Let's talk about NYE in London

- and how abysmal the 'beefed up' security was compared to last year.

For the big fireworks display at New Year's, rather than allowing hundreds of thousands of tourists to camp on the bridges from midday for the best view, tickets are now sold for the good viewing areas. As people still live within the ticked areas, residential streets are supposed to be shut off to the general public, so we can drink our champagne and laugh at the plebs who can't afford a riverside house, so our street isn't ruined by tourists and their bodily fluids. To do this, they put up a couple of metal barriers and a couple of (untrained) 'security' staff at the top of the road, to guide visitors to the proper areas. Last year this worked well, this year was different.

By 11:30pm, we noticed strange people walking and running down our road - upon going out to investigate, we we told by the sole teenage boy on the gate that he had been 'overpowered' and had 'no radio to get help'. I grabbed some staff from nearby gates, had them radio for assistance, and cleared the street of the 30 or so teenage strangers that had invaded. As it approached midnight, however, more kept appearing - another 40 being simply let through the barriers - and climbed over the fence to the closed park, before ripping a hole in it to get through more easily.

The fireworks were fantastic - apart from Mayor Khan't feeling the need to have a booming voiceover reminding us that 'London is open', rather ironically as all the good pubs had closed at 5pm so they didn't have to deal with drunk tourists.

Being still pissed off about all the trespassers, who did more damage to the park fence when breaking out of it, I spoke to the gate supervisor who had managed to turn up during the event; she told me they were chronically understaffed, and didn't have enough equipment like radios. Although we had 'the most police ever' patrolling central London, as they all had jobs to do and places to be, they were also essentially understaffed and could only leave their beats for proper emergencies. There was nothing they could do.

Why does a few trespassers wanting to watch the fireworks bother me?
Because if some teenage yobs can get through the barriers and break into the park so easily, what is there to stop a terrorist doing the same? What if there had been an actual security situation? The guy supposed to be manning the gates could barely be older than 20, had no security training, and no radio to ask for backup. In a year when the security was supposed to be the best ever, it is simply unacceptable that the fireworks event organisers can get away with such shoddy management.

The homeless problem in central London is not just about housing

Upon returning to London after Christmas, I was greeted with the rather un-festive news that there had been a fatal stabbing across the road from my local pub, quite literally metres away from Charing Cross Police station and Trafalgar Square. Just after 7am, a homeless man had been killed outside the day centre right around the time they serve breakfast.

The problem of rough sleeping in central London has got to endemic proportions - with one in 25 of the Westminster population being homeless - residents will tell you, it was only a matter of time before someone was killed like this. Lining every street around the central London area are hundreds, if not thousands, of rough sleepers; almost all have mental health and addiction problems, there are constant fights, and many residents have had to call ambulances to treat overdosed addicts on our doorsteps. Whilst there is much talk of the housing crisis in London - with rising rents and property prices crippling those on low (and even medium) wages - by the time someone is sleeping rough on the streets in the centre of London, they need more help than just a house.

Imagine for a minute, you were made homeless: if you did not have the opportunity to stay with friends or family, had no recourse for state assistance and nowhere indoors to sleep, what would you do? Would your choice be to hide in a quiet park, or sleep in the alleyway next to the busiest streets in the country? Keep a low profile and try get back some sense of normality, or sit on a street corner in Soho begging for change? 

Let's be honest here - for someone to be on the streets in central London for months or even years, it's because their addictions and/or violent behaviour has got them kicked out of every hostel and they get more money for drugs begging to tourists - not just because 'houses cost to much'. The presence of so many rough sleepers on the streets of central London represent more than just a failure of housing - there is a deeper failure of mental health and social services that have allowed so many to end up addicted to drugs and sleeping on the streets. Rather than more hostel beds & council blocks, we need more beds in rehab and mental health facilities, and assistive accommodation that helps treat people's problems rather than just putting a roof over their head; being practical, this will never be located in central London. 

Hiring the Night Czar

The mayor's office has come under some scrutiny for the appointment of Amy Lame to the new position of Night Czar, and the creation of the additional job Chair of the Nighttime Commission after the applications (and interviews) had finished. I spent a good portion of my Wednesday morning watching the GLA Oversight Committee grill the hiring committee about the process of appointing the Night Czar, which (as expected) was a travesty. You can check out the associated documents here or watch the meeting here.

What is a Night Czar anyway?

Initially, the role of Night Czar was to work with key stakeholders to develop "a vision for London as a 24 hour city", a strategy for implementation, and a best practice guide for councils - as well as overseeing research into the nighttime economy and supporting existing projects - chairing the Nighttime Commission, working 2.5 days per week, for a £35,000 salary.

Indeed, this was the job description until after the interview process - when it was decided that the role was 'too large for one person' and, should instead, be spilt into the Night Czar and the Chair of the Nighttime Commission. The former is to develop the vision, the latter to work with the councils - now we have two 2.5 day/week £35k/year roles, up from none under Boris.

From Wednesday's meeting, the Czar will be spending the next 6 months developing a "vision" for 24 hour London, and the remainder of her 12 month contract developing a strategy, maybe commissioning a few bits of research along the way. It seems that the Czar is mostly expected to go around and meet with international counterparts to 'learn best practice' and be a nice media figure to keep Londoners happy (and make it look like Mayor Khan is improving things)

Have the Mayor's office or the Nighttime Commission thought of any specific goals they want the Czar to achieve? Any measurable targets? Any areas of focus?

No. They're not even sure what budget will be allocated to the role.

How did they choose who got the job?

The role was first announced back on the 18th of August, just a week after the closure of iconic nightclub Fabric, fuelling publicity for applications; overall 189 were received, an "unprecedented" and "exceptional" number according to HR. Prior to the announcement of applications, the Mayor's team had also discussed people they wanted (and would encourage) to apply for the role - it was not confirmed if Ms. Lame was on this list, but I suspect she was. From the applicants, 38 were put on the long-list, and 9 interviewed - with interviewers admitting they suspected the journalists applying only did so for the story, not because they wanted the job. Of those interviewed, most of the notes include recommendations and support from key stakeholders and business leaders and extensive knowledge of licensing laws and working with councils; Ms. Lame's interview notes, in comparison, suggest the interviewers were more impressed by the fact she is a queer activist celebrity.

It was only after the interview process that the hiring team, in consultation with the Mayor's office and legal advisors, decided to split the role - not because they decided the amount of work had doubled, but because they decided it was actually two roles. Incidentally, the only two people scored above 25 by the Deputy Mayor at interview were the Night Czar herself, and whoever will be announced as Chair of the Nighttime Commission. These were also the only two interviewees informed of the change in job role of Czar, and the creation of the Chair's position. 

Is it common for a job role to be changed so much after interview without the application process being rerun? No, in fact, the hiring team cannot name another instance where this has happened. 

Why is Amy Lame a controversial choice?

Is the fact she's payed through her company (rather than being a direct employee) as big an issue as implied by the media? To me, no, not really. It's become so common to do in London that no-one really cares. I would like to know who her accountant is though, because I would also like to pay no tax (presumably through clever legal avoidance schemes).

She's not a fan of Conservatives - calling them "Tory scum" and "cunts" amongst other insults and threats of mild violence, on Twitter. This is problematic, when many of London's councils she is expected to work with are run by the Conservatives; indeed she wrote to them apologising for her comments and assuring them of her desire to work together - but only after they had written to her with their concerns. The Mayor's office, prompted by the GLA Oversight Committee, has now asked her to remove the tweets - although she continues to like posts made by others in support of her sentiment. Did they know about this before hiring her? Yes and no - she told them at interview that there may be controversial statements due to her work as an activist, but the Mayor's team never bothered to google her to find out what those were... 

Aside from her dislike of right-wing political views, Ms. Lame seems to have little industry experience, aside from performing queer comedy and running a gay night at a pub. I'm sure these were entirely successful ventures (although her company has registered a loss for the past 7 years), but there is much more to London's nighttime economy than gay clubs. It seems that there were several well respected industry figures interviewed, and I hope that Ms. Lame will work closely and take onboard the views and ideas of the wider nighttime community. 

I'm sure there'll be more to come...