Waltham Forest Council related stories 1989

	Council set for big changes	Waltham Forest Guardian, January 6, 1989.
	Race row ends with Tory axe	Waltham Forest Express January 14, 1989
	Plants man hits back	Waltham Forest Guardian January 20, 1989
	The heat is on	Waltham Forest Guardian January 27, 1989.
	Hoax letter	Waltham Forest Guardian February 3, 1989
	Rates went down!	Waltham Forest Guardian February 3, 1989
	Victory over rubbish	Daily Mail February 7, 1989
	Winner in the grand dustbin bags battle	Waltham Forest Guardian February 10, 1989
	Residents' opposition to market	Waltham Forest Guardian February 10, 1989
	Lords asked to halt the misery	Waltham Forest Express February 11, 1989
	Jobs for the boys shake-up	Evening Standard February 15, 1989
	Charting rates	Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989
	'Drop estates proposal'	Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989
	Discussing tower blocks' future	Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989
	Public still not given right to talk over plans	Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989
	Rates rise is only 13.3 per cent in six years -council	Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989
	Houses to replace tower blocks?	Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989
	Tenants caught in estate battle	Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989

	COMMENT (on boycott)	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Resident fight to s1987 mosque plan	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Rates rise well above inflation	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Jibes 'were out context'	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Planning to speak	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Herbicides rethink	Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989
	Clever words	Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989
	Race row truce Just in time	Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989
	Rates go up by 18.7 per cent	Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989
	'Green light' for mosque scheme	Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989
	CRC condemns 'Satanic Verses' book	Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989
	Mosque should not be on ratepayers	Waltham Forest Guardian March 17, 1989
	Thousands turn out for Rushdie march	Waltham Forest Guardian March 24, 1989
	Cinema to become mosque	Waltham Forest Guardian March 31, 1989
	Housing row stirs racism claim	Waltham Forest Guardian March 31, 1989
	Estates sell off stinks says SLD	Waltham Forest Guardian March 31, 1989
	Problems inner city councils have to face up to	Guardian, April 5, 1989
	Sorry, Derek	Waltham Forest Guardian April 7, 1989
	Stay with council' plea to tenants	Waltham Forest Guardian April 7, 1989
	Hoping to weed out a final decision	Waltham Forest Guardian April 7, 1989
	Now, streets get herbicide free zones	Yellow Advertiser April 14, 1989
	Councillors couldn't close their eyes to Sleepy Jo's snooze	Yellow Advertiser, April 21, 1989
	Ask public about use of herbicides	Waltham Forest Guardian April 21, 1989
	Councillor slept through vital vote	Waltham Forest Guardian April 21, 1989
	SNOOZE CLAIM SPARKS STORM	Waltham Forest Express April 22, 1989
	Huffing doesn'tdisguise the facts	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser April 28, 1989
	LABOUR TO LOSE 14 IN NEXT YEAR	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser April 28, 1989
	Childish theatrical walk out	Waltham Forest Guardian, April 28, 1989

	All change on Waltham Forest Council	Waltham Forest Guardian May 5, 1989
	Plea to Parks Staff	Waltham Forest Guardian May 5, 1989.
	GOVERNMENT DECISION LOSES JOBS IN LEYTON	May 12, 1989.
	THE ratepayers' fight against Waltham Forest Council has not ended	May 12, 1989.
	Sleepy councillor is'rumbled' on vote	Waltham Forest Guardian May 12, 1989
	Kips in the council chamber are just not on	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser May 12, 1989
	BRAVE BILL IS CHOSEN AS NEW MAYOR	Waltham Forest Guardian May 12, 1989
	Electronic wink-catcher	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser, May 12 1989
	Apology sought from Editor	Waltham Forest Guardian May 19, 1989
	SILENCE IS NO LONGER GOLDEN	Waltham Forest Guardian May 19, 1989
	Homes plan puts 300 jobs at risk	Waltham Forest Guardian, May 19, 1989.
	SHOCKER! Jobs could face the axe	Waltham Forest Express May 20, 1989.
	LIBERALS ACTED IN BAD TASTE!	Waltham Forest Express May 20, 1989
	Plain wrong	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser May 26, 1989
	Ratepayers' group could get councillors thrown out	Waltham Forest Guardian May 26, 1989
	Splitting political hairs	Waltham Forest Guardian June 2, 1989
	Splitting political hairs	Waltham Forest Guardian June 2, 1989
	Here's to a long, hot summer	Waltham Forest Guardian June 9, 1989
	Homes to be built on historic site of soccer	Waltham Forest Guardian June 9, 1989
	Councillor admits mum's home is 'a disgrace	Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989
	Always two sides to any argument	Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989
	Getting away from 'mocking left'	Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989
	By election agent is being sued for libel	Waltham Forest Guardian, June 16, 1989
	GREEN LIGHTS AHEAD	Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser June 23, 1989
	Building deal 'blackmail' claim	Waltham Forest Guardian June 30, 1989
	Weed spraying will go ahead	Waltham Forest Guardian June 30, 1989

	Poison paths health fears	Waltham Forest Guardian July 7, 1989
	COUNCIL BOSS BANNED FOR DRINK-DRIVING	Waltham Forest Guardian July 21, 1989
	MANIFOLD INDUSTRIES LEYTON LOCKOUT	WALTHAM FOREST TRADE UNION RESOURCE CENTRE, July 21, 1989
	45 WORKERS SACKED	Yellow Advertiser, July 28, 1989
	Boss gives reasons for the Manifold Sackings	Waltham Forest Guardian, August 4, 1989
	STREET NAMES SHOCKER	Yellow Advertiser August 4, 1989
	LOW SEX DRIVE	Sun August 4, 1989
	Fancy living in a road called Death Row?	WF Guardian August 4, 1989.
	FANCY LIFE IN 'LOW SEX DRIVE'?	Waltham Forest Guardian, August 4, 1989
	ROAD NAME SHOCKER	WF Guardian August 4, 1989.
	My address? Low Sex Drive!	WF Guardian August 4, 1989.
	WHAT AN AFFRONT!	Waltham Forest Express, August 5, 1989.
	No go, Jo	Sun August 5, 1989
	Hate letter	August 5, 1989.
	I was impressed...	Letter to Sun August 7, 1989.
	Turn left at Skid Row...	Evening Standard August 9, 1989.
	Sexy road names row	WF Guardian August 11, 1989
	Row flares over firm's use of agency staff	Yellow Advertiser, August 11, 1989
	WE'LL TALK SAY SACKED WORKERS	Waltham Forest Guardian, August 11, 1989
	Workers planning show of strength	Waltham Forest Express, August 12, 1989
	Party backs sacked workers	Waltham Forest Express, August 12, 1989
	No need for Low Sex Drive	WF Guardian August 18, 1989
	Name for a laugh claim Liberals	Yellow Advertiser August 18, 1989
	Street naming backlash has Brind up in arms	Waltham Forest Express, August 19, 1989
	Can we really take this councillor seriously?	Waltham Forest Guardian August 25, 1989
	When will we have double glazing?	Waltham Forest Guardian August 25, 1989
	Can we really take this councillor seriously?	Waltham Forest Guardian August 25, 1989
	Manifold Industries Lock-Out	WFTC News August 1989
	Name roads after councillors	WF Guardian September 1, 1989.
	Cost to us of a councillor	Waltham Forest Guardian September 22, 1989
	'We're not taking this rubbish!'	Waltham Forest Guardian September 22, 1989

GROUNDWORK LAID FOR MARKET MOVE

Waltham Forest Guardian, October 13, 1989.

	S1987ping property growth	Waltham Forest Guardian, October 27, 1989.
	"Ban these people from the Town Hall"	Waltham Forest Guardian, October 27, 1989.
	BEDSIT PLAN SPARKS FURY	Waltham Forest Guardian, October 20, 1989
	RESIDENTS TOLD: YOU'RE WRONG	Waltham Forest Guardian, October 27, 1989
	MPs speak at factory demo	WF Guardian October 27, 1989

	Zones pioneered by Labour	Waltham Forest Guardian November 3, 1989
	PLANNERS SNUB HOUSING GIANTS	WF Guardian November 10, 1989.
	Fears on bedsit plan allayed	Waltham Forest Guardian, November 10, 1989
	Poll tax 'safety net' shock	Yellow Advertiser, November 17, 1989.
	Song of concern	Waltham Forest Guardian December 8, 1989
	End of the concrete Jungles?	Waltham Forest Guardian December 15, 1989

See also what they said

Can we really take this councillor seriously?

IF THE housing problem in Waltham Forest was not so serious, Councillor Jo Brind's letter in last week's Guardian "No need for Low Sex Drive" would be taken as pathetic clap-trap.

Here is a councillor who accuses the Social and Liberal Democrats of sitting on the fence. Well, it wasn't long ago, on July 24, that Councillor Brind made a rare intelligent speech at the Land Strategy Committee in relation to the "Large Panel Construction Estates" where he stated that he could not support his own party, the Labour Party, in knocking down one ghetto and building another.

And who did he have to vote with? The very same people he is accusing, of sitting on the fence, the Social and Liberal Democrats (and, of course, the Tories!)

Mind you, when the full council meeting came, four days later. Councillor Brind had changed his mind, even without any new proposals being put on the table, and voted with his own party.

So, can we really take this man seriously? Nobody wants to see our industrial land turned into housing estates, no matter who suggests it, be it the Tory government or the Labour council.

May I say, as a Social and Liberal Democrat that I may get splinters from sitting on a wooden fence, but Councillor Brind has only to scratch his head to get splinters!

BOB WHEATLEY(CLLR), Social and Liberal Democrats,
Palmerston Road,
Walthamstow.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 25, 1989

When will we have double glazing?

WELL done Councillor Jo Brind! Your letter to the Guardian and Gazette, August 11, on Spitalfields Market.

I was pleased to read it, and what has been achieved as to double glazing. It is good have a chairman of the local planning committee who puts pen to paper and have published the great works of the Labour group.

It's amazing what can be done in seven days in politics. On August 4, I attended Harry Cohen's surgery with two other residents of Warren Road, at that meeting Councillor Edworthy and Councillor Pierpoint attended but we were told there were no guarantees on double glazing.

We had a document which was put to the House of Lords by the developers, again this had no mention of double glazing.

I finish this letter with a question.When will it be fitted?

Thanks Jo Brind, you have given me what I want, and most other residents want.

J. SMITH (Mr), Warren Road, Leyton.

NOTE: This is probably sarcasm since Mrs Smith probably did not believe a mere councillor could know more than an MP. In fact this was being done by the council's planning department and I was in the best position to know what was going on! It's a good example of hierarchical thinking. MPs are more important than councillors so they must be ahead of the councillors... In reality when it comes to many issues MPs have very little power or information.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 25, 1989

See letter about record take up

April 12, 1990

THE ratepayers' fight against Waltham Forest Council has not ended

The campaigning group which failed to budge our 1987 judges over the legality of the council's 62 per cent rate rise three years ago, is planning to go into battle again.

It has met the District Auditor over the financial implications of the council refusing to advertise teacher posts in the Times Educational Supplement.

And his findings, after Town Hall inquiries, are thought to be critical of the council's action.

The group is asking barrister Peter Leighton; a Parliamentary candidate in the last two General Elections in Walthamstow, to prepare a case.

The council s1987ped advertising in the TES in sympathy with printers sacked by newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch during the move from Fleet Street to Wapping. It has since rescinded that policy.

Waltham Forest Guardian May 12, 1989

Rates went down!

"RATECAPPING," you say "only kept the increases down from what was proposed. In each year of the present town hall administration people have had to pay more in rates...... and not a couple of coppers."

What complete and utter nonsense. Absolutely, totally wrong.

In 1988/89 the domestic rate went down to 211.28.

Facts. The domestic rate in 1987/88 was 302.5 in the pound. That means that someone with a property which had a rateable value of £250 would pay £756.25 per year.

The same householder with the same property with a rateable value of £250 pays £528.2, a decrease of £228.05.

To put it another way the rates were 43 per cent higher in 1987/88 than they are in 1988/89.

Next rating year (1989/ 90) if your prediction that the rates are going to go up by 16 per cent is correct the domestic rate will be £245.09 and that person with the rateable value of £250 will pay £612.73.

To repeat, the rates would have gone down from £302.5 in the pound to £245.09 in the pound.

Finally, you say you're not fed up. Well, I am thoroughly fed up of being accused of putting the rates up when I know they went down.

JO BRIND (Cllr), London Borough of Waltham Forest.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 3, 1989

Charting rates

IN THE Points from the Post section in your issue dated February 3, there was a letter under the heading "Rates went down", in which Councillor Jo Brind made various claims and gave us some facts concerning rate levels. May I, through your columns, give some more FACTS to Councillor Brind?

It was indeed true to state that the 1988-89 rate was £211.28, and that the1987-88 rate was £302.50.But it was equally true to state that the 1986-87 rate (the last rate of the outgoing council) was £186.50.

Surely Councillor Brind hasn't forgotten the outcry and court actions that followed the 62 per cent increase imposed by the new council! This, of course, is where our infamous£302.50 rate came from.

Should the good councillor need more facts regarding the rise and fall of the rates, here is my record, which I have kept since I retired.

Starting 1979-80, £84.50;80-81, £120.50; 81-82, £167.50; 82-83, £186.50;83-84, £169.50; 84-85, £164.50 (halcyon days), 85-86. £182.00; 86-87, £186.50; 87-88, £302.50.May I add, to dispel any doubts, that the figures I've used are all from official papers (rate demand forms) still in my possession.

Then maybe Councillor Brind could explain to his hypothetical tenant the reasonableness of the new estimated rate of £612.73 compared to the £446.25 the same tenant paid in 1986-87.

E W TAYLOR, Forest View Avenue, Leyton.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989

Discussing tower blocks' future

IT would cost a massive £30m for the necessary repairs to be carried out on just 797 of 3,400 properties built from large concrete panels in Waltham Forest.

And this work on John Drinkwater Tower, Browning Road, Leytonstone, St Michael's Tower, Gosport Road, Walthamstow, and Avenue Estate, Hall Road, Leytonstone would take seven-and-a-half years to complete.

These statistics were due to be put before housing chiefs at. a special committee meeting last night (Thursday) so they could discuss an appropriate financial package.

Loss of homes

But because of various complications, housing officers were to recommend that the two tower blocks be withdrawn from proposals of refurbishment through the IPS tenant/ council company and put in the council's hands.

It has already been made clear that it would be impossible to demolish and redevelop the two towers because the sites on which they are built would not cater for enough low-rise properties.

There would also be a significant loss of dwellings on the Avenue Estate if the present six-storey blocks were redeveloped into two-and three-storey accommodation.

Resistance

If refurbishment went ahead tenants would have to be rehoused while work was undertaken.

This in itself would be difficult to achieve and those residents who now privately own their flats would be likely to resist being temporarily rehoused.

If members of the committee agreed with these conclusions, it would mean funding for the work would have to be carried out on the two towers and Avenue Estate using the council's resources.

Deterioration

The report points out that Avenue Estate should be considered as the highest priority because of the very advanced deterioration of concrete cladding panels.

And if the work is not carried out there could be the added risk to residents' safety because of falling concrete.

Although the work needed on the towers is not as vital, the housing officers also agree that the blocks would need to receive attention within the next one to three years.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989

Rates rise is only 13.3 per cent in six years -council

IN "Points from the Post" last week, E W Taylor asked me to explain the reasonableness of the proposed rate.

Firstly, could I say that I've always thought that the rating system was a particularly stupid way to raise taxes. That doesn't mean to say that the Government's proposed poll tax will be any better. In fact, it will make life much worse for most people.

However, that said, I am obliged to E W Taylor for providing a mass of useful statistics about the rate rises over the last few years.

To simplify, for those who didn't read the letter, the point made was that rates had gone up by 13.3 per cent since 1982.

At that time the domestic rate was 186.5p whereas today it is 211.28p -an increase over six years of 24.78p or a little less than 13.3 per cent.

Since the middle of 1982 retail prices have gone up by 32.7 per cent and, of course, wages, even local authority wages, have gone up by far more than that.

Government has over these years steadily cut back its support for local authorities.

During this period Waltham Forest Council has taken over services which the GLC used to provide and the Government continues to heap extra responsibilities on the council.

Yet the council has a great deal of difficulty providing its services more efficiently. For example, most of the money we spend goes on education and the vast bulk of our education spending goes on salaries.

There may be some teachers who we could do without, but anyone who knows the borough's primary schools knows that the real crisis is a shortage of staff and not a surplus.

Unfortunately, we are not alone. In Conservative-run Redbridge fifth formers from one school wrote to the Times Educational Supplement recently complaining that they had no English teacher, no Maths teacher and would soon lose their French teacher.

In Liberal-run Tower Hamlets 500 children, mainly Bangladeshis, are being kept out of school because there is no-one to teach them. A new primary school is unable to open because of a shortage of staff.

At the same time as attempting to force local authorities to cut back on essential services (it's hard to think of a council service which isn't essential) the Government has also been planning to exert further central control.

From next year business rates will be set by Mrs Thatcher and her Cabinet, not by anybody who lives in Waltham Forest (unless Mrs Thatcher goes stark raving mad and puts Hugo in her Cabinet!).

This Unitary Business Rate is likely to result in the trebling of rates for 210,000 businesses. Most of these are shops and offices in London and the South East.

Many businesses in Waltham Forest will suffer. These figures, by the way, are courtesy of the Inland Revenue.

JO BRIND(Cllr)

Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989

Houses to replace tower blocks?

PLANS for "the most ambitious housing scheme in the country" were given the nod by Waltham Forest's Housing Committee last Thursday.

Only two councillors voted against the major' proposal for tenants to take over four estates so they can be totally redeveloped.

Houses, flats and maisonettes would replace the borough's Chingford Hall, Cathall Road, Oliver Close and Boundary Road tower blocks.

But there are still obstacles. And this latest meeting sparked lively disputes between the council and the Federation of Tenants.

Director of Housing Chris Langstaff said: "We either do these redevelopment programmes or carry out urgent work -- we can't wait much longer."

A main worry of tenants, who will vote on the scheme about June or July, is on privatisation.

Much controversy has been caused over the extent to which it is privatisation.

Mr Langstaff said it's power to the tenants. They will own the property and have majority control.

But Federation spokesman Andy Burns stormed: "What exactly would tenants control. What about building costs. Would we end up managing debts?"

The report said tenants could run the scheme borrowing 40 per cent costs from the private money market. The rest would come from their own resources.

This debt would be paid back over 35 years.

Councillor John Williams, who voted against the scheme, hit out "It's a shambles. The reports are very biased. It's clearly privatisation and I don't agree with it."

Before the meeting, committee chairman Councillor Clive Morton had outlined what the future would hold for tenants under the council.

"Their lives could not improve appreciably as we don't have the money to redevelop their homes.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989

Tenants caught in estate battle

COUNCIL tenants involved in the "right to choose" debate are becoming pawns in the middle of a slanging match, with the Waltham Forest Tenants Federation accused of creating a political battlefield for its own ends.

And the federation in turn accuses the council of putting forward only one of two alternatives.

The argument, which, in the end, can only be decided by tenants on the four large panel estates, is whether the tower blocks remain in council control or not.

Federation officers, who say they want tenants to decide their own future, say they will fight the opting out scheme.

At a press conference on Monday, federation chairman Keith Rayner stressed that members "totally oppose the sale of council housing".

He claimed they have not been allowed on some estates or at panel meetings to put forward their opinion.

At the same time the federation has argued that council officers have spent more time promoting the sell-off scheme than maintaining council control.

It wants Waltham Forest to concentrate on forcing the Government to hand out cash to improve the estates.

What it doesn't want is the Labour council turning control over to a private landlord.

It fears that rents would rise and tenants lose some of then- security if they opt out

But Housing Chairman Clive Morton and Estates Project Leader Stephanie Al-Wahid said this was "rubbish".

"I don't see fighting the Government as an alternative. I see it going hand in hand," explained Mr Morton. "You have to look at the situation rationally.

"What do they want us to do, get arrested? Shouting from the roof 1987s won't get more money. We are trying to retain the money we already have.

"It would be far easier to drop the scheme and just blame the Tories saying it's their fault.

"But we have to be fair to the tenants and let them know what will happen if they stay with the council or if they decide to choose the tenant/ council/company scheme."

Mr Morton admitted that even if the tenants decided to organise a co-operative management team, they would still have problems. And he denied officers had tried to say otherwise.

Tenants themselves have complained about the federation's tactics at estate meetings, claiming that panels set up to discuss whether or not to stay with the council have been disrupted by federation workers "pushing" their political point.

But Mr Rayner denied the accusations: "We are not meddling. We have major reservations about the scheme but it's up to the tenants to decide at the end of the day."

He said allegations that the federation had pressurised tenants were unfounded.

"We believe the federation has played a useful and positive role in providing information with a perspective which is in sharp contrast to that provided by the council."

He also rejected complaints that some federation officers who have argued against the group adopting a policy had been told they should "toe the line or get out".

However, two of the seven representatives say they knew nothing of Monday's meeting and were not even consulted about the press statement

Waltham Forest Guardian February 24, 1989

Rates rise well above inflation

I HAVE been reading Councillor Jo Brind's letters in your paper in recent weeks about the local rates, including his claims that he and his Labour colleagues had not increased the rates in Waltham Forest, with amazement.

His claim that if this year's rates were computed with the rate in 1982 there has only been a rise of 13.3 per cent may be true, but what he fails to admit is that is all those six years the Labour councillors have only been responsible for setting one rate-rise, that was in 1987 when the infamous 62.2 percent rise was inflicted on us -and Councillor Brind voted for that.

This year the Labour councillors are again free to set the rate, once again it is likely to be a substantial rise well above inflation.

I wait with interest to see how Councillor Brind intends to distance himself from the Labour councillors responsibility for this year's rate rise.

MICHAEL LEWIS, Leader, Conservative Group,
London' Borough of Waltham Forest

Waltham Forest Guardian Mar 3, 1989

Clever words

MICHAEL Lewis's letter in last week's Points from the Post is very cleverly worded. But he's no fool. He knows that the reason for a high increase is that rates have been artificially kept down.

Since 1982 the rates have gone up by 13.3 per cent, while retail prices have gone up by 32.7 per cent

And surely, if Councillor Lewis really wants to find a high rate increase, he should look no further than the new system of unitary business rates that the Government is introducing.

This will be fixed by the Cabinet and, according to the Inland Revenue, will result in many local businesses having their rates tripled. That's an increase of 200 per cent

I wait to hear that Councillor Lewis is supporting local businesses by campaigning against that high rate increase.

JO BRIND(Cllr).

Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Councillors couldn't close their eyes to Sleepy Jo's snooze

By wide-awake Andy Comber

SLEEPING on the job can lead to some nasty and unexpected incidents.

And when Waltham Forest Labour councillor, Jo Brind, woke up in the council chamber he discovered that his slumbers had caused a minor political crisis.

When politicians make their beds, they should lie in them. But Mr Brind made the mistake of making his during last Thursday's council meeting.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the red-eyed councillor had dozed off while his colleagues had been voting on a proposal to employ a second tenant liaison officer in the housing department.

Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors opposed the plan.

But when the vote was taken, there was no proper count of hands. The Labour mayor, John Walsh, assumed that all the Labour councillors had voted for the proposal and the rest against.

That would have made a tie. So he used his casting vote and declared the proposal carried.

That is when Mr Brind woke up to howls from the sharp-eyed Liberal Democrats that he hadn't voted. How could he? He was in the land of nod.

So, the Liberal Democrats claimed. Labour had in fact lost by one vote.

Mr Brind avoided saying the obvious "Where am I?." and instead suggested taking the vote again.

The mayor agreed. Wide-awake Mr Brind voted with the Labour group, which made it the tie that the mayor had anticipated. So again he used his casting vote --and again the proposal was carried.

The Liberal Democrats were outraged, and a few minutes later walked out of the meeting. It seems that they were also ready for an early night. The Tories stuck tight, however, and the meeting continued.

Liberal Democrat councillor David Worsfold said later that they were seeking legal advice. "We believe that vote was a sham," he said. "We even believe it was illegal. The Labour group is trampling on democratic procedures."

Conservative group leader Michael Lewis said: "Maybe the Labour group should have accepted the vote with grace and allowed the decision to be deferred."

But that would have delayed an appointment for weeks. And Mr Brind was unrepentant. He claimed no council rules had been broken

He would not admit to having been 100 per cent asleep. "Maybe I had been sent into a dreamlike state by the Liberal Democrats' boring speeches," he said, with not so much as a yawn.

Yellow AdvertiserApril 21, 1989

'Stay with council' plea to tenants

COUNCIL tenants who will soon be voting on the future of their panel-built tower blocks are being urged by Waltham ^Forest Tenants' and Residents' Federation to attend its public meetings.

The federation says it it wants to advise residents on the fate of four council estates to "tell tenants the real truths behind the council's futuristic plans".

In June, tenants at Boundary Road (Walthamstow), Chingford Hall, Cathall Road (Leytonstone) and Oliver Close (Leyton), will choose whether to stay with Waltham Forest Council or opt for a co-operative.

The federation claims there is a "majority of opposition" against leaving council control by tenants at Chingford Hall and Cathall Road.

It believes other tenants are "bewildered" and "confused" by the scheme and its implications.

The federation's first meeting took place on Tuesday for Boundary Road tenants at Walthamstow Youth Centre.

While Chingford Hall Estate residents were due to attend the Community Hall, Chingford Hall, yesterday (Thursday,7.30pm) for their discussion.

On Tuesday, at Jubilee Centre, Cathall Road, tenants on Cathall Road Estate will be able to voice their concerns, with Oliver Close tenants holding their meeting on Thursday at the United Reformed Church, Grange Park Road. Both meetings start at 7.30pm.

Special guests include Jane Foot from the Campaign Against the Sale of Estates, and speakers from Rochford in Essex.

Waltham Forest GuardianApril 7, 1989

Sorry, Derek

WHILE Emma Littlejohn's report is fair and accurate in most respects it is not true to suggest that I left the Land Strategy Committee fuming and had another row with Councillor Derek Arnold.

In fact, when leaving (to go to another meeting) I apologised to Derek for the intemperance of my remarks. For although the argument during the meeting was about a racial matter I do not believe that Derek is an out-and-out racist..... just a little thoughtless at times.

This applies to most members of the Conservative Party I have met, though there are a few who are prepared to play the racial card for their own gain.
JO BRIND (Cllr).

Waltham Forest Guardian April 7, 1989

Councillor admits mum's home is 'a disgrace

MOTHER-OF-TWO Sandra Webb says she is at her wits end trying to persuade the council to rehouse her from a "repulsive" flat.

She lives with her two young children in a bedsit on the 13th floor of a Leyton tower block.

She complained the damp is causing the illness of her two young children.

Sandra Webb (28), of Livingstone College Towers in Essex Road, said: "It's disgraceful and as soon as it's daylight I try to get out."

There is no room for her 22-month-old son Nathanael to play and recently he has developed asthma.

"I am trying everything -I have been on the waiting list for two years -but I have been told there is no chance.

"I could be kept here for 10 years, which will become unbearable with two growing children." Daughter Lethicia is nine months-old.

Councillor Jo Brind, who has taken up Miss Webb's case, said: "It breaks my heart every time I talk to Sandra. It really is an appalling case.

"But there are hundreds of worse cases, which I have dealt with myself.

"As a council we haven't had the money to build houses and we have been forced to sell them off by the Government."

A council spokesman said Miss Webb needs a two-bedroomed flat, but they are in most demand.

Miss Webb is in a queue of 1,200families in similar circumstances, he explained.

At the beginning of the year the council had 206 two-bedroomed flats to allocate, of which 90 went to homeless people. The rest of the flats were given to others who were about to be made homeless because their houses were being developed or demolished.

The spokesman said Miss Webb's only other option, apart from waiting, was to consider a mutual exchange with a family in another borough..

Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989

Homes to be built on historic site of soccer

HOUSES and flats are to be built on the site where Leytonstone Ilford FC once played.

Waltham Forest Council agreed to plans for 38 houses and 60 flats to be built in Green Pond Road, Walthamstow, where football was played as long ago as 1921.

Leytonstone Ilford, which has now changed its name to Redbridge Forest, used the ground up to last season, but had to move because of safety reasons, writes Mark Silver.

The club, which incorporated Walthamstow Avenue three years ago, could not raise about £100, 000 needed to gee the stadium up to date, and so applied to play in Chingdale Road, Chingford, instead.

The club will play at Dagenham FC until a final decision on the move is reached by the council

It's a sad time for the side, promoted to the Vauxhall Conference League and then thrown out because of the venue problems-though the matter is currently under appeal.

And the club, which for a long time accepted it could not meet the "huge" repair costs, was disappointed football would no longer be played in Green Pond Road.

'End of era'

"It is a lovely old ground, "said club spokesman Steve Warren. "And the changes will mark the end of an era."

Even Councillor Jo Brind, who chairs Waltham Forest Planning Implementation Committee, which agreed to the building project last Wednesday, was upset about the loss of a football ground.

"I would have much preferred to see football continue there, or other recreation activities," admitted Mr Brind."But there is an obvious need for more accommodation in the borough and this will boost our housing targets-which we are confident of meeting anyway."

And developer Hunting Gate Homes has contributed £300, 000 to the council to pay for an all-purpose games pitch to compensate for the loss of open space caused by the project.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 9, 1989

LOOKS LIKE we got ourselves a convoy. Angry refuse collectors blow the lid off the rubbish problem.

'We're not taking this rubbish!'

Dustcart protest convoy clogs up Town Hall

REPORT BY Ian Byrne

WALTHAM Forest's rubbish problems really spilled over when the borough's refuse collectors dropped their bins and took a dustcart convoy to the town hall.

In a spontaneous protest at their working conditions the collectors drove their lorries round and round the town hall grounds, bringing traffic to a standstill last Thursday.

General and Municipal (GMB) workers shop steward Edward Parsons said: "This borough is now like a rubbish tip or a city slum.

"There are only 10 lorries to do the whole of Waltham Forest and that's not enough.

"We have told the management time and time again the work cannot be one."

Mr Parsons also said the council was taking on agency staff who got £4 per hour compared to the collectors'

£2."And often we have to go round and clear up after than, " he added.

GMB Regional Industrial Officer Terry Tarling said the decision to hold the demonstration had not been planned.

He said: "The collectors just decided to get together and protest. They are getting all sorts of aggravation when they go out on the routes.

"Some have been physically assaulted by residents whose rubbish has not been collected, but it is not the collectors' fault.l"Since the new refuse collection arrangements started on July 31 the number of rounds has been reduced from 13 to 10 with only three loaders instead of four.

Mr Tarling said this staffing level was not enough.

"It means the lorries have to make two or three trips to the disposal depot every day, carrying over 25 tons of rubbish."

Director of works, Brian Bailey, said he sympathised with the refuse collectors who were being abused by the public.

"Some of the public do take it out on them because they are in the front-line, " said Mr Bailey.

"But we are very much aware of the problems some of the refuse collectors are experiencing with the new arrangements."

Mr Bailey said he was in constant negotiations with the unions to find a solution to the problems.

He said: "This is a major new scheme we have introduced and obviously problems vill arise which we have to overcome."

WE'LL SORT IT OUT -PLEDGE

AS the Fyfield Road area of Walthamstow enjoyed a Sunday lie-in, dustcarts rumbled past their homes.

At last! All those smelly black bags piled up since Thursday were being taken away.

Said one irritated resident: "This is turning into a saga. First we were told in July on the very day our rubbish was supposed to be shifted that the collection had moved to Thursday.

"Since then, it has been taken only once on the correct day.

"Now the refuse collectors turn up on a Sunday. I wish they'd get their act together before every dog and cat in Walthamstow starts coming here for a weekly meal."

Acting Director of Works Brian Bailey put last week's, lengthy delay down to the workers' mass meetings.

And he promised that he will continue negotiating with unions until collection days and routes are sorted out.

Waltham Forest Guardian September 22, 1989

Song of concern

I RECENTLY discovered that the author of the words of the Frank Sinatra standard It's Impossible was a man called Sidney Wayne.

I wonder if this is the Sidney Wayne who is chairman of the local District Health Authority.

Mr Wayne's health authority has just decided to abandon plans to improve Whipps Cross Hospital until at least the year 2000. Considering the state of the hospital, this is certainly an impossible decision to understand.

Perhaps when Mr Wayne announces the details of the "bleak future" we have been promised by health authority manager Trevor Jones, members of the DHA could sing It's Impossible...

If Mr Wayne joins in, it will be evident that he is the famous lyricist.
Jo Brind(Cllr),
Labour councillor for Forest Ward.

Waltham Forest Guardian December 8, 1989

History made as public allowed to speak at council meetings

SILENCE IS NO LONGER GOLDEN

By Kelvin Ross

MEMBERS of the public will no longer have to sit in silent frustration at council planning meetings.

For at an "historic meeting", Waltham Forest councillors agreed to let applicants and objectors have the right to speak.

The controversial decision was taken only after much debate and argument between members of the Waltham Forest Planning Implementation Committee.

Democrat Councillor Clyde Kitson was all for the scheme.

He said: "I think it is important to involve the community in a decision making process. We are all aware of the frustration going on in the public gallery and we yet have to say 'sorry, you can't speak'."

Mr Kitson added it would be a valuable asset to have local residents' opinions on matters, as they often knew areas of the borough far better than councillors, and so could add much to debates.

He concluded by asking for "power to the people".

Deputy Labour leader Bill Dennis commented: "If we believe this committee is perfect, we should not change it. I do not believe it is perfect and I do not think any of us are arrogant enough to think it is. Therefore there should be room for change."

But an opposing point of view was put forward by Tory councillor Derek Arnold. He said: "I did not get elected to listen to members of the public."

Mr Arnold added if the proposal was approved, members would spend meetings "listening to irate residents".

He said: "You cannot tell members of the public what to say, so we are going to get a lot of irrelevant details coming out. I am here to represent the public and they have been quite pleased with the way I have done it. I do not see why that should change."

The old system meant applicants and objectors could only be heard through their ward councillors and by writing to planning officers.

The new scheme will mean a time limit of three minutes imposed on those who wish to speak. Each application can have a maximum of three speakers,

People planning to speak will have to inform council officers before the meeting.

Those with disabilities, such as blind people or those with a speech impediment, can have someone to speak on their behalf.

Waltham Forest Guardian May 19, 1989

SHOCKER!

Jobs could face the axe

By Peter Faulkner

MORE than 300 jobs have been put at risk by a new housing project.

Building giants Barratt wanted to build the homes on an industrial site off Seymour Road, Leyton. Waltham Forest Council gave the.scheme the thumbs down.

But now a Government inspector has over-ruled the.council and given his blessing to the project for 200 new houses that the council doesn't want.

The decision now threatens three companies --Manifold Indexing (precision engineers), Olympus Furniture and Drewitt's, a drug manufacturing company.

Hundreds of jobs could now be lost in an area where unemployment is over 11%.

When the decision came through, councillors from all parties said they were astonished and Cllr. Jo Brind, chair of the planning committee, described the threat to the site as a 'tragedy.'

"This is a perverse and senseless decision, " he said."We need more jobs in Waltham Forest -not less. The borough has little enough industrial land at the moment and to allow a major chunk of this land to be lost is terrible.

"But what is even worse is that three firms are still working on this site.

"Being a heavily industrialised area, anyone moving into any of these houses is not exactly going to enjoy peace and tranquility.

"There is even a waste transfer depot near to the site. All in all this is a major tragedy for Leyton."

Barratts appealed to the Department of Environment inspector to grant planning permission for the housing development even though the Government's own guidelines say there is a need for good quality industrial estates in London.

The decision also cuts across council plans to link industrial sites in Leyton to the national motorway network via new roads in the area, .,

Planners do accept there is a need to build new homes in the borough, but the current construction rate of 800 is twice the level envisaged for Waltham Forest in recently issued Government guidelines.

Waltham Forest Express May 20, 1989

Ratepayers' group could get councillors thrown out

DID THE COUNCIL BREAK LAW?

LABOUR councillors in Waltham Forest face the threat of being disqualified from holding their positions.

That's one of the possibilities with the District Auditor deciding to hold a hearing into an objection from the Waltham Forest Ratepayers' Group on the council ban two years ago on teacher advertisements in the Times Educational Supplement.

The ratepayers argue that the ban -in retaliation against newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch's dismissal of printers -resulted in the council having to spend £¹/4m more than necessary and without the normal success.

The District Auditor can apply to the High Court for a declaration that a council account item is illegal.

The court then has three options:

* Refuse the application.

* Order any person responsible for incurring or authorising the expenditure declared unlawful to repay it.

* Disqualify from office the person or people responsible for incurring or authorising the expenditure.

But the court will take no action if it is satisfied that the councillors acted reasonably.

Last night (Thursday) councillors were expected to seek 1987 legal advice.

Waltham Forest Guardian May 26, 1989

Building deal 'blackmail' claim

REPORT; Kelvin Ross

Plans for a building company to donate £50,000 to the council to improve an area of Leyton have been slammed as "blackmail" by a Tory councillor.

Last year planning permission was granted for builders BR Franks Coastal to redevelop a large warehouse at the rear of 590 Lea Bridge Road for housing.

An agreement was made with the council that some of the homes should be for social housing, under the guidance of a housing association.

But the company want to withdraw from the agreement, saying it was impossible to work out a deal with a housing association, and it did not have the experience to build the social homes on its own.

Now it wants to put a total of 65 flats on the site.

To compensate for the loss of land the new homes would create and for the loss of the previous agreement, BR Franks Coastal offered £50,000 to the council to environmentally improve the area. But when the plans were discussed at Waltham Forest Planning Implementation Committee last week, Councillor Derek Arnold said: "I am totally opposed to the sheer unadulterated blackmail.

"It is purely because the £50,000 involved that officers are saying yes."

Labour members also joined in the condemnation of the proposals.

Bill Dennis said: "The offer of money is making something acceptable which was previously unacceptable."

And Steve Pierpoint said: "What is before us is a very bad deal indeed. We are losing too much and gaining too little."

But the plans were defended by the committee chairman Jo Brind, who said at the moment the site was operating for a "horrendous industrial use" involving heavy traffic.

When it came to the vote members were split with four votes each for and against the plans, and Mr Brind used his casting vote to sway the decision and approve the scheme.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 30, 1989

Zones pioneered by Labour

J. D. BEANSE is evidently very much in favour of the Labour council's decision to declare a Special Development Zone in The Ridgeway, Chingford. This is pleasing since, as he signs himself a member of the Liberal Party in Chingford, and as I recall that members of the Conservative Party at the Committee supported this decision, we now have all party support.

However, J. D. Beanse seems to be upset about the fact that we have only just got around to doing this. Perhaps J. D. Beanse should like to take the matter up with the Liberal and Conservative councillors who used to run Waltham Forest until the last election in 1986!

Special Development Zones have been pioneered by this Labour council. But up until now we had no intention of making a political point about it.

Planning is for the most part non-political. In order to have an effective planning process, you need to carry all the people with you, and not just those who belong to a particular political party. It is for this reason, that I have welcomed support from the other political parties for the Special Development Zone at The Ridgeway and elsewhere.I believe that if we all work together to support the planning system, we can protect the best parts of the local environment, and improve the rest. J. D. Beanse can play a part in this process by continuing to support the Planning Committee.
JO BRIND (Councillor), Chair -Planning and Implementation Committee, London Borough of Waltham Forest.

Waltham Forest Guardian November 3, 1989

Victory over rubbish

Lone ratepayer wins court fight to fill his dustbin

Daily Mail Reporter

ACCOUNTANT Peter Jacques yesterday won-the legal right to put rubbish in, his dustbin.

He went to court after his local council decided that dustbins were out.

It told 81,000 ratepayers that to save time and money, rubbish in bins would not be collected. It would be taken away only if left out of the bins and neatly tied in plastic sacks.

Mr Jacques, of Salters Road, Walthamstow, East London, was furious.

He took the council to court and won the right to put the full sacks in his bin and have it emptied.

Appeal

Mr Jacques, 40, who was awarded £100 costs, was jubilant but the council hit back.

It said after the case that Mr Jacques was the only householder who would get the bin emptied. The rest of the 81,000 who hadn't complained must leave their sacks outside.

The notice which told residents of Left-wing Waltham Forest Council's new bin policy omitted to say they had a right of appeal. But Mr Jacques discovered he had three weeks to take the council to court. He was the only ratepayer to do so.

He lost the first round. In August, magistrates ruled against his claim that the demands were unreasonable.

But yesterday his appeal against their refusal was upheld at Snaresbrook Crown Court, in East London.

Mr Vincent Williams. counsel for Mr Jacques, told the court that sacks often burst, looked unsightly and attracted vermin.

Judge Goldstein disagreed with the council's view that it took too much time for a dustman to open a bin, take out a bag and replace the lid.

It would take only a few seconds, he said.

See stories about bin men

Daily Mail February 7, 1989.

Return to 1987

S1987ping property growth

YOUR correspondent who bemoaned, quite rightly, the change of character in The Ridgeway, Chingford, as a result of successive developments (Guardian, October 13 issue), might be interested to know that, when the council's. Planning Implementation Committee approved the latest development (3, 5, 7 The Ridgeway), the following decision was taken:

"So as to prevent a further loss of character in this area we have placed on record that future redevelopment proposals in The Ridgeway and Old Church Road, Chingford, will not receive favourable consideration. We have also asked the officers to report back on the possibility of The Ridgeway being declared a special development zone."

This, of course, is a classic case of attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Many houses of character have been bulldozed to the ground, to be replaced very often by undistinguished flats which scarcely blend with each other, let alone the remaining houses.

The council has, in effect, admitted an error in speaking of seeking to prevent "a further loss of character".

If there is a possibility of a special development zone here, why was this not considered and implemented much sooner? Local people are not impressed with the way the council has presided over the changing face of Chingford.

J.D.BEANSE,
Editor,
North Chingford Focus,
Chingford Liberal Democrats.

Waltham Forest Guardian October 27, 1989

COUNCIL BOSS BANNED FOR DRINK-DRIVING COURT REPORT

TOP council boss Howard Hartley was banned from the road for three years on Thursday after he admitted drinking and driving.

It was the Waltham Forest leisure chiefs second such offence in six years, Hartley (54) of Harewood Hill, Theydon Bois, pleaded guilty at Waltham Forest Court to a charge of driving with excess alcohol in his breath.

As well as having his licence taken away, he was fined £500, with £ 15 costs.

Two magistrates who are also councillors declined to hear Hartley's case because they "know the man in the dock very well."

After a second trio of magistrates was found, the court heard that Hartley was arrested on June 6 after a road accident at the corner of Mansfield Hill and College Gardens, Chingford. He was driving a blue BMW, and admitted to police at the time that he had been drinking.

The bench was told that Hartley earns around £30,000 a year as Controller of Recreation Services. Asked if he had anything to say, the defendant said: "Nothing."

But he went on: "I'm only sorry to have wasted the court's time."

Waltham Forest Guardian July 21, 1989

CRC condemns 'Satanic Verses' book

I WRITE concerning the hurt that has been suffered by a large number of people living in Waltham Forest following the publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.

This book is a gross blasphemy on the Muslim religion, of whom there are nearly 30,000 devout believers in Waltham Forest. The author, a former Muslim himself, must have been very aware of the massive controversy that would result from the publication of his book.

Already people have been killed protesting at the book and there is now a major diplomatic crisis centring on Iran, following the Ayotallah's death threat to the author.

Indications are that community relations in. Britain have also been damaged very badly.

Media comments likening the symbolic burning of a single blasphemous book with the mass book burnings of Nazi Germany prior to World War II, are, at the least, insensitive to the religious convictions of ethnic minority people if not positively racist

Within Waltham Forest, Councillor Jerry Miles, as Chair of the Leisure Committee, promptly refused a request from the Muslim community to control the issue of The Satanic Verses through the borough's public libraries. He apparently made his decision without even consulting Muslim colleagues on Waltham Forest Council.

Councillor Miles' excuse, common to most other political figures, is that freedom of expression is paramount, no matter what anguish it causes. Worldwide there are an estimated billion Muslims and in Waltham Forest vastly more Muslims attend weekly worship than any other religion in the borough.

As important as freedom of expression is, there is also a basic freedom to worship and for respect of individual religious practices.

The Satanic Verses , with its lewd satire on the most sacred characters of Islam, profanes the very basis of the Muslim religion.

There is vastly more to supporting equality of opportunity and promoting a pluralist society than simply eating Asian food or watching displays of ethnic dancing.

Fundamental to people whose ethnic origin is Pakistan, Bangladesh or India is the sanctity of their religion.

The pompous reaction by Waltham Forest Council to The Satanic Verses demonstrates yet again a lack of positive or practical support on a main race issue.

In these circumstances it is not surprising that the Black and Asian councillors have found themselves alienated from their white colleagues and unable to participate in much of the council's work.

Waltham Forest Community Relations Council condemns the publication of The Satanic Verses and urges Waltham Forest Council to consider ways of restricting its availability in the borough.

PAUL DOWLING, Chair, Waltham Forest Community Relations Council.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989

All change on Waltham Forest Council

DEPUTY LEADER TO STAND DOWN

THE ruling Labour group on Waltham Forest Council has appointed a new deputy leader Councillor Clive Morton.

He replaces Bill Dennis, who has held the position since 1986. The change was due to be announced at the annual council meeting yesterday (Thursday).

Mr Dennis has resigned the post because, like his leader Neil Gerrard, he is not planning to stand for the council next year. "He feels the party should not go into an election year with two leaders standing down, writes Pat Stannard.

He told the Guardian: "I have done eight years and Neil 17. It's a fair old time."

He went on: "It's going to be incredibly difficult and frustrating to be a councillor after 1990. There are all sorts of things coming up-like Poll Tax, the Education Reform Act and the Local Government Bill-that we don't agree with."

Other kinds of frustration. were already the making the job unattractive, he said: "A few years ago when people came to me with a housing problem, for example, I could do something for them.

Now the shortage of homes is so great, I know I probably can't help them-however much I sympathise.

As the Guardian predicted in January, at least half the present 29 Labour councillors will not be seeking re-selection next year.

Prominent among them are Education chairman Eddie Playfair and Race Relations chairman Frank Georges. Veterans Bill Pearmine and Vi Smith are retiring after many years' service.

Steve Jacobs, Ken Sanders, Terry Wheeler and Jerry Miles, all local government officers elsewhere, are likely to be barred from election when the Local Government Bill becomes law.

Other believed to be quitting or considering it are Mohmmad Khan, Mike McNulty, Stephanie Dunn, Amarjit Devgun, Denise Liunberg and Jack Kaye.

Behind some of the decisions is a wearing with the trials of the last three years in office.

Hate mail and bomb threats followed the 62 per cent rates rise in 1987. And there have been several splits in the party on race relations matters, the most recent being a six month boycott of meetings by three Asian councillors.

Waltham Forest Guardian May 5, 1989

LABOUR TO LOSE 14 IN NEXT YEAR

By Andy Comber


GOING; Labour's ruling leader Neil Gerrard	GOING: Eddie Playfair.	GOING: Bill Pearmine.

HALF of Waltham Forest's ruling Labour councillors are set to quit at the next council elections.

The Yellow Advertiser understands that at least 14 of Labour's 29 councillors-many the most experienced and senior in the group-have decided they cannot carry on.

Many councillors say they do want responsibility for enforcing the poll tax which they claim will leave poor people worse off.

The ruling administration's leader Neil Gerrard and deputy leader. Bill Dennis, have already admitted they are going in a massive shake-up.

Two others definitely not standing are education chairman Eddie Playfair and public services chairman Bill Pearmine.

Others said to be quitting are Frank Georges, chairman of race relations. Annette Briggs, chairwoman of the women's committee, Mahmeed Khan, Mike McNulty, Stevie Dunn and Vi Smith,

Two others, Steve Jacobs and Terry Wheeler, are almost certain to be barred from standing again by a new law banning from office people who work for other local authorities.

Planning committee chairman Jo Brind and Chris Dunn, chairman of the economic development committee, both say they will give up present seats.

Instead they plan to give the Tories a run for their money by contesting safe Tory seats in Chingford.

Four other councillors said this week they are seriously questioning whether they want to continue in office. They are Evie Edworthy, chairwoman of social services, Clive Morton, chairman of housing, Amarjit Devgun and Jack Kaye.

Walthamstow Councillor Neil Gerrard said: "I had said this would be my last term. I have done 17 years. I think that's enough."

He blamed Government attacks on local government democracy for a growing sense of despondency among councillors from all political parties.

Since 1979 the Government has passed 50 major Acts restricting local autonomy, many aimed directly at Labour authorities.

He said the poll tax had been the final straw.

"People feel they are not achieving what they set out to, not because they are not trying or there's nothing to do, but because the system is against them.

"I don't want to put people off from becoming councillors but they should go into it with their eyes open and know the limitations."

He denied that Labour's election chances will be hit by the mass of resignations.

Wards are currently re-selecting candidates and he said many "good people" were ready to take over.

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser April 28, 1989

Thousands turn out for Rushdie march

MUSLIMS turned out in force on Sunday for a demonstration march against the controversial Satanic Verses book by Salman Rushdie.

Muslim communities across the country have been angered by the publication of the book.

And the Waltham Forest Islamic Association decided to stage their own protest against the book they claim is blasphemous.

A press release Issued last week stated that the demonstration was being held to show the Muslim frustration at the Government for falling to take "concrete steps to curb this obnoxious Issue for good."

Speaking after the march, secretary Mohammed Patka said: "The demonstration went peacefully. We believe the book Insults our Prophet, but we are not in the business of breaking the law.

He estimated that between 8,000 and 12,000 people had turned out for the march.

The Muslim community has already asked councillors to push Waltham Forest Council to remove the book from the borough's public libraries and on Wednesday representatives were due to hand in a petition at 10 Downing Street.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 24, 1989

Council pledges ban on lorries in central London

26,000 people vote green in Euro elections

GREEN LIGHTS AHEAD

ANDY COMBER

WALTHAM Forest Council's rose-red Labour administration had adopted a new colour-green! A draft Green Charter, which draws together all council environmental protection policies and introduces some new ones, was accepted at last week's council meeting.

The decision came just hours before the Green Party cut a swathe through the main political parties in the European Parliament elections.

North East London candidate Jean Lambert received a rousing 25,949 votes-just 2,369 behind the Tories and a huge 21,152 votes more than in 1984.

The local Labour Party showed it already had its finger on the pulse of green concern when at last Wednesday's council election a draft Green Charter was approved.

Deputy council leader, Bill Dennis, said: "It enshrines existing good practice and recognises the need to broaden that out to encompass all our operations."

The charter lays down principles which aim eventually to make all council services as environment-friendly as possible. These include:

** Tighter planning rules and improved protection of public open spaces, plants and wildlife
** More recycling of products and measures to ensure toxic waste is disposed of safely
** A commitment to support a lorry ban for central London
** Opposition to all new road schemes proposed by the Government or private developers
** And, with the exception of the Leyton Relief Road, a policy of not building any new roads unless they serve new development.

The charter also lays down guidelines on litter, graffiti, food, water, air, access to information, the local economy and public transport.

Liberal Democrats welcomed the draft charter but said they would be seeking to change its contents.

They warned that the council will have to embark on a massive public education programme to get its message across.

Councillor Graham Woolnough said: "There is an urgent need for all of us to become more green. My only fear is that we are already too late."

However, Conservative Councillor Michael Saille claimed Labour's charter was a "fudged pseudo-manifesto" that had no bearing on services.

Liberal Democrat David Worsfold attacked a Tory proposal to draw up a different charter, claiming it was an attempt to "wreck" the idea.

The charter will now be considered by all council committees and will be the subject of a conference, hosted by the council, involving political parties and environment and amenity groups.

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser June 23, 1989

See Green Charter.

COMMENT

WE really do begin to wonder how much longer Councillors Devgun, Matharoo and Khan will persist with their boycott of council meetings.

The Labour members have missed many important decisions in their protest of what they see as a prejudiced racial attitude by their political colleagues.

Next week, a major meeting is being held on how much we pay in rates during the coming year. On past form, these three will not be present.

If ever there was a time for them to attend, it is this meeting-even if they do not wish to vote alongside their Labour comrades.

For the responsibility placed by the community on councillors is considerable-not least to represent them to their best ability.

We cannot see a boycott of the rates fixing meeting is doing that.

And it is time they and the council leadership resolve their differences in fairness to the voters who backed them at the last local election.

If not, they should resign from the local government arena to allow by-elections to be held.

There seems no point in their protest continuing.

Through the pages of this newspaper, they have had their views fairly reported. We all know how they feel Perhaps they could create their own party-within-a-party.

But the continued failure to be the voice of their neighbourhoods at the Town Hall is a miscarriage of local government justice.

If they fail to respond, Waltham Forest is heading for financial chaos. For as much as it would be heart-warming to see, we cannot envisage a compromise spending package being worked out between the politicians.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989

'Inaccurate' minutes of meeting leaked

Jibes 'were out context'

MINUTES of a meeting which proves Waltham Forest Tenants Federation HAS told officers to "toe the line or get out" have been leaked to the Guardian.

But the remark has been slammed by Federation chairman Keith Rayner as being "inaccurate" and "out of context".

Furious Mr Rayner, who was quoted in the minutes as making the remarks, has attacked its accuracy, claiming it was "another officer" who had said it.

The "toe the line or get out" quote had previously been denied by Federation members in last week's story on tenants rights to choose whether to opt out of council control.

But the "private and confidential" minute clearly states that the "blunt" remarks were made at the Special Officers' Meeting on January 4.

An angry Mr Rayner did not deny when questioned that the remarks had been said, but he added: "It was not me who said it.

"The minutes, since printed, have been gone over because they were not accurate". However, he refused to name the person who made the statement.

Mr Rayner further slammed the remarks as being "out of context" because the minutes were being highlighted without reference to the agenda.

Support

"They were not minutes where people sat around a table, they were of people's feelings at that time, and they are totally out of context with the discussion," he stormed.

"We are elected as officers by the Tenants Association that forms the Federation. And it's always been, up until now, that once elected and with decisions supported by a majority vote, we must adhere to them.

"We are here as caretakers on Federation business. The decisions are made at general meetings, and once made, even me as chairman cannot say I disagree with that".

Mr Rayner, who criticised the "anonymous" sender, added he had asked officers who were not happy with issues to bring them to members' attention.

But he claimed: "No-one has ever taken that up".

Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989

Hoax letter

WE have been asked to make it clear that a letter published last week from S. Jacobs, headlined Getting the Truth was not written by Waltham Forest councillor Stephen Jacobs and is now known to have come from a false address.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 3, 1989

Winner in the grand dustbin bags battle

ONE man's lone crusade to challenge Waltham Forest Council over its black plastic bin bag policy has ended in victory.

With the exception of elderly and infirm people, Peter Jacques (40), of Salters Road, Walthamstow, is now the only person in the borough allowed to put his rubbish bags into dustbins.

The saga began last June when there was public outrage over a new policy to collect only rubbish placed in sacks "free-standing, sealed securely but not contained in dustbins".

But accountant Mr Jacques took his personal outrage one step further and under the Control Of Pollution Act 1974 exercised his right of 21 days to appeal against the order.

He lodged a complaint on three counts:

1. The council's policy was unreasonable;

2. The previous arrangements were quite adequate and reasonable;

3. The notice given was improperly served and incomplete, with no date and no clear indication of who had served it

Although Mr Jacques lost this particular complaint, heard at Waltham Forest Court, he refused to give up.

He explained: "I wrote to the courts to find out my rights to appeal and they wrote back saying I had no right I checked this out and found it was wrong, which made me doubly determined to carry it through."

And he did. The case went to Snaresbrook Crown Court on counts 1 and 2 and Judge William Goldstein ruled in his favour.

Pleased with his victory, Mr Jacques said: "In ail fairness the council took it in very good spirits. There didn't appear to be any bad feelings on their part"

Mr Jacques didn't have to fork out a penny: "The only costs would have been the. cost of the barrister but I was awarded £100, which I am told will cover his bill."

But although he has clocked up a personal achievement, he is unsure whether it will have had enough impact on the council to make it change its policy.

He said: "I think it will depend on the publicity. Presumably a report will have to be made to Waltham Forest Council and it's more likely now to be overturned as a political moral issue." A council spokesman said:

"We will obey the court's ruling and there the matter rests. We will be carrying on just as before."

Waltham Forest Guardian February 10, 1989

Race row truce Just in time

By Pat Stannard

A CONFESSION of failure with a promise to do better is the price Labour councillors have paid to sort out a damaging race row in their ranks.

But the ink was barely dry on the peace treaty before there were clear hints that the last has not been heard of the dispute.

Amarjit Devgun, one of three rebels absenting themselves from Waltham Forest Council meetings, told the Guardian he was not satisfied with his party's statement on the settlement.

And he added: "The Labour group can no longer treat black and ethnic minorities as family pets to whom it will throw scraps as far as services are concerned and expect them to be satisfied."

With Mohammed Khan and Narinder Matharoo, Mr Devgun started his boycott after advertisements for headteacher posts were advertised in a way they believed would not attract black candidates.

Their absence has been a source of deep annoyance to Labour leaders who have suffered defeat after defeat, having lost their overall majority of one.

Rates row

BY a miracle of good timing, peace broke out just when the party needs all the votes it can get in the council chamber.

The alternative would have been a humiliating inability to fix next year's rate without Tory and Liberal Democrat support.

In a statement confirming the end of hostilities. Labour group chairman Clive Morton explained: "We clearly recognise that despite its effort the council has failed to implement fully its equal opportunities policy.

"We remain committed to identifying and enforcing the procedures by which the policies can and will be achieved."

But Mr Devgun claimed the statement ducked the issues and he was aggrieved that no disciplinary action was to be taken against colleagues who, in his opinion, had issued discriminatory instructions to officers.

He said when he was chairman of the direct labour and technical services committees, fellow councillors had "no hesitation" in removing him when he took a stance on a race issue.

" Mr Devgun said: "We have taken the situation as far as is possible without throwing away Labour control of the council.

"The black councillors' decision has been that we can't allow the black communities to suffer even further from financial cuts."

With the truce in operation, a domestic rate of 256.86p in the £ (an 18.7 per cent rise) and a general rate of 268.70p in the £ was to be recommended for the coming year at Wednesday's meeting of the council.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989

Estates sell off stinks says SLD

LEYTON Liberal Democrats are campaigning against council plans to sell off four of its estates.

Members say the sell off plans for the Cathall, Chingford Hall, Oliver Close and Boundary Road estates will have repercussions -- and not just for tenants living on those sites.

Tenants on other estates are also unhappy about the proposals, said SLD Councillor David Worsfold.

He added: "Their rents will go up by £12 to £15 a week, to pay for the other estates to be turned over to a private company."

And SLD members are less than happy about latest Government proposals to base nuclear warships at Tilbury Docks, and widen the M25 and build a new ring road around London.

Slamming the "stupidity" of the nuclear plans, Councillor Chris Millington said: "It could take only a minor accident and a wind blowing towards London for hundreds of thousands of people to be placed in danger. "

And calling the M25 proposals "folly" his colleague Simon Banks said the only solutions to relieve traffic congestion in London is to make public transport cheaper and encourage people to work closer to home.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 31, 1989

See HAT Trick

Housing row stirs racism claim

By Emma Littlejohn

A FURIOUS row over a housing estate purely for Afro-Caribbeans ended in allegations of racism.

Tory councillor Derek Arnold was accused of spurting 'racial bile' by Labour's Jo Brind, when he claimed the council was favouring Afro-Caribbeans to whites.

At a Land Strategy Committee meeting, councillors were asked to consider a request from the Ujima Housing Association, which specialises in housing for Afro-Caribbeans.

The UHA was asking to purchase additional land in Goodall Road, Leyton, to provide six more units for rented accommodation. Although the rest of the land (formerly Corpus Christi School) has already been sold to the UHA, Mr Arnold took offence to the scheme.

He said: "This is against all Waltham Forest's policies. It is not offering equal opportunities, and if it came up as solely white housing, this council would be going mad.

"I feel very strongly against this sort of thing, and want my vote against it recorded."

But his comments enraged Mr Brind who launched into a scathing attack on the Tory.

"I find what you are saying very offensive. It is, in fact, racial bile and Councillor Arnold well knows it," he stormed.

Committee chairman Bill Dennis intervened and said this was not the argument now in question.

The proposal was put to the vote and it was passed, although the four Tory councillors voted against it.

Mr Brind left the meeting early, obviously fuming, and had another private row with Mr Arnold on his exit.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 31, 1989

Rates go up by 18.7 per cent

By Pat Stannard

LABOUR'S rebel councillors returned to the fold last week in the nick of time to let their party decide the rates we will pay in the coming year.

The 11th-hour truce spared council leader Neil Gerrard the embarrassment of seeing the opposition parties call the shots in fixing next year's budget.

With Amarjit Devgun, Mohmmed Khan and Narinder Matharoo taking their seats at the special Waltham Forest Council meeting this Wednesday, the party expected again to have its overall majority of one-illness permitting.

Items axed from the budget by the opposition, or for which equivalent savings were demanded, were restored by jubilant Labour members at last week's meeting of the resources strategy committee.

They included nearly £100,000 for race relations committee developments, £60,000 for the central publicity budget and £10,000 to pay for the subscription to the London Nuclear Information Unit.

There were successful bids for £100,000 to aid primary teacher recruitment (an initiative supported by the opposition), £129,000 for disability work, and £29,700 for community co-ordination in the Cathall ward of Leytonstone.

The latter-intended to improve links between local people and groups and the council-was agreed in a debate which preceded the main rates discussion.

The end result was a domestic rate for next year of 256.86p in the £, an 18.7 per cent rise, and a general rate of 269.86 in the £.

For the average householder, this could mean an average rate of £577 per year, or £11.09 per week, compared with last year's annual figure of £486 or £9.35 per week.

Owners of small shops in the High Street may expect £2,700 or £51.80 weekly as opposed to the previous year's sum of £2,300 or £44.20 weekly.

Tories and the Liberal Democrats had their own ideas of what me rates should be: both advocated rises under 10 per cent

Conservative leader Michael Lewis put forward a package involving a total expenditure next year of just over £147m. That would result in a domestic rate of 229.05p in the £ (an 8.5 percent rise) and a general rate of 248.05p.

The Tories' main attack was on what they call "politically motivated areas" like the police, women's and economic development committees.

For the Liberal Democrats, Chris Millington suggested a budget involving a domestic rate of 232.02p in the £ (a 9.9 per cent rise) and a general rate of 250.07.

His groups favours linking race relations and women's committees and the disablement panel in a single equal opportunities committee, thus saving on administration.

The debate on the whole lacked fire with all parties saving their big guns for full council.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 10, 1989

Residents' opposition to market

BATTLING residents and councillors have taken the campaign to s1987 the transfer of Spitalfields Market to Leyton to the House of Lords.

They are firmly against plans already agreed by Waltham Forest Council to move the market to Temple Mills.

This week Liberal Democrat Councillors Bob Sullivan and David Worsfold handed in three petitions from Leyton residents against the Parliamentary Bill needed to authorise the proposed May transfer.

The final decision will be made by the House of Lords Select Committee, when it considers the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill

And the petitioners, all from the Ruckholt Road, Leyton area, will be represented at the committee hearings by their three ward councillors Simon Banks, Bob Sullivan and David Worsfold.

"This is our last chance to s1987 the market coming to Leyton," said Mr Worsfold.

"The Bill has been through the House of Commons already but no-one stuck up for the Leyton residents. Even MP Harry Cohen voted for the market to come to Leyton."

Added Mr Sullivan: "The effects will be terrible. There will be a constant stream of heavy lorries down Grove Green Road and Ruckholt Road from the early hours of the morning and no amount of secondary glazing will compensate for the noise, dirt and vibration.

"On 1987 of this, there will be rubbish and the threat of vermin," he added.

But Waltham Forest Council's chief planning officer Bob Bennett said: "The decision was made by the council a long time ago. We believe it will bring lots of new trade to Leyton and create many jobs.

"The short-term problem will be solved by the M11 Link Road and developers have agreed to pay for double glazing in Grove Green Road and Ruckholt Road."

Waltham Forest Guardian February 10, 1989

PAT STANNARD predicts Labour is ripe for revolution

Council set for big changes

MANY Labour candidates standing for election to Waltham Forest Council in May 1990 will be unfamiliar.

An exceptionally large number of existing councillors are deciding to call it a day, we learn from informed sources.

The years since they took over control of the council in 1986 have been painful and frustrating, even to those experienced in the political arena.

* In January, 1987, two councillors-Armarjit Devgun and Franklyn Georges-were sacked from their chairmanships and race relations vice-chairman Narinder Matharoo resigned in sympathy. The three called for the resignation of then Mayor Mahommad Khan and Chief Executive Leonard Knox.

They had objected noisily to the findings of an internal council inquiry that two education department officers were guilty of gross misconduct but not of racism.

* The row was growing just as the infamous 62 per cent rates rise was being forecast.

For at least a year afterwards, Labour councillors were hounded not just at the town hall but in their homes. A fire bomb, death threats and hate mail came in a deluge. Wives and children were followed in the street and suffered obscene and frightening phone calls.

There was internal turmoil in the party when a handful of councillors made public their opposition to the rates rise.

* The uproar died down but management problems increased when the borough was ratecapped early last year. Staff vacancies could not be filled. The social services and education departments-where, as candidates, the councillors had promised growth and progress-where held back. It left the Labour group angry, depressed and frustrated.

* Then, just as it was announced that ratecapping would end next May and light appeared at the end of the tunnel, it turned out to be on the front of an oncoming train.

A dispute over the lack of black candidates for two head teacher posts brought to the boil a simmering row between the five black Labour councillors and the party leadership.

They claimed that white Labour councillors were not committed to equal opportunities and finally exited from the council chamber in a huff.

Two have since returned to their seats but the absence of the other three has left the party without an overall majority.

The group has thus lost the power to carry the vote on schemes important to it, and may not be able to dictate policy review or next year's rates level.

Labour members are doing little to hide their fury over the behaviour of the three rebels.

Group chairman Mike MacNulty-one of those it is believed will not be standing for re-election in 1990-resigned the post. Officially he says he has stood down from office because of pressure of work. But it is widely known that he was disappointed by his failure in a bid to have the rebels disciplined.

In a recent interview with Guardian editor John James, Councillors Frank George and Narinder Matharoo predicted there would be no black Labour candidates at the next election.

With such a high drop out rate of younger as well as mature councillor, Labour is going to have a struggle finding a selection of worthy candidates for next May, we have been told.

Waltham Forest Guardian, January 6, 1989.

Speech costs Christine a CRC place

Race row ends
with Tory axe

TORY Councillor, Christine Smith, has finally paid the price for a controversial race relations speech at the end of last year.

Cllr Smith heard this week that she had been kicked off the Waltham Forest Community Relations Council. And she has been ousted by Liberal Democrat Philip Arnold.

A special meeting of the council was called last Wednesday to discuss giving Cllr Smith the order of the boot because members were upset and angry over the contents of her speech.

In the speech she challenged the whole basis of CRC's work and consequently both Labour and Liberal Democrat rivals sought to replace her with one of their own nominees.

Cllr Arnold got the thumbs up last week and Democrat colleague. Bob Sullivan, who put his name forward, said: "Philip has a fine record of promoting better race relations in this borough and I know he will work constructively to ensure that the CRC is able to tackle the problems facing ethnic minority groups effectively and with the backing of all residents.

"The Tories attitude is just totally destructive and went beyond the pale in what Christine Smith said. If they cannot see that her remarks were racist and inflammatory then dearly they could not play an effective role in the CRC.

"It also has to be remembered that the Liberal Democrats had no representative on the CRC from Waltham Forest Council having previously been cut out by the Tories and Labour voting together.

"Too often we are denied our proper representation on outside bodies and it is nice to see the Tories get a dose of their own medicine for a change."

Cllr Smith was unrepentant this week though. She said she stood by every word in her speech and still believed race relations legislation underpinned the Loony Left. anti-racist insanity of the Labour Party.

"By declaring all aspects of British culture racist, the race relations industry alienates more people than it persuades." she said.

Waltham Forest Express January 14, 1989.

Homes plan puts 300 jobs at risk

Death knell sounds for long-standing businesses

COUNCIL planners claim a government inspector has threatened the future of 300 jobs at one of the borough's main industrial sites.

And they fear many more people could end up out of work in firms which depend on stock produced by manufacturers on the site.

An inspector for the Department of the Environment allowed Barratt East London housing company the right to build 200 homes on the site off Seymour Road Leyton, ousting the companies who have worked there for years.

For almost a year Waltham Forest Planning Implementation Committee has fought the housing plans, taking its case to DoE appeals.

But now it has run out of legal ways to turn, and is making a last ditch attempt to reverse the decision by appealing to Barratt to give up the site.

Planning chair Councillor Jo Brind said: "This is a perverse and senseless decision. We need more jobs in Waltham Forest, not less.

"The borough has little enough industrial land at the moment. To allow a major chunk of it to be lost is terrible. But what is even worse is that three firms are still working on this site.

The companies in question are engineers Manifold Indexing, Olympus Furniture and EC DeWitt, a drugs multi-national.

DeWitt has said it will move to another site, but Manifold, which has been there for 15 years, and Olympus-located there for 30 years and employing 170 staff-have nowhere to go.

Assistant Chief Planner Dave Jeater explained: "The companies are typical of the manufacturing factories in Waltham Forest. They are the fly-wheel of the local economy.

The council opposes the housing plans, not only because of the loss of jobs, but because it feels any homes built there would be in the middle of a heavily industrialised area, which includes an industrial waste disposal site.

It also fears a heavy increase in residential traffic using Seymour Road and the surrounding area.

All political parties in the council are united in astonishment and disgust at the decision to allow the houses to be built.

Mr Brind said: "It is an all-party issue. We had a vote on it and the decision was unanimous. this is an attack on the planning system, which we in Waltham Forest all believe in.

He added: "All in all this is a tragedy for Leyton.

But Barratt is adamant the housing scheme is in the best interests of the area, and has no intention of giving up the site it fought for.

Managing director of Barratt East London Richard Reynolds described Waltham Forest Council's argument that the site was better of in industrial use as "absolute nonsense.

He explained: "We have always considered the site to be one of the best residential sites we have come across in a long time.

"To have an industrial premises there is quite wrong. Before going to appeal, we canvassed all of the local residents and got a very good reaction to our scheme.

See this note.

Waltham Forest Guardian, May 19, 1989.

Wait begins for decision on News International ban

"Ban these people from the Town Hall"

Reporting team: John James, Kelvin Ross, Alison Shepherd and David Callaghan

The man who led the campaign to get the District Auditor to investigate Waltham Forest Council's refusal to advertise teacher jobs in the Times Educational Supplement on Friday offered an olive branch.

"I don't want old friends surcharged," ex-councillor Peter Leighton told the District Auditor's inquiry.

But he said the considerable extra cost of advertising elsewhere, with a dramatic fall in teacher applications was "something you cannot sweep away.

He continued: "I want to see them disqualified from office, because they know how to abuse power. They don't realise that power is a position of trust.

"Some of us believe passionately in the future of local government. Local government is under attack because people behave in this way. We want to see local government free, open and serving the people.

In a passionate speech he said 30,000 people had written to District Auditor Peter Hepplestone complaining that the Labour councillors had introduced the TES ban in support of the Rupert Murdoch printers' dispute at Wapping.

"They knew something was wrong. If that wrong is not put right, then it is a threat to the future of democracy.

Earlier, he had described former borough solicitor Peter North as "a voice crying in the wilderness as he sough to warn councillors of the legal complications.

Mr Leighton, a former education committee chairman, said there was no doubt of Labour's intentions.

Present education chairman Eddie Playfair, for example, had minuted that the TES advertisement ban would continue for the period of the printers' dispute.

The result was that the £53,000 recruitment budget exploded to £310,000 and the number of people applying for teacher posts dropped dramatically.

The ban, he argued, had been done without any research into the effects yet was not lifted until "all kinds of figures had been supplied-"a dragging of the feet said Mr Leighton.

But the council argued that even if the ban was wrong, the expenditure was not, since the money was spent for a proper purpose. Further it had to be proved that the councillors knew their decision was clearly unlawful.

Liberal Democratic councillor Philip Arnold claimed they did.

He said Councillor Steve Jacobs moved a motion at the education committee meeting in June 1986 to ban advertising in the TES and not have New International papers in the borough's libraries.

Legal advice had been given that such a policy would be illegal. Labour members reacted in a "quite cavalier way.

No education reasons had been given at the meeting for introducing the bans.

Said education committee member Irene Memory (Conservative): "I thought the legal advice was very strong indeed and I was surprised it wasn't accepted. There is no doubt we had problems recruiting teachers because of the ban.

And Liberal Democrat Terry Messenger, a former education chairman and ex-deputy council leader, agreed: "It was made clear to the members that the councillors would be putting themselves at risk. It seemed from the advice that there would be a risk of surcharge or disqualification, but the members just pressed on.

Mr North, giving evidence commented: "The council were sailing very close to the wind, if not actually acting illegally, then very close.

In November, 1986, the High Court ruled that several other London boroughs had acted unlawfully by banning News International publications from libraries.

Then, two months later, Mr Leighton wrote to the council and said that if council leader Neil Gerrard didn't issue an undertaking to s1987 the action within 48 hours he would take out a High Court injunction.

The undertaking was given "in the 59th minute of the 11th hour".

Waltham Forest College principal Jack Fuller said he wasn't consulted on the advertising issue and the college's governors disassociated themselves from the council decision.

The response rate to job advertisements for the college was 16 per cent down.

Chief executive Leonard Knox admitted that Labour councillors were looking for ways not to deal with Murdoch publications.

On the legal advice given, he said: "Looking at it now with hindsight, the report could have been fuller, but I can't think members were unaware of the consequences .

The District Auditor, concluding the inquiry, said he would make known his ruling "as soon as possible.

Waltham Forest Guardian, October 27, 1989.

Planning to speak

MEMBERS of the public may soon be allowed to speak out at one Waltham Forest Council committee.

The idea of letting objectors voice their views on planning applications was turned down at the last meeting of the planning implementation committee.

But now the Liberal Democrats have put their weight behind the Labour proposal, it looks likely to get the go-ahead.

The reversal came at last week's full council.

Tories Gerald King and Laurie Braham claimed meetings would be dragged out interminably and high powered applicants would bring in lawyers to speak for them.

But Liberal Democrat Simon Banks laughed off the suggestions, saying other London boroughs which had introduced the scheme had not suffered these problems.

See this note.

Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989.

Public still not given right to talk over plans

Speaking block

Councillors have thrown out plans to let the public have a right to speak at planning meetings.

An application went before Waltham Forest Planning Implementation Committee last week which, if passed, would have let members of the public verbally state their case over planning matters.

Currently the public have to let councillors speak for them or write to council officers to express their views.

But at last week's meeting, councillors narrowly rejected the proposal after several of them had argued for and against the plan.

Tory Derek Arnold said: "I am totally against the right to speak. It could end up becoming a case of 'he who speaks the best wins'. It could create so many problems its unbelievable.

But Democrat Clyde Kitson took the opposite point of view.

He said: "I will be supporting this wholeheartedly. I think it is terrific to give people involvement in the decisions we make. I think it would be a good thing to let people come and speak on issues.

And Chair Jo Brind said to all those who had doubts over the scheme: "Don't be frightened-give it a chance.

But when it came to the vote the decision swung against the plans which prompted Tory Wally Hanson to say: "Common sense has won the day."

See this note.

Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1989.

Childish theatrical walk out

The walk out by the Liberal council group was childish theatrical nonsense. The truth is that the Liberals have nothing to say, but are intent on making the biggest fuss they can so it looks as if they have something to say.

Huffing and puffing and shouting cannot disguise the facts.

And the facts are that the Liberals refuse to accept the verdict of the ballot box, they will not accept the will of the people.

Thanks to the intelligence and good sense of the electors of Waltham Forest, the Labour Party has more councillors than both the Liberal and Tory groups combined. The Labour Party is in control of Waltham Forest Council.

The Liberals will not accept this fact and when their cheap tricks fail all they can do is sulk.

I have a great deal of sympathy for all those innocent members of the public who voted for the Liberal Party believing that they would get a councillor who would represent them.

Now we know that when it comes to the crunch the Liberals may well have stormed out of the council chamber and be sulking in the bar over a stiff lemonade.

Jo Brind (Cllr).

See this note.

Waltham Forest Guardian April 28, 1989.

COST OF HELPING PEOPLE ELSEWHERE

Poll tax 'safety net' shock

Report: ANDY COMBER

EVERY Poll Tax payer in Waltham Forest will next year be expected to pay £46 towards services for people elsewhere in the country.

That is the level of contribution Waltham Forest has been ear-marked to pay towards a poll tax safety-net rigged up by the Government.

Council leader Neil Gerrard instantly condemned the figures, released by the Department of the Environment last week.

He said: "It means that £7.5 million is going to be collected in Poll Tax in this borough and then disappear to keep the Poll Tax down in other areas.

"The whole plan was cooked up at the last minute to please Tory MPs in marginal seats who were worried the Poll Tax was going to lose them their seats."

Inflation

The safety net figure came as a shock, he said. The borough had always thought it would pay, at most, £5 per head to the scheme, which is to run for a year.

London boroughs that stand to benefit are Tory run Wandsworth, by £168 per poll tax payer, and Liberal Democrat-run Tower Hamlets, which is to net a colossal £299 per payer.

Mr Gerrard claimed the Government's Poll Tax estimate of £294 for Waltham Forest next year, based on a standard level of services, is "meaningless."

"It has nothing to do with actual spending. The figure only allows four per cent for inflation. But local government inflation is running much higher than that.

'Propaganda'

"And it assumes a 100 per cent collection rate when no one, including the Government, really expects that to be possible."

He said the savings the Government expects councils to make are just not there. They would have to slash £l million from the budget to take just £6 off the Poll Tax.

He claimed the Poll Tax figures amount to political propaganda, adding: "The Government is trying to avoid the blame for its effect."

Michael Lewis, leader of the council's Tory opposition, admitted: "I'm not convinced that the safety net is the best way of dealing with introducing the Poll Tax."

And he estimated that Waltham Forest's first Poll Tax, officially called the Community Charge, will fall somewhere between the council and the Government figures.

He said he was "disappointed" by Waltham Forest's £46 safety net charge but claimed the borough might gain from the new business rate.

Councillor Lewis maintains that the council could also make major savings, and so reduce the borough's Poll Tax burden.

"Since coming into power four years ago. Labour has created 1,000 new administrative jobs, an increase of 15 per cent. There is no way our services have increased by 15 per cent.

"You have to look to boroughs like Redbridge, which has a low Community Charge estimate, and ask why do they provide the same services at a far more reasonable cost."

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser, November 17, 1989.

End of the concrete Jungles?

OFFICIAL talks are starting with civil servants on a scheme which could give Waltham Forest a place in British history.

Last month the Department of Environment said it was willing to pay for the borough's major high-rise estates to be rebuilt under a Housing Action Trust.

The offer followed two years of disappointment for tenants and councillors whose plans to finance the £175m redevelopment were twice blocked by the Government.

Now they have given the go-ahead, to discussions with DoE officials on details of the HAT.

At well-attended meetings on the estates, only one person voted against negotiations.

A special meeting of the borough's housing committee gave its blessing on Monday.

Councillors were not without their doubts about the HAT and will be looking for certain conditions being written in to the agreement.

All are designed to protect tenants both during the seven-year rebuild period and afterwards when they must choose their future landlords: local authority, housing association or whatever.

The tenants have hired their own consultants to help them through the next few months of talks.

Hopes are that a definite scheme will be ready by February to put to the vote on the estates-Cathall, Leytonstone, Oliver Close, Leyton, Boundary Road, Walthamstow, and Chingford Hall.

If the project is agreed, it will represent a break through in housing history.

Massive council estates were thrown up country-wide in the late '50s and early '60s to cope with the high post-war demand for new homes.

But almost from the start they have been notorious for their inhuman design, poor building standards and potential for encouraging social problems and criminal activity.

They have become the modern equivalent of the Dickensian slum.

For many tenants, the dream has been to escape from unfriendly towers and maze-like blocks and into an ordinary house or maisonette with a front door on the street and a garden to relax in.

The designs drawn up by architects from the council and Bernard Hunt Associates in co-operation with tenants promise to meet those aspirations.

Waltham Forest's project-the first of its kind in the country-could signal the beginning of the end for Britain's crumbling concrete jungles.

Waltham Forest Guardian December 15, 1989.

See HAT Trick

Jobs for the boys shake-up

No more 'twin-tracking' for councillors under new Bill

by Michael King

THE FULL extent of the "jobs for the boys" system involving local Labour politicians who work for neighbouring London boroughs is beginning to emerge.

A list compiled by the Evening Standard reveals that hundreds of Labour councillors, and a few Tories, may not be contesting next year's borough elections now that legislation outlawing the practice is wen on the way to becoming law.

The Local Government and Housing Bill, which will s1987 councillors taking a paid job with another authority, was voted through the Commons last night at the end of a noisy second reading debate.

If, as expected, it becomes law later this year officials earning over £13,500 in a town hall department, directly or indirectly in contact with the public or politicians, will be barred, from being a councillor elsewhere.

Under the legislation officials who are also councillors will, though, be able to appeal to an independent arbitrator.

Although a few Tory councillors hold town hall jobs, twin-tracking, as it is called, is rife in most of London's Labour boroughs. This list, by no means exhaustive, gives an idea of the extent in six boroughs. Not all those listed will necessarily be caught by the new law, expected to be in force for the May 1990 London elections. Teachers are not affected.

Lambeth: ex-leader Linda Bellos heads Hackney's women's unit; Fred Taggart recently appointed Hackney's assistant chief executive at £30,000; Esther Leeves, a senior accountant at Southwark; Kingsley Smith, a senior ILEA youth worker; Rachel Webb in Southwark's social services; Brian Hodge is Hackney's principal economic and employment officer, and Bob Colenutt is attached to Newham's Docklands consultative unit.

Greenwich: Leader' Dave Picton is a Lewisham policy adviser; Jim Coughlan also works for Lewisham; Lesley Seary is a principal officer in Newham's economic development unit; Labour whip Victor Farlie is a Southwark housing adviser, Ken Maxton is a Lewisham committee clerk; social services chairman Dave Clark is in Labour's local government information unit, and Simon Oelman is a Southwark housing estate Officer.

Islington: Dave Yorath is assistant director of education at Newham and Chris Calnan works in the same borough's police unit; Mike Devenney in Ealing's disabilities unit; Talal Karim is a Haringey advice worker; Janet Norden works for Southwark, and Anne St Clair Miller is with Camden, and Chris Adamson is a Lewisham neighbourhood housing manager.

Support

Brent: Leader Dorman Long is race relations officer in Lambeth's housing department; housing chairman Mike Magloire is a Southwark legal adviser; Esmie Sargeant is women's co-ordinator in Ealing social services dept; Frank Hansen and Colvin Maloney both work for Ealing; Nitinkumar Parshotan is at Hounslow and Diane Collymore at Hackney.

Southwark: housing chairman Mark Howarth is a Lambeth housing officer; Winston Stafford in Hackney social services; police committee chairman Jessica Wannamaker is a Hammersmith/ Fulham legal officer but away on study leave; Leslie Alden with Lambeth's management service; Mick Brennan is with ILEA; planning chairman Geoffrey Williams Is a Camden planning official; Aubyn Graham is an Ealing youth officer, and education chairman Debbie Welch works for ILEA.

Waltham Forest: race relations chairman Franklyn Georges is a Haringey Industrial relations officer; Stephen Jacobs is a Newham senior housing officer; leisure committee chairman Gerald Miles is a Haringey senior librarian, and Chris1987her Dunn is in Newham technical services department.

Local Government minister Mr John Gummer said today that the "jobs for the boys" problem was particularly acute in London.

Evening Standard February 15, 1989.

Click to return to index

Lords asked to halt the misery

Residents in campaign to s1987 market

THE battle to s1987 Spitalfields Market moving to Temple Mills, Leyton, is hotting up and Liberal Democrat councillors, David Worsfold and Bob Sullivan took the fight to the House of Lords this week.

Three petitions have been collected by Leyton residents against the Parliamentary bill required to authorise the transfer of the market from the City.

The petitioners, who all live in the Ruckholt area of Leyton, are Niam Vurulmaz, Patricia Pettitt and Ghulam Sarwar.

They argue the market will have a serious impact on the area and on people's lives and they feel an insufficient case has been made for the need to move Spitalfields.

Cllr David Worsfold said:"This is our last chance to s1987 the market coming to Leyton. The Bill has been through the Commons, but nobody stuck up for local residents.

"Even Harry Cohenthe Labour MP, voted for the market to come here and that is completely contrary to the interests of the local residents. We will back local people all the way in this fight."

Cllr Bob Sullivan said that all along it had been the Liberal Democrats fighting the battle because they realised the terrible effect the market will have on Leyton.

He said there would be a constant stream of lorries down Grove Green Road and Ruckholt Road from the very early hours and no amount of secondary glazing will compensate for the noise, the dirt and the vibration.

"On 1987 of all this there will be rubbish and the threat of vermin. Anyone who has walked round Spitalfields will tell you it is one of the filthiest places in London," he said.

Councillors Bob Sullivan (right) and David Worsfold.

See more cuttings about Spitalfields.

Waltham Forest Express February 11, 1989 .

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Poison paths health fears

CONCERN is growing over the council's decision to use weed killers on footpaths in the borough. Friends of the Earth is the latest group to voice its outrage at this "frightening and disappointing move". As revealed in the Guardian last week, the firm contracted by the council began to spray weeds on Monday.

The contractors are using a mixture of amitrole and atrazine on footpaths, and paraquat and diuron on tree bases.

Paraquat has been banned in Denmark, Finland and New Zealand because of concern about its effects. It can cause sickness, diarrhoea, and liver and kidney damage.

Mrs Jane Morgan of Friends of the Earth is concerned the council has not done enough research into alternative methods of controlling weeds.

"All these sprays have been banned in Islington, so why I not in Waltham Forest?," she said. "And why has there been no publicity about the use of the weedkillers? It seems the council is trying to avoid a public outcry."

Mr Ian Shearer, the council's Principal Engineer, said the details of the spraying were never kept secret.

"There was a full debate on the matter at council level," he said, "and the information was freely available." Mr Shearer said there was no evidence that the casual passer-by would be adversely affected by the sprays.

"'The spraying is only happening in very localised areas and at very low levels," he said. "The average person won't even notice it's going on."

Waltham Forest Guardian July 7, 1989.

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Plea to Parks Staff

LEARN to use herbicides or lose the job of controlling weeds-that's the choice being put to Waltham Forest parks staff.

They have been warned that if they don't lift their ban on spraying chemicals, which they claim are dangerous, they will not win the contract for the work when it goes out to tender.

The lowest bid is bound to come from a contractor prepared to use herbicides since hoeing out weeds costs eight or ten times more, says horticultural services manager Fred Dyer in an internal memo to staff. He asks: "Who are our competitors? It is not the private sector we fear, it is other boroughs."

Boroughs already declaring an interest in contracts include Redbridge and Epping Forest.

He asks for at least 12 volunteers for a training course and certification test.

"Your safety and welfare are extremely important to me and I would take all necessary steps to ensure that you work without danger to yourselves or the public at large. I would use the safest possible product for the task no matter what the cost of that product in relation to others," writes Mr Dyer.

Councillors decided in March that in the coming year, flagged pavements will be weeded by hand, but herbicides will be used for all other areas.

WF Guardian May 5, 1989.

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Now, streets get herbicide free zones

HERBICIDE-FREE zones are to be created following public fears that street spraying to kill weeds could be dangerous.

In a compromise worked out last week, chemical spraying of Waltham Forest's flagstoned pavements-20 percent of the total--is to be banned.

But spraying is to continue on the rest of the borough's tarmacked pavements, following a special meeting of the council's public services committee.

The use of chemicals has raised controversy as some residents claim it has poisoned them and their pets-bringing on bouts of stomach upset and vomiting.

But the council maintains spraying is safe and officers advised councillors that spraying must continue if costs were to be kept down.

The ruuling Labour group introduced the herbicide ban, which now means flagstoned pavements must be cleared of weeds using hand tools.

The initiative was supported by Liberal Democrat councillors.

Attacked

But it was attacked by Conservatives who claimed it made no sense when residents were free to buy herbicides and used them in their gardens as they liked.

The new policy ends months of confusion which officers had warned might threaten the council's chances of retaining the weed clearing contract when it is put up for competitive tendering next year.

They hope unions may now end their opposition to the use of sprays which had s1987ped council workers getting special training needed before the work goes private. Other safeguards decided by the committee were:

** No herbicides to be used which appear on Government and international danger lists

** Extra research to be carried out to ensure the safest and most effective use of sprays

** Introduction of clear marking of pavements when spraying is taking place A contract for this year's spraying is now to be offered to a private company.

Yellow Advertiser April 14, 1989

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Ask public about use of herbicides

I AM writing regarding the use of herbicides in this borough, which has recently been highlighted in this paper.

In particular, I wish to bring to the attention of the public the potential dangers of these chemicals, although sometimes "approved" by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, providing they are used correctly.

A 1985 survey of herbicides and insecticides tested on animals found that at least 89 can cause allergy and irritation, such as dermiititis, 61 can cause mutagenic effects, 41 were linked to cancedr and 31 associated with birth defects.

Another survey published in 1983 found that of all pesticides tested, 22 per cent caused cell mutation, often linked to the power that causes cancer.

In December 1985, three trade unions conducted a survey of their members on health and safety problems associated with pesticide use. Sickness and headaches and sore throats were reported by 50 per cent of the sample-despite 80 per cent of those handling the chemicals using protective clothing!

Little wonder, then, that a member of the public wrote to this paper on March 31 mentioning the severe illness she and her dog had suffered after her estate was sprayed with herbicide.

One of the brand name chemicals which the Horticultural Services Manager of this borough has suggested would be used is called Rassapron.

This is, in fact, a mixture of three chemicals, BP warned in 1986 that Rassapron is irritating to the eyes, respiratory system and skin, and that users are recommended to wear protective gloves, face shields or goggles and rubber boots.

Separate reports of tests on animals of the three chemicals in Rassapron say that the chemicals have mutagenic and carcinogenic risks and deform or are toxic to foetuses. In addition, brain, heart, liver, lung and ovary damage are recorded.

The Public Services Committee of the council is at present preparing the specification for the control of weeds and so on in this borough, prior to compulsory Government competetive tendering.

This specification would set out the requirements to be met by the council's own bid and by potential outside contractors. .

Although the borough's Horticultural Services Manager recognises that there is a choice between manual and chemical control he has stated that "..... chemical control is cheaper......." and "... more effective...".

At the last meeting on April 3 concerning the Horticultural Services it was decided that "herbicide application was to take place in ALL areas except flagstone surfaces on highways". This will include children's play areas, housing estates and schools.

Council workers have long opposed the use of herbicides on a large scale in Waltham Forest and have, in fact, refused to handle them. Employees' representatives have also drawn attention to a report from North Thames Water Board that water in the Waltham Forest area already contains herbicides at a level of 800 times the EEC-recommended limit

A recent request by council employees representatives to the council to assess public opinion and carry out public consultation on the use of herbicides within the borough has not been acted upon.

ALAN BOOTH, National Union of Teachers, Health and Safety Adviser, Gaywood Road, Walthamstow.

Waltham Forest Guardian April 21, 1989

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Plants man hits back

THE Oxford biologist behind the controversy over the health of Epping Forest has hit back at claims that he exaggerated the pollution problem.

Remarks made by Bob Johnston, a lecturer in plant physiology at Oxford Polytechnic, were last week criticised by both the City of London Corpention, responsible for the upkeep of the forest, and the conservation centre at High Beech, Loughton.

But after recording a further interview in the forest with Thames Television, he repeated his claims to the Guardian Gazette that up to half the trees were either dead or dying.

"It is so obvious what is here," he said. "I am basically saying things are so bad that I can't find any lichens growing on trees, and that is a sure sign of air pollution.

"The problem is that the forest is downwind of London, so it gets all the pollution from the city's population of cars. It is worse than anything I have seen in the New Forest."

He said the number of trees found with damaged and contorted branches was "quite exceptional".

Soil samples taken from the centre of the forest were measured for their acidity on the pH scale back in Oxford. Sulphuric, nitric and hydrochloric acids measure 1 on the scale, and Mr Johnston says his samples recorded 3.7.

"That is very high, when you consider naturally occurring acidic soils would read at around 4.5."

So how could he explain the great difference of opinion over the issue of whether the forest is or is not suffering heavily from pollution?

"There is a mass averting of eyes, and they are not biologists," he added.

"My view is that the readings are low enough to worry people, and that the whole situation is so bad that something is needed to be done.

"I've written to my own MP, Chris Patten, in no uncertain terms, and Mrs Thatcher should replace Environment Minister Nicholas Ridley with somebody committed to doing something."

Waltham Forest Guardian January 20, 1989

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Herbicides rethink

SPRAYING herbicides to control street weeds worried a majority at last Thursday's Waltham Forest Council meeting.

They managed to win a re-think by the public services committee on its decision to employ a contractor to do the job.

Labour councillor Jo Brind was worried about the use of Atriozol, which has leaked into the West German water supply and is thought to cause tumours.

And Liberal Democrat Graham Woolnough suggested it was wrong to say a chemical was safe just because it had not yet been proved unsafe.

But Tory Gerald King scoffed at fears. He said that in his experience the British chemical industry was the most tightly controlled in the world.

He thought complaints about herbicides were being fostered by trade unionists who would prefer workmen to be employed to weed pavements and tree surrounds by hand.

"We should move into the 20th century," he said. "Some members here seem to be living in the 18th or 19th century."

Waltham Forest Guardian March 3, 1989

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Hoping to weed out a final decision

COUNCILLORS appear to be sitting on the fence when it comes to the subject of using herbicides on Waltham Forest streets.

Officers concerned with horticultural ground maintenance were hoping it would be agreed to use the chemical everywhere, in order to halt the borough's weed problem.

But at last Tuesday's Public Services Committee meeting, members tactfully voted neither totally for or against the controversial herbicide.

They decided that total control, which is an all over application of the chemical, should be used on tarmac surfaces only. This covers about 80 per cent of the borough.

And an alternative method of weed control should be used on flagged footways (the other 20 percent).

Counclllor Jane Watts said that anywhere sprayed with herbicide should be clearly marked for the public's attention.

"At the moment, everyone is learning to become more aware of the environment, and if we are going to use these pesticides I think it is our duty to inform the public," said Mrs Watts.

The committee agreed to mark areas being sprayed. Ground maintenance will go out to competition, as already decided earlier this year.

Waltham Forest Guardian April 7, 1989

See other herbicide and pesticide stories

Weed spraying will go ahead

DESPITE concern about the use of paraquat weed killer in Waltham Forest, the council is to go ahead with its plan to treat weeds in the borough with poisonous sprays.

Mrs Louise Buchanan, Chairman of Leytonstone's Bushwood Area Residents Association, claims she was badly affected by weed killers last year.

"If you come into contact with the sprays, you start to feel nauseous," she says."I really felt as if I was going to die. It's even worse for children who play on the grass and then put their fingers in their mouths.

"While weeds do make pavements look untidy, they are not a hazard to health, unlike weed killers."

Mrs Buchanan is particularly concerned at the lack of advance publicity about the times and places of spraying, which is due to start on Monday (July 3).

"I really do not feel it should be left to organisations such as mine to have to request this information," she said.

In a letter to Mrs Buchanan, the council says a long time has been spent investigating and discussing the complex problem of the use of weed killers.

However, the letter goes on: "The Public Services Committee recognised that on hard paved surfaces, no method was a realistic alternative to chemical control without a severe reduction in standards."

The council therefore agreed to appoint a contractor to control weeds around tree bases and in selected areas where there was a particular problem.

The council has pledged to take all necessary steps to ensure that residents and the environment are not endangered.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 30, 1989

LOW SEX DRIVE

AN angry council boss wants to ruin a new yuppie estate with sick street names... so no one will buy the houses.

He has put forward Death Row, Paedophile Avenue, Gonorrohoea Place and Low Sex Drive.

Jo Brind, planning chairman at Waltham Forest, East London, is furious because builders Barratt won government permission to build on a factory site where 300 jobs were lost.

Mr Brind said: "The council has the power to name new roads in any housing development."

A Barratt spokesman said: "This is a public affront to reatepayers."

The Sun, August 4, 1989, page 3.

See letter written at the time.

So regal
WHY all the fuss about the portrait of the Queen Mother?
Maybe 23-year-old artist Alison Watt has not captured the famous smile.
However, our suspicion is that, the lady herself would not wish to a be remembered down the ages grinning like Ken Dodd after he won his tax case.
The Queen Mum did not allow the row to spoil her 89th birthday.
As usual, she showed far more good sense than her swooning admirers.
No go, Jo
HOW'S this for nasty spite?
Labour council bigwig Jo Brind disapproves of a private housing estate on his patch at Waltham Forest, East London.
He is suggesting street names like Death Row or Paedophile Avenue.
Where does brother Jo himself live? Loony Vilias or Nutcase Drive?

See threatening letter

The Sun, August 5, 1989, page 6.

Councillor's bid to block development

Report by ANDY COMBER

STREET NAMES SHOCKER

WALTHAM Forest's planning supremo Jo Brind is calling for streets in the borough to be named after sex perverts and venereal diseases.

He has put the shocking idea to colleagues in the borough's ruling Labour group as a way of s1987ping a housing estate being built in Seymour Road, Leyton.

To do this, he is suggesting the council should be "reckless" in the way it names roads on the estate, to put off home buyers and so force Barratt Homes to abandon the development.

Some lurid names already put forward by Councillor Brind, who is chairman of the council's planning committee, are 'Death Row' and 'Paedophile Avenue.'

His idea for the sickening street names comes from Labour-run Bolton Council in Lancashire, which last month threatened to name streets after Hitler's war cabinet in a bid to s1987 a Barratt development.

Councillor Brind is incensed that Barratt should want to build on the land in Leyton because, he says, it would involve the closure of three factories and the loss of nearly 500 jobs.

The angry planning committee leader said: "The names are insensitive, but not nearly as insensitive as building on land that has functioning industries in an area that has 12 per cent unemployment."

An appeal for other street name ideas has come up with several suggestions, one being Low Sex Drive.

Councillor Brind said: "I am quite serious about this but whether it will happen I don't know. The group seems to be a bit lacklustre about it."

The planning committee refused permission for the estate last year but Barratt won an appeal to the Department of the Environment

Councillor Brind's outburst follows job losses at one of the factories on the Leyton site. Manifold Indexing, which has raised speculation that the firm is about to sell out to Barratt.

Manifold's managing director has denied the rumour.

'Affront to ratepayers'

A spokesman for Barratt said: "We do not think Councillor Brind has either the legal or moral right to impose such strictures on the development.

"The mere suggestion if true that such names might be used is, we feel, a public affront to the ratepayers of Waltham Forest."

He would not comment on rumours surrounding Manifold Indexing, saying: "As far as we're concerned that is not a question that needs answering.

"Barratt has planning permission to develop housing on the whole of that site and that's the end of the story."

Yellow Advertiser August 4, 1989

Boss gives reasons for the Manifold sackings

I REFER to your July 28 edition of the Waltham Forest Guardian and, in particular, your Page 4 (Leyton edition) article entitled "Picketing for their jobs".

I would welcome the opportunity through your pages to respond to the article, since it is both inaccurate and misleading.

1. The reason for the dismissals has nothing to do with the new contracts of employment, as your article indicated.

2. As the whole of your article pivots around the subject of these new contracts of employment, your headline and article are incompatible, as well as misleading.

3. The employees were dismissed because they took industrial action, by refusing to co-operate with time-study consultants.

4. Industrial action of any form is a breach of the employees' contracts of employment, and makes them liable to instant dismissal.

5. They were warned of the consequence, firstly via their stewards, secondly on company notice boards, thirdly via a letter sent to their home address, and finally, after several days of continued non co-operation, in a personal interview.

6. Even after dismissal they were given yet final time to reconsider and have their jobs back.

Only then was dismissal confirmed.

I hope you can see from the above that your article does not state the real reason for dismissal, and, by devoting itself to a separate issue, completely misleads and misrepresents the true situation.

As regards the comments made in the article concerning the totally separate issue of new contracts of employment, I simply confine myself to stating that much of the article is at worst an unfair representation of the facts, or at best an over-simplification which does not do justice to fair or professional reporting.

One key omission from the article is that for three months, the AEU have refused to take part in consultations and negotiations on the contracts via a company-wide consultative committee; not withstanding that, separate negotiations with the AEU were arranged, and were ongoing, i.e. not finalised or concluded, and still, therefore, open to further discussion, when they took industrial action on this totally separate issue, which led to their dismissal.

FW RALPH,
Managing Director,
Manifold Industries Ltd,
Seymour Road,
Leyton.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 4, 1989

Councillor may carry out sick threat on 'yuppie' estate

ROAD NAME SHOCKER!

New street to be called Paedophile Ave?

HORRIFIED residents of a new | housing estate could face living in a road shockingly named Paedophile Avenue.

And other sick names seriously planned for the estate include Death Row, Gonorrhoea Place and Low Sex Drive!

In an amazing outburst against a private housing firm, a Waltham Forest councillor has threatened to s1987 potential 'yuppie' home buyers from moving into the planned estate at Seymour Road, Leyton.

Planning Committee Chairman Jo Brind-in charge of naming local roads-said he got his outrageous idea from another council ... which has decided to name its roads after Nazis!

He is furious that three factories in Seymour Road will be demolished to make way for a private estate to be built by Barratt East London.

Appeal

He objects to losing industrial land where 500 local people could be employed-and has proposed another road be called '350 Jobs Lost Place'.

Barratt won the right to build the estate when it appealed to the Government.

Mr Brind attacked the Government Inspector who gave the final go-ahead to the scheme as "grossly irresponsible."

In a letter to the Guardian this week he warned: "Government Inspectors are not the only ones who can behave recklessly. "Waltham Forest Council, for example, has the power to name new roads created by any housing development."

Affront

But shocked officials from Barratt said they hadn't even heard from Mr Brind.

"We cannot believe Councillor Brind can have made such a statement," said a spokesman. "We do not think he has either the legal or moral right.

"The suggestion that such names might be used is a public affront to the ratepayers of Waltham Forest," he declared.

For Mr Brind's full statement about his proposals, see Guardian Letters, page 20.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 4, 1989

Week ending Friday, August 4, 1989 Vol. CX 6228 20P

Name for a laugh claim Liberals

LIBERAL Democrats have blasted Labour councillor Jo Brind for saying streets in a housing estate should be named after sex perverts and venereal diseases.

His list of sickening street names for the proposed estate in Seymour Road, Leyton include Paedophile Avenue, Death Row and Gonorrhoea Place.

Ok Brind wants to put off Barratt from developing the site which at present is an industrial estate providing more than 400 jobs.

Waltham Forest Council refused planning permission for housing but Barratt appealed to the Government against the decision and won.

Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Chris Millington claimed the street name idea brought local government into public contempt.

"Mrs thatcher must be loving the row because it will serve her with more more ammunition for cutting back councils' powers."

He said Liberal Democrats were concerned about the job losses but cllr Brind's idea made the council look like a laughing stock.

Cllr Brind retorted: "Are the Liberals really as dim as they seem to be or is it the strain of sitting on the fence that makes them look stupid?

"They condemn the Government for allowing companies like Barratt to build on industrial land and condemn Labour for trying to s1987 Barratt.

"If the Liberals campaigned for stronger powers for local authorities I would support them.

"But when they wring their hands and say there is nothing we can do once the Government has given planning permission I can only regard them as rather pathetic."

Yellow Advertiser August 18, 1989.

WE'LL TALK SAY SACKED WORKERS

SACKED engineers at a Leyton factory this week denied a claim they had refused to negotiate contracts.

Manifold Industries boss Fred Ralph used last week's Guardian's letters page to explain the background to the sacking of the 45 engineers.

He claimed workers at the Seymour Road factory were dismissed because they took industrial action after refusing to co-operate with time-study consultants -part of new contracts of employment.

He also stated that for three months, the workers' union, the AEU. had refused to take part in consultations and negotiations on the contracts.

But this week John Edwards, AEU shop steward for Manifold, rebutted Mr Ralph's comments.

He fumed: "As one of the AEU shop stewards, who he claims have refused to negotiate with him, ail 1 can say is the chance would be a fine thing.

"For nearly a year now, not three months as he tries to claim, Mr Ralph through his management has been telling us all the issues this dispute is about are non-negotiable.

"Time and time again we have been told all the issues the management have brought up had to be accepted by us whether we liked it or not."

Mr Edwards also claimed Mr Ralph had told ACAS, the government arbitration service, he would not negotiate with the AEU.

He added the dismissals had everything to do with the new contracts, and did not centre entirely around the industrial action as Mr Ralph suggested.

The union representative said the AEU was fully prepared to meet Mr Ralph to try and resolve the dispute.

Mr Ralph declined to comment on Mr Edwards' remarks, as the engineers continued to picket at the company gates to get their jobs back.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 11, 1989

My address? Low Sex Drive!

HORRIFIED residents of a new housing estate could face living in a road shockingly named Paedophile Avenue.

And other sick names seriously planned for the estate include Death Row, Gonorrhoea Place and Low Sex Drive?

In an amazing outburst against a private housing firm, a Waltham Forest councillor has threatened to s1987 potential 'yuppie' home buyers from moving into the planned estate at Seymour Road, Leyton.

Planning Committee Chairman Jo Brind -in charge of naming local roads -said he got his outrageous idea from another council ... which has decided to name its roads after Nazis!

He is furious that three factories in Seymour Road will be demolished to make way for a private estate to be built by Barratt East London.

He objects to losing industrial land where 500 local people could be employed -and has proposed another road be called "350 Jobs Lost Place".

Barratt won the right to build the estate when it appealed to the Government.

Mr Brind attacked the Government Inspector who gave the final go-ahead to the scheme as "grossly irresponsible."

In a letter to the Guardian this week he warned: "Government Inspectors are not the only ones who can behave recklessly.

"Waltham Forest Council, for example, has the power to name new roads created by any housing development."

But shocked officials from Barratt said they hadn't even heard from Mr Brind.

"We cannot believe Councillor Brind can have made such a statement," said a spokesman. "We do not think he has either the legal or moral right

"The suggestion that such names might be used is a public affront to the ratepayers of Waltham Forest," he declared.

See Guardian Letters, page 20.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 4, 1989

Bizarre street name plan to beat yuppies
FANCY LIFE IN 'LOW SEX DRIVE'?

BY: David Callaghan and Mark Hill

HORRIFIED residents of a new housing estate could face living in a road shockingly named Paedophile Avenue.

And other sick names seriously planned for the estate include Death Row, Gonorrhoea Place and Low Sex Drive!

In an amazing outburst against a private housing firm, a Waltham Forest councillor has threatened to s1987 potential 'yuppie' home buyers from moving into (he planned estate at Seymour Road, Leyton.

Planning Committee Chairman Jo Brind -in charge of naming local roads -said he got his outrageous idea from another council ... which has decided to name its roads after Nazis!

He is furious that three factories in Seymour Road will he demolished to make way for ;i private estate to be built by Barratt East London.

He objects to losing industrial land where 500 local people could be employed --and has proposed another road be called '350 Jobs Lost Place'

Barratt won the right to build the estate when it appealed to the Government.

Mr Brind attacked the Government Inspector who gave the final go-ahead to the scheme as "grossly irresponsible."

In a letter to the Guardian this week he warned:

"Government Inspectors arc not the only ones who can behave recklessly.

"Waltham Forest Council, for example, has the power to name new roads created by any housing development."

But shocked officials from Barratt said they hadn't even heard from Mr Brind.

"We cannot believe Councillor Brind can have made such a statement," said a spokesman. "We do not think he has either the legal or moral right.

'The suggestion that such names might be used is a public affront to the ratepayers of Waltham Forest/' he declared.

For Mr Brind's full statement about his proposals, see Guardian letters page 20.

Waltham Forest Guardian August 4, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Getting away from 'mocking left'

IN his letter to the Guardian (June 9), CouncillorBrind refers to "the poor,unfortunate, long sufferingelectors" and goes on tosay "that the electoratehas given the Labour Partyan absolute majority in thecouncil chamber" -- inwhich case the LabourParty must be the cause ofthe long suffering that hasvisited itself on the electors as, by definition, anabsolute majorityprecludes any other partyfrom exercising this dubious art of inducing suffering.

His castigation of theSLD councillors for absenting themselves fromthe council chamber following a manifestation ofsomnolence must applyequally well to a faction ofhis own party who withdrew their support a shortwhile ago in relation tosome candidates who innocently applied for ateaching post in the district -- though perhaps hewas asleep on that occasion and missed it all.

He ends his letter with"Looking forward to along dry summer", whichif not a conscious effort onhis part is, perhaps, amocking Freudian innuendo directed to thelong suffering electoratewho, for the second summer in succession, are deprived of the pleasure ofthe Larkswood open-airswimming pool.

A younger generationprobably does not realisehow the pre-war councillaboured so long and sohard to acquireLarkswood for the people,and to conform with theirexpressed wishes by building the beautiful pool thatwas enjoyed by so many.

A similar hate policyseems to be at work overDrysdale Avenue where,in what appears to bederisive mockery, thecouncil proposes to deprive the people of theplaying fields because "themoney was needed fromthe sale to balance thecouncil's capital budget"(Guardian, June 9).

Finally, in relation tothe forthcoming boundarychange, council leader Neil Gerrard is quoted assaying it is "a bit of a stupidity" that his authorityowns property within thearea to be transferred toRedbridge (Guardian,June 9).

Assuming he has beencorrectly quoted, I agreewith him; in fact, it is a bitof a stupidity that his authority owns any propertyconnected with the people.

For the electorate involved in the transfer toRedbridge it might seemanalogous with a successful escape to the west fromthe oppression of the left.

A. B. SIDLE,
Monkhams Drive,
Woodford Green.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Splitting political hairs

It is absolutely hilarious for Councillor Brind (May 19 issue) to intimate that my name may be a pseudonym, sorry to disappoint you councillor, but I can assure you that it is the one that I was born with, and indeed anyone with a grain of sense would not have had much difficulty in discovering the authenticity of my identity.

With regard to hisremarks concerning theSLD, it is of no consequence what they werecalled in 1986. It is whatthe correct name of theirparty is called now thatmatters, and, indeed, it hasto be remembered thatprior to the merger of theLiberal Party with the Social Democrat Party, theyhad fought the last councilelection under the bannerof an alliance with eachother, as Councillor Brindvery well knows.

You therefore have former SDP as well as formerLiberal councillors nowsitting as SLD councillors,and those who voted forthe old Alliance knewwhat they were voting for.He really is splitting hairson this issue.

Incidentally, I did notaccuse the good councillorof missing a vote in committee. It was apparentthat he was present. Hewas simply having 40winks at the time.

As for his comments onthe SLD press releasewhich stated that they hadmissed vote after votethemselves, I should thinkthat they had jolly goodreason for doing so at thetime, but I will leave anyreply on that issue to anymember of the SLD groupon the council who caresto clarify that situation.

In conclusion, I wouldwish to remind CouncillorBrind of the veiled slurwhich he cast on the integrity of those who voted forAlliance candidates (nowSLD) at the last councilelection, as he appears tohave had a lapse of memory.

I quote: "I have a greatdeal of sympathy for allthose innocent members ofthe public who voted forthe Liberal Party believingthat they would get acouncillor who would represent them."

If that's not casting aslur, then I don't knowwhat is. The truth is that ifanyone let the good peopleof Waltham Forest down,it was the ruling Labourgroup when they were firstelected in 1986 and imposed a 62 per cent rateincrease on them, rich andpoor alike, not the SLDwhom many of themturned to as the only credible alternative to Conservatism.

Since Councillor Brindis fond of quoting OscarWilde, I would wish to reciprocate by drawing hisattention to a few words ofwisdom made in a speechby former American President Harry S. Truman: "Ifyou can't stand the heat,get out of the kitchen."

T. A.BELL,
Fulbourne Road,
Walthamstow.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 2, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Here's to a long, hot summer

I AM pleased that T. A.Bell has recovered herconfidence sufficiently toemerge from the blushingveil of "name and addresssupplied" which she formerly used when writingto "Points from the Post".

Her letters are improving, too.... she got something right this time. It istrue that the Liberals usedto have an alliance with DrOwen's SDP. However, Iwould have thought that Iwas being kind by glossingover the total shambles theLiberals made of that particular venture.

I thank T. A. Bell forquoting the sympathy I expressed for voters who hadbeen sufficiently misled tobelieve that Liberal councillors would representthem. Now everyoneknows that when it comesto the crunch the Liberalsmay well storm out andsulk, as they did at a recentcouncil meeting. Incidentally, they did it again atthe recent planning committee. Not one Liberalwas in attendance.

I don't know if theywere sulking or just suffering a collective fit of depression as a result of theirabysmal showing in recen opinion polls. But I doknow that they were notrepresenting the poor, unfortunate, long sufferingelectors who made themistake of voting forthem.

Yes T. A. Bell, I am fullof sympathy for thesevoters, but sympathy is nota slur. To slur is to concealor minimise a position.The current position inWaltham Forest is that theelectorate has given theLabour Party an absolutemajority in the councilchamber.

The Liberal answer tothe clearly expressed willof the people is histrionicsand cheap tricks, school style politics and a walkout.

On the face of it they doappear to be attempting tominimise the resultachieved in the ballot box,and to conceal the factthat they have less thanhalf the number of councillors the electors gavethe Labour Party.

Looking forward to along hot summer.

JO BRIND (Cllr),

Waltham Forest Guardian June 9, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

LIBERALS ACTED IN BAD TASTE!

I WAS shocked to hear aLiberal councillor use theceremonial annual councilmeeting to make a political attack.

Councillor Philip Arnoldattacked former Mayor JohnWalsh for the way he hadsupervised a council meeting.

What annoyed PhilipArnold and the Liberals was that the Mayor had ensuredthat a vote went the way themajority of councillorswanted it to go.

An attack like this on aceremonial occasion is simple, political posturing.

This latest incident followshard on the heels of thedisgraceful walkout from acouncil meeting by Liberal councillors (as reported inthe Waltham Forest Express).

The reason the Liberalswalked out was they they willnot accept that the LabourParty has a majority of councillors in Waltham Forest.

For thanks to the goodsense of the electors ofWaltham Forest, the Labour party has more councillorsthan both the Tories and theLiberals put together.

When the Liberals challenge this fact what they arereally doing is challengingthe democratic system.

I was appalled by the Liberals' willingness to storm outof the chamber. They missedmany important votes because they were sulking thatnight.

But having heard the latestoutrage from Councillor Philip Arnold I am beginning to feel differently.

Perhaps everyone in theborough would be better offif the Liberals spent all theirtime sulking in the bar over astiff lemonade.

Cllr. Jo Brind,

St. Heliers Road,

Leyton

Waltham Forest Express May 20, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Letterbox

Huffing doesn'tdisguise the facts

THE walkout by theLiberal Group waschildish theatricalnonsense (issue April21). The truth is thatthe Liberals havenothing to say but areintent on making thebiggest fuss they canso it looks as if theyhave something tosay.

Huffing and puffingand shouting cannot disguise the facts.

And the facts are thatthe Liberals refuse toaccept the verdict of theballot box, they will notaccept the will of thepeople.

Thanks to the intelligence of the electors ofWaltham Forest, the Labour Party has more councillors than both theLiberal and Tory group combined. The LabourParty is in control of Waltham Forest Council.

The Liberals will notaccept this fact and whentheir cheap tricks fail allthey can do is sulk.

I have a great deal ofsympathy for all those innocent members of thepublic who voted for theLiberal Party believingthat they would get acouncillor who would represent them.

Now we all know thatwhen it comes to thecrunch the Liberals maystorm out of the councilchamber and be sulkingin the bar over a stifflemonade.
CLLR JO BRIND,
3 St Helier's Road.
Leyton

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser April 28, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Sleepy councillor is'rumbled' on vote

THE rather silly infantileoutburst by Councillor Jo Brind as portrayed in thesecolumns on April 28 withregard to the walk-out bythe Social and Liberal Democrat group, not the Liberalsas was erroneously stated byhim, is indicative of thecalibre of the type of personwe have representing us inthe Labour group in thecouncil chamber.

The facts of the matterare that he had beenrumbled having a quiet kipduring a council meetingwhile a vote was beingtaken, and consequently acertain amount of confusionarose after it was assumedthat everyone had cast theirvote -- that is, with the exception of Rip Van Brind,who was deep in the arms ofMorpheus, and this wasbrought to the attention ofthe Mayor by the SLDgroup, quite rightly in my opinion as we do not electcouncillors to drop off incouncil meetings, however boring the proceedings maybe. His letter was nothingmore than a fit of pique.

The somewhat insane remarks he makes concerning the Democrat councillors are hardly worth comment However, I do take great exception to the slur that was cast on the integrity of those members of theelectorate who voted forDemocrat candidates at thelast council election, and indeed subsequent by-elections.

If my arithmetic is correct the Labour group is hanging on to office with the slender majority of one, so I would suggest that Councillor Brind accepts that important fact and gives him food for thought before crowing '"about a Labour majority.

Name and address supplied
My note: see correspondence about this.

Waltham Forest Guardian May 12, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Kips in the council chamber are just not on

THE rather infantileoutburst by Councillor Brind as portrayed inthese columns (IssueApril 28) with regardto the walkout by theSocial and LiberalDemocrat group, notthe Liberals as waserroneously stated byhim, is indicative ofthe calibre of personthat is being selectedby the Labour Partyto seek office atelection after electionas far as local politicsis concerned.

In point of fact theSLD group were merelydoing their duty in highlighting the fact that CllrBrind had dropped offduring a committeemeeting whilst a vote wasbeing taken, and had thisfact passed withoutnotice there would havebeen the possibility of aresult arising which maynot have reflected theviews of the majoritypresent.

So injured was hispride in being rumbledthat he had a sudden attack of pique. Afterall's said and done we donot elect councillors tohave a quiet kip in thecouncil chamber, however boring or longwinded the meeting maybe.

The somewhat inaneremarks he made concerning the Democratcouncillors are hardlyworth comment. However,I do take greatexception to the slur thatwas cast on the integrityof those who voted forDemocrat candidates atthe last council election,as well as subsequentelections.

If my arithmetic is correct I think that hewill notice that theLabour group is hangingon to office by theslender majority of one,a fact that will no doubtgive him food forthought before crowingabout a Labour majority.

As far as his remarksare concerned withregard to "the will of thepeople" he may wish totake into account the factthat quite a fewDemocrat councillorsnow represent wards thatwere once considered assafe Labour seats, andthey are making a betterjob of things than whenLabour councillors wereentrenched there.

It does afford a crumbof comfort to some of usthat Cllr Brind andcertain of his colleagueswill be contestingrelatively safe Conservative seats at next year'scouncil elections.

Then, no doubt, hecould possibly finish upas Mr Brind rather thanCllr Brind.
T. A.BELL,
Fulbourne Road,
Walthamstow.

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser May 12, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Councillor slept through vital vote

A "SLEEPING" councillorsparked a walkout and claims that a council meeting was "fixed."

Liberal Democrat Chris Millington stormed out oflast Thursday's full council meeting after Mayor JohnWalsh's decision to re-take a vote Labour Councillor JoBrind apparently slept through.

The vote resulted in a tie-break of 26 votes to 26,giving the Mayor the casting vote for Labour.

"Councillor Brind did not vote, he was asleep," saidLiberal Democrat Phillip Arnold.

Tempers flared as MrBrind denied sleeping, saying: "Mr Mayor, I think youcould have easily ascertained the way I would havevoted."

Mr Arnold demanded thevote be discounted, but theMayor decided to re-take itamid shouts of protest

But Mr Millington saidangrily: "The whole thingstinks. When you take avote, if a person does notvote, that person is abstaining."

He left, followed by partycolleagues.

Mr Brind slammed theLiberal Democrats' action as "typically childish".

Conservative LeaderMike Lewis said the Toriesconsidered joining the walkout, but decided against it.

My note: I think the exchange between John and myself amounted to basically me suggesting that the vote be taken again. There was even a procedure of having named votes (councillors had to say how they were voting when their name was called out-- a poll vote I hink they called it.).

Waltham Forest Guardian April 21, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Electronic wink-catcher

ELECTRONIC vote recorders should be installed in the council chamber-- to end arguments about who is caught napping during decision making, claim Liberal Democrats.

Party leader Councillor Chris Millington has written to Waltham Forest MayorJohn Walsh about the idea following the uproar caused by the slumbers of LabourCouncillor 'sleepy' Jo Brind.

Mr Brind was caught taking forty winks just as the last full council decidedwhether or not to appoint a new tenant liaison officer.

The Liberal Democrats claimed victory in their attempt to block the new jobbecause Mr Brind was asleep.

But he subsequently woke up and the vote was retaken, with Labour winninginstead on the mayor's casting vote.

Mr Brind later denied he had been asleep and claimed the mayor was quiteentitled to call the second vote. He said no council rules were broken.

However, Mr Millington claims Waltham Forest should follow the lead of othercouncils and install the vote recorders which would make the votes instant andfinal.

He added: "I believe the arguments over the vote at the last council meeting showed something is seriously wrong. It is by no means the first time that therehas been uncertainty."

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser, May 12 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Letterbox

Plain wrong

T. A. Bell attacksme in Letterbox(Issue May 12) andthe leader of thecouncil's Liberalgroup attacks mein the news column,all in one issue ofthe Yellow Advertiser. My politicalopponents mustthink I'm doingsomething right.

But let's put therecord straight. T. A.Bell is just plainwrong. Far fromdoing their duty, theLiberals went homeearly. They desertedtheir duty in thecouncil chamber andneglected the peoplewho had voted forthem.

Incidentally, Ididn't and wouldnever insult peoplewho voted Liberal(not SLD by the way,it didn't exist in 1986when the election took place).

It was the Liberalswho insulted thepeople by refusing to accept the majoritythe electors gave toLabour councillors.

I am accused ofmissing a vote. It isnot true. I did notmiss any vote.

But if it were true,it would be purehypocrisy for theLiberals to complainabout me missing onevote when theyboasted in a pressrelease that they hadall walked out andmissed vote aftervote.

Finally, the leaderof the Liberal groupwants to have electronic voting recorders in the councilchamber. I don'tobject, not one resultwould ever be different.

But if the Liberalswant to play with electronic toys they mustexpect to pay forthem themselves.
COUNCILLOR JO BRIND,
St Helier's Road,
Leyton.

Waltham Forest Yellow Advertiser May 26, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Always two sides to any argument

IT never ceases to amazeme that whenever Councillor Brind puts pen 1987aper through these columns, he, for all the world,appears to get deeper intothe mire with each letterhe writes.

In the first instance, hadmy letter in the June 2 edition of the Guardian beenpublished in its entirety, hewould have seen that Imost certainly did not request anonymity. Unfortunately that was left toothers to implement (anerror on our part!-Editor).

The good councillor,having accused me of hiding behind a cloak ofanonymity which was notof my making, and in anycase my letter was signed"name and address supplied", albeit erroneously,so my particulars couldhave been obtained on application to the Guardian,then accuses me of hidingbehind a pseudonymwhich proved to be myvery own name, and to addinsult to injury he has evenhad the temerity to changemy sex for me. No councillor, I have not had theoperation.

What a poor unfortunate mixed up fellow hemust be, and the chap's acouncillor, too. No wonderthe 62 per cent rate increase was imposed on uswhen Labour took controlin 1986.

I am surprised that as anactivist in local politics,Councillor Brind displayssuch ignorance of the relatively recent history of theSocial and Liberal Democratic Party, and continuesto prattle on about theLiberal Party, which isnow extinct, and Dr DavidOwen, who has no connection whatsoever withthe party, as he very wellknows.

As for suggesting that Ihave "got something rightthis time", I can most categorically state that I wasquite correct in the first instance, and he should looka little closer to home tosee who has been wrongall along, as well as beingin a state of confusion.

As far as these walkoutsare concerned with regardto the SLD group on thecouncil, I am afraid that Iam not privy to the machinations of the party groupin committee.

However, I do believethat there are two sides toevery question, and therefore I do not accept Councillor Brind's version ofevents in isolation, but willreserve my opinion until Ihear the opposing point ofview from SLD councillors who were present. Nodoubt they will conflictsharply with CouncillorBrind's.

As far as his assertionsare concerned with regardto the Labour majority, hehas only taken the SLDgroup into account andforgotten the poor oldTories. When combined, itgives the Labour group amajority of one if I am notmistaken -- so, over toyou councillor. Hardly ahuge majority is it?

However, come nextSpring, it seems more thanlikely that there will be achange of political colourin the council chamber,that is if the electoratehave not had a lapse ofmemory, which I think isunlikely, when theirpocket is hit, and, incidentally, it has not escaped myattention how CouncillorBrind conveniently madeno mention of that whopping great 62 per cent rateincrease. Could he bethinking of May next year,perhaps!

I, for the love of me,simply cannot see the relevance of his reference to along hot summer. A pleasant Spring of next year,perhaps, but a long hotsummer, why?
T. A. BELL,
Fulbourne Road,
Walthamstow.

Waltham Forest Guardian June 16, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Apology sought from Editor

IT is very distressing to beattacked by an anonymousperson through the Pointsfrom the Post page. It is notthe attack which hurts, butthe fact that my assailanthas decided he or she needsto remain anonymous.

The implication must bethat the individual fearssome consequence if his orher name is published.There is no truth in this implication and I would like anapology from the Editor ofthe Guardian for printingthis anonymous attack. TheEditor knows me wellenough to know that I am achampion of free speech andwould defend the right ofanyone to make criticisms,without fear or favour, evenif they are criticisms of me.

However, what makesthings worse is that in another newspaper a personwho signs himself or herself as T A Bell attacks me in almost the same words.

Am I being attacked by an incompetent or a liar(perhaps the name T A Bell is a false one)?

In either case, I have failed to live up to theprecept of Oscar Wilde whosaid that one should chooseenemies more carefully thanfriends, since they say moreabout the person you are.

I certainly didn't -- andnever would -- insult peoplewho voted Liberal (not SLDby the way, it didn't exist in1986 when the election tookplace). It was the Liberalswho insulted the people byrefusing to accept themajority the electors gave toLabour councillors.

I am accused of missing avote. It is not true. I did notmiss any vote.

But if it was true, it wouldbe pure hypocrisy for theLiberals to complain aboutme missing one vote whenthey boasted in a pressrelease that they had walkedout and missed vote aftervote.
JO BRIND (Cllr),
London Borough Waltham Forest.

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Editor's footnote: Therewas no suggestion on the partof the correspondent suggesting Councillor Brind wouldphysically attack her. Thewriter wished to remain anonymous because of hercouncil job. We have no control over the ethics of otherso-called newspapers.
My note: John James (who I think was editor at the time) got this wrong too!

Waltham Forest Guardian May 19, 1989

See all stories on the subject of the snooze.

Walkout after councillor is accused of sleeping

SNOOZE CLAIM SPARKS STORM

ANGRY Liberal Democrats stormed out of a council meeting last week after claiming that voting was riggedto include an opposition councillor who hadbeen 'asleep'.

During a relatively unimportant debate on whether toappoint another tenantliaison officer, the LiberalDemocrats joined with Toryrivals to defeat Labour 26-25.

But then the Mayor, Cllr John Walsh, decided the voteshould be retaken after beingadvised that one of his ownmembers, Cllr Jo Brind, hadfailed to vote due to inattention.

Liberal Democrat, CllrDavid Worsfold, claimedCllr Brind was not inattentive -- he was asleep duringthe whole debate.

They were so angry theystormed out of the councilchamber after being defeated27-26 when Cllr Brind's vote and the Mayor's were takeninto account.

"Cllr Brind could not haveheard any of the debate beforehand and that's why members walked out," saidCllr Worsfold.

"True Cllr Brind did sayhe would have voted withLabour anyway when hewoke up, but it is disgustingand illegal to accept the voteof someone who was not onlysnoozing, but who didn't casthis vote anyway.

"Labour have rigged theoutcome of this vote and weare disgusted."

Cllr Walsh said: "TheChief Executive advised methat, the purpose of voting,whether by show of hands orby recorded vote, is to ascertain the members wishes.

"As there was some doubtas to what those wishes wereI saw no reason why the votecould not be retaken.

Cllr Brind said he waspaying attention although hewasn't quite bright and bushytailed.

"I had been subject to themost boring load of Liberal speeches," he said.

Waltham Forest Express April 22, 1989

Cost to us of a councillor

IN your issue of November18, 1988 you were kindenough to publish my personal views of our councillors in all parties under theheading "Councillorswork hard and long for apittance".

Nothing I have seen orheard since has changedmy views expressed then,but, as those who foot thebill, I feel your appropriatereaders might be interested in seeing the following list of Members' allowances (1987/88) dictatingpayments to all our councillors.

W. G. Anstey	£ 495.36
D. B. Arnold	£ 514.45
P. D. Arnold	£ 444.62
P. A. Atherton	£ 508.47
S. Banks	£ 342.05
P. J. Barnett (up to 18.5.88)	£ 64.38
L. Braham	£ 712.35
J. E. Brind	£ 1,310.38
A. M. Briggs	£ 822.10
W. J. Dennis	£ 2,526.33
A. S. Devgun.	£ 233.70
C. J. Dunn	£ 1,178.17
S. M. Dunn	£ 928.22
E. E. Edworthy	£ 1,303.10
M. C. Fish	£ 489.56
F. E. Georges	£ 1,229.51
N. F. Gerrard	£ 4,276.88
W. T. Hanson	£ 462.02
S. M. E. Jacobs	£ 798.92
M. Jovcic	£ 551.32
J.Kaye	£ 515.15
M. Khan	£ 311.98
G. A.King	£ 305
C. Kitson	£ 451.59
M. J. Lewis	£ 868.80
D. Liunberg	£ 967.22
M. G. MacNulty	£ 620.33
N. S. Matharoo	£ 828
I. R. Memory	£ 535.52
T. C. Messenger	(not known)
J. J. Miles	£ 1,061.49
C. Millington	£ 709.76
C. W. Morton	£ 424.24
D. A. Norman	£ 239.50
S. D. Pay	£ 433.33
W. J. Pearmine	£ 1,255.23
S. J. Pierpoint	£ 1,079.05
E. Playfair	£ 913.38
M. F. Rahman	£ 789.18
M. E. Saile	£ 1,316.69
K. R. Sanders	£ 1,019.26
A. J. Simons	£ 557.30
E. G. Sizer	£ 719.41
R. J. B. Slack	£ 670.36
C. Smith	£ 542.19
V. Smith	£ 733.91
D. W. Sullivan	£ 774.41
R. F. Sullivan	£ 505.32
J. J. Walsh	£ 273.20
J. Watts	£ 752.30
L. D. Wells	£ 433.33
R. J. Wheatley	£ 79.36
T. V. Wheeler	£ 967.53
E. G. Williams	£ 698.10
J. G. Williams	£ 468.80
G. A. Woolnough	£ 674.18
D. H. Worsfold (wef 7.7.88)	£ 246.22
W. J. Wylie	£ 1,128.16.

No doubt your readerswill draw their own conclusion from the abovebefore criticising any ofthe payments made. I mustremind them that thesepayments are for attendance at council/committee meetings (too many ofcourse);
and in no way recompenses them for thework in their wards, oftenlate at night/weekendsand so on.

In fact, I still regard theabove payments as a pittance and feel a case couldbe made for an increasedlevel of payments, without detracting from the socialconscience element involved with most of ourcouncillors who;
let's faceit, volunteer to stand forelection.

In a lighter vein, however, dare I suggest the increases, if any should bepaid, go to our councillors' "partners", where applicable, for deprivation of their company and inevitable disruption of family/social life.
NORMAN CORK,
Goldsmith Road,
Walthamstow.

Editor's footnote: There is a Government White Paper proposing to give councillor's a £4,000 flat rate payment.

Waltham Forest Guardian September 22, 1989

BRAVE BILL IS CHOSEN AS NEW MAYOR
REPORT: Pat Stannard

LIFE LONG Walthamstow resident, devout Roman Catholic and champion chrysanthemum grower-- Labour Councillor Bill Anstey is the new Mayor of Waltham Forest.

The 66-year-old Wood Street ward councillor was voted into office at last Thursday's annual meeting of the council.

In a glowing tribute to the new first citizen, Councillor Clive Morton highlighted his courage.

"Bill was one of the ones who suffered particularly vile treatment during the 62 per cent rates rise trouble," he recalled,

"We asked him if he wanted to come to stay with us or have someone stay with him. It was no surprise he turned the offer down flat, saying he feared no man but God.

"We learned later that he slept in an armchair facing the front door with a walking stick by his side."

Mr Anstey was born in Brandon Road, Walthamstow, and lived there till he moved in 1970 to the Stocksfield Rod Estate where he is now life president of the tenants' association.

During the war, after a stint in the Home Guard which he joined at 16, he became a "Bevan boy& working in the mines.

That said Mr Morton was the experience which inspired him with the need for a more equitable society.

His working life was spent in the building trade till his early redundancy when he threw himself into community activity.

He has been busy in trade unions, local education-- he is a governor at Warwick Boys School-- the Christian Socialist Movement, tenants' associations, and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Spare time activities, apart form chrysanth-growing, have included keeping racing pigeons, studying history, nature and choir-singing.

Councillor Vi Smith recalled the first time Mr Anstey stood for election in 1968 when she warned him that he would have to give up his job with the council to be eligible. His reply was: "If that's what it takes, that's what I'll do."

Mr Anstey, in his acceptance speech, looked back to the hard times in the '30s and his happy boyhood saying: "I consider I had the finest parents anyone could have."

He hoped to recreate the happy community spirit that dominated those times.

Mr Anstey has not yet chosen a charity for his year in office. The civic service will be held at Our Lady and St George's Church in Shernhall Street, Walthamstow, on June 4.

The Deputy Mayor and Mayoress are Councillor Franklyn Georges and his wife Veronica.

Mr Georges (52), who was born and raised on the West Indian island of Dominica, plans to use his year raising funds to take 20 local children on a Christmas holiday to the Caribbean islands.

"I want them to return here and share their experiences with this community," he said. There was nothing he wanted more than to see harmony reign in the borough.

Retiring mayor John Walsh recalled with pleasure the hospitality he had received during the year.

He and other speakers had warm praise for his Mayoress Carole Chandler, whose hard work and commitment was instrumental in enabling £17,000 to be raised to buy a minibus for homebound people in record time.

The fund now stands at £19,000. It is rare for a Mayor's charity fund to reach its target before the end of the mayoral year, especially when it has been set so ambitiously high.

Congratulated too, was retiring Deputy Mayor Jack Kaye.

*VOTED IN: Mayor Bill Anstey.

(414)

Waltham Forest Guardian May 12, 1988

'Drop estates proposal'

ABANDON a plan toredevelop four major housing estates Leyton Labour Party has asked the Labour-controlled Waltham Forest Council.

The council suggestsseparate companies should beformed to rebuild the estatesand knock downsome of thetower blocks.

Those involved are OliverClose, Cathall Road, Boundary Road and Chingford Hall.

Party members say theproposals would involve a lossof public housing and lead to aworsening of rent levels, wait-ing lists and homelessness

Said secretary John Wray: "We are particularly concerned that the Tenants' Federation and associations arehaving to campaign againstthe council and the Government's Housing Act at thesame time."

Waltham Forest Guardian February 17, 1988

See HAT Trick