new energy to action on gangs, guns and knife crime, using zero tolerance tactics and sustaining front line visibility. He oversaw the policing of London during the Diamond Jubilee, and the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”

Whilst many good people of the UK got double honours by getting medals in the games and getting into the New Year’s Honours list for many public servants getting the Queen’s Honour is a lifeline at a time when public perception makes them questionable turbulent news.

In this particular case I think the BBC should stir less and report more. They do a lot of selective reporting to steer people’s sentiments into particular directions.

Ken Lvingstone, I think has made a very good point, similar to Danny Boyle. Both worked for the Olympic Games 2012 and were offered New Year’s Royal Honours and both turned them down. Ken Livingstone saying, he already got paid for the work and it was part of his job and Danny Boyle did not want to become special above everybody else.

It does seem that very many people get these honours just for doing their jobs for which they get paid. So why are some getting honours for doing their jobs well and others don’t. It does seem to put the spanner into the works of day to day relationships between people, that some get honours and some don’t.

For winning Olympic sports, the athletes already get medals and the UK medals were bigger and worth more than the usual ones. It is a sporting honour to win and that way they get sponsored for with huge tax payer’s support already.

I think that honours should be reduced to the very special few who do work that is of particular national importance or is voluntary and does not get other recognition.

But it is not as such I think a personal achievement for the Queen to give out honours, it is merely a national appreciation ceremony, which is frankly not necessary on that vast scale. In the UK people start to expect an honour just for doing what others do in any case, just to do good for their country, for wanting to prop up their pride in their own abilities and they do not get any special honours for doing so.

But does it mean that those who get the honours do their jobs better than those who do not in similar posts? It is a rather embarrassing concept I must say because why should some do get an honour and others don’t for doing equally well? Considering that people who do get honours are not necessarily living a clean lifestyle, as the case of Jimmy Savile shows and later have to be stripped of their honours, shows that the whole concept is rather childish.

And another resignation

The new Director General at the BBC has already resigned his post. He doesn’t seem to be able to get it right. First he was criticised for not reporting with Newsnight about a child abuse scandal to do with Jimmy Savile and now DG Enthwistle resigns because the Newsnight report was inappropriate.

The BBC has steadily declined in public confidence over the years and I think it is because they elevated themselves a little bit too much to be judge and jury of the UK in almost every aspect of our lives. At one point a BBC reporter was actually jailed for committing personal fraud by breaking housing benefit laws whilst happily trashing others on the BBC’s Rogue Traders programme.

Politically tainted reporting has steered the public mood and the BBC became much more than just a reporting service for all sorts of news but has become a moral judging ground for the public with the result that the BBC has fallen victim to its own success in the end.

We are now getting to realise pretty fast how easily press freedom works to the detriment of the media,who know that you cannot just say what comes to mind and not cause violations of public confidence at the same time.

Of course the BBC excelled brilliantly in times of foreign attack, when it merely defended the world against cross breaches of human rights in times of warfare, but now it has tried to morally judge day to day occurences in all walks of life and that simply didn’t work out at  all.

On the whole it is very positive that wrong-doings in public services comes to light and gets dealt with. Whether its abuse by church officials, broadcasters or others, it is important to curb it and rid society of two-faced evil-doers.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits