South London councillor resigns 8 months after becoming Kent MP
A South London councillor has resigned eight months after being elected to Parliament in Kent. Labour's Jim Dickson has stepped down as member for Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction ward in Lambeth.
The 61-year-old has been MP for Dartford since July, when he overturned a 19,000 majority to win the seat of the Tories. A by-election will be held to select Dickson's successor in Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction on May 1.
Dickson was first elected to Lambeth Council in 1990. He served as leader of the council between 1994 and 2000 and was cabinet member for health before his election to Parliament last year.
READ MORE: The South London neighbourhood 'that feels like a village' and where everyone is 'very friendly'
READ MORE: Greenwich stabbing leaves man in hospital
At the 2022 local elections, Dickson received the most votes of all candidates in Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction.
He finished first with 2,429 votes (18 per cent) and was elected alongside fellow Labour candidates, Pauline George and Deepak Sardiwal.
Green candidate Celeste Hicks was the nearest contender for a seat, finishing fourth with 1,838 votes (13 per cent).
Councillor Claire Holland, leader of Lambeth Council, thanked Dickson for his 'unrivalled service to the borough' over his 35 years as a councillor.
She said: 'He has worked incredibly hard for the people living in his ward, and also for the whole borough. In particular in recent years as our health lead, supporting communities through the Covid-19 pandemic and leading Lambeth Council's crucial work to tackle health inequalities.'
Jim Dickson has been contacted for comment.
Got a story? Email robert.firth@reachplc.com
Don't miss out on the biggest local stories. Sign up to our MySouthLondon newsletter HERE for all the latest daily news and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump ‘SNL' Speech
Source: Arturo Holmes / Getty For comedian Dave Chappelle, the opening monologue he gave as the host of Saturday Night Live after the 2016 presidential election isn't something he regrets. He had the chance to reflect on it during a conversation with comedian Mo Amer for the Actors on Actors series for Variety. 'I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember it fondly,' Chappelle said at the 27-minute mark of the conversation, which was shared Wednesday (June 4) after Amer asked him about his perspective on it from back then to now. The monologue went viral, as Chappelle declared that 'an internet troll' had won the White House, also pointing out his history of sexual assault. He would then segue into how he felt after former President Barack Obama won in 2008. 'And it made me very happy about the prospects of our country,' he said then. 'So, in that spirit, I'm wishing Donald Trump luck. And I'm going to give him a chance. And we, the historically disenfranchised, demand that he give us one, too.''Oh, I remember that part,' Chappelle said. 'You know what? I look at it like a photograph. That's what it felt like in that moment. Now, if it ages well or not, I don't get mad if I look at a picture because it's not today. That's what it was at that time.' He continued, 'You might look at an old set and cringe, but you could just cringe because of how you were at that time. And in that sense, I'm fine with it.' Chappelle's conversation with Amer is one of the rare moments he's opened up for media – he has declined direct interviews in the wake of brushback from jokes he made against the transgender community in his 2021 Netflix special The Closer . But he and the Palestinian comedian bonded during the COVID-19 pandemic, making this a keen opportunity for the two to talk about comedy and their perspectives on the current times particularly with Amer's hit Netflix show. 'As you know, I notoriously don't like to do press,' Chappelle said, 'but today I wouldn't have missed, because it's you.' Check out the entire conversation above. SEE ALSO Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump 'SNL' Speech was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
