Not learning from the idiocy of scheduling women-only swimming sessions that debarred women from swimming with their children (and excluded all men) during peak weekend times, Clissold Leisure Centre has now been barring access to its pool to most of the community by reserving the pool to Muslim men on Sunday mornings.

I wish Hackney Council put the same effort into fairness and leadership as it does into target-hitting. It would not only look less ridiculous, but the tragic results of inhuman, bureaucratic single-mindedness might finally be avoided.

I am so angry.

Today I read over at Dave Hill’s blog that Hackney Council had been awarded - as it confidently expected - a three star rating for its services.

I bit my tongue because, yes, I have noticed a bit of an improvement recently. There’s a lot wrong round here, but I’ve been hoping the good will take root.

And then, just now, I read this:

A pensioner who died after being evicted by police had refused to move from his squalid council flat into the refurbished flat next door, it was revealed today.

The man, named locally as John Wise, was found collapsed in the street minutes after officers forced him to move from his home.

Police, bailiffs and council staff arrived at the Kelshall Court estate in Brownswood Road, Hackney, east London, yesterday morning with a court order to rehouse the 77-year-old. When he refused to allow them inside they forced entry and removed him.

He was 77 years old. Seventy-seven.

I used to spend my summer breaks from university working as a care assistant in old people’s homes. Every week I would be coaxing schizophrenic OAPs, moved from Rauceby Mental Hospital (now closed), from bedrooms they had no business to be in. Or I’d be following people with Alzheimers as they escaped and headed towards houses they’d lived in decades beforehand, encouraging them to come back with me. It took a bit of tact, a bit of charm, a bit of failure and a lot of time. And above it all it took reassurance.

What none of those people needed - ill, or frail or not - was a crowd of bailiffs, officials and police. It is inexcusable that a council terrifies and treats vulnerable people in this way.

And what the poor, dead man certainly didn’t need was officials passing the buck over his corpse:

A Hackney Council spokesman said the properties concerned are owned by the authority but managed by Hackney Homes a separate not-for-profit company, wholly owned by the council, that is responsible for its residential properties.

The spokesman said: “This is clearly a complex case. We await the outcome of any official investigation and will be assisting Hackney Homes in its internal review of this incident.”

Shame. Utter shame.

At risk of this becoming the Hackney bog blog, it seems there has been a major movement at the abandoned Stamford Hill public conveniences. You may remember my earlier post, in which I pointed out that these loos had been left to rot since the late 1990s, just before I moved into the area. If you take a trip over to that article, you’ll see photos of the lavs filled with litter and something like a six-feet deep pool of stagnant water.

That’s why I was pleased when the things were drained in December; although I soon came to regard that as a freak of nature: within days the water was rising steadily once more.

Anyway, as you can see from the photo above, the council (I assume it is the council) has finally done something. The bogs have been properly drained, the litter has been cleared, and a cage has been erected over each entrance to prevent the worst of the rubbish from being blown in.

Sure, it’s outrageous that another civic amenity has been left to rot; but it’s great news that nine years of neglect has at least been halted. Thousands of gallons of filth swilling around the centre of one of Hackney’s main shopping areas was nothing less than an expression of municipal contempt.

So, well done to the Council: actions like this do a lot for community pride. Now let’s come up with a long-term plan for the facility. Sadly it seems beyond saving, but I’m sure there are plenty of local people who have imaginative ideas about what we can do next. Why not talk to them?

Two of my must-read local bloggers, Dave Hill and Cllr Luke Akehurst, have both put in a good word for this article by Hackney’s elected mayor, Jules Pipe.

Pipe’s piece boils down to three main elements.

1. Collectively, crime in Hackney is going down.
2. Violent crime is going up.
3. Something must be done about violent crime.

I’ll take his word for the first point; the evidence of my own eyes convinces me of the second; and, of course, violent crime needs to be tackled vigorously.

So far so good. So how do we tackle it?

Dave draws attention to this part of Pipe’s article:

This is a problem that society finds hard to debate intelligently. The pendulum tends to swing between crass demonisation of young people on the one hand and helpless hand wringing on the other. Both stances are equally short on answers.

Yes, absolutely. But what no-one has asked yet is this: “Jules, how can we find some answers?”

Pipe continues:

While young people feel excluded from the growing prosperity of this city, gang culture will continue to flourish. It is not enough to provide more youth clubs. The only way this cycle can be broken is for the minority of marginalised young people to see a positive future for themselves in which they can believe.

Again, I’m with him all the way. So what next?

This is a job not just for politicians and the police, but for schools, employers, faith groups, communities, and most importantly for families and parents. A Labour government and Labour councils must continue to give those families the support that they need to achieve this.

Oh dear. So the logic is this:

1. Violent crime can be most effectively tackled by helping families to help their children see a positive future for themselves.
3. A Labour government and Labour councils are giving those families the support they need to achieve this.
4. Violent crime is on the rise.
5. A Labour government and Labour councils must continue to give those families the same support as they do now.

So violent crime, presumably will - er - continue to rise?

It seems a bit strange for a politician to berate others for being short on answers, whilst offering none himself. As it stands, we’ve got kids wandering around with knives and wearing body armour and - for more than a few of them - any family intervention would be too late to be of the slightest use.

So yes, let’s see the council working with others to help tackle the immediate crisis, as well as preventing young people from getting involved with the gangs in the first place. But, Jules, can we please learn more about how you’re going to do it other than by carrying on as before?