Peace poppy campaign ignites in Luton

The great poppy debate has been raging for decades with the sight of the red poppy seemingly becoming more of a politically correct statement rather than being one of true meaning.

In recent years we have seen the BBC rush to ensure Huw Edwards was suitably attired with a Red Poppy after a member of the public complained halfway through a show that he had not put one on and another presenter, Jonathon Ross had a poppy superimposed on his suit so as to be sure not to upset anyone.

In Luton on Sunday 11th of November the peace poppy row exploded in a show of aggression by Kevin Carrol of the EDL and Police Commissioner Candidate for the town against a local peace campaigner and his son.

Peace campaigner Marc Scheimann press secretary to Luton TUC, attended with his four year old son Luton Remembrance Day outside Luton Town Hall by the War memorial, after the two minutes silence, religious speeches of commemorance the parade marched away, Marc & Kiran Scheimann approached the rear of the memorial to lay a white peace poppy wreath. Each year since 1989, Marc has laid a peace wreath to remember his German and British grand fathers who both lost their lives on the two opposing sides during the World War Two, the reason for why he wears a red and a white poppy.

For twenty four years Marc has respectfully done this with the understanding of the Luton public without any problem, until this year when English Defence League deputy & far right British Freedom Party candidate for the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commission, Kevin Carroll made the exception. Waving a clenched fist and using aggressive gesturing he shouted at Kevin before speaking to three police officers that he hopes to lead after the November 15th elections.

Two Officers approached Mark and requested his name, address and telephone number, which he gave. They asked Mark to step back for a moment because they felt he was causing breach of the peace by his actions. Mark stated that it was only a very small minority of the public shouting and they were all connected with Kevin Carroll. After a few minutes Mark and his son laid their peace reef flanked by two police officers. They asked him to leave straight away but stated he had the right to have time to pay his respect and talk to members of the council including our two MPs. Mark feared for the safety of his peace reef so stood close by it with the two officers, one at each side.

Kevin Carroll approached Mark pointing with a closed fist and pointed at the wreath laid by Mark and his son.

A twenty something woman suddenly made a grab for the wreath, shouting and made a grab to remove the wreath from the wires. Mark dived forward letting go of his sons’ hand to fall on the wreath preventing its’ theft whilst the officers took no action.

Mr Carroll seeing that his hopes had been thwarted stated shouting again saying many times over: “You’re just a scumbag, you and the Wakehams (fellow peace campaigners) hate troops. 
“When I’m police commissioner, I will make sure you are locked up in jail for this."

Mark replied that he hoped Carroll would lose his deposit getting less than 5 % of the vote.

His actions and tirade clearly demonstrate if doubt ever existed that he does not just hate Muslims, but all people what ever the colour of their skin, who dare to hold an opinion different to his.

Is this the democracy that the people who we remember died for?

Slash and burn debate rages on

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) have shown a change of tact this week in the build up to their lobby of parliament with their 'They slash, you burn' campaign that featured in a number of newspapers. 


The advert has caused ripples through various outlets, accusing the FBU of scare mongering and preying on the fears of the public. Andrew Haldenby from the independent think tank Reform has written a particularly vociferous article featured in the Telegraph against what he calls a "misleading campaign" by the FBU challenging the facts of their statements.


But before we get into the facts as Mr Haldenby likes to claim, let us take a look at Mr Haldenby and Reform itself.


Reform was co-founded by Haldenby in 2001, he later became director in 2005. More interestingly however and previously to his time with Reform, he worked at the Centre for Policy Studies and the Conservative Party (1995-1997) where he became head of the political section of the Conservative Research Department, with the responsibility of briefing the Shadow Cabinet Minister and Leader for key media interviews and appearances. Before even this latest outburst Haldenby has been a regular mouth piece for political propaganda for the Conservatives. Two previous articles that have featured in the last three years in The Telegraph show that Haldenby knows not to bite the hand that feeds. 


Of the NHS and cuts to medicine for patients Haldenby thought it would 'do' the NHS some good, adding this: "One NHS doctor described the list to me as follows: “Nothing worrying there – most are obscure drugs or very specialist or downright ridiculous – neutrogena, gluten free pizza bases". Anyone with even shred of knowledge (or decency for that matter) would have questioned the claim that a gluten free pizza base should not be on the NHS prescription list. There are a section of our society that suffer with something called Coeliac disease, which is an allergy to gluten and wheat, that could lead to bowel cancer if the individual continues to eat wheat based food. Gluten is basically the stuff that makes our bread chewy. At £2.98 for a loaf of gluten free bread that tastes like cardboard, I am sure you would appreciate a little help at the check out when food prices are already soaring beyond some peoples means to cope.


In Haldenby's other article, again in The Telegraph, he focused on the upcoming cuts prior to the last general election, where he stuck his flag firmly in the camp of 'cuts not taxes' in true Tory spirit.

He said: "The politicians will inevitably sugar the pill by talking about a reduction in "management" and "administration". In the past two days, David Cameron and Gordon Brown have promised to "protect front-line services", implying that it is managers, accountants, secretaries and so on who face the axe.

"Yet however appealing it sounds, this would be the wrong approach. 

"The waste in the public services lies, very largely, in that "front line". The NHS will become more efficient only when doctors and nurses are employed in different ways and its buildings used in different ways. A pledge to protect the "front line" will just compound the current problems

this kind of approach would make public services less efficient – which is why it hasn't worked in the past".

So there we have it, a brief history of Mr Haldenby and the rhetoric he sits behind, in a newspaper that gives him the right platform and audience he desires.

The FBU and its members have long made the claim that to do their job both safely and efficiently you need firefighters that are fully trained and fully equipped on fire engines. The fact of the matter is the cuts for the fire service since this unman dated government have been in office has been back loaded for the upcoming two years. The first two years of the governments cuts were only a small percentage of the proposed twenty five percent total by the government but the net result of this so far is the loss of 1457 frontline firefighter jobs across wholetime, retained and control. The potential cull of frontline jobs in the coming two years based on these figures will leave services decimated across the UK and severely handicap their resilience in dealing with incidents.

This may sound like some to now be the rhetoric and drum banging of 'the union' but unfortunately for the cuts deniers this is a message that has been echoed by the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA).

CFOA are warning of 'a perfect storm' within the fire service as the government pushes ahead with its cuts agenda in a recent publication. In it they said: "That English FRSs are facing a 'perfect storm' of financial pressures which, if not addressed, may lead to a drastic reduction in firefighting capacity, increases in community risk, loss of vital prevention work and a threat to maintaining national resilience. This comes at a time when there is a high likelihood of an increase in demand for our prevention and response services as a consequence of an gaining population and as deprivation increases due to the economic recession". A damning report from a group made up of Chief Fire Officers from across the UK and one that supports the view and facts outlined by the FBU, which must be a first.

Still the debate rages and the FBU advertising campaign has divided opinion, but at least it has got people talking. The Department for Communities and Local Government have waded in on the issue, supporting Mr Haldenby's claims that the FBU are scare mongering with partisan campaigning.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said:

"The FBU is wrong and trying to scare the public with its partisan campaigning. It is disgraceful to suggest that sensible savings cannot be made in areas like procurement, joint working and tackling outdated working practices.

“Their wilful scare-mongering overlooks that fire-related deaths and arson have been falling and continue to fall.

"Every part of the public sector needs to play its part in cutting the deficit we have inherited from the last Administration. Contrary to the FBU claims, we have protected frontline uniformed services as much as possible. Fire and rescue authorities only need to make savings of 2.2% of their spending in 2011-12 and just 0.5% in 2012-13: there is significant scope to deliver these without harming the quality and breadth of the service that the public receive.” The omission here of course are the savings to made in 2013-14 but why would you arm the public with full facts?

The statistics now being thrown around are arbitrary, as is always the case with statistics, it depends on how you read and manipulate them.

The previous twenty four months may well have shown a drop in arson fires but is this because of the work done in prevention by firefighters and the support departments or because of the record breaking rain that has occurred during the holiday periods when most kids would have been out fire setting? No one set of figures can be used to prove or disprove a theory without looking at all the evidence at hand. Unfortunately this is not a scientific method or approach used by partisan governments or Senior Mangers it should be added. The DCLG claim that fire related deaths have been falling is also true, but again this statement has to be taken in context. Fire deaths have steadily fallen over the past thirty years, and yes firefighter personnel have also reduced in this period, but this is not to say that there is no correlation between the number of firefighters and the number of fire deaths. Key legislation has been implemented in this time that has helped reduce fire deaths, namely the Furniture and Furnishings Regulations 1988, Health and Safety Legislation and the Health and Safety Executive, all of which have been cut, compromised or relaxed.

Another issue with the statement that fire deaths have reduced is again with how a cause of death is established by a coroner. 

Two of examples are whereby a fire started by a child striking a match, resulting in the death of his brother and mother was recorded as a malicious fire by the coroner, another case where a man who had been drinking died as a result of injuries received jumping out of a window with his home on fire.

Add to this that the fire service statistics for rescues of members of the public are no longer recorded properly and Freedom of Information requests are required to collate the data, something that has created no end of work for the FBU and is a scandal in itself. Since 2004 the Fire and Rescue Services Act has made it a statutory duty for firefighters to rescue the public. This has formed the basis for role maps (that are open to interpretation) and a variety of incidents including (but not limited to) road traffic collisions and water rescue that we attend if called in an emergency. Some managers would have us do a lot more than this, some of which is clearly way outside our role maps.

In short accidental fire deaths represent a small percentage of the rescues carried out daily across the UK by firefighters.

Another omission from both Mr Haldenby and the DCLG on accidental fire deaths and the decrease in the number of them is the correlating INCREASE in the number of people dying when they do occur. Government statistics show that the number of people dying when a fire does occur is increasing and unfortunately we have had a number of high profile cases just this year that support this evidence. Alongside this there has been a general increase in attendance time of 20% as opposed to 10 years ago, which the government has blamed congestion for, but this increase in attendance time has occurred at both day and night attendance performance indicators. Is this due to the modernisation program embarked upon by management across the UK? Who knows, but what is certain is that some FRSs across the UK have dealt with this issue by increasing the attendance times for incidents, meaning that you and I will have to wait longer for a fire crew to turn up if we are ever in a situation unfortunate enough to warrant dialing 999.

Once again I would urge you to check those facts yourself. Ask a firefighter, go to one of YOUR community fire stations and ask the question. Email your councillor or why don't you contact the brigades themselves and see what they have to say.

Don't believe the hype, the media is manipulating you. Ask more questions.

American custom launched in local schools

Picture from the Guardian

Year 7 students at Barnfield Academies West and South in Luton have been pledging to be good students at the start of each day.

The new phenomenon, reminiscent of a scene from a Hollywood movie, sees children stating a pledge, not of allegiance to the Queen, but to themselves and each other.

The pledge states: ‘I pledge to treat everyone with respect all the time, I pledge to work to the best of my ability, I pledge to attend all of my lessons on time and make sure that I am fully prepared, in this way I will be the best I can possibly be.’

The plan is for this to eventually be the custom for the entire school, as each year that leaves is replaced with a new intake, that will start the pledge from day one.

A Barnfield spokesperson said: “It has always been the case in all academies that we focus on traditional values in a modern context and we try to instill in our children the importance of enjoying school and achievement, but with respect for all.”

Local students hit by grading row

Students across the country are resitting their English GCSE’s next month following a national row over grading standards.

GCSE’s taken in June were graded lower than that of their peers a few months earlier in January. Students who received a D grade in June would have received a C grade at the start of the year.
Up to 100 of these will be students from Luton Sixth Form College.
A spokesman for Luton Sixth Form college said: “We are having to run an additional 3 classes this year, 15 in total, as opposed to 12 last year, as a direct result of students not getting a Grade C in this summers exam results”.

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) as part of a coalition of councils, schools, and professional bodies are mounting a legal challenge against Ofqual and examiantion boards AQA and Edexcel.
Dave Mingay, Secretary of the NUT in Luton, said: “This is the next step in the campaign to rectify the huge injustice
suffered by many pupils, teachers and schools in Luton over this year’s English GCSE fiasco.
“Retaking the GCSE examinations is just not an acceptable option. In Wales the situation was resolved by the Welsh Government ordering a re-grading, not re-sits of GCSEs. If it can be done in Wales it must be done in England. This is such a manifestly unfair situation that the NUT has no other option but to pursue legal redress.”

If you have been affected by the GCSE grading row comment on NNI.

Picture from ITV.com

Workers rights continue to get slashed by the Tory Reapers

Workers rights are a small part of the much wider Human Rights (Article 23 of the U.D.) but are being literally torn up by the government.

Just recently (and without public consultation) the government amended the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERRB) at the last minute, at Report Stage, in the House of Commons which has resulted in the removal of basic rights for injured workers. The new clause, (61 of the ERRB) will mean that if injured due to a breach of an employers statutory duty within the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), they will be unable to enforce that breach in a court of law.

At present if an employer fails to operate within the regulations of the HSWA and an individual is injured as a result of negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, a claim can be brought against the employer. If the new proposed clause were to remain it would mean that an employer would no longer be liable in the civil courts for the criminal offence of a breach of the HSWA.

This will mean an employee will now have to prove in court that the employer was negligent rather than rely on the breach of the regulations themselves.

Meanwhile the Labour Party have challenged the amendment but after the vote on October 17th in the House of Commons, the challenge failed and so the bill, as amended, now sits with the other out of touch bunch at the House of Lords.

The government are justifying their lack of public consultation or impact assessment on a recent review of health and safety by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt. Professor Löfstedt recommended the abolishment of the strict liability provisions within the HSWA (where they do not have a defence of reasonable practicability) or that civil liability should be removed. Our government seems to be having it's cake and eating it by trying to do both.

The amendment is in regard to Section 47 of the HSWA which contains the assumption that regulations made under all aspects of health and safety regulations, carry civil liability for any breaches, unless otherwise expressly excluded. The government's amendment will effectively reverse that assumption and mean that no H&S regulation, under the HSWA or other, would impose civil liability, unless express provision was made for them to do so.

With the regulations not having any express provision and no proposal to amend them there will be no civil enforcement allowing the government to then create general defences that could apply to all H&S regulations and not have to insert that defence into every set. Clever.

This therefore has the potential to provide the power to impose a general defence of 'reasonable practicality'.

BIS minister Matthew Hancock said in the debate:

“We are ensuring…that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach.

“The definition of reasonableness will come from the common-law interpretation, and the concept is already well regarded and specified in law.”

The new section 47 will not have this affect, it will however allow the government to make changes such as this through further regulations.

What we are seeing now is another example of the government driving a train through the a century of legislation fought for by the people before us. 

The case of Groves v Lord Wimborne, 1898 and Strict liability was found when the Court ruled that "the defence of common employment is not applicable in a case where injury has been caused to a servant by the breach of an absolute duty imposed by statute upon his master for his protection."

Now without civil liability any injured person will have to prove that there has been a breach of regulations.

The future is uncertain for us all, we face the only enforcement being through that of the underfunded and understated Health and Safety Executive. 

The Tories and other right wing agenda setters such as The Daily Mail like to talk of how Labour are hostage to the 'Union Barons', yet it is the Tory led coalition government that is two-stepping along with the insurance industry, who coincidentally are a huge donor to the Conservative Party. Whilst Labour are not innocent in all this, the hypocrisy of the Tory statements regarding funding are not lost on us. 

The banking scandals that seem to keep erupting and being ignored by the larger public and the government in general are made more interesting with the revelation that the Conservative Party has tenuous links to the City's banks, which might go some way to explaining why it is us in the working class, and not them, that are paying for this financial crises. 

So much for being in this together.

The Conservative government so far have;

• Forced through the Jackson reforms;
• Removed most legal aid;
• it is seeking to reduce the amount an injury victim can recover in costs to win a case even if the court rules those costs were necessary to win.
• They want to stop injured people with cases under £5,000 in value getting the cost of the lawyer representing them; and
• They are seeking to put all cases under £25,000 in value through an automated system that isn’t even working for road accident cases.

All these latest reforms will serve to do are penalise the vulnerable people in our society, making it harder to access justice for injuries caused through no fault of their own.

These revelations come against the backdrop of workers facing dismissal through capability without the safe guards in place to protect them from uncaring and impatient employers and the increase in pension age.

These are some dark times, maybe the view of dark satanic mills portrayed in Danny Boyle's Olympic opening ceremony are not so far off the mark after all.

Local man talks harsh truths on world history

Former Luton Councillor Jim Thakoordin has been talking of the significance of Black History Month (BHM) at a speech made to Lambeth Council in London on October 8th.

In his speech Jim Thakoordin explained that BHM is not only of importance to black people but people of all cultures and backgrounds. Without knowing your history you cannot know where you are going.
Jim explains: ”The history of people from all cultures have been blurred to justify the practices of colonialism in the past. These wrongs have yet to be undone”

BHM began in America in 1926 and eventually came to Britain during the 1960’s and 1970’s Civil Rights activities. It has roots in the Trade Union movement with some of the first major BHM activity taking place in 1989 in Ealing, London, where speakers included then Labour Leader Neil Kinnock and the late politician Bernie Grant.

Jim, who has devoted his life to not just black workers rights but human rights, has also written a new book - 
Our Lives Our History Our Future. For a copy email: info@jimthakoordin.com 

Advice on TV Licensing leads students down an expensive path

New students at University may find themselves in hot water over TV Licensing laws and I have found what this means for students in Luton.

Research commissioned by TV Licensing has found that students may be unaware of the laws they may be breaking with the streaming of live television on laptops and mobile devices. With almost half a million students heading off to University in the UK for the first time this year it is believed that 28% of these will wrongly believe that they do not need a license to stream live television on their laptop, whilst some 38% believe that they do not need a license to stream live shows on their mobile devices.

Victoria Sykes, TV Licensing spokesperson for London and the South East said: “Our new research shows how important it is for students to understand the law when it comes to watching live TV. We’re working with universities around the UK, including the University of Bedfordshire to ensure students who want to watch live TV can do so legally and with the peace of mind they are on the right side of the law. A TV Licence, at £145.50, can be bought online in minutes,” she added: “In addition, students who buy a TV Licence at the start of the academic year could benefit from a refund if moving home for three full months over the summer” she added.

Nik Taylor, editor of student community website The Student Room, said: “TV Licensing and The Student Room are keen to help students watch the TV they want, legally and anyone with questions about their TV Licence can get a clear, simple answer on the TV Licensing website. Students put off by the cost of paying in full can always opt to pay in instalments.”

However the statements made above do not explain the full story. 

A spokesperson from TVCatchup explained: "I dealt with this issue personally last year after I was contacted by some worried students after they received some scare tactics sent to them in a letter from TV Licensing. 

What I did was to approach TV Licensing with the scenario of a student using a device without batteries in student halls, with their parents having a TV License at their main permanent residency i.e. the family home. They confirmed that this student would not require a license under those conditions" he added "I personally agree with the concept of a TV License, but what I do not agree with is giving misinformation in order to scare students into to purchasing a TV License when, if they meet certain conditions, they do not need to purchase one."  .

In essence this means that provided your parents have a valid TV license and your device is not plugged into the mains, then you can stream as much live TV as you like. The statements made by the TV Licensing agency also fail to mention the fact that you do not require a license to watch programs that have already aired though on demand services such as YouTube, BBC iPlayer or 4oD. 

All this information can be found and accessed easily via the TV Licensing website:

To recap the three golden rules:

1. Your out-of-term address is covered by a TV Licence
2. AND you only use TV receiving equipment that is powered solely by its own internal batteries
3. AND you have not connected it to an aerial or plugged it into the mains.

Happy channel hopping.