Civic Spaces & Uncivil Councillors by Anonymous

Begging's at epicentre of a Storm of Political Controversy!

FOR a council whose entire raison d'etre and long term strategic response for the town centre regeneration appears to be to barge their way to the front of each and every available queue for cash handouts, begging bowl in hand to everyone from the European Social Fund to Westminster freebies it rankles with me they should point the finger of accusation at others less fortunate who are effectively doing exactly the same thing. Was it Goebbels who said: accuse the other side of that which you are guilty?

As for councillor expenses - let's not go there!

***********************************************************

Recent media coverage of councillors calling for a Crackdown on begging so close to an election was entirely expected as it was a sickening and predictable re-hash of their previous political posturing whenever totally bereft of new ideas they opt for the easy target each & every time.

Blame someone else lest that electorate blame us is a tried and tested local mantra the world over and homeless people are seldom registered so no votes lost there then comrades.

Their views are not only repugnant but positively Dickensian. At a time when child poverty levels have been revealed to be at over 50% in some electoral wards it's nothing short of astounding that we do not have beggars on every street corner and bread riots across the Township as we did at the time of Peterloo!

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/140218/calls-for-crackdown-on-%E2%80%98criminal-element%E2%80%99-behind-increase-in-town-centre-begging-and-antisocial-behaviour

This Agenda Articles from the meeting in question are at:

http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/s78129/Rochdale%20Town%20Centre%20Public%20Space%20Protection%20Order.pdf

The section from the RMBC Zoom Meeting can be found at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=372kukolzdY

Perfectly legitimate working legislation already exists on the statute book to effectively challenge trafficked Begging separate to and totally independent of PSPO. The Vagrancy Act is also still being enforced locally despite Council saying it is not. One suspects they are hyper sensitive to the fact they are still having to resort to such antiquated legislation at all after their ' flagship PSPO ' was meant to be the ultimate solution to anti-social behaviour Town Centre. Clearly it is not or why else would there be a call for a 'crackdown' at all?

Local Anti Public Space Protection Order campaigners are currently liaising with Liberty ( who called Rochdale Councils PSPO 'unlawful' when it was introduced ) and The Manifesto Club (Manifesto Club) to formulate a formal legal challenge to this 'crackdown'. Vulnerable homeless people, the vast majority mentally ill, addicted, fleeing domestic violence, illegally evicted or complex variations of all have very limited support options due to Covid (though this is not limited exclusively to the pandemic and was a problem previously) face to face 1:1 support for drug ,alcohol, substance misuse virtually non-existent as is mental health support which has existed in digital form only since March 2020 - if at all! No internet connection or no phone then no support.

For example there is a local mental health charity which draws in hundreds of thousands of pounds in funding each year that has remained resolutely closed for over a year offering only digital support sessions (such levels funding should be able to afford and create Covid safe spaces for individual 1:1 mental health support pods in a few weeks never mind over a year!) No wonder people throw themselves off the tops of shopping centres in sheer anguish and despair!

The likes of Blundell should be targeting the total inability of many local support agencies to support those in need rather than those in need of support. As well as proactively advocating for the vulnerable and agitating for increased funding rather than indulging in shameless self promotion & cheap electioneering prior to May Elections. Some might recall our councillors have previous form on this bludgeoning of the publicly visible result of their abject failures to deliver a functioning welfare & Social Care system policies for the vulnerable when Blundell and Danczuk pulled this stunt some years ago - again as a diversionary Black Op when questions were being asked of the dodgy duos mismanagement of Town centre regeneration. Again Beggars were a convenient scapegoated for crass corporate failure & incompetence.

Blundell was at the time paying his landlord ( Danczuc) in gin to crash at his Westminster pad paid for by taxpayers dosh - allegedly! Whilst the former Mrs Danczuk left an unsightly and rotting empty business unit in the shape of Danczuk's Deli blighting The Walk for years with a far greater visible blight left behind by a high profile social climber than any downwardly mobile beggar waiting for a handful of small change from sympathetic shoppers cashing in their pensions or collecting their monthly Universal Credit payments.

The Majority of the Councils much publicised Covid response is being delivered by idealistic unpaid volunteers whilst paid staff remain safe 'working at home' (behind the lines via a laptop screen facility) totally disconnected from the reality on the ground totally and dangerously oblivious of the crisis levels needed on the ground.

Any visiting councillors to one of the numerous Soup kitchens across the Borough will educate all but the most stupid of our councillors that poverty, exploitation & socail exclusion are the primary driver of begging. Something they are clearly unwilling or unable to address as a council and one which is lacking entirely from any of their May 6 election promises. As a collective the council has also turned down 1,868 Covid support applications whilst having some of the highest child poverty & unemployment & low skilled /low waged local economy in GM plus consistently high levels of C19

Simultaneously our 'pro-business council' has all the largess and generosity of Croesus when it comes to business bailouts - especially just before May local elections ?

https://www.questmedianetwork.co.uk/news/tameside-reporter/thousands-across-greater-manchester-denied-500-covid-support-payments/

Instead of having another toddler stop and stamping his designer jackboots Blundell needs a 'crackdown' on his own aggressive begging from the public purse as well as independent scruiting of his political record on the failed town center regeneration leaving two empty Indoor Markets and virtually derelict Drake Street, a partially deserted Yorkshire Street and a defunct Outdoor market in his wake?

Two hundred and fifty million quid for this? We were robbed!

Perhaps if Councillor Blundell and those like him rolled up their delicate shirt sleeves or blouses and did some proper graft down at a local Soup Kitchen or Foodbank (we have a potential sixty strong workforce of councillors champing at the bit to play their part in supporting their Town during the Pandemic Response after all!) instead of angling for cheap media stunts or photo-bombing on the backs of those socially committed individuals and collectives doing the real community regeneration work people would have at least a little respect for the man?

Cllr. Blundell is not interested in Building Back Better, he is only interested in building his own councillor profile and political career and needs to be called out publicly for it.

Kicking someone when they are down is the dictionary and my own definition of bullying. Blundell is not only a bully but an ill informed braggart & clown who should be nowhere near public office or paid from the public purse for his ill informed and biggoted opinions. Replace the word beggar with jew, gypsy, traveller, black or woman and you might have a clearer insight into how repugnant and stereotyping his views are in actuality

Where Blundell a member of a charity rather than a council he would be on a suspension pending an independent investigation from the charity commission on breach of safeguarding policy - quite possibly by the police under potential Hate Crime legislation. That a councillor can seek to , and is allowed to do so by his Party colleges, aided and abetted by an entirely complicit local media commentariat, to criminalise and scapegoat an entire section of the community in such a way tells you all that you need to know about what lessons have been learnt from previous Rochdale safeguarding scandals from Smith to the Grooming Scandals. Once again we only have to scratch the thin veneer to see the ugly unvarnished truth beneath.

****************************************************

Reflections on Chomsky & the Responsibility of Intellectuals in public spaces by Brian Bamford

ON Saturday, 13 March 2021 Andy Wastling wrote in a post entitled 'We ain't got no swing; Except for the ring of the truncheon thing':

'Local Public Space in Rochdale & the homeless: At the local level readers might want to ask their prospective ward councillors standing for public office in May what their personal views are on the anti-democratic measures lurking in the small print of Rochdale Councils Public Space Protection Order? ...' and he concluded 'It would be interesting to see how many councillors have actually even read the locally drafted legislation they voted for which can also be readily deployed against union members on a legitimate picket line or require campaigners to ask permission before handing out leaflets on a street stall or holding a demonstration in the town centre?'

This post allows us to recall what Neil Smith and Amahl Smith observed intheir easay entitled 'Reflections on Chomsky's "The Responsibility of Intellectuals".': 'In "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" Chomsky focused on the responsibility of individual intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies. But if they they are to be able to do that in a way that has impact, there are perhaps prior responsibilities that need exploring.' In particular they refer to ' "CIVIL SPACE" and the infringement of liberties".' and they point out that 'Above we touched on changes to the academic environment that may discourage at least one set of intellectuals from speaking out', but they conclude that '"Civic space" is the set of conditions that enable citizens to organise, participate and communicate without hinderance' and that 'Civic space is only secure when a state protects its citizens and "respects and facilitates their fundemental rights to associate, assemble peacefully and freely express views and opitions".'

At the time of publication of the essay in 2019 by University College London the authors remind us: 'As the organisation Civicus demonstrates, there is ample evidence that civic space is under attack around the world, and that vulnerable groups are discouraged from speaking out, often under the pretect that this is a necessary part of the counter-terrorism agenda.'

'To take a simple example' the authors say: 'as part of its attempt to stop "radicalisation", the UK government instituted the "Prevebt" strategy. Among provision requires that social services, faith leaders, teachers, doctors and others refer those at risk of radicalisation to a local Prevent body, which then decides what to do.. Among the signs that someone may warrant referral is "having a sense of grievance that is triggered by personal experience or discrimination or aspects of government policy".'

To conclude the authors write: 'The changes in the powers of the UK government [already] touched on above reflect ideologically motivated infringement of liberties more generally. This can be illustrated with a motion brought at the 2017 annual general meeting of the civil liberties and human rights charity Liberty, attcking aspects of the UK government's regressive legislation.'

*****************************************************

Rochdale MBC & threat to 'Criminalise Poverty'

'LIBERTY' (the Civil Rights group) has written to Rochdale Borough Council urging it to abandon proposals that could criminalise the town’s most vulnerable people and curb residents’ civil liberties – with no public consultation.
The council is considering using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce 10 separate criminal offences. PSPOs are disturbingly broad powers that let local authorities ban a huge range of activities.
The authority has proposed a ban on people “placing themselves in a position to beg or solicit money” at any time – effectively criminalising poverty when homelessness in England is increasing at an alarming rate.
The council also hopes to place a curfew on under-18s between 11pm and 6am – a measure usually reserved for a national emergency – and criminalise the unauthorised distribution of printed materials, which could violate residents’ freedom of expression and cause significant harm to local businesses.
A further ban on “foul and abusive language” has already been recorded widely in the press – and ridiculed across the globe.
If introduced, the PSPO would give police and council officers the power to issue on-the-spot penalties of up to £100. If unable to pay, those in breach could face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.
Liberty believes several of Rochdale’s proposed bans, if implemented, risk breaching residents’ fundamental rights, protected by the Human Rights Act. The Act requires the council not to behave in a way which would disproportionately affect  residents’ rights.
The council does not intend to consult the public on the plans.

Discriminatory and unworkable

In today’s letter, Liberty’s Legal Officer Lara ten Caten advises Cllr Mark Widdup that:

• The proposed ban on begging will punish vulnerable members of society by imposing financial penalties they cannot afford – cruelly forcing them to pay a fine using what little money they might have saved from the charity of others.
• PSPOs are extremely blunt instruments incapable of addressing complex social problems or sensitively dealing with targeted groups. PSPOs can only lead to fines, and are therefore likely to draw vulnerable people into both the criminal justice system and a cycle of debt.
• The proposed curfew on under-18s is disproportionate, discriminates against young people and is practically unworkable.
• A ban on the unauthorised distribution of leaflets would constitute an unjustified interference with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart and receive information. Such a ban would curtail the rights of citizens to campaign on political or social issues, and could also harm local businesses which rely on leaflets for promotional purposes.
• The proposed swearing ban is unworkable and represents a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression.  

Lara ten Caten, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: “These proposals are a staggering misuse of power. The council is seeking to limit the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents without providing any evidence of a need to do so – or even bothering to consult them in the first place.
“This PSPO would make criminals of the homeless and vulnerable, the young, the politically-engaged and businessmen and women alike.
“Criminalising those most in need is no answer to rising homelessness, while the swearing ban is so vague no one could possibly know whether they risk breaking the law or not.
“Rochdale deserves better. For the good of its residents, the council must abandon these plans now.”

Protesters and skateboarders under threat from Tory Anti-Social Behaviour Bill!

Civil liberties groups are up in arms about what they see as truly shocking restrictions on civil liberties posed by the Government's 'Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill', which is currently before Parliament.

Those opposed to measures within the Bill, say that it would give councils carte-blanche powers to allow them to ban everything from protests, to outdoor public meetings and children's skateboarding.

Campaigners point out that under Part 4 of the Bill  entitled 'Community Protection', Town Halls would be allowed to issue 'Public Spaces Protection Orders' (PSPO's) to restrict any activity deemed to have a "detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality." The vague wording, and the failure to define the size of the areas to be covered, have led to fears that measures within the Bill, could be deployed to impose blanket bans on lawful activities. Anyone found to have broken the new laws, would be punished with on-the-spot fines, which could be issued by private security guards working on commissions for councils.

The orders, which would last for three years, would be directed at "All persons or only persons in specified categories", which has raised fears that certain groups such as trade unionists or rough sleepers could be descriminated against.

Clause 38 of the Bill, gives powers to an 'authorised person' (constable, local authority, designated person), to issue 'Community Protection Notices' (CPN), if satisfied on reasonable grounds that (a) the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality and (b) the conduct is unreasonable.

Although there is a right of appeal in respect of some of the measures, opponents of the Bill say that processes are so expensive and complex that they will be beyond the reach of most groups. Climate change groups and groups like Occupy London, are likely to be seriously affected by the news laws.