AADHIKAR bringing breaking news about directly elected mayor Steve Bullock's latest insensitivity, this time to the East End –
AADHIKAR bringing breaking news about directly elected mayor Steve Bullock's latest insensitivity, this time to the East End of London.
We report here the introductory scenes.
In this series of exclusives, we shall cover the key aspects of the undermining of democratic representation that is taking place in Tower Hamlets borough in the present time by those who have backed the ending of a semblance of a democratically accountable locally elected Borough Council.
To anyone who might have been skeptical about the many 'good reasons' claimed by the backers of the anti-democratic elected mayoral system, the import from across the Thames in the ‘directly elected mayored Lewisham’ borough in South London of Ken Livingstone’s ‘friend’ and ‘ mayor-model’ Steve Bullock to serve as a 'distinguished' panellist at what was described as the launch of the 'election campaign' for the candidate from the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets exposed the dangers that are contained in giving a single individual so much power in the name of so many people in a demographically significant London borough.....
That demographic significance is set now in our view to find expression in magnified misrepresentation that will only bring negative consequences that are bound to get heightened by and through the behaviour and the policies of the UK CONDEM regime…..
Updated at 2315 Hrs GMT Wednesday 15 September 2010
[2355 Hrs GMT London Tuesday]
14 September 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque
AADHIKARonline 'Breaking news' about Lewisham's 'directly elected mayor' Steve Bullock! He made it to the Troxy in Commercial Road. Livingstone didn't…
Not only did Steve Bullock make it, he also performed yet another verbal act of outrage that had, until that moment this evening [Tuesday 14 September 2010], exposed him as an unacceptable face of a directly elected mayor with so much power allowed to be exercised by a single individual [regardless of their reckless attitude as can be found in the behaviour of Steve Bullock since May 2010] over the local Council and at the expense of local democracy.
Steve Bullock appeared at the Troxy stage following superlative praise lavished on his fellow ‘panellists’ as stated by two current Tower Hamlets councillors taking part in the ‘launch’ of ‘Lutfur Rahman for mayor’ ‘campaign’ event.
To observers sent reeling by Steve Bullock’s post 6 May 2010 assault with Bullock’s undisguised insult upon “xxxxxxx idiots”, the two words he used to describe campaigners in Lewisham against the CONDEM cuts, his straight-faced utterance tonight at the Troxy, Commercial Road, London E1 of the need to complete a ‘Gang of Four’ ‘directly elected Labour mayors’ in London would bring no reassurance at all.
For a start, the Gang of Four that had undone the post-1979 Labour Party had conducted their many plots at a location in ‘Limehouse’ NOT so far from the Troxy venue he was appearing in in the Commercial Road.
And all of the Gang members remained unrepentant over the role that they had played in the unravelling of the Labour Party to the point of it being kept out of office for almost two decades.
The Gang of Four is still known, on the facts, as four traitors to the Labour Party. And in the long run to the values and the causes of the ordinary people whom the historic Labour Party and movement belonged to.
As if there were any doubts this evening in the Commercial Road London E1 venue about the divide still existing between the values of the Gang of Four – [originally consisting of] David Owen, Bill Rodgers, Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins – a fellow ‘panel member’ who also spoke at the do, dispelled such doubts.
He was introduced as the secretary of the local Tower Hamlets Labour Party. His name: Stephen Beckett.
In what looked like a prepared speech, Stephen Beckett spoke passionately about the divide that was prevalent between parts of Tower Hamlets at the present time.
Beckett outlined a divide between the haves now occupying the Canary Wharf and the have-nots in the other parts of Tower Hamlets.
A picture emerged in Becketts’ oration of the Rich associated with the New City that Heseltine brought about and the Poor that the Old City [of London] has been encroaching on for years.
Many of the promoters of the change in the constitution of the Borough of Tower Hamlets Council to a directly elected mayor system will be exposed as having been playing touts’ parts for the City of London for a good number of years!
Just to make sure that he was hitting the targets accurately in his speech at the Proxy on Tuesday night, Steve Beckett spoke of the current Government cuts and he sided with the people on benefits whom he evidently identified with as being involuntarily in that state.
This double divide in policy and outlook and language that was typified in the two utterances of the two Steves may not be resolved soon.
Not when Graham Taylor, described in tones suggesting him to be a part of the Establishment of the local Tower Hamlets based Labour Party local bureaucracy, was said to be absent from the event owing to unavoidable reasons! Those reasons were not spelt out.
And not too surprisingly either.
It soon transpired that Jim Fitzpatrick, one of the two constituency MPs from the two seats made up of eligible voters in Tower Hamlets, was attempting to show his face on the big screen.
His face was a mass of flickers and his voice very hard to hear.
It was not long before the oversized image of the face of Jim Fitzpatrick was terminated without explanation.
There then followed a pause much longer than promised by one of the two councillors doing the conducting.
We shall come to publishing an up-to-date and apposite description of that councillor in later parts of this series of reports.
It was minutes before Jim Fitzpatrick appeared in digital images in motion, delivering the same standard of Seelotee intro that he had done in 2006 when campaigning in Shadwell for the election of Michael Keith to Tower Hamlets Council.
It must be pointed out [at 2248 GMT Wednesday 15 September 2010] that the community of electors in Shadwell have now demonstrated their preference to NOT elect Michael Keith to Tower Hamlets Council on three successive occasions. In May 2006, in the 2007 by-election and in May 2010. And on every single one of those occasions that Michael Keith tried to get elected, Jim Fitzpatrick was publicly showing string support for that candidate. We shall examine Jim Fitzpatrick’s ‘contributions’ in this series shortly.
[Editorial update at 2252 GMT Wednesday 15 September 2010]
As must have been designed by the strategists behind Jim Fitzpatrick’s feigning to speak Seelotee, even the primary stage attempt brought forth an apparently spontaneous applause from the addressed audience.
Beyond that, not much substance. In fact most of what Jim Fitzpatrick then said in English could have been left off stage. It was mundane and did not justify the wait or the laboured attention.
As if that was not the end of the digital display, on came the moving images of Ken Livingstone, once again delivering a strange collection of words about Tower Hamlets and the local Council
He said that the directly elected mayor system would bring an end to the bickering and the problems that Tower Hamlets Council [he meant internally] had had!
Livingstone was followed by an even longer digital display containing the images of Keith Vaz.
[To be continued]
Posted by No to elected mayor at 16:01 0 comments
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
AADHIKAR bringing breaking news about directly elected mayor Steve Bullock's latest insensitivity, this time to the East End -
2355 Hrs GMT
London
Tuesday
14 September 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque
AADHIKARonline 'Breaking news' about Lewisham's 'directly elected mayor' Steve Bullock! He made it to the Troxy in Commercial Road. Livingstone didn't…
Not only did Steve Bullock make it, he also performed yet another verbal act of outrage that had, until that moment this evening [Tuesday 14 September 2010], exposed him as an unacceptable face of a directly elected mayor with so much power over the local Council.
Steve Bullock appeared at the Troxy stage following superlative praise lavished on his fellow ‘panellists’ stated by two Tower Hamlets councillors taking part in the ‘launch’ of ‘Lutfur Rahman for mayor’ ‘campaign’ event.
To observers sent reeling by Steve Bullock’s post 6 May 2010 assault with undisguised insult upon “xxxxxxx idiots”, the two words he used describe campaigners in Lewisham against the CONDEM cuts, his straight-faced utterance of the need to complete a ‘Gang of Four’ ‘directly elected Labour mayors’ in London would bring no reassurance at all.
For a start, the Gang of Four that had undone the post 1979 Labour Party had conducted their many plots at a location in ‘Limehouse’ NOT so far from the Commercial Road.
And all of the Gang members remained unrepentant over the role that they had played in the unravelling of the Labour Party to the point of it being kept out of office for almost two decades.
The Gang of Four is still known, on the facts, as four traitors to the Labour Party. And in the long run to the values and the causes of the ordinary people whom the historic Labour Party and movement belonged to.
As if there were any doubts this evening in the Commercial Road London E1 venue about the divide still existing between the values of the Gang of Four – [originally consisting of] David Owen, Bill Rodgers, Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins – a fellow ‘panel member’ who also spoke at the do, dispelled such doubts.
He was introduced as the secretary of the local Tower Hamlets Labour Party. His name: Stephen Beckett.
In what looked like a prepared speech, Stephen Beckett spoke passionately about the divide that was prevalent between parts of Tower Hamlets at the present time.
Beckett outlined a divide between the haves now occupying Canary Wharf and the have-nots in the other parts of Tower Hamlets.
A picture emerged in Becketts’ oration of the Rich associated with the New City that Heseltine brought about and the Poor that the Old City [of London] has been encroaching on for years.
Just to make sure that he was hitting the targets accurately, Beckett spoke of the current Government cuts and he sided with the people on benefits whom he
evidently identified with as being involuntarily in that state.
This double divide in policy and outlook and language that were typified in the two utterances of the two Steves may not be resolved soon.
Not when Graham Taylor, described in tones suggesting him to be a part of the Establishment of the local Tower Hamlets based Labour Party local bureaucracy, was said to be absent from the event owing to unavoidable reasons! Those reasons were not spelt out.
And not too surprisingly either.
It soon transpired that Jim Fitzpatrick, one of the two constituency MPs from the two seats made up of eligible voters in Tower Hamlets, was attempting to show his face on the big screen.
His face was a mass of flickers and his voice very hard to hear.
It was not long before the oversized image of the face of Jim Fitzpatrick was terminated without explanation.
There then followed a pause much longer than promised by one of the two councillors doing the conducting.
We shall come to publishing an up-to-date and apposite description of that councillor in later parts of this series of reports.
It was minutes before Jim Fitzpatrick appeared in digital images in motion, delivering the same standard of Seelotee intro that he had done in 2006 when campaigning in Shadwell for the election of Michael Keith to Tower Hamlets Council.
As must have been designed by the strategists behind Jim Fitzpatrick’s feigning to speak Seelotee, even the primary stage attempt brought forth an apparently spontaneous applause from the addressed audience.
Beyond that, not much substance. In fact most of what Jim Fitzpatrick then said in English could have been left off stage. It was mundane and did not justify the wait or the laboured attention.
As if that was not the end of the digital display, on came the moving images of Ken Livingstone, once again delivering a strange collection of words about Tower Hamlets and the local Council
He said that the directly elected mayor system would bring an end to the bickering and the problems that Tower Hamlets Council [he meant internally] had had!
Livingstone was followed by an even longer digital display containing the images of Keith Vaz.
[To be continued]
Posted by No to elected mayor at 16:54 0 comments
.
Posted by No to elected mayor at 15:46 0 comments
Sunday, 12 September 2010
BHANGEELAAR! Continuing the causes of the malaise that a ‘directly elected mayor’ will bring to the embattled people in Tower Hamlets.
2210 [2155] [2135] Hrs GMT
London
Sunday
12 September 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque
BHANGEELAAR! Continuing the causes of the malaise that a ‘directly elected mayor’ will bring to the embattled people in Tower Hamlets.
The ‘process’ of putting Tower Hamlets community on a downward spiral of deprivation – and depravity, more about THAT soon here – has been given a most unwanted ‘boost’ or at least an appearance of one by the former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow who associated with elements that would not be consistent with his publicly committed aims of fighting all manner of wrongful goings on inside the bureaucracy of the Tower Hamlets Borough Council.
George Galloway had made two statements in our context here about the ‘standards’ [What?!] of Tower Hamlets Council.
In the first one, which was broadcast on television and radio as he spoke in 2005, categorically condemning the role of Christine Gilbert the Borough’s then chief executive who also acted as the Returning Officer [=the town clerk that has been, after a few stages, successfully! succeeded by none other than “Dr” Kevan Collins] and just under a year after that in his second statement Galloway told a relatively smaller gathering, in April 2006, of his firm belief that Tower Hamlets Council was the most corrupt Council that he had come across in all the years of his active life in politics.
Where WAS ‘Dr’ Kevan Collins in May 2005 and April 2006 when George Galloway was expressing unmistakable outrage at the evidence of corruption in Tower Hamlets Council as he [George Galloway] had found?
According to “Dr” Kevan Collins’ boastful slot on the Channel 4 TV’s advertorial programme and its associated confections, he had been in Tower Hamlets already FOR YEARS and was comfortably installed in strategic positions adding [we can logically evidentially assume on the facts of his boasts!] serious plus points to his now gloriously publicized CV.
Campaigning for standards against an entrenched clique of self-servers bent on petty aggrandizement while doing down the people in whose name they claim their grand emoluments [!!!!] and those who had been so openly condemned by the then MP for Bethnal Green and Bow AND adding plus points to a gloriously publishable CV cannot go hand in hand.
Perhaps that is why “Dr” Kevan Collins overlooked [! NOT] the den of defrauders operating via and in the name of the local Council at the expense of the ordinary people in the area known as the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Had “Dr” Collins been a rigorous student of ethics, morality and had he perhaps acquired a semblance of respect for democracy in the universal sense of that term, he would have made a stand in 2005 and said where he stood on corruption in Tower Hamlets Council.
When the alleged result of the referendum dated 06 May 2010 was ‘officially published’, ALL ‘publicly commenting’ quarters EXCEPT the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign claimed that the ‘result’ was conclusive, definitive and similar words to complete the positive gloss.
We asked the Returning Officer to SHOW that he had done his job of auditing the conduct of the TWO ‘sides’ of the issue at the centre of the referendum.
Kevan Collins failed to answer a single one of our communications on the matter.
Why did he do that?
We asked his office this question too.
There has been no reply to this question.
So what kind of description would any party affected by and having a public interest, nay, constitutional law right in the conduct of the whole thing by actions, omissions and the commissions of the campaigners and by the Returning Officer and by all others involved in the processes and procedures and steps in between.
Only when and after that audit has been done can any logical, evidential, factual basis be said to obtain for anyone to make any claim about a commendable standard in the behaviour of Tower Hamlets Council
- Be it as the local Council or be it as the agency administratively entrusted to carry out one of the most sacred tasks to uphold democratic standards: the conduct of elections and referenda.
That entrusting is not done in a vacuum. It is done in the expressly stated and understood context of the organisational nature of the local Council. That nature is founded in the constitutional legitimacy that it is assumed to enjoy by the FACT of its composition, its make up and its own subset-constitution as a locally elected Council.
The failures we are here reporting and attributing to “Dr” Kevan Collins is very serious.
An elicited mayor in the name of the community
And these – and associated and resulting – failures within the Tower Hamlets Council form part of the evidence that compel the continuation by all lawful, legal and constitutional means of the demand that Tower Hamlets community MUST not be hoodwinked, misled and irresponsibly pushed down the alley of undemocracy and deeper corruption that will mire and engulf Tower Hamlets under a elected mayor.
“Dr” Kevan Collins must not stay in that sate of complacent fantasy about ‘standards’ that he must have entered in the excitements brought on by his “starring” in that Channel 4 vanity show.
[To be continued]
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment