1925 Hrs GMT
London
Friday
10 September 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque
BHANGEELAAR! Again pointing out that the 'East London Advertiser' is wrong about George Galloway's alleged stance on ‘candidacy as elected mayor’.
How is the ‘East London Advertiser’ wrong?
On the facts.
On more than one occasion in the past 10 months, George Galloway has openly stated in public that he was not going to seek nomination for the post of a directly elected mayor. He did so also on the occasion when Jim Fitzpatrick accused him [Galloway] of seeking a ‘bolt-hole’ firm himself after [as Fitzpatrick then hoped] he defeated Galloway at the yet to be held elections for Poplar and Limehouse seat on 06 May 2010.
And on 20 June 2010, at a rally held apparently to counter the alleged racist mob threat to the East End George Galloway clearly uttered the name of Lutfur Rahman and said that the latter would be the right candidate for the post of directly elected mayor in Tower Hamlets.
That had been ALMOST three months before Saturday 04 September2010 when George Galloway had promoted the very same individual as became confirmed by the Labour Party bureaucracy as that Party’s candidate.
The ‘result’ up to that point, shows a very significant similarity between George Galloway’s publicly stated preference and the internal ‘voting’ preference of the ‘Tower Hamlets’ [under special measures] Labour Party’s particularly organised and orchestrated membership concerned.
What this says to any objective and evidentially alert observer is that far from there being a political or locally strategic difference between George Galloway and the bureaucracy in actual control of the Tower Hamlets Labour Party undergoing special measures, there is a remarkable similarity.
And the similarity does not end in the particular temporal result that we have summarised above.
It also relates to the alleged voting fraud.
In the run up to the 06 May 2010 elections, one electorally participating group that was most vocal about voting fraud or ballot fraud was the group identified with George Galloway.
So vocal in fact that Channel 4 News employed one of their political ‘correspondents’ to ‘investigate’ the alleged wrongdoings.
Among the faces featured in that footage were George Galloway and his 'campaign bus' along with at least one of his ‘aides’ and a Tower Hamlets community campaigner, Carole Swords [who was at the time shown to be a part of George Galloway’s campaign group].
The Channel 4 News report failed to pin any of the alleged wrongdoers down for long in the bulletin as broadcast on that occasion.
Whether that was part of the policy on the part of Channel 4 News is yet be exhaustively investigated.
But the fact that Channel 4 News has not carried out any follow up items on the allegations shows that at policy level- and despite the OTT-hyped profile of fronter Jon Snow as an alleged lefty and thus sympathetic to diverse anti-Daily Mail causes akin to those allegedly associated with George Galloway’s group as THEN active.
Like the ‘East London Advertiser’, the Channel 4 News appears to be lacking in substance and depth of evidential knowledge about Tower Hamlets. A fact that also applies to the Daily Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan.
Between the three of them, those outlets are in one way or another relevant as citable sources of ‘news’ about what is going on in Tower Hamlets in the current context of the slide into further undemocracy and lack of accountability at the expense of ordinary people in the area known as the inner city, [‘one of the most deprived’] borough of Tower Hamlets.
While these ‘media’ – all shielded from popular scepticism because they are ‘mainstream’- are letting the cause of democracy and accountability down.
Could it be also linked to the fact that these media are manned and womanned by deeply ignorant individuals who have nothing but contempt for basic facts?
Not to even start talking about their position on the truth!!!!
[To be continued]
No comments:
Post a Comment