ISLEWORTH LABOUR PARTY

Isleworth Labour working hard for the community

News


view:  full / summary

Another chance to have your say on future of Isleworth park

Posted by Sue Sampson on February 26, 2016 at 6:05 PM Comments comments (0)

Children can enjoy drawing and den-building during consultation events about changes to Redlees Park this Saturday

(An artist's impression of how a revamped Redlees Park in Isleworth could look)


Pop down to your local park this weekend and you could help shape its future.

 

Big improvements are planned at Redlees Park, in Isleworth , and Hounslow Council wants to hear your ideas for changes.

 

It has organised two events this Saturday (February 27) to encourage more people to share their views as part of the ongoing consultation , which closes at the end of March.

 

You can see initial proposals for the park and give your feedback from 10.30am to 1.30pm on the day at:

 

Isleworth Leisure Centre & Library, in Twickenham Road, Isleworth

 

The park's playground, also in Twickenham Road, Isleworth

 

There will be children's activities including drawing and den-building (weather permitting) to keep little ones busy.

 

Proposed changes to the park improve rebuilding or converting the derelict changing room block, refurbishing the playground and upgrading parking areas.

 

Consultants Adams & Sutherland have been appointed by the council to produce a master plan, and members of the public have until the end of March to provide their input.

 

'We've had some fantastic feedback



Hounslow gets nothing, as 'wealthy Tory councils benefit from bulk of 300m boost'

Posted by Sue Sampson on February 26, 2016 at 4:35 PM Comments comments (0)

Labour MPs Ruth Cadbury and Seema Malhotra accuse the government of favouring Conservative councils, as Labour-run authorities received just £17m

Seema Malhotra accused the Prime Minister of injecting millions of pounds into wealthy Conservative-run councils, while Labour-controlled authorities largely missed out

Hounslow 's MPs have accused the government of ignoring the borough while handing millions to wealthier Tory-run councils across the country.

 

The government is giving £300m over the next two years to help local authorities which it says have been worst hit by cuts to their central government funding.

 

Labour MPs Ruth Cadbury and Seema Malhotra say £255m of that is going to Conservative-led councils, compared with just £17m to those held by Labour.

 

Hounslow Council is not receiving a penny, yet neighbouring Richmond, which has a Conservative administration, is getting £7.5m.

 

Feltham & Heston MP Seema Malhotra said: "Hounslow residents have faced the brunt of the worst cuts in a generation. Now we learn that the Prime Minister is injecting millions of pounds into wealthy Conservative-run councils.

 

"Neighbouring Surrey – one of England’s wealthiest shires – today gets a handout of £24m despite suffering far fewer cuts in recent years."

 

Brentford & Isleworth MP Ruth Cadbury said: "People here are bearing the brunt of government cuts to council services, that Hounslow is forced to pass on.

 

"There is no 'fat' left and now cuts are being made in services that most of us think are essential in both universal services we all benefit from such as roads and parks, but also those services that affect vulnerable people such as those with disabilities and older people."


'Funding changes allow greater freedom'


The extra £300m of "transitional funding" was announced by communities secretary Greg Clark on February 8, as he revealed the final local government finance settlement for 2016/17.

 

It was awarded following consultation with local authorities about the provisional settlement, which was announced in December.

 

Mr Clark also revealed plans to allow councils to apply for a four-year settlement in future, along with an indication of how much they could expect, so they can plan their spending with greater certainty.

 

He claimed the changes would give local authorities greater freedom from Whitehall, enabling them to raise more revenue locally rather than relying on central government grants.

 

Hounslow Council 's finance chief Councillor Theo Dennison has said it needs to slash its budget by £23.7m this coming year due to a huge cut in central government funding. However, he still plans to freeze council tax .

 

Geoffrey Samuel, deputy leader of Richmond Council, said it received the lowest amount per head in London.

 

He said it was one of the worst-hit local authorities by the government's settlement and still had to find £8.6m in savings this year, even with the "transitional funding".

 

getwestlondon has approached Hounslow Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government for a comment.



CATHJA'S KITCHEN TABLE LAUNCH

Posted by Sue Sampson on February 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM Comments comments (0)


Cathja's Kitchen Table also houses a charity shop raising money for the Friends of Cathja, which provides support from a barge on the Thames


(Judith Rea cuts the ribbon at the official opening of Cathja's Kitchen Table in Brentford with Councillor Sue Sampson)


A charity operating from on a barge on the Thames has opened a new land-based community hub for people with mental health problems.

 

Cathja’s Kitchen Table, in High Street, Brentford , is somewhere people with long and short-term mental health issues can drop in to talk about their problems.

 

It also houses a charity shop raising money for the Friends of Cathja, which provides art therapy on board a Dutch barge moored in Isleworth for those with mental health problems.



 

(Cathja's Kitchen Table, in High Street, Brentford)

Rin Roche, of the charity, said she hoped the new venue at the old Motorwise MOT centre would help both those with long-term mental health problems and those who are vulnerable, including people who have recently lost their jobs.

 

"There will be space for people to sit and have a coffee, and we will try to refer people to Cathja or to outer services which could help them," she told getwestlondon .

 

She said the community hub was available for use by other local charities and organisations, and may host drama workshops and cookery classes in future.

 

The new venue was officially opened on Wednesday February 10 by Lord Nicholas Rea and his wife Judith.


 

(The Dutch barge from which Friends of Cathja operates)

It was partially funded by Hounslow Council, and the rent was heavily discounted by the developer Ballymore, which owns the building.

 

Cathja’s Kitchen Table is open from Monday to Saturday, between 10am and 4pm.

 

Volunteers are still needed, particularly a van driver who can help with deliveries and collections. If you can help, email [email protected] or call Friends of Cathja on 020 8560 8360.

Inspiring Isleworth Christmas Market Event

Posted by Sue Sampson on November 26, 2013 at 8:45 AM Comments comments (0)

Government isn't building enough homes - Benn

Posted by David Hughes on November 30, 2012 at 12:20 AM Comments comments (0)

 Hilary Benn MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

responding to reported comments by Nick Boles on housing, said:

 

“Planning should bring together meeting housing need with local consent. We need to identify land for new homes, but it will be much harder to get that consent if communities feel they are being forced into accepting development.

 

“Nick Boles is ignoring the real problem which is that his Government isn’t building enough homes. The reason housebuilding has collapsed – despite there being existing planning permission for 400,000 homes - is because of the Government’s economic failure. People can’t raise deposits or get mortgages, and that’s why developers aren’t building.

 

“What the country needs is real action to build homes. That’s why Labour has called on the Government to use the windfall from the 4G auction to build 100,000 more affordable homes and create hundreds of thousands of jobs and apprenticeships.”

Ed Miliband's statement on the Leveson Inquiry

Posted by David Hughes on November 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM Comments comments (0)

Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said in the House of Commons today on the Leveson Inquiry:

 

Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his co-operative tone and approach on this issue.

 

I want to echo his tribute and thank Lord Justice Leveson and his team for the painstaking, impartial and comprehensive way they have conducted this Inquiry.

 

And I thank Lord Justice Leveson for the clarity with which he has explained his Report today.

 

Most of all, I want to pay tribute to the innocent victims who gave evidence to the Inquiry.

 

People who did not seek to be in the public eye, who suffered deep loss and grief, and then faced further trauma at the hands of sections of the press.

 

Bob and Sally Dowler. It is easy to forget now, but without the revelations last July about what happened to them and to their daughter, and their courage in speaking out, we would simply not be here today.

 

Gerry and Kate McCann, who suffered so much and showed such courage.

 

Kate McCann, whose daughter remains missing, and who saw her private diary published by the News of the World for the sake of a story.

 

They gave evidence to this Inquiry to serve the wider public interest and we pay tribute to them.

 

It is they who must be at the forefront of our minds today.

 

Much has been written about the reasons for this Inquiry.

 

A free press is essential to a functioning democracy.

 

The press must be able to hold the powerful, especially politicians, to account, without fear or favour.

 

That is part of the character of our country.

 

At the same time I do not want to live in a country where innocent families like the McCanns and the Dowlers can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of profit.

 

And where powerful interests in the press know they won’t be held to account.

 

This is about the character of our country.

 

There never was just one “rogue reporter”.

 

Lord Justice Leveson concludes that a whole range of practices – from phone hacking to covert surveillance, to harassment, to other wrongful behaviour – were widespread, all in breach of the code by which the press was supposed to abide.

 

I recognise the many decent people who work in our country’s newspapers. And not every newspaper did wrong.

 

But Lord Justice Leveson concludes, and I quote “...it is argued that these are aberrations and do not reflect on the culture, practices or ethics of the press as a whole. I wholly reject this analysis.”

 

This will not come as a surprise to many people.

 

But as Lord Justice Leveson also concludes, there has been “a persistent failure [by politicians] to respond... to public concern about the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.

 

We must all take responsibility for that.

 

The publication of this report is the moment when we must put that right.

 

Upholding the freedom of the press, and guaranteeing protection and redress for the citizen.

 

As the Prime Minister himself said at the Leveson Inquiry: “If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the way they would have been treated, we would have done our job properly.”

 

I agree.

 

Let us be clear about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and why they are different from the present system.

 

He proposes:

 

A genuinely independent regulator, with effective powers to protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse.

 

He gives the responsibility for establishing the system to the press, as now.

 

But he provides a crucial new guarantee which we have never had before. He builds in a role for the media regulator Ofcom, to ensure that the system that is established passes the test we would all want applied to it: that it is truly independent and provides effective protection for people like the McCanns and the Dowlers.

 

And to make this guarantee real, he recommends that both Ofcom’s role and these criteria of independence and effectiveness will be set out in statute, a law of this Parliament.

 

A truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law.

 

Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate.

 

We on this side unequivocally endorse both the principles set out and his central recommendations.

 

We support this new system of regulation. Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We support Lord Justice Leveson’s view that Ofcom is the right body to carry out the task of recognition of the new regulator.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We support Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal that the House should lay down in statute the role of Ofcom?

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We endorse Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal that the criteria any new regulatory body must meet should be set out in statute.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

Lord Justice Leveson has, I believe, made every effort to meet the concerns of the industry.

 

There will be some people who say that this will not work because the press will not co-operate.

 

Does he agree with me that this arrangement, as Lord Justice Leveson says, will work but only if the press now come forward to sign up to it and embrace it with genuine commitment?

 

If we cannot achieve a comprehensive system involving all major newspapers, Lord Justice Leveson sets out the necessary alternative: direct statutory regulation.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree that if the newspapers refuse to adopt the system proposed, this will be necessary and must be implemented?

 

Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened.

 

He has acted with the utmost responsibility.

 

Newspaper editors and proprietors should now do the same.

 

Lord Justice Leveson also reaches important conclusions on the need to prevent too much media influence ending up in one pair of hands. He proposes there should be continuous scrutiny of the degree of media plurality, and a lower cap than that provided by competition law.

 

Will the Prime Minister take this forward?

 

Lord Justice Leveson makes specific suggestions about greater transparency about meetings and contacts between politicians and the press. He says they should be considered “as an immediate need”. I agree, and I hope these can be taken forward too.

 

I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of immediate cross-party talks on the implementation of the recommendations on press regulation.

 

These talks must be about implementing these recommendations, not whether we implement them.

 

These talks must:

 

Agree a swift timetable for implementation of these proposals.

 

Agree to legislate in the next session of Parliament starting in May 2013.

 

With a new system up and running at the latest by 2015.

 

And by the end of January of next year we should have an opportunity for the whole House to endorse and proceed with the Leveson proposals.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We should move forward together, wholeheartedly, now.

 

After 70 years and 7 reports which have gone nowhere, now is the time to act.

 

The case is compelling.

 

The evidence is overwhelming.

 

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make change the public can trust.

 

There can be no more last chance saloons.

 

And in acting, let us remember the words of Bob and Sally Dowler at Leveson:

 

“...There is nothing that can rectify the damage that has been done to our family... All we can hope for is a positive outcome from this Inquiry so that other families are not affected in the way we have been...”

 

On behalf of every decent British citizen who wants protection for people like the Dowlers.

 

Who wants a truly free press.

 

A press that can expose abuse of power without abusing its own.

 

We must act.


Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said in the House of Commons today on the Leveson Inquiry:

 

Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his co-operative tone and approach on this issue.

 

I want to echo his tribute and thank Lord Justice Leveson and his team for the painstaking, impartial and comprehensive way they have conducted this Inquiry.

 

And I thank Lord Justice Leveson for the clarity with which he has explained his Report today.

 

Most of all, I want to pay tribute to the innocent victims who gave evidence to the Inquiry.

 

People who did not seek to be in the public eye, who suffered deep loss and grief, and then faced further trauma at the hands of sections of the press.

 

Bob and Sally Dowler. It is easy to forget now, but without the revelations last July about what happened to them and to their daughter, and their courage in speaking out, we would simply not be here today.

 

Gerry and Kate McCann, who suffered so much and showed such courage.

 

Kate McCann, whose daughter remains missing, and who saw her private diary published by the News of the World for the sake of a story.

 

They gave evidence to this Inquiry to serve the wider public interest and we pay tribute to them.

 

It is they who must be at the forefront of our minds today.

 

Much has been written about the reasons for this Inquiry.

 

A free press is essential to a functioning democracy.

 

The press must be able to hold the powerful, especially politicians, to account, without fear or favour.

 

That is part of the character of our country.

 

At the same time I do not want to live in a country where innocent families like the McCanns and the Dowlers can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of profit.

 

And where powerful interests in the press know they won’t be held to account.

 

This is about the character of our country.

 

There never was just one “rogue reporter”.

 

Lord Justice Leveson concludes that a whole range of practices – from phone hacking to covert surveillance, to harassment, to other wrongful behaviour – were widespread, all in breach of the code by which the press was supposed to abide.

 

I recognise the many decent people who work in our country’s newspapers. And not every newspaper did wrong.

 

But Lord Justice Leveson concludes, and I quote “...it is argued that these are aberrations and do not reflect on the culture, practices or ethics of the press as a whole. I wholly reject this analysis.”

 

This will not come as a surprise to many people.

 

But as Lord Justice Leveson also concludes, there has been “a persistent failure [by politicians] to respond... to public concern about the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.

 

We must all take responsibility for that.

 

The publication of this report is the moment when we must put that right.

 

Upholding the freedom of the press, and guaranteeing protection and redress for the citizen.

 

As the Prime Minister himself said at the Leveson Inquiry: “If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the way they would have been treated, we would have done our job properly.”

 

I agree.

 

Let us be clear about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and why they are different from the present system.

 

He proposes:

 

A genuinely independent regulator, with effective powers to protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse.

 

He gives the responsibility for establishing the system to the press, as now.

 

But he provides a crucial new guarantee which we have never had before. He builds in a role for the media regulator Ofcom, to ensure that the system that is established passes the test we would all want applied to it: that it is truly independent and provides effective protection for people like the McCanns and the Dowlers.

 

And to make this guarantee real, he recommends that both Ofcom’s role and these criteria of independence and effectiveness will be set out in statute, a law of this Parliament.

 

A truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law.

 

Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate.

 

We on this side unequivocally endorse both the principles set out and his central recommendations.

 

We support this new system of regulation. Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We support Lord Justice Leveson’s view that Ofcom is the right body to carry out the task of recognition of the new regulator.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We support Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal that the House should lay down in statute the role of Ofcom?

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We endorse Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal that the criteria any new regulatory body must meet should be set out in statute.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

Lord Justice Leveson has, I believe, made every effort to meet the concerns of the industry.

 

There will be some people who say that this will not work because the press will not co-operate.

 

Does he agree with me that this arrangement, as Lord Justice Leveson says, will work but only if the press now come forward to sign up to it and embrace it with genuine commitment?

 

If we cannot achieve a comprehensive system involving all major newspapers, Lord Justice Leveson sets out the necessary alternative: direct statutory regulation.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree that if the newspapers refuse to adopt the system proposed, this will be necessary and must be implemented?

 

Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened.

 

He has acted with the utmost responsibility.

 

Newspaper editors and proprietors should now do the same.

 

Lord Justice Leveson also reaches important conclusions on the need to prevent too much media influence ending up in one pair of hands. He proposes there should be continuous scrutiny of the degree of media plurality, and a lower cap than that provided by competition law.

 

Will the Prime Minister take this forward?

 

Lord Justice Leveson makes specific suggestions about greater transparency about meetings and contacts between politicians and the press. He says they should be considered “as an immediate need”. I agree, and I hope these can be taken forward too.

 

I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of immediate cross-party talks on the implementation of the recommendations on press regulation.

 

These talks must be about implementing these recommendations, not whether we implement them.

 

These talks must:

 

Agree a swift timetable for implementation of these proposals.

 

Agree to legislate in the next session of Parliament starting in May 2013.

 

With a new system up and running at the latest by 2015.

 

And by the end of January of next year we should have an opportunity for the whole House to endorse and proceed with the Leveson proposals.

 

Does the Prime Minister agree?

 

We should move forward together, wholeheartedly, now.

 

After 70 years and 7 reports which have gone nowhere, now is the time to act.

 

The case is compelling.

 

The evidence is overwhelming.

 

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make change the public can trust.

 

There can be no more last chance saloons.

 

And in acting, let us remember the words of Bob and Sally Dowler at Leveson:

 

“...There is nothing that can rectify the damage that has been done to our family... All we can hope for is a positive outcome from this Inquiry so that other families are not affected in the way we have been...”

 

On behalf of every decent British citizen who wants protection for people like the Dowlers.

 

Who wants a truly free press.

 

A press that can expose abuse of power without abusing its own.

 

We must act.

Jennette Arnold AM urges Boris to put his money where his mouth is, and only use responsible banks

Posted by David Hughes on November 29, 2012 at 2:20 PM Comments comments (0)

Jennette Arnold AM 

The London Assembly last week urged the Mayor to ensure that the Greater London Authority only uses banks with a strong record of lending to small business and a commitment to corporate responsibility. Labour & Co-operative Assembly Member Jennette Arnold describes why the GLA should move its money.

 

The motion, agreed unanimously by London Assembly Members, called for the Greater London Authority (GLA), Transport for London, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to take a close look at where they buy banking services.

 

In the four years from 2008-12 the GLA group spent almost £35 million on charges and other costs for a variety of services including card processing, foreign exchange, bonds and securities.

 

In seconding the motion I highlighted how Londoners, many from my constituency of North East London (Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest), are struggling with financial exclusion, forced into the debilitating clutches of loan sharks and because of a lack of affordable finance caused by the failure of the big banks find themselves unable to provide for their needs.

 

I believe it’s time the GLA joined other cities like New York, Seattle and Buffalo and move our business to banks that share a commitment to responsible banking. As the most senior tier of local government in London, the GLA could give a clear moral lead to other local authorities in moving the management of public funds over to banks and building societies that do not engage in “casino-style” banking operations.

 

By supporting alternative finance and increasing the size of the sector the GLA can directly boost the amount of affordable credit available to Londoners. In my own constituency, Hackney Council now banks exclusively with the Co-operative Bank. Co-operatives and building societies recognise that Co-operation – as opposed to Competition – can create a financial sector that is run in the interest of the wider public as opposed to a narrow group of shareholders.

 

As a strong and committed supporter of a number of campaigns around banking reform including: the Co-op movement’s The Feeling’s Mutual Campaign which called for Northern Rock to be re-mutualised and for an end to the de-mutualisation of the sector and also the Move Your Money Campaign, I felt proud to be seconding this motion and to receive the unanimous cross party support from London Assembly Members.

 

Given the scale of economic hardship being experienced across our capital, particularly within my constituency, Londoners rightly expect that their representatives procure services from institutions that contribute positively to their city and pay close attention to those who suffer financial exclusion and the isolation and poverty that it leads to.

 

It therefore really is not too much to urge Mayor Boris Johnson to put his money where his mouth is, and only do business with banks who have a strong track record of lending to small businesses in the capital.

 

The full text of the motion agreed at the meeting (14/11/2012) reads as follows:

 

“This Assembly notes that the GLA group procures a variety of banking services, from card processing and foreign exchange to bond and securities services. In the four years from 2008-12 the GLA group paid almost £35m in charges and other costs for these services, representing a significant combined procurement budget.

 

“This Assembly calls on the Mayor of London, the GLA Head of Paid Service, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Board of Transport for London to explore opportunities to move taxpayers’ money to banks with a better track record in lending to small businesses and with a track record that is a better fit with the group’s Responsible Procurement policy.

 

“As well as investigating issues that matter to Londoners, the London Assembly acts as a check and a balance on the Mayor.”


The EU budget explained by Mary Honeyball MEP

Posted by David Hughes on November 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM Comments comments (0)

We are hearing a lot at the moment about the EU Budget and the wrangling surrounding it. I thought it would be a good time to write a blog about what the EU Budget actually is and what could happen if no agreement is reached.

 

There are two different budgets in the European Union; one is the annual budget which sets spending levels each year. The next, and the one causing the current controversy, is the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is a seven year spending plan for the EU. It defines the maximum amounts for each major category of spending (e.g. structural funds, agriculture, research and innovation and development spending). The current MFF (2007-2013) is due to expire and an agreement must be reached on the new MFF by the end of the year.

 

Though the negotiations are ongoing, the final budget, if it is agreed, will be in the region 0.8-1trillion euros for the entire seven year period.

 

That is a lot of money, but still only amounts to around 1% of the EU’s GDP; this is especially low when you consider that, at the national level, budgets in the EU average 50% of GDP. Also, something worth pointing out is that none of this money is borrowed and contributes in no way to any national debt.

 

The budget is proposed by the European Commission and is then amended and approved by the European Council and European Parliament. The European Council must pass the budget unanimously for it to go through.

 

At the moment the Commission is proposing what they call a “freeze” in the next MFF, using the 2013 maximum expenditure level plus 2% inflation. The Commission have also placed some items, for instance the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), “off budget”, which will have to be paid for by the member states.

 

The Council is split on the issue with the many of the net recipients wanting to go along with the Commission proposal (or higher) and the net contributors who want a smaller budget. Two groups emerged in the Council – “Friends of better spending” and “Friends of Cohesion”. The current Council proposal is for a EUR 79 billion cut compared to the Commission’s draft budget. The consequence of that would be to reduce the amount for structural funds (used to address inequalities between member states) from EUR 354 billion (2007-2013) to EUR 309 billion (2014-2020). CAP would also be reduced.

 

The European Parliament, which must approve the budget for it to pass, has made its position on the MFF clear. It believes that the level proposed by the Commission is not sufficient. The EP calls for an increase of at least 5% above the 2013 ceilings. The EP also voted in favour of scrapping rebates and correction mechanisms and reform of the own resources system (e.g. linking the EU budget to a financial transaction tax and new VAT tax). The Labour members of the European Parliament, myself included, voted against the proposed 5% increase , preferring to support a real terms freeze.

 

As things stand now, if a compromise cannot be found, the maximum expenditure level, plus inflation, for the 2013 budget rolls over until an agreement can be reached. This would result in a budget far exceeding the proposed real terms freeze.


A fine for mess if you don't clear up after your dog

Posted by David Hughes on November 29, 2012 at 8:45 AM Comments comments (0)


Dog owners who don’t clean up after their pets and people dropping litter in public could soon be fined up to £80 if proposals are agreed by Hounslow Council’s Cabinet.

Next week, councillors will consider plans to introduce dog control orders across the borough, following the success of a pilot scheme in Brentford.

The orders will make it an offence to not remove dog mess, as well as not keeping a dog on a lead, taking more dogs than specified onto public land and taking dogs into areas where they are excluded.

If approved, the plans will also give the police the power to issue fixed penalty notices to people who drop litter.

Cllr Ed Mayne, cabinet member for community safety and regulatory services, said: “Most dog walkers are responsible and clean up after their pets, but the few who don’t can make an area extremely unpleasant for everyone else.

“By putting dog control orders in place both council officers and the police will be able to fine people who think the mess they are leaving behind is someone else’s problem.

“We also want to make sure we are working with our partners in the police to tackle littering, by giving them the power to issue fixed penalty notices.

“I hope the threat of a fine is enough to encourage people to behave responsibly, but if they don’t, we won’t hesitate to use these powers.”

Currently, only authorised council staff can issue fixed penalty notices for environmental crimes such as littering, graffiti or fly-posting. However, these require the offenders to provide a name and address, which is not always easy to obtain. Giving the powers to the police will help overcome this problem.

If the orders are put in place, fixed penalty notices of £80 could be issued by council staff and the police, or £50 if the fine is paid within 10 days.

Welcome home the Welsh Guards

Posted by David Hughes on November 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM Comments comments (0)

Hounslow will be welcoming home the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards after their tour in Afghanistan, with a parade through the town.

The special homecoming parade will see 350 returning troops, and a 60 piece regimental band, parade through Hounslow on Tuesday 4 December.

The parade will begin at 11am at the top of Hounslow High Street, with the soldiers marching along the pedestrian section and turning “eyes right” at the war memorial at Holy Trinity Church, before continuing down Lampton Road and into Lampton Park.

At the park the names of the battalion’s fallen soldiers will be read out by member of the battalion, and the leader of council, Cllr Jagdish Sharma, will lead a minute’s reflection in memory of the fallen.

Cllr Sharma said: “It is important that we celebrate the safe return of the troops, but we must never forget the sacrifice of those who lost their lives on, nor the grief of their families and friends.

“I am sure the people of Hounslow will join us in showing our appreciation, and welcome them home in the manner which they deserve.”

Cllr Sachin Gupta, cabinet member for communications and communities, said: “We are lucky to have been the home-from-home for so many of our courageous soldiers over the years, and we want to make sure they know we appreciate all they do on our behalf.

“We know that the servicemen and women really value the welcome they receive, and I urge as many people as possible to come along to welcome them home.”

Following the event in Lampton Park, the troops and their families will then welcomed into the Lampton Park Conference Centre for a reception hosted by the council, supported by local brewers Fullers.


Rss_feed