BELLFIELD CONFESSION GIVES SISTER HOPE FOR MICHAEL STONE CONVICTION

 

BELLFIELD CONFESSION GIVES SISTER HOPE FOR MICHAEL STONE CONVICTION

Stone was convicted on scant evidence

 Review Commission to assess murder case

 Big Issue North magazine, 14-20 February 2022

The sister of Michael Stone, convicted of the Chillenden murders in Kent, hopes that serial killer Levi Bellfield’s recent four-page confession statement to the murders of Lin Russell and her daughter Megan, six, in July 1996 will finally lead to her brother’s release from prison. Bellfield has also stated he killed Judith Gold, a mother of three battered to death in Hampstead, London, in 1990. Barbara Stone, who has always insisted her brother is a miscarriage of justice victim, began campaigning after he was first convicted in 1998 of the murders, plus the attempted murder of Josie Russell, aged nine.

Stone was arrested following a reconstruction of events on the BBC Crimewatch series. His psychiatrist claimed his profile matched the killer’s. From the start he denied any involvement. His defence was strange – he could not remember what he was doing on the fateful day or on many days during the summer of 1996.

No forensic evidence

The Russells had been tied up with towels and bootlaces and attacked with a hammer. Robbery was cited as the motive by the police who said that, as a heroin addict, Stone kept bootlaces to use as a tourniquet when he injected himself. Yet the police never produced any laces belonging to him or found anyone who had witnessed Stone using such a method.

The scene of the crime was a secluded six-feet wide path next to a cornfield. It was alleged that Stone had sat in his car watching the Russells cross a series of fields before walking down the path. It was said he had intended to rob them to get money to feed his heroin habit.

The jury was taken to the scene at the first trial in October 1998. You could see a good distance. The murders took place though in July when you can’t watch people approach as the trees are too tall and the vegetation is too dense. It is an unlikely place for anyone desperate to commit a robbery to sit, especially if Kent Police’s claim was true that Stone knew the area.

 There was also no forensic evidence to link Stone with the crimes, no DNA samples were left behind and there no witnesses. Josie, then nine, had been left for dead and mercifully recovered.

Miraculously, she was later able to recount some of her experiences but was unable to give an accurate description of her attacker. At an identity parade she did not pick out Stone. After Stone’s appeal failed in January 2005 her father Shaun said: “Josie and I have made an effort to put our memories of this terrible affair behind us.” No one can blame them for doing so.

“Dishonest character”

Key to Stone’s conviction was the claim that in 1998 he had confessed, at separate times, to three prisoners that he’d carried out the murders. Within days of his conviction, the statement of one of them, Barry Thompson, was discredited when he admitted lying after obtaining a fee of £5,000 from The Sun for his story, with promises of another £10,000 if Stone was convicted. A second witness,

Mark Jennings, was known to be unreliable and was not used by the prosecution at the second trial. Stone’s conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered. In 2001 at Nottingham Crown Court, Stone was found guilty after the jury, with a majority verdict of ten to two, decided that Damien Daly, was telling the truth when he gave evidence that Stone had confessed to him in Canterbury Prison that he had attacked the Russells. Daley, who Stone had never previously met, had a string of convictions for robbery and burglary and was on remand. Attempts by Stone’s defence team to get the judge at the trial to give the jury a warning “to be cautious” about “an oral confession” from “a person of dishonest character” were rejected.

Bellfield’s confession

Stone’s later appeals against his convictions were dismissed, leading Barbara Stone to say outside the Court of Appeal in January 2005 that Daley had “lied his way through two trials” and that there was “not a scrap of evidence” to convict her brother. In Chillenden in 2005 residents gave their opinions on the case. Jerry Copestake, landlord of the Griffin’s Head pub, said: “Most people round here don’t think Michael Stone did it.”

 Stone was given a minimum sentence of 25 years. He can now apply for parole but won’t be doing so as that would be “admitting his guilt as he did not commit the crime,” said Barbara Stone. She has also supported other people campaigning to overturn their convictions.

Bellfield is serving a life sentence for the murders of Marsha McDonnell and Amélie Delagrange, and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy. In 2011 he was also convicted of killing Milly Dowler, 13. He has converted to Islam and is known as Yusuf Rahim, His confession is being added to an appeal by Stone’s solicitor, Paul Bacon, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which turned down a 2010 appeal. Bacon said in 2011 that he believed Bellfield may have committed the Chillenden murders, stating that Josie described a beige Ford car at the scene. Bellfield was driving a beige Ford Sapphire at that time.

Call for impartial investigation

Barbara Stone said: “It is good news as if what he has written is proved to be true it should lead to Mick being released. Bellfield does look like the photofit of the killer and I believe there is a lot of detail in the letter that means we can track his movements throughout the fateful day. It should all be provable.” She does not want Kent Police involved in any new

investigation. “Some of the officers from the time are still working there and they have never been willing to take an unbiased look at the case,” she said.

“They denied for years that they did have the bootlace, which we know they do. Some other force should investigate and the terms of reference should be more open than an earlier review by Hampshire Police.”

Barbara Stone said that her brother was “now optimistic” but did not want to “get too excited as he has had so many knockbacks over the years and there never was any evidence.” She thinks Bellfield’s statement may be “him trying to make peace with his actions”.

MARK METCALF

 

Death at the football in 1934

 The largest crowd to ever watch a football match in Sheffield was 72,481 for an FA Cup tie between Sheffield Wednesday and Manchester City in 1934. Many in the large crowd were fortunate as they were crushed on the Spion Kop. Casualties were treated on the players entrance to the pitch. Manchester City's young 'keeper Frank Swift later recalled that 'after forcing my way through the other player, I had to let pass a stretcher bearing a man crushed to death against the Spion Kop railings.' This being the 1930s the game continued. 

PHE say incinerators not “a significant risk” but father claims they increase infant deaths

I forgot to put this online at the time. 

Waste plant harm dismissed - Big Issue North

Waste plant harm dismissed

PHE say incinerators not “a significant risk” but father claims they increase infant deaths

Big Issue North article

30 October 2020

 

Public Health England’s claims that constructing more waste incinerators is not “a significant risk to public health” has again been challenged by a man whose studies have consistently shown that infant mortality rates are above average in locations close to such plants.

In seeking to reduce landfill, councils are increasingly incinerating waste, with 10.8 million tonnes being burnt in 2017-18, compared with 4.9 million tonnes four years earlier. There are over 90 plants across the UK, with 22 constructed in the last decade, whilst another 50-plus are approved or proposed.

Infant mortality

Michael Ryan began researching the possible impact of air pollution two decades ago after he lost two children, one at 14 weeks, causing him to consider if their deaths could be related to pollution caused by living downwind of incinerators.

He obtained at considerable personal financial cost infant mortality statistics from every ward across England and Wales. He discovered that whether incinerators are sited in affluent areas – for example Chingford, close to the Edmonton incinerator – or poorer areas then infant mortality levels are above average.

He cited other scientists, stretching back over a century in some cases, who challenged the norm that deprivation, poor parenting and cultural practices are the only reasons for infant deaths. He reported on how infant mortality levels had collapsed in both the UK and in those parts of Turkey where natural gas, which releases fewer pollutants, had been introduced.

Ryan’s work, which has been consistently reported in Big Issue North, has been used by MPs to ask parliamentary questions and this in turn pushed Public Health England (PHE) to conduct a study into the impact of waste incinerators on infant mortality levels. This was first promised in 2003, began in 2011 and came out last year, taking six years longer than the original two year schedule.

The result of the research, which ignored Ryan’s work altogether and was undertaken by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, London, was that PHE reconfirmed its claim that “modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health”.

PHE – set to be renamed the National Institute for Health Protection – adjusted the data for deprivation, ethnicity and socioeconomic status before coming to its conclusions. Ryan believes the study was thus flawed and has also questioned why the researchers did not look at what has happened in areas where modern waste incinerators have opened in the last 10 years. One such location is Newhaven on the south coast, opened in 2012, downwind of which are the residents of Lewes and Eastbourne.

‘Convenient dumping ground’

As in many other locations the original proposal to build an incinerator by East Sussex Council was highly controversial and its official opening was boycotted by Norman Baker, Lewes MP, who argued: “Newhaven is simply a convenient dumping ground for the rest of the county.”

Peter Jones, leader of the council, accused opponents of the incinerator of peddling “voodoo science”.

The infant mortality rates for Eastbourne and Lewes in 2013 were zero and 1.1 per 1,000 live births. In 2019, when infant mortality rates for England and Wales were 4 per 1,000 live births, the corresponding figures in Eastbourne and Lewes were 8.7 and 7.9. In real life this corresponds to six infant deaths in Lewes.

Critics believe such trends should be worth examining by a body charged with protecting public health.

Along the south coast, Exeter incinerator opened in 2014 when the infant mortality rate was 3 per 1,000 live births. By 2019 it had doubled to 6 infant deaths.

In the Midlands, Bromsgrove’s infant mortality rate has risen since the £165 million Hartlebury incinerator began in 2017 from 3 to over 6 per 1,000 live births.

The figures in other locations are not so gloomy. In Leeds it rose only slightly, from 4.8 in 2016, when the Leeds Energy Recovery Plant incinerator was opened, to 5.1 last year. Bolton, which has two incinerators, has a rate of 4.9 per 1,000 live births with 18 still births and 18 infant deaths last year.

There are no areas with incinerators where infant mortality rates are below the national average.

Big Issue North asked PHE if it had studied the statistics for newer incinerators. Could it offer any explanation? Were infants dying unnecessarily and was PHE partly responsible by failing to consider Ryan’s work?

PHE did not respond to the specific questions, restating its longstanding position that incinerators are not a significant risk, with a spokesperson adding: “While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from these incinerators completely, any potential effect for people living close by is likely to be very small.”

Eastbourne and Lewes councils and Caroline Ansell, Eastbourne’s MP, did not respond to requests for comment.

Ryan said: “PHE, councils and MPs should be looking at trends over time. By doing so they’d surely become aware of many sudden post-incinerator rises in infant death rates which surely cannot be put down to sudden influxes of poorer people into these localities.”

DEATHS AND INJURIES, HALIFAX 16 AUGUST 1842

 

DEATHS AND INJURIES, HALIFAX 16 AUGUST 1842

 By Catherine Howe, February 2022 

 

                                    The plaque will be unveiled on Saturday 13 August 2022 

It seems certain that there was no official investigation into what took place at Halifax on 16 August 1842.  Judging by documentation so far found, local authority reporting on injuries barely exists beyond an incomplete note archived at Kew in Home Office papers (HO 45/264-175) and magistrate George Pollard’s sketchy report of 18 August to the Home Office (HO 45/264-171) which focuses on military injuries.   We know from newspaper reports that people were killed in Halifax and yet you will see below that when Thomas Slingsby Duncombe addressed parliament on 28 March 1843 he had no idea that there had been deaths in Halifax.  This is confirmation that a proper recording of events and injuries and deaths was not undertaken which leaves us unable ever to state how many died from the action that day, or to say how many were injured and the extent of their injuries.  It is known that some 100 soldiers armed with sabres, bayonets and rifles chased on horseback and on foot an estimated 1500 demonstrators across Haley Hill and into the nearby streets of Halifax for some time.

 

Because of fear of arrest, many of those injured, some grievously, chose to be taken home rather than taken to the infirmary, others left the town completely.

 

 

 

5 Men reported killed: 

 

1.      Jonathan Booth shot through the abdomen close by Akroyd’s Mill by Range Bank.  He died the next day in the infirmary.  The inquest held the following week found it justifiable homicide. (Bradford Observer 25 Aug 1842 p. 5)

 

2.      Three unnamed men found dead in Akroyd’s private grounds, Woodside, the following day.  These men were shot either by soldiers or special constables.

 

3.      William Sutcliffe lost his leg to a gun shot wound and died a few days later.

 

4.      Benjamin Wilson recorded a man dying before he could get to the infirmary. 

 

5.       An eye-witness writing from the Northgate Hotel as the attack was underway:  “I got here last night and have been completely a prisoner for it would have been dangerous to go out.   This inn is the HQ for the military and never have I witnessed such dreadful scenes as I have done today.  I have seen many a poor fellow shot this day!  While I am writing this, five have just been brought in wounded; two of whom have just breathed their last. Several of the soldiers are dreadfully cut.  Where I am I can see nearly all that is doing.”   [Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser 20 Aug 1842 p. 2]

 

6.       Another visitor to Halifax on 16th August 1842 said he had seen four corpses ‘lying near the Northgate Bridge’ which was corroborated by another.  ‘The soldiers were reloading their pieces in the street.’  Another said that he had seen ‘two of the corpses.  A musket ball had passed through the body of one man, and the other had been killed by a bayonet thrust, which has passed quite through the neck.’  [Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser 20 Aug 1842 p. 2]

 

 

 

Men reported badly injured:

 

1.      Samuel Crowther of King Street, subject of T. S. Duncombe’s parliamentary speech.  Shot in the abdomen by a soldier.  Samuel survived. 

 

2.      The Bradford Observer (18 Aug 1842) reporting on 16 August:  ‘We saw three men carried down Haley Hill – one wounded between the shoulders, another in his back, another was in a cart where he was wounded we could not learn.  But to all appearances they were fatally wounded.’

 

3.      A young man called Sutton Briggs was shot through the groin.  He was attended to at the scene then taken home.  (Groin gunshot wounds are rarely survived without critical medical care) 

 

4.      Henry Walton of Skircoat Green was so badly wounded by a cut to his scalp from a sabre during the Haley Hill attack that it was thought unlikely he would survive it but no corroboration of his death has been found.  Henry chose to be taken back to his home at Skircoat Green.  He doesn’t appear in the 1851 census for Skircoat Green. 

 

5.      The Bradford Observer 18 Aug 1842 reports a man called Crowther ‘had his head literally slashed open near the Northgate Hotel, by a stroke of one of the constables’ bludgeons.’ 

 

6.    Charles Taylor received a severe cut to his face from a sabre during the Haley Hill attack.

 

7.    John Holroyd bayoneted five times on Broad Street.

 

8.    Matham Crook bayoneted and hit about the head close by the Northgate Hotel

 

9.      Two men shot in the leg the day before the Haley Hill attack, one possibly a special constable by a soldier (mistakenly), the other reported to be a man called Wadsworth [Bradford Observer 18 Aug 1842 for Wadsworth].

 

10.  A fatality rumoured during the Salterhebble stoning on the morning of the Haley Hill attack.  [Bradford Observer 18 Aug 1842]

 

11.  Unnumbered men who reportedly fled the town for fear of arrest and who were said to be approaching doctors with injuries.

 

12.  The dozens of men in the police station who showed injuries.

 

 

 

 

1843

 

Thomas Slingsby Duncombe spoke for Samuel Crowther, and others in Preston and

Blackburn in the House of Commons on 28 March 1843.  He was member for Finsbury. 

 

HANSARD:

OUTBREAK IN THE NORTH.—CONDUCT OF THE MAGISTRATES.—

HC Deb 28 March 1843 vol 68 cc 70-73

§ Mr. T. Duncombe

Then there was a case of gross outrage at Halifax, on the person of Samuel Crowther. The case was thus stated to him in the letter of a correspondent:— In going (on their return to the barracks) by the Smithy-stake, the soldiers passed through a narrow causeway, which leads to the barracks.  Samuel Crowther, a nail-maker by trade, who resides in King-street, when the soldiers had passed, went out to look for one of his children that was out of the House—he was within a few yards of his House when he was shot! Feather, the constable, was with the soldiers or standing by at the time he fired; there were not half-a-dozen persons in the street at the time. Crowther was in the army ten years prior to 1816, belonged to the Artillery, was at the battle of Waterloo and many other engagements prior to that, was then discharged with 5d. per day pension, in addition to which he could work at his trade before this misfortune happened, but has never been able to work since; he had 2s per week from the parish for six weeks, they would then relieve him no longer; he is now obliged to live on his pension, or be a burthen upon some one else; he is fifty-four years of age; he is a married man, and has a wife and small family. The above is strictly correct; I have it from Crowther himself, he says he thinks he shall never be able to work any more. Now it was to be observed, that in the particular part of the town where this poor old man lived, there had not been the slightest disturbance, and therefore the act in question appeared to be an instance of mere wanton outrage. Mr. Bingley, the reporter for the Leeds Times, and Mr. Hall, of the Leeds Mercury, were eyewitnesses of the circumstances, being within two yards of the victim at, the time of the occurrence, and were prepared to prove the facts as they appeared in the newspapers at the time. That account in the Leeds Times ran thus:— The affair took place in King-street, which is in the vicinity of the barracks and police office. A small number of the Hussars, who had been clearing the streets, turned up the bottom of King-street, and, after proceeding a few yards, were filing into a street called Nelson-street, which runs out of it. At the time that Messrs. Bingley and Hall were approaching the top of King-street, an old man, named Samuel Crowther, a nailmaker, was coming towards them, apparently to go to his own residence, which was only two or three yards distant. At this period there was not the slightest disturbance in the streets, and, indeed, there were not, it is believed, twenty persons in the space betwixt the top of the street and the soldiery towards the bottom, a distance of probably nearly one hundred yards. All the soldiery had disappeared along Nelson-street, except one man who paused and looked in the direction of the persons above-mentioned, and then levelled his musket, and appeared to take a deliberate aim at them. Not the slightest alarm was felt by either Mr. Bingley or Mr. Hall, who, seeing no cause for violence, apprehended none, and regarded the action of the soldier as, simply, a piece of bravado, and looked at him, with perfect unconcern. The soldier, however, fired, and immediately the old man staggered and reeled in the direction of his own door, but made no outcry. Mr. Bingley exclaimed, 'The man is shot!' or some such expression, but Mr. Hall, who had previously seen him in a fit, replied that he was only in a fit. In a few moments, however, a number of women rushed out of the House, exclaiming that the man had been shot, and on entering the House, which was crowded with women uttering loud screams, the old man was found lying on his back on a bed up stairs, with a wound in his abdomen, his shirt was saturated with blood, and he was writhing with agony. Messrs. Bingley and Hall immediately went to procure the attendance of a surgeon. On calling afterwards, it was understood that there was but little chance of recovery. At the time the shot was fired, Mr. Bingley and Mr. Hall were only about a yard from the man who received it. A more deliberate piece of butchery was never witnessed. The poor man was carried to the infirmary where he remained for eighteen weeks. He was now incapable of work, yet from the time of the outrage up to the present moment not the slightest inquiry had been made into the matter. No committee of the town's people had investigated the matter. No witnesses had been examined; nor was any thing done to elucidate the transaction. Some London newspapers referred the matter to Leeds, which might be one reason why no inquiry took place; but there could be no doubt or mistake about it for what said the Bradford Observer? That paper said:— Murder, or What?—On Tuesday afternoon, whilst Mr. Samuel Crowther, a respectable nail-maker, and aged pensioner, was standing at his own door in King-street, watching the Lancers pass by, one of the advanced guard having passed him forty yards, at the corner of Nelson-street, turned round, and shot the brave disciple of Wellington through the body. He took that from the Bradford paper. There was no doubt, then, that was true, no doubt; the House could not doubt that the man had been wantonly shot; that he had been seriously wounded; that he was even now in a sinking state; that it was impossible that he should ever resume work. [. . .] The local authorities of Halifax had neglected their duty in not bringing the offenders in this case to justice; and the House would equally neglect its duty if it did not institute the investigation demanded. He hoped, however, that the House would concede the inquiry, and so lessen the strong feeling which now prevailed amongst the working classes, that no justice could ever be obtained for working men.

 

HC Deb 28 March 1843 vol 68 cc 70-73

§ Mr. T. Duncombe

He, however, understood, that at Halifax a very strong feeling prevailed that the whole    conduct of the military on the occasion there was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The petitioners stated, that before the military were called upon to clear the streets at Halifax they were made drunk; and at Blackburn the people seemed to think that the military had some compunction in acting against their starving fellow countrymen, and hence this system was resorted to, and at Halifax it appeared the military were kept at the Norfolk arms [sic] —that they were visited by the gentlemen of the town, who gave them money to expend in intoxicating liquors, in order, as it was said, "to keep them up to the mark." At Halifax all sorts of illegal arrests were made by the military, and though the parties were liberated, they had never from that time to the present been brought up for examination, nor had they been made acquainted with the grounds upon which they had been arrested. Preston, he believed, was the only place at which loss of life had occurred;

The Halifax Guardian called Duncombe’s parliamentary speeches on the conduct of the magistracy and of the military very incorrect and goes on to argue against every point.  [Halifax Guardian  1 April 1843]

 

 

The following Hansard report is pertinent also and goes some way to explain Halifax working people’s especial fury against their employers:

HALIFAX UNION

HC Deb 08 March 1843 vol 67 cc426-7 426

§ Mr. Ferrand  [member for Knaresborough]

seeing the Home Secretary [Sir James Graham] in his place begged again to refer to the conduct of the board of guardians of the Halifax Union. On a previous evening he had stated to the House that the guardians of the union, with the consent of Mr. Clements, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner, had entered into preliminary arrangements for the erection of a tread-wheel in the workhouse. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) upon that occasion declared that what he (Mr. Ferrand) stated was not true, and that the machinery which the guardians proposed to erect was not a tread-wheel but a hand-mill. Since then he had received from an unquestionable source the following statement:— That the board of guardians of the Halifax Union, on the 1st of March, with the consent and sanction of Mr. Clements, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner, resolved that arrangements should be made for the erection of a tread-wheel, exactly the same in principle as the one at the Wakefield, or any other house of correction. The power is to be applied to a rag machine, and the estimate for the wheel is to be to hold from four to forty men. He (Mr. Ferrand) wished to know whether the board of guardians had the sanction of the Home Secretary for the erection of this wheel?

§ Sir James Graham [Home Secretary]

he had received from the Poor-law Commissioners an assurance that they had reason to believe that the statement that the board of guardians of the Halifax Union had entered upon arrangements for the erection of a tread-wheel, was inaccurate. He had seen one of the Poor-law Commissioners again that morning, and had again inquired of him whether he had any reason to doubt that the statement which he (Sir James Graham) had made in the House, upon the authority of the Commissioners, was incorrect. The Commissioner again assured him that he believed the statement was quite correct, that the machinery in question was not a tread-wheel but a hand-mill for the grinding of corn. He was unable, from his own knowledge, to give any assurance upon the subject. But he had no hesitation in repeating what he stated the other evening, that he should most extremely deprecate the erection of a tread-wheel in any union workhouse; and if by any misfortune such an intention should exist in the minds of the guardians at Halifax, he was sure that the Poor-law Commissioners would unite with him in the exertion of all his influence to prevent its being carried into effect.

 

THE HALIFAX BOARD OF GUARDIANS

HC Deb 13 March 1843 vol 67 cc754-65 754

§ Mr. Ferrand 

 

[extract only]

a rag machine had been erected, for the purpose of grinding rags obtained from the poor of the towns on the continent, and impregnated with all manner of contagion and filth, and he was told that the stench was so great, and the dust arising from the grinding so oppressing, that they had the greatest difficulty in parts of Yorkshire, where rags of this kind were ground for purposes of fraud by the cloth manufacturers, to get persons to undertake the work. But, in order to make this more of an infliction on the poor pauper, the wheel was to be worked by capstans, which were to be turned by the poor like horses. These capstans were to be worked at not only by the feet, but by the hands and breasts. According to the opinion of a medical gentleman whom he had seen, it was highly injurious to the health to labour in this way, and was likely to end in apoplexy. This was the sort of mill which was about to be erected in the Halifax union workhouse for the employment of the poor there, either with or without the knowledge of the Poor Law Commissioners; if they knew of it, then they had deceived the House in the statement which they had authorized the right hon. Baronet to make in his place; if they, did not know of it, then they had neglected their duty.

 

 

 

National Gallery - a display of the rich person............

 'The Nation's Gallery. The story of European art, masterpiece by masterpiece.'                                        

www.nationalgallery.org.uk

Taking the opportunity to visit (for free) with my son the National Gallery on Trafalgar Square on Saturday 12 February 2022 was a worthwhile experience. There are some stunning art works on display. Only one though is of a worker or, in this case, a peasant woman. Not surprisingly it was painted by Van Gogh.

Back in 2018 I wrote this short piece:- 

https://writemark.blogspot.com/2012/07/wot-no-workers.html

Part of the article included 

Of course, this removal of the rural labourer is not unique in the history of the ruling class in the countryside. 

Even 18th century landscape painter, Gainsborough said “Damn gentleman, there is no such set of enemies to a real artist in the world as they are!” His favourite of all his paintings was ‘The Woodman’ , an old labourer standing beside a bundle of faggots. Such paintings didn’t sell and his heavy debts meant he would have found it unwise to ‘stray from the happy peasant’s cottage door to its wet and squalid interior.’ (the Long Affray by Harry Hopkins) 

Gainsborough stuck to the rich and their habitats, all suitably bathed in light. This at a time when more than 50% of the population of England lived in the countryside, and from which the wealth of the nation was ultimately founded. In the Netherlands, Van Gogh showed the faces of these people - the yokels, clod-hoppers and bumpkins - but not in England as to do so would threaten to reveal the naked weapon of class rule in the countryside. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Lady Jane Grey prior to her execution. She was Queen for just 9 days. 

The Duke of Wellington.

The perils of child birth. Whilst the man of the house is lively in this painting his clearly exhausted wife, surrounded by her seven children, looks many years older than him.  It seems reasonable to assume that the mother in this era would have had a number of other children that did not survive child birth or the first few years of infancy. 

152 League Grounds and counting - do I hold the all time record?

 On Saturday 12 February 2022 I was with my son at Sunderland's match at Wimbledon away. The Dons have a new ground that opened in the 2020-21 season but, of course, COVID blocked off any chance of seeing Sunderland play there until this season.

The game itself was a typical third tier football match with the referee, in particular, bloody awful. 

My visit meant this was the 152th ground where I have watched a Football or Premier League game and I think that might just be a record.

I still though have 4 grounds to do - Brentford's that opened last season, Spurs new ground plus Sutton United, new boys in the fourth tier this season, and Forest Green. (which I have previously visited for a friendly match against Sunderland) 

I was minded to visit Sutton and Forest Green in December 2021 and January 2022 but such is Sunderland's position in the third tier that I decided not to do so with both Sutton United and Forest Green looking like they may gain promotion then the Lads may well (sadly) play them in 2022/23.

          A highly dubious penalty helped Wimbledon take the lead in a game that ended 1-1. 

                           Sunderland sold out the away end with 1,200 away fan in attendance 

‘CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM’ OVER CLADDING

 

‘CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM’ OVER CLADDING

Big Issue North magazine, 7-13 February 2022

There is cautious optimism among those trapped in properties with Grenfell Tower-type cladding that their campaigning has pushed the government into action to resolve their concerns about the possibility of a fire starting overnight and heavy insurance costs. The Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington in 2017 killed 72 residents. Fire spread quickly up its exterior cladding, used on millions of properties.

Insurance costs

Julie Fraser, spokesperson for Liverpool Cladiators which supports residents with fire safety concerns, is a leaseholder at the Decks, a block of flats in Runcorn. She said: “After Grenfell, residents had safety concerns but in late 2017 we were informed by the agency that manages the flats everything was safe.

“Then in 2019 we were told the cladding was dangerous. We needed a waking watch [where trained staff continually patrol a building’s floors and perimeter to look out for fire]. Underground parking was prohibited by the fire service who also instructed us to pay to install new fire alarms. But people still live in fear.”

Julie Fraser 

Despite new safety measures the Decks total insurance costs of £33,000 in 2019 have leapt to £514,000 this year. These are passed on to residents in their quarterly service charges, which have rocketed. Liverpool Cladiators pushed housing secretary Michael Gove on the problem at a recent meeting.

“Mine was £254 and is now £719. A friend pays £770,” said Fraser. “Leaseholders nationally can’t cope and could lose their properties for non-payment. Campaign groups have spoken to the insurance industry but they pretend to be ignorant about the premiums we are paying.”

 Another Decks tenant, Paul Phair, fears he may lose his rented flat due to rising expenses, while an elderly resident who owns his property now fears it is worthless.

                                                            Paul Phair 

                                                          

Following Grenfell, it was estimated that £30 billion needed spending on unsafe cladded properties. The government argued that tower blocks that remained dangerous failed to comply with regulations. Developers contended that regulations were at fault. Residents were caught in the middle.

Government U-turn

When the government was forced to agree to make tower blocks safe it allocated £5 billion in support. Progress has been slow. In January 2020, West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYF&RS) wrote to residents in 13 tower blocks telling them they may have to leave their properties unless they had firm plans to remove dangerous cladding.

Two years on WYF&RS believes work is yet to be completed on six of them.

A spokesperson said: “The six buildings have substantial plans. Whilst we would like buildings that require defects to be remediated as quickly as possible, we must appreciate the availability of competent engineers to assess the requirements necessary together with the availability of contractors and equipment. Remediation works span years.

“Our officers work with building owners to ensure that adequate interim measures remain in place… we carry out routine checks.”

Government funds only covered blocks above 18 metres high. That ruled out support for three of the six blocks at the Decks. Leaseholders in smaller buildings were faced with taking out loans to remove unsafe cladding.

 In a sudden reversal of direction, Gove recently announced that leaseholders in buildings 11 to 18 metres in height will not have to contribute to replacing cladding. Instead, the £4 billion works “should be funded by the industries that profited… those who mis-sold dangerous products, such as cladding or insulation…. those who cut corners to save cash.”

Gove has threatened legal measures if the construction industry and developers do not thrash out a solution for payment, and asked the Financial Conduct Authority why insurance premiums have rocketed for many customers where cladding has not been removed.

Fraser said: “The devil is always in the detail. Michael Gove appears open to discussion and has promised regular meetings. I believe he wants to get a grip of this.

“He is putting the onus on the developers and manufacturers. Many are donators to the Tory Party and we don’t believe that they will take this lying down. They will put up a fight. “So will we because it is only through campaigning that we have made progress and there is still a long way to go.”

                                                 The Decks, Runcorn

All photographs are copyright of Mark Harvey of ID8 Photography 

THE SECRET LIES IN THE SOIL

 

THE SECRET LIES IN THE SOIL

Landworker magazine article 

Many agricultural experts – including Unite’s food security and soil scientist, Dr Charlie Clutterbuck,  believe soil quality is critical for the future of the UK’s food supply.

Experts have welcomed the government’s decision to pay farmers to improve it for the first time.

But doubts still remain over how soil quality will be assessed, the mechanism for paying farmers and whether there are sufficient scientists and research facilities to provide farmers with advice.

Following Brexit, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy farm subsidies are being phased out and replaced with the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme, to be introduced next year.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the SFI is “centred around incentivising sustainable farming practices alongside profitable food production and rewarding farmers for producing public goods such as better air and water quality, protecting wildlife and improving soil health”.

The plans also include under the government’s 25-year Environment Plan a net zero carbon ambition.

But as Landworker readers know all too well ‘profitable food production’ will always trump sustainable farming.

Soil quality and biodiversity supports agricultural production and the storage of carbon. But almost 4 million hectares of soil in England and Wales are at risk of compaction, according to the Environment Agency, and 2 million hectares are at risk of erosion.

Intensive agriculture has caused arable soils to lose 40-60 per cent of their organic carbon, said the Environment Agency in July. But it added that there is insufficient data on soil health and called for investment in monitoring.

Farmers can sign up to SFI schemes to improve arable and horticultural soils at payments between £30 and £59 per hectare and grassland soils at £6-£8 per hectare. Under the EU basic payments subsidies scheme farmers received £230 per hectare.

“Not only is the money that once went direct to farmers being replaced by the SFI but half of this funding, £2bn, will be cut and replaced by schemes that the government has yet to announce, based on the new natural environment investment readiness fund (NEIRF),” commented Clutterbuck.

Clutterbuck is himself part of the Ribble Valley consortium NEIRF bid led by the Larder Project in Preston, which includes key organisations like the NFU.

. NEIRF will provide natural capital grants of between £10,000 and £100,000 to “people interested in tackling climate change, creating and restoring habitats or improving water quality”. Again, no mention of food.

Clutterbuck said much of the money on the bid he worked on is set aside for consultants at £500- £600 a day.

 “These consultants will be focused on attracting large scale funding, whereas in the past farmers big or small got direct payments. Jobs will be lost.”

Clutterbuck fears that attracting large-scale private sector investment will mean large scale landscape picture box projects rather than a working countryside.

 “As such,” he continued, “ a good number are likely to be rewilding and tree plantation projects, neither of which will, after an initial boost, provide long-term employment for local people. “

 According to a Defra spokesperson: “Healthy soil is key to supporting our targets on the environment and improving farm profitability. Well managed soils can lead to increased biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration and storage, improved water quality and flood prevention.”

Yet there are actually no specific soil targets in the Environment Act. When the Lords sought - through an amendment at the Bill stage - to include legally binding targets government the minister in charge, Rebecca Pow, admitted it did “not yet have the reliable metrics needed to set a robust target …. and to measure its progress.” The Tories refused to accept the amendment.

Instead, there is to be a Soil Health Action Plan (SHAPE) to develop indicators, methodology and monitoring. SHAPE will provide  a ‘strategic direction’ but there is no completion target. There has previously been hardly any monitoring on soil quality and in 2020, England spent just £283,780. This compared to £60.5 million on monitoring water quality and £7.65 million on air.

 In response, Luke Pollard, shadow rural affairs secretary, said, “Improving soil health is a vital goal, but without establishing a comprehensive environmental baseline, as we suggested during the passage of the Agriculture Act, it will be hard to measure and achieve.”

Clutterbuck believes monitoring soil quality should begin with “an England-wide measurement of soil carbon”, a legally binding commitment to improving soil quality and investment in more research facilities.

In response a Defra spokesperson said it was planning a “comprehensive programme of soil monitoring across farms participating in the early roll-out. The first stage will be establishing a baseline for a range of soil health indicators.”

 The spokesperson added, “There is a wealth of expertise in soil health within the UK including scientists from the University of Lancaster and UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.”

 Many land research facilities were lost after Margaret Thatcher drew a line between ‘pure’ research, that would be publicly funded, and ‘practical/applied’ research that would be funded by industry. With agriculture being an applied science there thus began a long decimation of land-based research facilities. Three quarters of research stations and many unionised, highly skilled jobs have gone as Britain moves steadily towards importing ever more of its food.

Universities are, at least, now looking to set up additional research and accompanying facilities to help farmers seeking to improve soil quality. A Plymouth University spokesperson said, “We have recently developed new modes of study in this area through our accredited degrees in regenerative farming, with specific modules dedicated to the study of soil health and the range of methods for improving soil quality. Building on the continued success and popularity of our 6-month sustainable horticulture residency at Schumacher College, and the complimentary online course in sustainable growing, we are now increasing this provision through the MSc in Regenerative Food, Farming and Enterprise starting in January, and the BSc in September. “

Felicity Crotty, senior lecturer in soil science at the Royal Agricultural University, also welcomed moves to improve soil quality but warned that testing every field “would be expensive and not every farmer knows how much carbon is in their soil.

We do research on soil health, teach a couple practical modules on soil and environmental science and sustainable soil, and water management. We take the students out into the field and they learn about how to do a visual examination of soil structure, learn about the importance of soil biology and monitoring earth worm numbers.

“We would hope to do more in the field of soil health and with everyone talking about it then you’d expect there would be great government funding in the future,” she added.

Crucially, Clutterbuck has calculated that Britain, which currently imports half its food, could reduce this to around 25-30 per cent through better land management and improving soil content. In turn, this would mean more rural jobs plus many countries that currently export to Britain could begin to grow food for their own people, many of whom go hungry.

“We need that better soil to produce more local produce to regenerate rural communities and not fund carbon offset schemes that benefit the City,” added Clutterbuck.

SFI will be phased in over seven years, while in the next three years farmers will lose half their former EU subsidies. They mean more to smaller northern hill farmers, earning around £25,000 annually, than larger farmers on richer plains. We understand there are many farmers who have worked for generations, are now being offered incentives to quit the land.

But this quite appalling state of affairs is at odds with Boris Johnson’s promise, made in 2016 at a cattle market in Clitheroe, that farmers would get the same amount of money – “100% guaranteed” – from subsidies after leaving the EU, while being relieved of red tape.

Clearly this is not the case. The first SFI schemes will start in the spring.  But according to environmental law expert Richard Smith, “few farmers have signed up to the new programme”.

This has not surprised Pollard. He said, “We have long warned that the new Environmental Land Management schemes, including the SFI, are over-complicated and that many farmers will find them hard to access – that is being borne out by experience as we have seen numbers coming forward to take part in tests and trials falling far short of Government predictions.”

A Defra spokesperson said it was planning a “comprehensive programme of soil monitoring across farms participating in the early roll-out. The first stage will be establishing a baseline for a range of soil health indicators.”

And the way forward? Last words go to Dr Charlie Clutterbuck.

“The labour movement should be supporting plans to improve soil health as that can provide jobs in research and advisory roles, plus it would mean training to proper vocational standards. It could be part of a programme to regenerate rural affairs by creating many more land based jobs as I sought to outline in my 2017 book BITTERSWEET BREXIT – the future of food, farming, land and labour.” Charlie is available to speak at labour and trade union meetings and can be contacted on charlie@sustainablefood.com

Unite gathers cross-party and community support to keep Northern Ireland wages board

 

“We remain hopeful that we can defeat this latest attack on the Agricultural Wages Board. The Ulster Farmers’ Union and its cheerleaders in the Democratic Unionist Party (PUP) are not finding their plans to scrap the AWB plain sailing. The majority of respondents to the Department of Agriculture’s public consultation opposed abolition of the AWB.”

Donal O’Cofaigh, Unite Campaigns, Communications & Press (NI)

In January 2021, the Northern Ireland (NI) Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Edward Poots of the Democratic Unionist Party announced his intention to end the Northern Ireland (NI) AWB that covers over 11,000 agricultural sector employees. Poots is a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) which champions the interests of big ranchers and the agri-food bosses.

Unite immediately opposed the proposal with regional officer Sean McKeever stating: “there is a particular need for a collective bargaining body covering agricultural field workers………the sector receives a huge amount of public funds ..it is one which is inherently difficult to organise given the scattered distribution of workers and the prevalence of part-time working……..

“The AWB is of vital importance in countering exploitation, which all too often includes the practice of trafficking and modern-day slavery  – especially as many are migrant workers with little other protection.” The AWB is the final NI collective bargaining mechanism in with a responsibility for private sector workers.

Success

Unite has sought with considerable success to get organisations to respond to the subsequent Department of Agriculture public consultation and the majority who did so want to see the NI AWB retained.

This included the entire trade union movement, the official rural community network of Northern Ireland, rural councils including Fermanagh & Omagh District Council, and even small farmer organisations like ‘Family Farmers for Action.’

Unite’s submission highlighted the vital role the AWB has, amongst many other things, played in:

·         securing incomes for workers above the bare minimum under the national minimum wage;

 

·         providing protection to vulnerable workers e.g., through setting minimums and enforcement standards for piece rates;

 

·         guaranteeing overtime pay at 1.5 times the standard rate of pay;

 

·         providing enhanced levels of Sick and Holiday Pay and entitlements;

 

·         providing protection for section 75 groups;

 

·         maintaining a mechanism for collective bargaining in the agricultural sector.

 

If the AWB was to be abolished then workers would only by covered by the considerably weaker National Minimum Wage.

Britain and Ireland’s largest union stressed how the abolition of the AWB would place agricultural workers at a disadvantage when compared with current pay, terms and conditions with particular impacts on young, migrant and male workers.

Small farmers link arms with Unite as they seek a guaranteed price structure to pay decent wages

Family Farmers for Action UK (FFA) agreed to back retaining the AWB after they were approached by Unite. According to organiser William Taylor: “FFA has discovered the corporate influence in government. The countryside has become nothing more than slavery and which is why FFA, Belfast Hills Farmers, Farmers For Action UK, Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association and Northern Ireland Livestock Auctioneers Association are promoting a NI Welfare Bill that is with the agriculture committee for scrutiny. “

If the Bill was to get through the assembly then farmers would be paid a Fair Farm Gate Prices Index. This will specify the lowest price to be paid for best-quality produce, across the entire gamut of agricultural commodities produced in Northern Ireland.

This would mean, said Taylor:  “that instead of the major supermarkets setting down what farmers would get it would be the other way round. By obtaining a guaranteed price then the farmer would always have the money to pay his staff properly and to build proper facilities such as toilets and showers. We would have no problems with the AWB addressing the issues that staff have on farms. The plans would also create 10-20,000 new jobs. “

Taylor believes the decision by the UFU to open up membership to corporate companies such as Tesco and Sainsbury’s means the body does not properly represent farmers. He argues that in England the major supermarkets would, if faced with a similar proposed piece of legislation, simply tell Boris Johnson it is not allowed to progress. “That is not happening here. I am confident we can win the battle. If we do then it will influence prices elsewhere across the rest of Britain and Ireland. Farmers everywhere will want similar guarantees and if we can get it then we can raise the 25 per cent of UK farmers who live below poverty level up to a decent income. “

The Rural Community Network (RCN) is a voluntary organisation supporting rural communities across Northern Ireland. Spokesperson Aidan Campbell said it wished to retain the AWB rate for many reasons including as  “an important incentive for young people… entering the industry… to remain within agriculture and seek formal qualifications and skills………progression opportunities for young people in rural communities can contribute to the sustainability of rural areas…. The AWB helps ensure agricultural workers have reasonable terms and conditions.. including holiday entitlement, holiday pay and a level of sick which is additional to statutory sick pay.” The RCN has criticised the Department of Agriculture for failing to engage and obtain the views of agricultural workers who will be directly affected if the AWB is abolished.

The strength of opposition means that according to Donal O’Cofaigh: “For the decision to abolish the AWB to proceed, DUP Minister Edwin Poots will need to secure cross-party support within the NI Executive. Unite is actively calling on all Executive parties to use their vote to save the AWB. Already Sinn Fein and the SDLP have indicated their opposition to abolition as have smaller parties in the Assembly including Greens and People before Profit. We have to keep the pressure on to ensure that these promises turn into a veto.”

Bring back the AWB in England

O’Cofaigh also believes:  “if we can retain the AWB in Northern Ireland, that leaves England as the only part of the UK without a collective bargaining structure in place for agricultural workers. If we are successful it might reopen the way to raise the demand for the re-establishment of the AWB in England  - and indeed in the Republic of Ireland - to protect all agricultural field and farm workers across these islands.” The stakes therefore are high.

 

 

 

The below may be useful if you want to remind readers of the current impact of the loss of the AWB on young English workers.

 

Young English workers lose out 

Whereas young workers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are covered under their respective AWB’s those in England are only covered by the National Minimum Wage.

As such a 20-year-old agricultural worker in Scotland is thus guaranteed £356.40 for a 40-hour working week, in Northern Ireland it is £299.60 and in Wales the figure is £313.60. The sum in England is £262.40, considerably less than elsewhere. The differences for a young person in England aged 18 or under is even greater. It is hardly surprising that young workers in England are not considering entering the agricultural sector.

AWBs also cover pay for workers or all ages in lieu of wages, sick pay, holiday pay, piece rates, overtime rates at 1.5 times the standard rate and it limits deductions for accommodation to a flat rate and which in Northern Ireland is £45 weekly.