Skip to main content

Community Wars Continue

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the disputes between b:cen and BANF.

The b:cen management don't seem to have learnt anything. Their most recent newsletter funded by part of their £2million a year grant from central government continues to launch into a diatribe against me.

In particular they have a go against local government as a mechanism for making decisions.

On the other hand we have the Home Offices State of the Sector Panel

The most recent newsletter (December 04) indicates that CVS (Community and Voluntary Sector) organisations are gnerally happiest with their relationship with local government (and least happy with the European Union).

The debate remains, however, as to what is the best mechanism for determining public policy. Should it be directly elected representatives or people appointed by primarily statutory agencies onto local Qualgos. (Quasi-Autonomous Local Government Organisation). I cannot really fathom out the logic, but it appears that the "Community Empowerment Network" solution being promoted is to exclude accountable representatives and instead have appointees. This is the traditional form of corporatism as developed in Italy from about 1890 onwards.

There is one key debate. If people are to be "accountable" there has to be a mechanism by which they can be "held to account". With directly elected representatives it is the next election. I still cannot fathom who holds the Community Empowerment Networks to account. We wrote to the Government Office as while ago to find out the GOWM viewpoint on their breaking of a number of rules that apply to such organisations and there has been no response.

Still in the mean time it is a source of funding for local voluntary organisations. I just wish they didn't waste as much as they did on things such as party politically biased DVDs etc.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…