BHANGEELAAR! Updating on the duties to oppose anti-democratic disaster of a MAYOR IMPOSED BY DEFAULT. How the "East London Advertiser" is failing

1020 [0955] Hrs GMT
London
Saturday
16 October 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque
The “East London Advertiser” on Friday 15 October 2010 removed a brief comment that we had posted on its online comment section underneath a news item about Harriet Harman’s own launch of a campaign to occupy the East End of London via the ‘elected mayor’ thing.
It is not often that we have discussed the role of the “East London Advertiser”.
In the recent past we have had reason to devote more space to the “East London Advertiser” than would be the case otherwise.
That reason is that the “Editorial comment” headed “Scrap this tainted Ballot” - which the “East London Advertiser” ran at the end of September 2010 and to which we have referred several times with express observations amounting to our recognition of their getting that one right – was a highly appropriate item that the paper published. So appropriate in our [THE BHANGEELAAR! CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS] view in fact that the central argument represented in that comment is going to remain VERY topical in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for a considerable time to come.
This will be because of the serious error that is being committed by all those who are bent on forcing a so-called elected mayor on the people of Tower Hamlets.
Days before the plotted disaster is given a bureaucratic stamp of legitimacy, we believe that all known dangers inherent in the disastrous course should be spelt out and published when it is still possible to avert the calamitous consequences.
So the “East London Advertiser” as the ‘local newspaper’ is placed at a relevant location to participate in that task of warning the community of the dangers posed by an elected mayor.
In another situation at another time with different participants involved, the dangers could have been markedly less serious.
But as daily events confirm, the dangers are posed by the fact that the contenders have been brazenly in breach of all key rules that are so vital in public life.
It is in this that the “East London Advertiser” has been found wanting in its reluctance to run perfectly rational, timely and constitutional law arguments and evidential comments that we have been making available to it [“East London Advertiser”] to share with its readers and with the visitors of its website.
For the past nine months we have carried out comprehensive and exclusive research into the legal, the ethical, the democracy and the constitutional implications of changing the constitution of Tower Hamlets Council from a broadly pro-democratic one to a brazenly and irrevocably autocratic one and our findings have been vindicated at every stage. Right from the word go, we said on 5 January 2010 that there was a danger love Tower Hamlets population being lumbered by a mayor foisted on us by default! The “East London Advertiser” appears to have failed to notice that even after nine months. That failure will be part of a contributory failure - by ALL THOSE IN EAST LONDON WHO OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO collude in the imposition [now taking place dated 21 October 2010] of the anti-democratic disaster called ‘executive mayor’ - which will be seen for the wrong that it was when the disaster of an elected mayor begins to appear in all its ugliness, dishonesty, disparity, discrimination, disharmony division and disaffection.
We are telling all concerned again: Scrap the tainted ballot. Stop Tower Hamlets being lumbered with a mayor by default.
[To be continued]