Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Despite the removal of the now infamous 'Uncle Joe' Ejiofor, Haringey Council has continued down the path of ignorance and waste and now removed the interim measure signage referencing the historic name of the road. It now reads 'La Rose Lane'.

Hundreds of thousands of public money has been spent despite the facts that:

- residents didn't want it

- it was a knee jerk attempt to virtue signal by the Council leadership on the back of the 'Black Lives Matter' disorders im America.

- the road has been locally known as Blackboy Lane for hundreds of years and refers to the Blackboy Pub which in turn was named in reference to either chimney sweeps or an infant King of England with no genuine racial connotations whatever that are relevant to the UK.

Views: 2171

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

You're sharing fascist content. This is disgusting and I'm surprised the admin here allow the sharing of this toxic filth. I won't be playing the game of debating fascist talking points that you're clearly keen to get started here. 

Nonsense. All the video does is pick apart the bad research and poor historical knowledge that Ms Eddo Lodge has used (factual inaccuracies). That's not toxic! I'm sure the admin will look at the material and draw the same conclusion.  

Simon Webb, the person behind History Debunked, is a supporter of The English Constitution Party - a tiny ultra right party who promote conspiracy theories and seem to have three policies, English self determination, the banning of usury and a thorough investigation into the economic policies of Major  Clifford Douglas who died in 1952.  Webb has also shared platforms with Patriotic Alternative, an openly neo-Nazi group and the Traditional Britain Group which called for the deportation of Doreen Lawrence to her ‘natural homeland’.

Just to put some figures into this thread:

It took rather more than two seconds to find (Haringey has revamped its website and lots of stuff is buried), but the Council’s original estimated cost of renaming was £186,000. This included a maximum of £50,000 for officers’ time, while the rest was direct costs: signage, admin and £50,000 on legal costs, mainly reimbursement to residents for their costs in updating records, etc,. (Link to council minutes here )

A January 2023 FoI request elicited the response that actual expenditure to date had been £53,000, of which around £50,000 was residents’ costs (£300 per household). There’s no mention of officers’ time, so this may suggest it’s only a partial account. (Link here ) It might be instructive to submit a new FoI request asking for an update and the actual expenditure on omitted items from the original budget.

Irrespecrive of whether renaming cost £50,000 or £150,000 (and the impetus behind it), I continue to be sceptical that it was a higher priority for the Council than spending the same amount on trying to help alleviate the borough’s social and housing problems, and deplore the deeply flawed consultation and roughshod dismissal of actual residents’ wishes. Interestingly, around the same time, and for similar reasons, LB Camden renamed a block of flats formerly named after Cecil Rhodes (a plan originally cited by Haringey as support for their own policy, but subsequently ignored — because it went the wrong way). Camden consulted residents properly, asked for their suggestions as well as proposing their own (which, like BBL, would have commemorated specific people) and accepted the residents’ own solution: the politically-neutral “Park View House”, rather than anything relating to a specific person. A lesson in democracy that Haringey might well have studied to their advantage.

HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds of public money were not wasted on the name change.

The waste of public money was in the order of tens of thousands of pounds, not counting the "officer time" wasted.

(one of the remarkable things about the un-budgeted spending was that it was to come from "existing budgets'. Never accept at face value claims by any "officer" who claims, "I'm sorry but there's no money in the budget for that". Under enough pressure from the leader, money will always be found).


The real impact was the disruption to the residents of the road who did not seek this name change. It was rammed through by Joseph Ejiofor and his cronies as a gesture solely for ideological reasons. For residents, the long-tail inconvenience is likely to last for years.

A sole Councillor spoke out publicly against the name change; Haringey's only Councillor who was born in Apartheid South Africa and grew up in Rhodesia: Cllr. Culverwell.

Eldridge is "mixed race" and much the best qualified to express an opinion; few Haringey Councillors have this much integrity.


However, during the 36-months of autocratic and incompetent council leadership under the disgraced former leader, many millions of pounds of public money were wasted in a series of irregular property deals. More than a million was wasted on the "Cranwood" deal alone: still the subject of a police investigation due to concern over corruption.

The most spectacular wheeling and dealing, was to pay £22.6 million for an office block valued at £10.1 million. Six million pounds of which went to further enrich a property developer. This was in order to acquire an option to buy the freehold, after the council missed an opportunity to purchase at a price closer to its value.

The somewhat bland report (pre-redacted) of an external investigator, paid for by the council, can be downloaded here.

There’s a long Council report, with tables, on the consultation about renaming, linked here. 71% of BBL residents did not want the name changed, but the Council ignored them in favour of those who, despite not living in BBL, did support the change. In the breakdown by ethnic background, those identified as Black/African Caribbean voted against the change. The main group supporting the change were shown as “White other/European”.

The problem is that the actual number of respondents was very low, and most respondents gave no opinion at all. However, it seems clear that the Council (or at least a small number of councillors) were determined to make a political statement in the face of opposition from the people most directly affected and inconvenienced. In a previous post I contrasted this with Camden’s similarly-motivated move to change what they saw as a potentially derogatory name; in contrast, however, they consulted the residents who were directly affected and respected their views in the eventual outcome, rather than bulldozing them into submission.

There is little doubt it was Charles II.  Property deeds in Haringey’s archive trace the Pub name right back to the late 1600s.

During that period it is well documented that many Inns and Taverns named themselves ‘The Black Boy’, after the Heir to the executed King (Charles I), who had thick, dark curly hair. They wanted to demonstrate their support for the restoration of the monarchy (possibly to save their own souls!) following the English Civil War.

It cannot be underestimated how terrified the population must have been by the execution of the man at the time widely believed to be God Incarnate. People would have believed this a deadly sin potentially meaning the whole population might burn eternally in the afterlife.

A very poorly researched report was presented to the council when they considered this matter. This said the pub  ‘could have been named after a slave boy or after King Charles II’ but gave none of the overwhelming historical context which makes clear it had to be the latter.

Yes, very important history has been ignored. That was a period which shaped the destiny of our country, and from which lessons should continue to be learned.

Ironically, a shouty and ignorant minority (rather like the ones that cut the head off Charles I) have had their way and rewritten history. Perhaps we will yet see another restoration! 



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service