The Retreat

27 Feb

Image

When I first moved to Forest Gate in the late 1980s I lived on Tower Hamlets Road and my walk to the station took me past a small group of almshouses on the corner of Forest Lane and Odessa Road. The buildings are single storey, small, plain and with gabled fronts. Although I didn’t know it at the time, this was known as the Forest Gate Retreat.

The retreat was built by Jabez Legg, who was a Congregational Minister of the Forest Gate church in Sebert Road. He built three almshouses in 1858 and three more in 1863 to accommodate women who had formerly been in domestic service. In 1939 the charity was amalgamated with the Edith Whittuck charity of Wimbledon and renamed the Legg-Whittuck Trust. The Alms-women who live in the retreat can come from any part of the country, but in practice most of them have local connections.

In August 2012 the Legg-Whittuck Trust joined Pathways, a not-for-profit organisation which builds, transforms and supports people and communities to reach their full potential. Pathways now manage the Forest Gate Retreat.

Free schools applications

25 Feb

Local people in East Anglia protest about the imposition of an unwanted 'free school' in their area
Local people in East Anglia protest about the imposition of an unwanted ‘free school’ in their area

Last week the Department for Education finally acceded to a number of Freedom of Information requests and published a full list of all proposals for new free schools it has received, including information about the proposed religious character of the schools, if stated.

The following is a list of proposals received for schools to be located within Newham:

  • Beckton Independent Grammar School
  • Britannia Village All Through School
  • Eastside Young Leaders Academy Free School
  • Little Petals
  • Living Word Academy (Free Church Pentecostal)
  • Jasper City School (Christian)
  • London Academy of Excellence
  • Newham Free Academy
  • Newham School 21
  • Newham College of Further Education

The council has a somewhat ambiguous attitude to free schools. On the one hand, the Labour party is opposed to them and councillor John Gray seconded a motion at the recent London Labour conference to that effect. On the other hand, the mayor has granted a lease on the former offices of the education department in Stratford to the London Academy of Excellence on very generous terms, including the first year rent-free.

I am governor of a Newham school and I am personally opposed to the coalition government’s schools policy. Free schools are an ideological experiment that is diverting resources away from existing schools, whilst academies represent an unprecedented centralisation of control, removing local authorities from their proper place in managing local provision. Giving public money to fringe sects (of whatever religion) to set up new ‘faith schools’ is a recipe for division and disaster. We need our young people to be educated together, side by side, not separated off into sectarian and confessional ghettoes.

Things George Galloway doesn’t do

25 Feb

Things we now know the  self-declared hero of the Newham Spring, George Galloway, doesn’t do:

  • drink alcohol
  • ask permission “prior to every insertion”
  • debate Israelis

Please let me know in the comments if there’s anything else I’ve missed.

UPDATE: The student who organised the debate has written an open letter to Galloway, saying the MP’s actions left him feeling “humiliated in front of a room full of people who had waited an hour and a half” to see the debate. He rejects Galloway’s claims that he had been “misled” and “deceived” about his opponent.

So far Galloway has not responded, so maybe “apologise” and “act with grace and humility” are two more things we can add to the list of things George doesn’t do.

Born to play for Spurs

20 Feb

Gareth Bale’s glorious second goal against Lyon in the Europa League, as seen from the crowd.

I didn’t shoot this video (honest!) but whoever did sits not more than a dozen or so seats away from me.

A new home

18 Feb

Twitter announced at the weekend that it was closing down Posterous, almost exactly a year after it bought the business.

It was pretty clear at the time that this was about hiring the talent behind Posterous rather than acquiring the service and its millions of users.
Nonetheless the news has caught people by surprise and left them looking for a new home for their blogs.

As was obvious from the masthead on my old site – Martin Warne’s posterous – it was hosted by Posterous. I asked on Twitter if people could recommend a new home and the answer that came back was “WordPress.”

So right now I am working to shift the site over to WordPress.com. Most of the content is now here, I just need to do some tweaking to the tags and categories, and then re-direct the forestgate.net domain to point at the new site.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

This man wants to save Newham from dictatorship

12 Feb

One of these men is a posturing self-publicist. The other is Pete Burns.

George Galloway wants to free Newham from the shackles of the hated Wales dictatorship. He is promising a “Newham Spring” that will sweep Sir Robin from power and install, er, George Galloway in his place.

In a video released on YouTube he says, “New Labour has absolute power in Newham. It holds every single council seat which is unhealthy in any society and it has the all powerful office of Mayor year after year.”

A true believer in the benefits of multi-party democracy! It’s such a shame he never mentioned it when he met Saddam Hussain:

Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem!

Or when he heaped praise on the blood-soaked head of Bashar al-Assad:

All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by president Bashar al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus. For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs, and that’s why I’m proud to be here.

Much as I would love to see the back of Robin Wales I won’t be taking any lessons in dealing with dictators from George Galloway.

Newham vs Newham

6 Feb
Newham_vs_newham

Yesterday’s debate in parliament about marriage equality included the following exchange between Newham’s two MPs, who are on different sides of the argument:

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab):

The Church of England was the custodian of marriage in Britain for hundreds of years. For many people, it still is.

The 1662 version of the Church of England service, which has been in use for the past 350 years, sets out three reasons for marriage. The first is that it was “ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord”.

The central problem with the Bill is that it introduces a definition of marriage that includes the second and third reasons but drops that first one. The result is something that is a good deal weaker than the original.

Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab):

My right hon. Friend was at my wedding. I was not young when I got married, and unless I had been blessed like Elizabeth, it was highly unlikely that I was going to be able to procreate after all that time. Is he telling me that my marriage is less valid than anybody else’s?

Stephen Timms:

No, I am certainly not. I was delighted to attend my hon. Friend’s wedding. The reason that I have just cited was applicable 351 years ago as well, but the Church of England service still applies.

Children are at the heart of marriage but they are barely mentioned in the Bill. It aims to open up the benefits of marriage to people who are excluded from it at the moment, but it does so at the price of taking away a significant part of the meaning of marriage. Children are the reason that marriage has always been so important… it is right for society to recognise—as marriage does—the value to all of us of the contribution of those who bring children into the world and bring them up. That is the ideal that the current definition of marriage reflects, and it would be a mistake to lose the value that that definition places on the creation and bringing up of children.

Like Lyn Brown, I am married but childless. And I am pleased that she stood up to Timms on behalf of all of us in that happy condition.

Statutory Public Notices – Money for Nothing?

20 Dec

Newham council has replied to my FoI request about the cost of publishing statutory public notices.

Over the past 3 years the council has spent close to £119,000 on publishing these notices, more than 95% of it with the Newham Recorder. The balance – a mere £5,500 – went to the in-house Newham Mag. Notices also appear on the council’s website, but that costs nothing.

Sadly Newham couldn’t tell me whether anyone had responded or made enquiries as a result of seeing the published notices, as they do not record that information.

So, as far as we can tell, Newham is handing over an average of £40,000 a year to the Recorder for absolutely no public benefit whatsover. And there’s nothing they can do about it, as the law says they have to.

It is little short of outrageous.

Eye Spy

14 Dec

A list has been published today of the locations of all of the CCTV cameras used by Newham council to spy on residents.

It runs to almost 5 pages long. And the majority of them are not static, but have ‘pan-tilt-zoom’ capability so council snoopers can move cameras around to track individuals.

But even this monster surveillance network is not enough for Big Brother. Our mayor wants to import a whole fleet of mobile CCTV cameras to enable ‘automatic number plate recognition.’

Is there is a scrap of evidence that this massive intrusion into our privacy makes us even a tiny bit safer?

Human Rights Day

10 Dec

Today is the 64th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet last week 72 Tory MPs voted for a bill that would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. Happily they were soundly defeated.

But the question remains, what is it about human rights that these people object to?

In 2009 Lord Bingham, the first judge in modern times to be appointed as both master of the rolls and as lord chief justice, gave the keynote speech at Liberty’s 75th Anniversary Conference, in which he expressed dismay that anyone would seek to remove or weaken such fundamental rights:

The rights protected by the [European] Convention and the [Human Rights] Act deserve to be protected because they are, as I would suggest, the basic and fundamental rights which everyone in this country ought to enjoy simply by virtue of their existence as a human being. Let me briefly remind you of the protected rights, some of which I have already mentioned. The right to life. The right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The right not to be enslaved. The right to liberty and security of the person. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be retrospectively penalised. The right to respect for private and family life. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly and association. The right to marry. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of those rights. The right not to have our property taken away except in the public interest and with compensation. The right of fair access to the country’s educational system. The right to free elections.

Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number. Human rights are not, however, protected for the likes of people like me – or most of you. They are protected for the benefit above all of society’s outcasts, those who need legal protection because they have no other voice – the prisoners, the mentally ill, the gipsies, the homosexuals, the immigrants, the asylum-seekers, those who are at any time the subject of public obloquy.

So, if you are unfortunate enough to live in a constituency represented by one of the 72 anti-Human Rights MPs, I would urge you to take the time to write and ask them which of the fundamental basic rights enshrined in the European Convention and the Act they would like to do away with; which of them do they consider unnecessary?

Those of us living in Newham are lucky in at least one respect – both of our MPs turned out to vote against the stupid and shameful repeal bill. I don’t often applaud Lyn Brown and Stephen Timms, but on this occasion I do.