Ignoring Residents and Bullying Staff
Politicians and senior council officers have to have thick skins. It’s in the nature of the work. It would be nice if everybody was thoughtful and considerate, but they aren’t. The more so, it seems, when some people are less secure in their knowledge of an issue, (in the words of one insider about Mayor Fiaz, she “rants and raves” and “has no clear grasp of an issue, yet thinks that she knows it all”).
For instance, there is the not uncommon response by someone in authority to someone junior with a different opinion or with greater knowledge. Instead of addressing the subject, testing the assumptions, or explaining the rationale, the junior is berated. The person in authority uses that authority to undermine and belittle a junior staff member.
We call that “bullying”.
Word has come to Open Newham, that a council officer was presenting a paper on changes to the current hate crime strategy, and tackling sex crimes The current “hate crime” strategy is a mishmash of wishful thinking and verbiage. Have a look and feel free to let us know if you can decipher who/which group of people is responsible for which “hate crime incidents”, or even indeed, what actually constitutes a “hate crime incident” as opposed to a hate crime. We should offer a prize if anyone can decipher what will be done to reduce the number of “hate crime incidents”.
Our suspicion is that this is nothing more than sanctimonious piffle.
There was also, it seems, something of a ‘discussion’ about sex workers on the Romford Road.
We do not know what the officer said (we do know her name, but see no reason to spread the name of an individual who was merely doing the job for which she was employed). What we also know, is that Mayor Fiaz reacted with some hostility towards the officer. And did so at length. And in a manner that caused other persons present to be embarrassed. And the staff member to feel belittled and undermined.
As we have earlier reported, Mayor Fiaz seems unkeen to treat sex crimes as crimes and has taken a “public health” approach towards prostitution. We have yet to see what this will look like and what results are to be expected from taking this new approach. One concern, amongst others, is that the new Sex Work Strategy, whenever it appears, will be comprised of liberal-sounding nonsense; wishful thinking; and good intentions. We have seen from Newham’s website that the strategy is aimed at “reducing stigmatisation and exploitation” of sex workers.
This says nothing to the residents of Romford Road who would rather see the “sex-workers” moved on.
This is from the Newham website.
Councillor Neil Wilson, Cabinet Member for Adults and Social Care, said: “Our public health approach to developing a new Sex Work strategy will be shaped in partnership with those that have lived experiences and experts. The needs assessment will help us understand the complexities, challenges and harms facing street and off-street sex work as well as the impact on our communities. While we will be soon publishing the Council’s Public Space Protection Order consultation results, it will not be progressed with because we want to develop a Sex Work strategy that is holistic and offers long-term sustainable solutions to reduce the harmful impacts of sex working for sex workers as well as local residents.”
If it is not abundantly clear from this, the views that Newham is seeking are not the views from residents along Romford Road, nor from the general public. They are seeking the views of “experts” and those “with lived experience” of prostitution. We are unclear as to whether this will include the lived experience of women who have been trafficked, or duped into prostitution; or those who use sex to pay for a drug dependency.
Moreover, Newham WILL IGNORE the results of consultations that do not fit in with their preconceived notions, (see the reference to the Public Space Protection Order consultation).
Meanwhile;
“As the Council commences with the needs assessment and co-design phases of the Sex Work strategy, it remains committed in its support of street sex workers through existing commissioned services which provides specialist and outreach-based provisions as well as access to safe spaces in the north of the borough.”
From a purely electoral point of view, this does seem to be a bit of a faux pas. It is only a few months since Labour suffered a crushing defeat in a byelection at the other end of Green St.
We are not sure that the commitment, tagged on at the end, has any value whatsoever;
“The Council will additionally continue to work with residents impacted by sex work to as part of sensitively addressing community safety concerns.”
The advice that has come to Open Newham suggests that there has been NO work done “with residents”. This further suggests that this addition was nothing more than a sop to give the appearance of valuing local people.
We are aware that it was only nimble footwork by the police that ensured that groups of vigilantes did not take matters into their own hands when residents were angered by the open soliciting on the streets during Ramadan recently.
Just imagine that a group of ‘independents’ formed around the issue of prostitution. You can imagine the banners. “Keep our Streets Safe”, “Labour Backs Prostitution”, “Labour Policy is Immoral!”; you get the idea. It’s not a big step from Labour is immoral, to “Labour is Haram”.
Just how many mosques are there along Green St and Romford Road?
In Cllr Mirza they have a model of how to run a successful community-based campaign around local issues. It is not difficult to imagine Labour coming under pressure in four wards from Forest Gate South to Boleyn.
If so, Mayor Fiaz will only have herself to blame.
Four wards under threat?