Degeneration of Democracy in Tower Hamlets: What did Abbas Uddin "do"?

Degeneration of Democracy in Tower Hamlets: What did Abbas Uddin "do"?
By © Muhammad Haque
1612 [1552] [1521] Hrs GMT London Saturday 24 May 2014.
HOW Tower Hamlets Labour Party Degenerated out of political existence: Part 1
March 2010:
As we stood momentarily at the entrance to the Brady Centre in Hanbury Street (off Brick Lane London E1), I asked Abbas Uddin "Helal" to tell me what he was doing as "the leader" of the "Tower Hamlets Labour Party".
Abbas Uddin “Helal” was a very busy man.
He has always been a very busy man.
Although I have known him as a “Tower Hamlets resident” for decades, note that word “DECADES”, I have not been able to get him to sit down and talk about the Community for even a good hour in all that time!
What does that say?
I tried to talk to him in October 2004, shortly after the “Cabinet” had “discussed” a report about Crossrail. Abbas Uddin “Helal” promised to sit down with me. When he did sit down, he was “busy”. So I could never get to tell him why he should pay attention and work with the Community.
He said it was “the Party’s decision” to take whatever stand the Tower Hamlets Council was taking on Crossrail.
Because of that, I organised the first EVER open demonstration against “the Council” later that month, on Friday 22 October 2004.

Just how did “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” degenerate out of political existence? Answer: That has had a great deal to do with the likes of its “leading” members typified by Helal Uddin “Abbas”.

Isn’t it astonishing that I am saying that I have not been able to get Helal Uddin “Abbas” to sit down and talk with me for even one hour in DECADES! Back to the start of this Commentary at the entrance to the Brady Centre.

Here is what I said to Abbas: I foresee that the “YES” campaign for a mayor system in Tower Hamlets will get the stamp if we don’t mobilise the Community to say NO. What are you doing? Abbas: I don’t think they will. We are doing the necessary to stop them. Muhammad Haque: Are you sure, Abbas? Abbas: Yes, Bhaisab!

I did not find that assurance representative of the evidence that I was seeing in the Community. There was no activities by the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” at all about the implications of changing the Council from one of collective democratic organisation to an individual dictatorial undemocratic way.

True, the Labour Party “did” hold meetings. But every single one of those was contrived. And it appeared that Abbas did not want to hold meetings in every part of the Borough. Like in the Whitechapel Ward!

I was forever on the phone at the time with the sole purpose of finding out what, if any, the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” was doing by way of mobilising a campaign to secure a NO result over the then moving “referendum” that George Galloway had been involved in starting.

Everyone I contacted within the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” pointed me to “Abbas”. Abbas proved forever elusive, hard to get hold of or when contacted at last, reluctant to answer the urgent questions that mattered. It was not long before evidence emerged that Abbas Uddin had NOT wanted a NO vote in fact.

Question: Why? Because HE wanted to be the elected Mayor himself! That was around March 2010. [To be continued]

Degeneration of Democracy in Tower Hamlets: What did Abbas Uddin "do"?

Degeneration of Democracy in Tower Hamlets: What did Abbas Uddin "do"?
By © Muhammad Haque
1612 [1552] [1521] Hrs GMT London Saturday 24 May 2014.
HOW Tower Hamlets Labour Party Degenerated out of political existence: Part 1
March 2010:
As we stood momentarily at the entrance to the Brady Centre in Hanbury Street (off Brick Lane London E1), I asked Abbas Uddin "Helal" to tell me what he was doing as "the leader" of the "Tower Hamlets Labour Party".
Abbas Uddin “Helal” was a very busy man.
He has always been a very busy man.
Although I have known him as a “Tower Hamlets resident” for decades, note that word “DECADES”, I have not been able to get him to sit down and talk about the Community for even a good hour in all that time!
What does that say?
I tried to talk to him in October 2004, shortly after the “Cabinet” had “discussed” a report about Crossrail. Abbas Uddin “Helal” promised to sit down with me. When he did sit down, he was “busy”. So I could never get to tell him why he should pay attention and work with the Community.
He said it was “the Party’s decision” to take whatever stand the Tower Hamlets Council was taking on Crossrail.
Because of that, I organised the first EVER open demonstration against “the Council” later that month, on Friday 22 October 2004.

Just how did “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” degenerate out of political existence? Answer: That has had a great deal to do with the likes of its “leading” members typified by Helal Uddin “Abbas”.

Isn’t it astonishing that I am saying that I have not been able to get Helal Uddin “Abbas” to sit down and talk with me for even one hour in DECADES! Back to the start of this Commentary at the entrance to the Brady Centre.

Here is what I said to Abbas: I foresee that the “YES” campaign for a mayor system in Tower Hamlets will get the stamp if we don’t mobilise the Community to say NO. What are you doing? Abbas: I don’t think they will. We are doing the necessary to stop them. Muhammad Haque: Are you sure, Abbas? Abbas: Yes, Bhaisab!

I did not find that assurance representative of the evidence that I was seeing in the Community. There was no activities by the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” at all about the implications of changing the Council from one of collective democratic organisation to an individual dictatorial undemocratic way.

True, the Labour Party “did” hold meetings. But every single one of those was contrived. And it appeared that Abbas did not want to hold meetings in every part of the Borough. Like in the Whitechapel Ward!

I was forever on the phone at the time with the sole purpose of finding out what, if any, the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” was doing by way of mobilising a campaign to secure a NO result over the then moving “referendum” that George Galloway had been involved in starting.

Everyone I contacted within the “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” pointed me to “Abbas”. Abbas proved forever elusive, hard to get hold of or when contacted at last, reluctant to answer the urgent questions that mattered. It was not long before evidence emerged that Abbas Uddin had NOT wanted a NO vote in fact.

Question: Why? Because HE wanted to be the elected Mayor himself! That was around March 2010. [To be continued]

The SPECTATOR joins the latest phase of attacks on Tower Hamlets, the Community

The SPECTATOR joins the latest phase of attacks on Tower Hamlets, the Community
1525 [1520] [1518] Hrs GMT London Sunday 13 April 2014

Noting the SPECTATOR having a go at "Tower Hamlets" . More on the SPECTATOR's role.

Here is a comment posted on the SPECTATOR web site that exposes the outfit's affiliation to Boris Johnson.

"You, Sebastian Payne, must be a product of the distorted imagination of a really toxic decomposition of the Neo Con Lib Dumb Laboured idiocy about Society.

How else could you write something so totally ignorant & contradictory as follows?

“The jury is still out on how successful elected mayors are in Britain — compare the rebirth of Bristol to the divisive regime of Tower Hamlets. But with ever-decreasing turnouts and the rapid rise of Ukip, our mainstream parties, politicians and institutions are no longer catering to the needs of voters. Powerful mayors may well be the solution Britain is waiting for.”

You give no evidence for any aspect of your idiotic assertion as you illogically conclude “Powerful mayors may well be the solution Britain is waiting for”!

How crass!

“Power” over who?

“Power” as against what absence of power?

Not a surprise then that you do not countenance accountability,m transparency, audit let alone the needs day to day of ordinary people, in Bristol or in Tower Hamlets.

Given that Boris Johnson has been manufactured by the PR project for the Neo Cons that includes the Spectator, the Daily Telegraph, it is very creepy that you have nothing to say by way of analysis on the disaster that has been the London Mayor!"

[To be continued]

The SPECTATOR joins the latest phase of attacks on Tower Hamlets, the Community

The SPECTATOR joins the latest phase of attacks on Tower Hamlets, the Community
1525 [1520] [1518] Hrs GMT London Sunday 13 April 2014

Noting the SPECTATOR having a go at "Tower Hamlets" . More on the SPECTATOR's role.

Here is a comment posted on the SPECTATOR web site that exposes the outfit's affiliation to Boris Johnson.

"You, Sebastian Payne, must be a product of the distorted imagination of a really toxic decomposition of the Neo Con Lib Dumb Laboured idiocy about Society.

How else could you write something so totally ignorant & contradictory as follows?

“The jury is still out on how successful elected mayors are in Britain — compare the rebirth of Bristol to the divisive regime of Tower Hamlets. But with ever-decreasing turnouts and the rapid rise of Ukip, our mainstream parties, politicians and institutions are no longer catering to the needs of voters. Powerful mayors may well be the solution Britain is waiting for.”

You give no evidence for any aspect of your idiotic assertion as you illogically conclude “Powerful mayors may well be the solution Britain is waiting for”!

How crass!

“Power” over who?

“Power” as against what absence of power?

Not a surprise then that you do not countenance accountability,m transparency, audit let alone the needs day to day of ordinary people, in Bristol or in Tower Hamlets.

Given that Boris Johnson has been manufactured by the PR project for the Neo Cons that includes the Spectator, the Daily Telegraph, it is very creepy that you have nothing to say by way of analysis on the disaster that has been the London Mayor!"

[To be continued]

BHANGEELAAR! No to Elecetd executuve mayor system AND No to Racists plotting in TH

BHANGEELAAR! No to Elecetd executuve mayor system AND No to Racists plotting in TH
1435 Hrs GMT London Sunday 13 April 2014.

BHANGEELAAR! Exclusive, original and detailed tweets diagnosing the latest assault on the Community by No 10 Downing Street colluding with Andrew Gilligan at the DailY Telegraph Media Group.

The assault is IN THE FACT that neither Cameron nor Gilligan [seen in this montage by BHANGEELAAR!] has a single word to say about the basic democratic needs of ordinary people in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. More here in the course of the day.

Time to make Tower Hamlets Council accountable to the people of Tower Hamlets

Time to make Tower Hamlets Council accountable to the people of Tower Hamlets
The BHANGEELAAR! Campaign, part of the Movement Defending the Community in the East End of London, is represented by Muhammad Haque. [ Saturday 6 February 2010] Also seen is the lone Lid Dem Councillor on Tower Hamlets Coun cil, Stephanie Eaton, also speaking with a loud hailer backing the NO-to-an-elected-execuive-mayor call. Stephanie Eaton has become a supporter of the Mayor system as well as of the “incumbent” Lutfur Rahman as seen on many occasions in the past four years


The BBC Panorama programme failed to deliver . Too timid, lacked rigour. No tempo! 0712 [0602] GMT London Tuesday 01 April 2014 BHANGEELAAR! the Campaign against an elected executive mayor system in Tower Hamlets. The Contextual review of the BBC’s overhyped, oversold Panorama programme as transmitted on Monday 31 March 2014 -1 Oversold over-hyped Panorama failed to deliver the scrutiny or investigation into Tower Hamlets-1 Someone did a modest re-design on the Panorama logo That displays the extent of over=selling of the episode of the programme By © Muhammad Haque 0602 [0505] Hrs GMT London Tuesday 01 April 2014 That [quoted below] is what the BBC-issued TVGuide published by the likes of STV had boasted before the actual transmission of the episode of the Panorama programme on BBC One at 1930 GMT on Monday 31 March 2014. http://tvguide.stv.tv/show-details/?tvgListingID=400862917&tvgEpisodeID=30911309&tvgShowID=3633754&tvgTitle=The%20Mayor%20and%20Our%20Money%20-%20Panorama “The Mayor and Our Money – Panorama Up and down the country, directly-elected mayors control billions of pounds of public funds. But can this lead to too much power being concentrated into the hands of one politician? John Ware investigates the directly-elected mayor of Tower Hamlets in London – where opponents claim he’s used public funds both to promote himself and to create a local power base that, come election time this May, will help return him to office. Panorama reveals evidence suggesting that, under the mayoral system in Tower Hamlets, accountability and transparency have been put into reverse, with the mayor refusing to answer opposition questions about spending decisions involving millions of pounds of public money – and also how he has injected faith into politics.” Something must have changed between the writing of that hype and the actual final editing and airing of the Panorama episode. For the transmitted episode did not examine the “directly-elected mayors”. It gave no table, no stats, no evidence at all to compare or contrast the “directly-elecetd mayors” and the alternative system. There was no investigation into the state of “democracy” inside the Tower Hamlets Council. There was nothing at all about who had brought about the directly-elecetd mayor system in Tower Hamlets. And why. There was nothing at all about what any of the Opposition councillors had said about the system at all. Neither the Tower Hamlets Council’s Opposition Conservative group nor the Opposition Labour Party group leader was featured. No mentionable clip from the Council Meetings at all, except few seconds showing the Council’s Speaker Lesley Pavitt more than once and the Labour group deputy leader Rachel Saunders stating a very short question. There was no sign of what Tower Hamlets residents generally thought of the Tower Hamlets Council. No reference to the Community in the East End. No investigation into the relationship between Tower Hamlets council and the residents. It looked like a very very strange package. Whatever the BBC had hoped to show must have got seriously derailed at some point just before transmission. Or that the BBC never had done any of the investigations missing from their transmitted version. Which makes this episode of the Panorama as being disproportionately over-hyped and unjustifiably promoted as an investigation that it wasn’t! It did not reveal evidence that demonstrated that “under the mayoral system in Tower Hamlets, accountability and transparency have been put into reverse”. Perhaps the programme had found evidence to substantiate that claim but in the traumatised version that evidence was most emphatically not visible! Finally, this Panorama as transmitted, did not test the veracity of a single one of the claims made by Lutfur Rahman as included in the broadcast clips of the “interview”! This AADHIKRnline fotografixlriinal montage contains images from Saturday 6 February 2010 when the then Campaigners (for some time!!!) agains an elected Mayor system in Tower Hamlets demonstrated in the Hanbury Street, off Brick Lane. The BHANGEELAAR! Campaign, part of the Movement Defending the Community in the East End of London, is represented by Muhammad Haque. [ Saturday 6 February 2010] Also seen is the lone Lid Dem Councillor on Tower Hamlets Coun cil, Stephanie Eaton, also speaking with a loud hailer backing the NO-to-an-elected-execuive-mayor call. Stephanie Eaton has become a supporter of the Mayor system as well as of the “incumbent” Lutfur Rahman as seen on many occasions in the past four years. THIS BHANGEELAAR! diagnosis of the Council will be continued.

Leicester Mercury sheds light on a murky business by the "executive mayor"

Leicester Mercury sheds light on a murky business by the "executive mayor"
IMAGE of Peter Soulsby from the Leicester Mercury WEBSITE


QUESTIONABLE move by Peter Soulsby in Leicester flogging off Leicester public assets under bogus claims

REPORT RETRIEVED AADHIKAROnline the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Defending the Community in the East End of London, from the Internet portal of LEICESTER MERCURY

Leicester mayor may sell up to 20 more council properties for £1 By Leicester Mercury |



Posted: March 13, 2014 By Dan Martin Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby says up to 20 council-owned properties in Leicester could be sold Comments (27) Sir Peter Soulsby says up to 20 council-owned properties in Leicester could be sold to community groups for nominal sums such as £1. The mayor signalled his intention to councillors who questioned his decisions to dispose of two premises – worth £390,000 in total – for £1 each. Pakistan Youth and Community Association, in Highfields, will be allowed to buy the freehold of the £190,000 premises it has occupied for more than 15 years, while arts charity Leicester Print Workshop has been told it can buy a £200,000 property for £1 if it secures a £300,000 Arts Council grant to help renovate a warehouse in St George Street. Sir Peter has said the deals would help the organisations and, in the case of the workshop, draw in large amounts of investment.

However, councillors, including some of the mayor's Labour colleagues, have said the council should not be parting with valuable assets so cheaply. Sir Peter told his critics: "There have been significant transfers but the number has been quite limited.

"I intend there will be others."

Asked how many properties could be disposed of before next year's council and mayoral elections, he said: "I do not anticipate it will be a very large number but I do know there has been some interest expressed from other groups. "I would suggest it is somewhere between two and 20. "It depends on the level of interest and them being able to demonstrate they would benefit from having the freehold." He declined to say which buildings might be affected or how much they would be transferred for. Former Labour council leader Ross Willmott said: "I am generally not in favour of giving away, even for £1, any of the public assets we hold in trust on behalf of the citizens of Leicester. "The default should be we don't do that because we have been in businessfor several hundred years and are likely to stay in business, whereas community organisations come and go regularly." He said he would prefer groups be offered long leases rather than freehold transfers because once the deal had been done the asset was lost to the council and could be sold. Sir Peter said covenants could be placed to try to prevent that happening, but admitted they could be hard to enforce. He said the council's cash shortage meant it was often no longer possible to offer long-term grants to voluntary groups but giving them the freehold to properties of limited value to the council was a creative way of helping them. He said: "With the asset goes the revenue responsibility." Coun Sue Waddington said: "There's no value in giving away public assets. "There is no guarantee they will be used for what we want them to be used for." Liberal Democrat Nigel Porter said: "We should be trying to hang on to the assets because they are valuable. "I don't think we should be giving stuff away and certainly not 20 freeholds for a quid." Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/City-mayor-sell-20-council-properties-pound-1/story-20802477-detail/story.html#ixzz2vsKvcvZn

BHANGEELAAR! challenging Tower Hamlets Council Tories to show they really care for democracy

BHANGEELAAR! challenging Tower Hamlets Council Tories to show they really care for democracy
BHANGEELAAR! challenging Tower Hamlets Council Tories to show that they really do care for a democratic borough:

BHANGEELAAR! The CAMPAIGN against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets

What should Peter Golds do now, realistically speaking? If he truly believes in the imperative that his regular pokes at the Council's bureaucracy suggests then we think that he really should join us and we can together progress the movement that can then expose the abusers now abusing our resources and our democratic rights in the Borough.
Peter Golds can do what we have been asking him since before October 2010 to do: openly and sustainably and reliably back our call for the full audit and the scrutiny of the sham referendum dated 06 May 2010.
We have called for an examination of the role that “Dr” Kevan Collins played in that corrupting charade of the ‘referendum’. As strategy, Peter Golds has been in fantasy land on the issue and, as the latest ‘defection’ from the Isle of Dogs area confirms, he is doomed to wither away as far as numbers go. Numbers of ‘elected councillors on Tower Hamlets Council’ that is.
So long as there is a cesspit of greed available with access to public facilities to feed the greedy ones there will be no end of takers for the careerist dope and the opportunistic lure. The only sure way to stop that is to remove the offensively undemocratic diversionary excuse that has been foisted on the people.
Why won’to Peter Golds have the courage to admit that and join us?
Or is he somehow too set in his prejudices to join with us? Would he RATHER let the remaining pretensions of democracy in Tower Hamlets slide out of all recognition than come onboard on the active and the pro-democratic movement that we have been running since 06 February 2010 on this front?
© Muhammad Haque
Honorary Organiser
BHANGEELAAR!
The CAMPAIGN against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets
1400 Hrs GMT Wednesday 03 August 2011
esday 03 August 2011

Muhammad Haque updates diagnosing Ken Livingstone's deeply flawed backing for an elected mayor

Muhammad Haque updates diagnosing Ken Livingstone's deeply flawed backing for an elected mayor
1425 [1415 ] Hrs GMT London Saturday 26 February 2011 Muhammad Haque London Commentary continuing the diagnostic update on Ken Livingstone's career plan in London. The following has appeared on the web site of the London DAILY TELEGRAPH in the last hour. the commentary contains a diagnostic of the morass that is tower hamlets council.. which has become even less democratic with the alleged adoption of an elected mayor thing than it had been before! The elected mayor thing was one of Ken Livingstone's zealously plugged 'models' for Tower Hamlets! QUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog] : Noting your cryptic aside about Ken Livingstone's 'disclaimer' [quoting:now why would he say that?], perhaps you will allow me to share this little historic update I am making today on Ken Livingstone's constantly changing stance on such matters as 'benefits' and 'rewards' and so on. I have examined the known evidence on Ken Livingstone's career in various London "elected” offices, all maintained and paid for by the people of London and I have yet to come across any independently verifiable entry of one single individual who is not linked with the 'personality' either via a job or a grant or some trade union or a 'patch' in electoral terms [such as, in recent years, the 'Muslims'] who has been a supporter of Ken Livingstone's career plan for the sheer principle of it! I am ethically opposed to the career plans of the likes of Boris Johnson. So what would my preference or choice be? I cannot see Ken Livingstone fitting the objectively verifiable criteria of universal appeal to the democratic demands. Yet he keeps being foisted before me as if he were 'my' 'preferred' 'choice'. To break this really morality and ethics and democracy-free mould, we in London need some truly democratic campaigns. All parts of the population must be able to debate, diagnose and discard the violations that the central Government and the London mayor are imposing on us in every borough in every single area of our existence in the over-hyped city. When Livingstone boasted on BBC Mayor Special editon Question Time [April 2008] that he had LIED to get the 2012 Hosting for London and said that he had done the lying to help 'regenerate' East London, he was let off without being quizzed on the definition of each of the three components of his broadcast bragging: lying, regeneration and East End. Had he been quizzed, there would be no difficulty in showing up that outrage as the three components would not connect. For a start, the East End had never asked for the imposition. Regeneration has not been defined to make ordinary people better off in the East End. The 2012 Hosting does not have any logical or empirical connection with a licence that Livingstone should have been allowed to connect and then perpetrate the lying. In the context of the CONDEM regime's continuation of the 'elected' executive model - for the Police - it is necessary to examine the democratic state of the areas that have been lumbered with elected executive mayor, a 'cause' that Ken Livingstone backed with such blatant ferocity that he was adamant to risk internal and publicly expressed opprobrium from the Blaired party bureaucracy doing it in Tower Hamlets. So undemocratic and dysfunctional has Tower Hamlets Council become since Ken Livingstone's' s fantasy 'executive mayor' mode was allegedly adopted that the Council's budget cannot be passed at a single sitting! It was LIVINGSTONE who had bragged on 6 February 2010 at a hyped up platform he shared with Keith Vaz [from the ‘East End’ borough of Leicester!] that Tower Hamlets Council would function as an efficient and accountable and uncorrupted body if only an elected mayor was allowed to get into post in the name of the people of the inner city deprived area’s local Council! It is time that Ken Livingstone apologised for his touting of the elected mayor thing and did some really serious work on the ground ‘restoring’ his relevance to the democracy movement in London, including Tower Hamlets. 1350 Hrs Saturday 26 February 2011 UNQUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog] [To be continued]

CONDEM cuts the heart out of Society! What more does Ed Miliband need before actually OPPOSING ?

CONDEM cuts the heart out of Society! What more does Ed Miliband need before actually OPPOSING ?
1615 Hrs GMT LOndon Thursday 17 February 2011. Editor © Muhammad haque. BHANGEELAAR! updating diagnostics on the Ed Miliband 'leadership' and its absence of impact on the Tower Hamlets [former] Labour Party...BHANGEELAAR! tells the Guardian London Blog today Thursday 17 February 2011 [To be continued] The following has been posted by BHANGEELAAR! on the GUARDIAN London Blog today Thursday 17 February 2011: Your 14 February 2011 response to one commenter means that we can again confirm in very brief terms the evidence of the former Labour Party [which became Blair Labour] controlling bureaucracy either deliberately refusing to investigate complaints [filed between 1980 and 2000] or being intellectually and ethically and morally too challenged and or deficient to recognise the central importance of honesty and integrity in all aspects of “Party membership”. By the contens of your statement and taking into account the reigning and the reining disagreements, diversions, distortions about what latest published and or leaked findings have caused and about what they have not found regarding the alleged internal inquiries about Tower Hamlets 2010, it is clear that the bureaucracy has not changed in what is now supposed to be [the ‘nearly’ ‘Old’] Labour Party. As the failures of the bureaucracy could not go on without the necessary complicity, collusion and collaboration at all levels internally within the ‘Labour Party’, what does the continuing contradictions, confusions and persistent allegations of corruption in and about the Party’s operations in Tower Hamlets say about the impact of Ed Miliband being ‘the leader’ of the Party? And his ‘brand’ of ‘the Party’? For want of a better word, Is HE ‘happy’ with the ‘outcome’ and the ‘situation’? We have been speaking to active members of the former Blaired party as well as of the former Labour Party and of the current Miliband Party in Tower Hamlets. We cannot say that any of them is ‘happy’ with their locations or links. This is truly a crisis that goes far beyond Tower Hamlets and affects the role that Ed Miliband or anyone else may wish ‘the Party’ to play if the outfit is in political power and office as the UK Government again. There are far too many irregularities that dominate ‘the Party’ operations and membership and ‘grassroots’ involvement in Tower Hamlets. If left unaddressd - as they are since Ed Miliband came into Party office - then the prospects of ‘the Party’ being treated as a decisive force for the good of a democratic society in Britain do not look at all tenable let alone credible let alone tangible! BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets 1435 Hrs Thursday 17 February 2011

BHANGEELAAR! diagnosing Dave Hill's Guardian Blog about Tower hamlets - part 1 Sat 12 Feb 2011

BHANGEELAAR! diagnosing Dave Hill's Guardian Blog about Tower hamlets - part 1 Sat 12 Feb 2011
Quoting Dave Hill’s concluding paragraph [11 February 2011]: “In the end, the only solution for Labour may be to take its leader Ed Miliband resolutely at his word and rebuild the local party from the ground up, broadening its base and listening to all those it wants to serve more carefully than ever before. That's an easy thing for a hack in Hackney to write and a much, much harder thing for a politician in Tower Hamlets to do. But it sounds rather like democracy.” Unquoting Dave Hill [with emphases added by the commenter below]. We are commenting here to correct some of the misleading contents and insinuations. We shall come back to deal with any other that we find appropriate in due course. We here concentrate on Dave Hill’s “discussion” on the spelling of particular last name and we examine some other aspects of the Dave Hill’s London Blog in perpetuating the discriminatory myths about “local expertise’ by a “colleague” of Dave Hill’s. We start by examine Mr Hill’s statement: “the only solution for Labour may be to take its leader Ed Miliband resolutely at his word and rebuild the local party from the ground up”. What is Ed Miliband? Is he a magician or is a super human? He is neither. As for “rebuilding” of the former Labour Party, Miliband is even less. He has neither the knowledge nor the interest nor the commitment to rebuild democratic accountability anywhere. He is a machine leader of a machine bureaucracy that is banking for his ‘aim to reach the shore of power’ on the bankruptcy of the British political vessel as it is evident via the democracy-denying, democrat deficit Houses of Parliament Whatever Ed Miliband may have puffed on, he is no different on the evidence so far from any of his predecessors in that post when it comes to the fundamental purpose of the Party bureaucracy. When that purpose is ‘relaunched’ in areas like Tower Hamlets during routine ‘periods of elections’, it is as dull, dishonest and unjust and undemocratic as it ever has been. So what secret are you alluding to when you invest all; your rhetorical hopes on Ed Miliband doing the undoable? Do tell. As for us ordinary folk in Tower Hamlets, we see no evidence now and we have found none in their records of the past half century, of the former Labour Party being anything other than a machine vehicle for time-servers, petty careerists and several brazen liars. The same conclusion applies to what is now the “Tower Hamlets Lib Dems”. The several ‘names’ that you have now ‘introduced’ and or promoted about the former Labour Party in Tower Hamlets are as contaminated on their records as could be found in any of the past five decades. Our Movement has drawn attention to those during the past fifty years and demanded action against the crooked behaviour of so many time-serving place men and women in the former Labour Party that the list of the perpetrators and the allegations against them alone would take up more space than is available on your blog comment slot. The former Labour Party has persisted in failing to take action. Why? Because the entire bureaucracy has been itself corrupt. Let any of that bureaucracy's key decision-making obstructors come out and declare themselves and we shall read them the details of their perpetration with ample updater diagnostics. The only thing that is ‘new’ about your promotion of those is your name and your blog, Dave! You are now doing what decades of “Fleet Street” media has done for the corrupotocrcay that is the former Labour Party. About the rest of your concluding Comment, you have not qualified the phrase “a politician in Tower Hamlets”. Without qualification, that phrase is full of misleading and vacuous potential. For the sake of democratic accountability, we shall attempt a working qualification as always in context here. Perhaps by a politician in Tower Hamlets you are referring to those who seek or occupy “elected” posts. Examples include local Tower Hamlets Borough council posts or the London Assembly post/s or the posts of MPs for any of the two Parliamentary constituencies. Secondly you must be meaning the post or position seekers and the postholders in the former Labour Party that is still floated in Tower Hamlets as a bureaucratic version of its former form at the present time. Finally you must be meaning the couriers of the various sub-candidates and sub-post-seekers that make up the number that also serves as ‘the organisation’ of the former Labour Party. On the facts of the contens of your blog, you could not be meaning people in the ordinary population in Tower Hamlets. Had you meant any of us, you would have said something about the Movement that has actually been working to defend the key universal values from which the time-serving opportunists you DO recognise have benefited [personally and in terms of their own careerists factions] without a shadow of a doubt. You also refer to the Conservative Councillors’ group ‘leader’ Peter Golds who has been doing business fort his cause by parading as a ‘Tower Hamlets politician’ although he has yet to come on the record ANYWHERE as representing the concerns and the demands of the ordinary democratically conscious people in Tower Hamlets. We have pointed this out before about Peter Golds and we do so again here, in context. We also point out that you have not expressly examined poverty of any description in your blog. Indeed, you have not even mentioned the word poverty once. In our knowledge of the ordinary lives of the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Tower Hamlets, there are three types of poverty currently affecting the quality of life for ordinary people in Tower Hamlets. Poverty as experienced and felt and as measurable by income, earnings or none. Secondly poverty as evident in the absence of accountably, transparently democratic representation at any of the local state levels as linked to ‘electoral’ processes. The third type of poverty is in the absence of delivery of the promised or the purported standard of democracy in accordance with ordinary expectations as defined by ethics, morality or due process in most of the state and local agencies and institutions as operating in Tower Hamlets. Although you appear reserved about Peter Golds, you perform a telling act of excusing him. You let Mr Golds off the hook by deciding to not scrutinise him on the allegations that he had INSINUATED. You say (“) Golds’ letter claimed that the Brick Lane restauranteur Shiraj Haque had, "stated to a number of local politicians that he funded the legal action" and that, "This is a reportable donation that has not been reported [to the Electoral Commission] within the [legal] time limit." (”). Who are the “number of local politicians”? We ask because we know [as defined above again] for a fact that there is no such thing as “local politicians” without links, strings and careerist negotiations and or deals. So whatever “local politicians” is supposed to refer to in relation to Peter Golds’ own promotion of his “party'-linked business would be someone [or more than one] who would be found to be already compromised by some other relevant factors vitiating any attempt to bring about an ethical and a democratically accountable atmosphere in Tower Hamlets. That would mean that you should have demonstrably queried Peter Golds’ assertion. Had you done that, you would have found ON THE EVIDENCE that a true investigative examination of his c,aims would have to reveal that Peter Golds was basing HIS bit of the allegations as much on partisan and untenably non-democratic ground as any of his implied Party political opponents would be doing given the same observed and non-democratic and or antidemocratic objective. Your reference to “the Brick Lane restauranteur Shiraj Haque” is also inaccurate and in context significantly misleading. The person you name as “Shiraj Haque” is in fact known in the community simply as Shiraj. This is true of today as it has been since the end of the 1970s when he was first listed in the public domain as an active member of the community in Tower Hamlets. One of the original validators for Shiraj getting INTO the public domain as an active member of the local community in the late 1970s was the campaign that our Movement was conducting at that time in defence of the community following the racist murder of Altab Ali on Thursday 4 May 1978. So the question that arises now , 32 years on, is this: who has been responsible for moderating or altering or amending the community-based persona of Shiraj? Has there been a legal reason why the spelling of his stated last name was or has been changed? If so, what was that legal reason? If none then why haven’t you or to be more practical your ‘local expert’ [‘colleague’] [promoted by you in the past few months as ‘the’ de facto ‘expert’ on “Tower Hamlets”] explained that change in the spelling of the stated last name cited about Shiraj? This is also important in view of the many references to Abbas Uddin “Helal” as made by you and by at least three others in or about “Fleet Street”. One of those, David Cohen, the self-described ‘rescuer of the dispossessed of London’ as promoted via the London EVENING STANDARD, invaded a democratic accountability forum that had been organised by the Spitalfields Small Business Association [SSBA] on 18 October 2010. The SSBA’s Director Kay Jordan, who sat on a chair next to where David Cohen had been sitting before he stood up to launch his invasion, wondered to our campaign within minutes of David Cohen’s invasion, what would have been the best way of stopping Cohen from violating that meeting. And what was his violating act? Why a personal insinuation against Lutfur Rahman and as retailed on behalf of the interests that were promoting Abbas Uddin “Helal” as their chosen courier of the Blaired party band. David Cohen abused the entire local, SSBA-organised meeting, by standing up and demanding to know from Lutfur Rahman why Lutfur Rahman’s alleged supporters had been spreading an allegation about Abbas Uddin “Helal” abusing or beating his [“Abbas Uddin “Helal”:] wife. Abbas Uddin “Helal” himself was absent from the event. And there was no legal, constitutional law, ethical or democratic or electoral reason why Lutfur Rahman had to even comment on that utterance by the invader David Cohen. But Lutfur Rahman did. And ion making a comment “denying” Cohen’s invasive utterance, Lutfur Rahman confounded the Cohen-contrived confusion even further! He proceeded to deny having abused HIS wife! And a suitably timed supportive sounding woman stood up in a row behind where David Cohen was sitting [and or standing, depending on what moment of his invasion he was engaged in] in the audience and stated words to the effect that she supported her husband Lutfur Rahman totally! In his ‘response’ on the same occasion, Lutfur Rahman also said that he would sue anyone who said what Cohen was saying! This part was in fact triggered by the Lib Dems’ John Griffiths whose own utterance [to Lutfur Rahman’s mind and to observers present] represented a repetition in effect of what Cohen had done earlier in the invasive disruption of the proceedings of the SSBA-organised meeting that had been intended to offer local people a say on what the local Tower Hamlets Council should be doing to support the local small businesses and similar initiatives. Considering the fact that David Cohen VIA the London EVENING STANDARD played a promotional part in propping up the campaign propaganda and image for the Lib Dems and the Conservatives in the run up to the 06 May 2010 elections on the alleged basis that Cohen had been “helping” the “DISPOSSESSED” in London [ played as a “counter” to the then Gordon Brown-fronted regime that was, so the “DISPOSSESSED” theme suggested, causing the DISPOSSESSION to areas typified by the East End Borough of Tower Hamlets], his violation of the people who were attending the SSBA-organised meeting on 18 October 2010 showed just how irrational Cohen was, how contemptuous he was of the rights of the people in the East End and how indifferent he was to what we had to say on that day about our “local Council Cohen on that occasion dispossessed us from our democratic say! Our campaign intervened at the right time to ensure that Cohen was not able to carry with him any pretext that he could later retail for the delectation of the likes of Peter Golds in another exaggerated, untrue and untruthful attack on the invented image of our community portraying it as not only being intolerant to “journalists” but also to “free speech”! Cohen abused the kindness and generosity of the meeting and in his abuse he denied that meeting the freedom to exchange views and information about matters to do with the local Council’s financial and democratic conduct. It is clear that in your “accessible” and “sympathetic” “style”, you too are engaged in doing the same. Why else is it that you promote Peter Golds and then fail to show why his alleged allegation to the Metropolitan Police did not go anywhere? Why is it that you refer to everything else about the various allegations about corruption over the Blaired Party's bureaucracy and its handling or mishandling of the selection etc, but fail to even recognise that there has been a fully active campaign against the very constitutional change to Tower Hamlets being lumbered with a post called executive mayor that is the persistent topic of your particular blog posts. Given that two fifths of the stated votes cast in the alleged referendum were in favour of the NO option, how can you treat 40,000 voters as if they did not record their rejection of the bid to change the Council’s particular structure? Given also the fact that Abbas Uddin “Helal” was himself a “campaigner against an elected mayor system” for MONTHS, how is it that you leave that fact out as if it was not the central feature of the evidence of active contempt for ethics and honesty that the Bliared party bureaucracy has been exhibiting at every level over the matter? You state that you had spoken to Joshua Peck but then you do not include any substance. Why mention him then? If you had asked us, we could tell you that the same Joshua Peck had appeared along with our Campaign organiser on at least four platforms at “public” meetings held across Tower Hamlets between 06 February 2010 and 06 May 2010 “speaking and uttering arguments against” a directly elected executive mayor. We could add that without making any noticeable let alone substantiated apology to the Tower Hamlets community and the public the aforesaid Joshua Peck then began to make appearances on the Bliared Party promotional events in the Borough SUPPORTING an elected executive mayor system! He has remained silent on the fact that Bliared party candidates for Council ward votes on 06 May 2010 received far more votes than the NO question got. The significance of this is in the fact that JOSHUA PECK and other such Bliared Party candidates had been claiming that they were “campaigning against an elected mayor system” and that they were claiming that they had been ALSO asking their canvassed voters to vote NO in the allotted box on the referendum/ballot paper [held on the same day, 06 May 2010] as the general election and the London local council elections. All the evidence that we have obtained of the voters behaviour on that day in the in the run up to polling [and referendum on the mayor] day has shown that those who were actually genuinely approached about the serious flaws and the pitfalls of installing a directly elected executive mayor in fact voted NO. That raises the almost certain possibility that those, like Joshua Peck who were claiming to be campaigning for s NO vote on the referendum were doing less to secure a NO outcome than they were doing to get their personal election as councillor guaranteed. This discrepancy was deliberately created as admitted to our campaign organiser by one of Joshua Peck’s co-candidates in February-April 2010. According that candidate for a Council ward in Mile End, their priority was to get elected as councillors! Yet that ‘NO’ campaign ‘speaker at platforms’ kept on making appearances, even though she knew perfectly well that she was not campaigning for NO outcome as much as she ws claiming to be when on the platform. Given the fact that that ‘No’ campaign ‘speaker’ was soon doing the “YES FOR candidate X as mayor” routine in Tower Hamlets during July-October 2010, the claims that anything any of them said at any time was based on ethics, principle or honesty is very difficult to accept. This is the real problem in the former Labour Party., As it is with the PRESENT Tower Hamlets Council, with or without a directly elected executive mayor installed. Contrary to the prejudiced references you make to Tower Hamlets as a whole, the behaviour of the ‘elected councillors’ and their likes is the real problem as against a truly really actually actively democracy-delivering Council. For the reasons we have shown in this detailed factually revealing comment,. the same finding applies to Lutfur Rahman as it does to his alleged detractors. 0750 Hrs Saturday 12 February 2011 BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets

"East London Advertiser"-"owner" ARCHANT exposed again as a tout for Big Business greed ...

"East London Advertiser"-"owner" ARCHANT exposed again as a tout for Big Business greed ...
0240 [0130] [0018] Hrs GMT London Saturday 05 February 2011. Editor © Muhammad Haque. BHANGEELAAR! the CAMPAIGN against “an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets” is Telling the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER that it has published lies for Crossrail-backer Josh Peck. This is the first part of a series fo BHANGEELAAR diagnostic updates on the matter. Your [“East London Advertiser” online] headline [“My only Tesco connection is—at the checkout, fumes councillor” ] [by-lined to Mike Brooke] is misleading and the contents underneath untrue. Josh Peck was not asked only about TESCO. He was in fact challenged on his links with both TESCO AND Crossrail. His ‘reply’ was delivered with evident accompaniment of a written script which he was looking at as he gave his long winded statement about TESCO. Then he sat down. And he was ‘persuaded’ to stand up again. This time he in effect confessed that there had been another allegation against him. That was the claim, contained in the question from the member of the public concerned, that he had received money from Crossrail as well. “Cllr” Peck denied that he had received money from Crossrail. So why did he stand up that second time to make that SECOND denial at the “Tower Hamlets Council” meeting held on 2 February 2011? Answer: Because a voice came over to him from the very back of the now extended “public gallery” demanding to know if Josh Peck had received money from Crossrail. That voice belonged to one of the main speakers, along with George Galloway and Carole Swords at a meeting held AGAINST CROSSRAIL in Bow West on 7 March 2006 where Josh Peck was roundly condemned as a liar by George Galloway on Crossrail after Peck made a false statement alleging that Galloway had failed to oppose Crossrail in the UK House of Commons. . The speaker at the back of the ‘public gallery’ during the Tower Hamlets Council meeting held on 2 February 2011? Answer: Muahmmad Haque, the Organiser of the Khoodeelaar action in defence of the East End of London. Is there any evidence that Muhammad Haque knows “Cllr” Josh Peck on the relevant records? Answer: There is plenty. Muhammad Haque has been organising the BHANGEELAAR! campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets as you [Mike Brooke] have known. Bhangeelaar is actively advancing the cause of democracy that Josh Peck claimed to be “backing” for a few months in 2010. After a few months, he ‘changed’ his stance and began to BACK an elected mayor system that he had been “honestly campaigning against” for those few weeks!. Before his ‘about turn’ Josh Peck appeared on a platform at the Brady Centre in March 2010 and delivered what sounded very much like an imitation of Muhammad Haque’s significantly established and recorded diagnostic linguistic speech given at several formal and informal gatherings of the “No to a directly elected mayor” campaign in the previous weeks. 0030 Hrs Saturday 05 February 2011 BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets [To be continued]

ARCHANT, owners of 'East London Advertiser', shields Crossrail-lobbyist "Cllr"

ARCHANT, owners of 'East London Advertiser', shields Crossrail-lobbyist "Cllr"
0018 Hrs GMT London Saturday 05 February 2011. Editor © Muhammad Haque. BHANGEELAAR! the CAMPAIGN against “an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets” is Telling the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER that it has published lies for Crossrail-backer Josh Peck. This is the first part of a series of BHANGEELAAR diagnostic updates on the matter. Your [“East London Advertiser” online] headline [“My only Tesco connection is—at the checkout, fumes councillor” ] [by-lined to Mike Brooke] is misleading and the contents underneath untrue. Josh Peck was not asked only about TESCO. He was in fact challenged on his links with both TESCO AND Crossrail. His ‘reply’ was delivered with evident accompaniment of a written script which he was looking at as he gave his long winded statement about TESCO. Then he sat down. And he was ‘persuaded’ to stand up again. This time he in effect confessed that there had been another allegation against him. That was the claim, contained in the question from the member of the public concerned, that he had received money from Crossrail as well. “Cllr” Peck denied that he had received money from Crossrail. So why did he stand up that second time to make that SECOND denial at the “Tower Hamlets Council” meeting held on 2 February 2011? Answer: Because a voice came over to him from the very back of the now extended “public gallery” demanding to know if Josh Peck had received money from Crossrail. That voice belonged to one of the main speakers, along with George Galloway and Carole Swords at a meeting held AGAINST CROSSRAIL in Bow West on 7 March 2006 where Josh Peck was roundly condemned as a liar by George Galloway on Crossrail after Peck made a false statement alleging that Galloway had failed to oppose Crossrail in the UK House of Commons. . The speaker at the back of the ‘public gallery’ during the Tower Hamlets Council meeting held on 2 February 2011? Answer: Muahmmad Haque, the Organiser of the Khoodeelaar action in defence of the East End of London. Is there any evidence that Muhammad Haque knows “Cllr” Josh Peck on the relevant records? Answer: There is plenty. Muhammad Haque has been organising the BHANGEELAAR! campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets as you [Mike Brooke] have known. Bhangeelaar is actively advancing the cause of democracy that Josh Peck claimed to be “backing” for a few months in 2010. After a few months, he ‘changed’ his stance and began to BACK an elected mayor system that he had been “honestly campaigning against” for those few weeks!. Before his ‘about turn’ Josh Peck appeared on a platform at the Brady Centre in March 2010 and delivered what sounded very much like an imitation of Muhammad Haque’s significantly established and recorded diagnostic linguistic speech given at several formal and informal gatherings of the “:No to a directly elected mayor” campaign in the previous weeks. 0030 Hrs Saturday 05 February 2011 BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets [To be continued]

CONDEM complacent as they destroy NHS and let 'care' business kill!

CONDEM complacent as they destroy NHS and let 'care' business kill!
2100 Hrs GMT London Monday 31 January 2011. By © Muhammad Haque. CONDEM in the UK are taking Society backwards to Dark Age...[To be continued]

Defending the East End community against Big Biz attacks: into 8th year of Khoodeelaar!

Defending the East End community against Big Biz attacks: into 8th year of Khoodeelaar!
0635 [0555] Hrs GMT London Sunday 30 January 2011. By © Muhammad Haque. The Movement for democratic accountability in the East End of London has been defending the community in the area for decades. Those decades have witnessed the democratic defence being conducted under a number of banners. In context, each banner has been created in response to the given attack on the democratic entitlements of the community. The most prominent and consistently active banner for the past seven years has been the KHOODEELAAR! campaign. Khoodeelaar! is into the 8th campaigning year starting today, Sunday 30 January 2011. On Saturday 31 January 2004, the KHOODEELAAR! campaign was publicly launched with the holding of the first public meeting for the community . It was held at the Montefiore Centre under the initiative of Kay Jordan, the community architect. Kay’s academic background as an architect helped her understanding of the aspects of the Crossrail hole assault that was plotted against the East End. That understanding got enriched by Kay Jordan the universally conscientious human being who used her gifts to embrace as many people as were positively inclined to help the cause of creating a just society. That particular battle for justice that we began on Saturday 31 january 2004 has been making the East End a far more accountable place than it would otherwise have been. The campaign against Big Business agenda Crossrail has not been merely a campaign against a single scam. The Khoodeelaar! campaign has been also a, probably THE community action forum for holding to account all who seek public office in the name of the community, at the expense of the community. The extent of that accountability is not measurable by numbers. The extent of accountability is a function of the environment for democratic accountability that the seekers of Post and the holders of post feel they have entered. The first and the foremost material indication of the level and the quality of that atmosphere is in the degrees go which the area is subjected to unsettlement by BiG Business. Without a stable, settled and secure environment in which the community can carry on ordinary life, there cannot be a locally elected locally accountable 'institution' like the local Council. It is the local Tower Hamlets Council that has been under threat of demolition. But this possibility has not been recognised by the “elected” councillors! Neither in their careers as allownces-collecting “routine-performers” [as in “attending” “functions” including appearing at recorded “council” ‘meetings’ and ‘allowances-linked events’, etc] nor in their positions as “leaders”, however the “office” is dressed up! That the community has had to mobilise the defence of the area against the lethal dislocation attacks by the City of London interests that have been operating via the Crossrail scam [as one ofd their current weapons and ploys] is a most important confirmation of the fact that Tower Hamlets Council has been a failing Council. The Movement which has created the Khoodeelaar! campaign, the 40 year old Movement for the defence of the community in the East End of London, had PREDICTED the state of dysfunction as a democratic local authority into which the Tower Hamlets Council.. has descended now. Our Movement had predicted that even before Eric Pickles was a “leading” councillor in Bradford! And that was a very long time ago. So long ago that Eric Pickles himself looked unrecognisably dissimilar to what he looks like [both in physical extent and in the fat in the shape of bonuses, expenses that he has collected around himself] now as he spiels the absurdities and the unreconstructed idiocies about local communities. But then Pickles can do that. Especially so because local Councils like Tower Hamlets are heading for their own destruction. How this has been happening has been one of our diagnostic work in the campaign to defend democracy and a democratic council for years. Do those who brag and flaunt their “achievements” linked to Tower Hamlets Council realise this? [To be continued]

Kay Jordan marched in Hanbury Street, Princelet street on 17 January 2006 [pictured below]

Kay Jordan marched in Hanbury Street, Princelet street on 17 January 2006 [pictured below]
0810 Hrs GMT London Saturday 15 January 2011 Editor © Muhammad Haque BHANGEELAAR! the Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets this morning again reiterated the fact that on the Council.. there is no active councillors working to hold the Council.. cuts-friendly bureaucracy accountable to the people of the Borough. This diagnostic position is contained in the BHANGEELAAR! comment posted on the "East London Advertiser`" web site in the last hour. Here is the full text of the BHANGEELAAR! diagnostic comment on the CUTS-making 'budget' by the Tower Hamlets Council: [Previous editions] You [The ‘local’ “East London Advertiser”, circulating primarily in the East London Borough ofd Tower Hamlets] state [dated Tuesday 11 january 2011] [Quote]: “An estimated 7,000 families are living in sub-standard council property in Bethnal Green & Bow and in neighbouring Poplar & Limehouse constituency.” [Unquote]. There must be some mistake in that statement, ‘shurely’! FOR DECADES, successions of the cliques in control of Tower Hamlets Council have DENIED any problem whenever substantial challenges have been made to their behaviour over housing needs, housing stock and housing policy in Tower Hamlets. The name “Tower Hamlets Council” is, on the objectively verifiable facts, at the top of the list of all UK ‘local authorities’ with undeniable records of institutional, policy and personnel failures causing, contributing to and perpetuating housing problems DESPITE significant funding made available to the same Borough Council by UK Central Government. Why has this been so? Because in Tower Hamlets, there hasn’t been an active and manifest culture of accountability via the “elected councillors” who have been and are evidentially demonstrably complicit as a [numerical as different from identifiably segmented Party Politically defined] group with the status quo of non-democracy that rules their careers and their allowances and their very limited horizons! MP after MP DURING their Party’s tenures in office as “the UK Central Government” at the time has PRAISED the Tower Hamlets Council regardless of the Council’s systemic and systematic failures. Against these facts and in the context of this evidential backlog, NO AMOUNT of CONDEM CASH can truthfully and effectively and meaningfully break the “housing backlog”. Only a truly democratic, honest, ethically active local Borough Council in Tower Hamlets can begin to do that long overdue task. 1640 Hrs Tuesday 11 January 2011 BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets BHANGEELAAR! diagnosing the evidence of complicity by successive MPs with the Govt of their Party, thus CREATING the many backlogs in the Boro' [Previous editions] 0444 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 05 January 2011. Editor © Muhammad Haque. In more ways than one, Kay Jordan has defended the people of the East End of London with all her abilities as a very kind and a very gifted, talented human being. She literally shone with people. And everyone she touched was the better for it. In a life that has been indescribably dedicated to the defence and protection of so many ordinary people, Kay Jordan has excelled at being most natural when other mortals would not even understand let alone risk carrying the burdens she carried. In hours, Kay Jordan achieved more than most did in a week. In this picture of the KHOODEELAAR! demo to mark our community’s NO to the role of the the Crossrail hole Bill ‘Select Committee’ [that was formally sitting for the first time on Tuesday 17 January 2006, the day that the community demonstrated] Kay was in her absolute elements, Kay Jordan carried the banner “DON’T DIG HERE!’ defending the East End against Crossrail hole plot! [To be continued]

Historic picture on 11 April 2010 by © Muhammad Haque

Historic picture on 11 April 2010 by © Muhammad Haque
1700 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 22 December 2010. Editor©Muhammad Haque. Another very clearly calculated incident has been orchestrated in Tower Hamlets undeniably intended to create disharmony, intolerance and misunderstanding between groups of people of different faiths, cultures etc. The incident has been reported by the “East London Advertiser” online in the past hour. In the first comment already posted on the “East London Advertiser” web site, the BHANGEELAAR! campaign has the following to say: [Quote] So, how many CCTV cameras does Tower Hamlets Council operate in the Poplar and Limehouse area? Do they work or are they there for a purpose? Why is it that these CCTV and their personnel are never mentioned when they should be shown to be being used to identify and take appropriate, thoughtful, effective and instructive action on incidents like these? Will Tower Hamlets Council ever find those who are behind this very clearly orchestrated attack on the people in the Borough? Who is likely to reap the maximum propaganda profits out of this violation of decency? Who is going to lose out the most too? 1652 Hrs Wednesday 22 December 2010 BHANGEELAAR! The Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets [Unquote] [To be continued]

The 'NO' Vote campaign demonstrated against Ken Livingstone’s role 6 February 2010

The 'NO' Vote campaign demonstrated against Ken Livingstone’s role 6 February 2010
DEMONSTRATORS against the imposition of a change to Tower Hamlets Council's constitution by ushering in an elected executive mayor were vigorous in their show of opposition. This picture, which was dishonestly cut cropped by the elements that actually broadcast it on Channel satellite TV news on 6 February 2010, was part of a bigger demonstration which was led by Muhammad Haque. Muhammad Haque is only partly shown holding the loud hailer on the top left corner of this still image. [To be continued]

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

BHANGEELAAR! Updater commentary on the dearth of democracy on Tower Hamlets Council, here, next


Editor © Muhammad Haque.
BHANGEELAAR! Updater commentary on the dearth of democracy on Tower Hamlets Council, here, soon
[To be continued]
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 25 November 2010

BHANGEELAAR! Telling Tower Hamlets Tory Councillors' 'leader' Peter Golds to ACT for democratic accountability for the people of Tower Hamlets...

2110 Hrs GMT
London
Thursday
25 November 2010

Editor © Muhammad Haque

BHANGEELAAR! has posted [timed at 2100 GMT 25 November 2010] on the web site of the ‘local’ ‘East London Advertiser” a comprehensive update of the democratising diagnosis on the roles being played FOR CUTS and against democracy by the 'official' Conservative Party group of councillors on the current Tower Hamlets Council and by the holder of the post of the town clerk [Oops! 'Chief executive'].

We also expose the shallowness of the 'utterances' by Jim Fitzpatrick [‘MP’] as reported by the "East London Advertiser" in their online piece we have published our diagnostic updater comment on…

[To be continued]




from the web site of the

"East London Advertiser"

Tower Hamlets

council staff

warned

of

job cuts


Wednesday, 24 November, 2010
16:12 PM

Council workers in Tower Hamlets are being warned to brace themselves for job cuts.

To send a link to this page to a friend, simply enter their email address below.

The message will include the name and email address you gave us when you signed up.

Tower Hamlets chief executive Kevan Collins wrote to all council employees today about cuts explaining they are needed to cope “with the unpredecented financial challenge” facing the country.

The council is believed to be looking at cutting 500 jobs as it saves £70 million from its budget.

Mr Collins has said that around 500 jobs will need to be axed in 2011/2012 and he has asked managers to draw up restructuring plans.

He said the staff budget has to be cut by 23 per cent to save £29 million.

Mayor Lutfur Rahman has asked department heads to present their budget suggestions to next month’s cabinet meeting.

The mayor and chief executive will be holding a series of roadshows for staff to explain what is happening and the council is consulting with the unions.

Mr Collins told staff: “It is with regret that I am writing to inform you that today I have written to the trade unions outlining the potential impact on jobs of the government’s cuts. Our approach to this unprecedented financial challenge is to try to minimise the impact on staff and the community in Tower Hamlets. We will do our utmost to minimise job losses and redundancies by reducing spend on agency staff and deleting vacant posts.”

Conservative leader on the council Peter Golds: “I find it absolutely ridiculous that at a time staff are hearing this job adverts are going out for the head of the mayor’s office at between £57,000 and £59,000.”

Poplar and Limehouse Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick said: “The coalition are cutting too deeply too quickly and we could end up with the situation Ireland is in.”

He added: “We will be working to defend front line services as best as we can. In Tower Hamlets it is clear that things are going to be difficult for many people.”

1 Views

Our [BHANGEELAAR!] campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets notes the part of your report in which you mention Peter Golds as follows:

We quote

Conservative leader on the council Peter Golds: “I find it absolutely ridiculous that at a time staff are hearing this job adverts are going out for the head of the mayor’s office at between £57,000 and £59,000.”

Unquote

Given that he is reported as expressing that view, will Peter Golds now join the democratising campaign to have the overdue investigation into the role the town Clerk [‘chief executive’] has been allowed to play in fixing things that ought to be conducted in public and by the elected councillors?

Will Peter Golds also show the community in Tower Hamlets the full facts of what he has been spending his councillor time on?

Why won’t he issue statements in Tower Hamlets condemning the CONDEM assaults of destruction on the already low standard service operations controlled by ‘Tower Hamlets Council’?

Will Peter Golds join us in demanding that the ‘chief executive’ publish reports to the Borough showing what deals he is currently negotiating?

And in backing our call that “Dr” Kevan Collins publish the full facts about his role in the promotion of the ‘referendum’ on the undermining of the already fragile democratic structure of Tower Hamlets Council?

There are hundreds of unanswered questions that actually concern the mythology that Kevan Collins has been being allowed to create to justify HIS programme of cuts while the likes of Jim Fitzpatrick blame ONLY the CONDEM. Why did neither Peter Golds nor Jim Fitzpatrick make any comments about Kevan Collins’ assertion on his ‘famous’ ‘Undercover Boss’ programme [shown on Channel 4] MONTHS ago that he was in effect positively working to make cuts in Tower Hamlets worth £Millions?


2100 Hrs

Thursday

25 November 2010

BHANGEELAAR!

The CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS

Add your view | Report this comment

Bhangeelaar!

Thursday, November 25, 2010


Posted by at No comments:

Tower Hamlets Council is reported by the BBC to be entangled in another 'deal' with a company cited about a ‘law-breaking’ Council



From the website of the BBC accessed at 2035 GMT Thursday 25 November 2010

25 November 2010 Last updated at 13:32

'No wrong-doing' council broke EU law

By Ed Davey BBC News, London
Westminster logo

Westminster was found to have infringed EU law

Related stories

A council has been censured by the European Commission for infringing contract laws - and criticised for earlier claiming in a press release it had been "cleared of any wrong-doing".

Westminster Council was the subject of an EU investigation after setting up Partners in Parking (PiP), which allowed local authorities to join forces to purchase cheap parking services.

Transport for London and six local authorities in the city joined when it first started, hoping for a better deal from private parking enforcement firms.

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the members.

Additional local authorities were then persuaded by Westminster City Council to join PiP but these contracts under European Union rules should have gone back out to tender rather than being passed automatically to Verrus.

This move prompted an investigation by the European Union after an un-named parking company complained about the process and the failure to put subsequent contracts out to tender.

But on 8 November Westminster Council released a statement saying an investigation by the European Commission into its parking contract "has cleared the authority of any wrongdoing".

Councillor Lee Rowley, Westminster's parking boss, said at the time: "We always maintained this contract was properly awarded following a tender process carried out in accordance with the law and we are obviously pleased that the EU has decided to close this case."

But BBC London has obtained documents showing the Commission found against Westminster Council and that it was ordered to make changes.

'Infringed EU law'

In an written statement it said: "The Commission considered that Westminster City Council has infringed EU law.

"The United Kingdom authorities recognised the Commission's allegations and committed to take appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement."

This statement was obtained by Gerard Batten, a Member of the European Parliament and also of UKIP.

Gerard Batten
Gerard Batten MEP said Westminster's press release was 'simply not true'

He said: "The press release Westminster sent out is simply not true.

"They have not been cleared of any wrong-doing.

"They certainly were not let off scot-free."

He said he was not surprised the authority had put out "such a silly statement".

In light of the revelations, the BBC has learned some councils are considering withdrawing from PiP.

A head of parking at one of the PiP councils, speaking to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said: "The whole issue of legal capability has to be explained.

"I had the press release saying everything was in the clear.

"Then I received other information - now I am trying to ask how these things relate."

Asked if the council would now withdraw from PiP, the officer said: "Whether it is a deal-breaker I don't think we can say until they respond."

Westminster Council's initial claims followed an exchange of emails with the Office for Governmental Commerce (OGC), which dealt with the EU over the issue.

“Start Quote

Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone”

End Quote Cllr Lee Rowley Westminster Council

The OGC says it does not comment on individual cases but the BBC understands the OGC is privately adamant that Westminster's press release was inaccurate and the council should not have based its claims on their emails.

On Wednesday Cllr Rowley said: "Our assertion that we had been cleared of any wrong-doing was based on the fact the OGC had said that the Commission had closed the case.

"It was also based on the EU saying there had been a satisfactory outcome to its investigation.

"Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone and it's important to note that there was no punitive action taken against the council."

PiP once had ambitions to go nationwide.

The minutes of its December 2009 board meeting read: "The board received a report to consider the recommendation enable non-London authorities to join PiP.

Expansion plans dropped

"An Associate Membership would be created in order to enable UK authorities outside London to take advantage of PiP procurements."

A PiP report from 2009 described Bristol, Maidstone, Swindon, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Chiltern and Oxford as having a "potential interest" in joining.

One PiP report referred to the "harmonisation" of a Westminster policy to charge motorcyclists for parking, promising to "review national policy context".

The No To Bike Parking Tax group argue charging motorcyclists for parking is a money-raising exercise and have held regular demonstrations over the policy.

Bristol City Council building
Bristol City Council was one of several authorities nationwide interested in PiP

But Bristol Council raised concerns about PiP with regard to the legality of authorities outside London joining the organisation.

After the EU investigation began, expansion beyond London was shelved.

Westminster Council, which insists the EU probe did not affect the plans' termination, has since dismissed claims of national ambitions.

In July 2010 the then PiP chairman, Alastair Gilchrist, who is now strategic director of resources at Westminster Council, told other members: "Concerns about PiP's nationwide expansion are ill-conceived and regional savings are still at the heart of PiP's focus."

The EU's ruling means that only the seven authorities which first joined PiP - Westminster, the City of London, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Islington, Camden and Transport for London - may continue to use the Verrus contract.

An OGC advisory in light of the ruling suggests councils who subsequently joined PiP may be said to have made an "illegal award" of the contract to Verrus, if they used the company.

There is no suggestion of any wrong-doing by Verrus.

Enfield, Richmond, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Havering and Croydon joined PiP after its start date.

The BBC understands at least one of those authorities, Tower Hamlets, is now actively seeking to award a new contract.


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

BHANGEELAAR! NO to bureaucratic, diversionary and wasteful 'legal action' stunt over 2012 marathon route is ‘vindicated’!

BHANGEELAAR! NO to bureaucratic, diversionary and wasteful 'legal action' stunt over 2012 marathon route is ‘vindicated’!

0300 [0245]
[0200] [0130] Hrs GMT
London
Thursday
25 November 2010
Editor © Muhammad Haque

Tower Hamlets Council in another marathon Route Change Mess up and fakery!

The details follow this updater commentary.

The first thing to say is that the controlling clique in Tower Hamlets Council is behaving to form: abysmally dishonestly and in opposition to its democratic and universally legally defined constitutional obligations and ethical duties.

The democratic obligations include the requirement that the Council should behave and be seen to behave in accordance with the objective universally valid expectations of the community without jeopardising the important claim of the Council as the relevant ‘elected entity’ to constitutionality and legitimacy.

According to the latest ‘news report’ [timed at 2115 Hrs GMT 245 November 2010] that we examine in context below, the controlling clique in Tower Hamlets Council has made another deal.

This time the “Tower Hamlets Council” deal is with LOCOG, the 2012 Games Hosting outfit that is fronted by Sebastian Coe.
As part of the deal, Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy will do precisely the same thing that it has done over the past decade or more with the invading agencies of Big Business and their tentacles.

This pattern is traceable to all the major Big Biz planning bids concerning the erection of high rise structures and buildings in Tower Hamlets. The corrupting clique in control of the Council poses at first. Its postures go something like this:

It claims to say ‘no’ [always a small ‘no’, never a big or truthful NO] to a planning application by a Big Biz takeover merchant or outfit. Then it allows a few weeks or even months of public silence. That is the time it engages in deal-making. The silence is broken by a mysterious decision approving the Big Biz planning bid!

Tower Hamlets Council has behaved, again, in typically bureaucratic way, thus exposing its previously staged claim and “determination to bring the 2012 Games Marathon route to the East End” as another sham one. This is evident in a news report published online by the London Daily Telegraph, “confirmed” online at around 2115 Hrs GMT Wednesday 24 November 2010. That report followed our LATEST diagnostic commentary [see sequence of publication stated in the DAILY TELEGRAPH online news paragraph below] arguing against the fake ‘legal action’ by the Tower Hamlets Council.

Our diagnostic update was published on the web site of the LONDONIST at 2030 Hrs GMT Wednesday 24 November 2010.

As reported in the news item online by the DAILY TELEGRAPH, the Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy was now claiming, for the first time on record as far as evident on the basis of objectively accessible and published ‘news items’ on the stunt, that a “QC” had advised them that there was a “strong legal case”.

Here is the full paragraph from the Daily Telegraph: “The council, which had already lost the walk and basketball events at the 2012 Olympics, was furious at the marathon route change and was seeking a judicial review on the grounds that, although LOCOG is a private company, it had public functions. It said it had received advice from a leading QC that it had a strong legal case.”

That “strong legal case” was evidently not strong enough, according to the same report by the same by-lined author on the Daily Telegraph. It is now another “deal” between the Tower Hamlets Council and the Seb Coe LOCOG.

On 09 November 2010, we had posted on the web site of the London EVENING STANDARD the following diagnostic comment that has been fully vindicated by the “announcement” as reported by the Daily Telegraph

BHANGEELAAR! had told the London EVENING STANDARD [09 November 2010]

“Your report contains no reference to any contract between Tower Hamlets Council and LOCOG about holding any 2012 Games events in the Borough. Should the Council have attended to this a bit sooner? Or is the judicial review application a stunt that the Council’s ‘top lawyer’ hopes will produce a result by default? The default being the embarrassment factor playing against the LOCOG over ‘diversity’ and ‘ethnicity’ issues rather than on any tangible contractual basis? You also don’t say what evidence of what legal liability on LOCOG you actually saw in the legal papers that state to have seen! The contents of your report do not show any convincing legal ground for Tower Hamlets claim. Which raises the question: what is the reason for this judicial review as opposed to organising the people in Tower Hamlets to make a democratic demand on LOCOG? That way, the costs would be a fraction of what the Council bureaucrats must be paying to external lawyers whether on the record or not. 1348 Hrs Tuesday 09 November 2010 Bhangeelaar! The Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets - Bhangeelaar! The Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets, London, 09/11/2010 13:52 “

That comment substantially stated the same facts that we updated on and published on the Londonist web site on 24 November 2010.

That the news outlet had not shown any evidence of any legal ground for the Tower Hamlets Council’s bureaucracy to make the claim that they were being reported to be making. That the ‘legal action’ was a stunt and that they were diverting away from democratic representation of the people of Tower Hamlets in that conduct.

The latest news item on the Daily Telegraph web suite [as at 0240 Hrs GMT Thursday 25 November 2010] shows that we, the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign against an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets, had got the analysis right and that we had accurately predicted the outcome of the Council’s bureaucratic legal action stunt over the marathon route change.

At 0115 Hrs GMT Thursday 25 November 2010 we accessed the news updater service on Google that showed that the following item had come online ‘hours ago’. If that is right then the Daily Telegraph item [below] came online [or was ‘crawled’ by the Google search system at 2115 Hrs GMT on Wednesday 24 November 2010. However the actual online post on the Daily Telegraph web site shows the time as “8:37PM GMT 24 Nov 2010” [that is 2037 GMT, which is SEVEN minutes after our posting of our comment on the Londionist’s web site].

In the period that has followed between the "first published" "news" that Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy was claiming to be applying for a "judicial review" of the LOCOG decision leaving Tower Hamlets out of the 2012 Games Marathon route, ONLY the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign has argued that that was a diversionary, undemocratic and wasteful move by the Council's bureaucracy.

[To be continued]

The following is taken from an external web site, the DAILY TELEGRAPH, London, purely as a reference:


London 2012 Olympics: Threat of legal battle over marathon recedes
The threat of a legal battle between Tower Hamlets Council and the London Olympic organising committee (LOCOG) over the route of the 2012 marathon looks to have receded.

Finishing line: The marathon at the 2012 London Olympic Games is likely end along The Mall Photo: REUTERS
By Simon Hart 8:37PM GMT 24 Nov 2010
A “positive meeting” on Wednesday between Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Raham and the LOCOG chief executive, Paul Deighton, seems to have ensured the marathon will now follow a circuit through central London, ending in The Mall.
The council had already started legal proceedings to seek a judicial review into LOCOG’s decision to alter the route of the marathon, which was originally due to pass through Tower Hamlets en route to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.
LOCOG has refused to back down over the route change, insisting the decision was “fair and legal” and that it was taken for operational reasons, including security. But, to avoid a damaging legal wrangle, it is understood to have offered the council a series of other “celebratory events” in the run-up to the Games to compensate it for the loss of the marathon.
Related Articles
GB boosted by Proctor's switch of allegiance 24 Nov 2010
Lord Moynihan to head global commission 24 Nov 2010
2012 charity helps Trinidad's teenagers 24 Nov 2010
Britain to field strong teams for World Cup openers 24 Nov 2010
London 2012 gets Trinidad running 23 Nov 2010
West Ham 'front-runners' for 2012 stadium 23 Nov 2010
After the talks, the council said it was now awaiting a formal proposal from LOCOG about the ways it will be involved in the Games.
A council spokesman said: “It was a really positive meeting. We’re always keen to talk to LOCOG and we look forward to have a formal response on any proposals they are looking to bring us.”
The council, which had already lost the walk and basketball events at the 2012 Olympics, was furious at the marathon route change and was seeking a judicial review on the grounds that, although LOCOG is a private company, it had public functions. It said it had received advice from a leading QC that it had a strong legal case.
LOCOG was equally confident that a judicial review was not applicable but was anxious to avoid a high-profile falling-out with one of its key host boroughs.
A LOCOG spokeswoman said: “We recognise the disappointment in Tower Hamlets and will continue our efforts to talk to Tower Hamlets Council and develop a proposal which makes sure the borough benefits from London 2012.
“Although moving the finish of the marathon was a very tough decision for us to take, we believe it was the right decision, and the process we undertook was comprehensive, fair and legal.
“As a private company, we do not believe judicial review is the right response to this decision and our aim is to work constructively with the council to do everything we can to make sure the borough makes the most of London 2012.”[Van Commenee quotes are just for newspapers so please don’t put this online until late tonight. You already have an online version]
UK Athletics head coach Charles van Commenee, who has been a constant critic of the strength of women’s field athletes at his disposal, has welcomed the decision of world-class long jumper Shara Proctor to switch her allegiance from Anguilla to Britain.
The 22 year-old finished sixth at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin with a lifetime best of 6.71 metres, and Van Commenee said: “She’s a high-calibre athlete. We are not strong in women’s field events at the moment. The fact that Shara has decided to represent Britain from now on will make the team stronger.”
Posted by at No comments:

BHANGEELAAR! Telling the LONDONIST that Tower Hamlets Council's alleged legal action against LOCOG on the 2012 'marathon route' change is flawed

From the web site of the LONDONIST

http://londonist.com/2010/11/tower-hamlets-takes-legal-action-over-marathon-route.php


Wednesday 24 November 2010
Tower Hamlets Takes Legal Action Over Marathon Route
By Dean · November 24, 2010 at 11:30 am ·
View Comments ·
News ·
Though the brouhaha over his controversial election has yet to simmer down, Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman is pressing on with other important borough business: his council has begun legal action against the 2012 Olympic organisers over the re-routed marathon, despite the IOC approving the westward shift last week.
The original marathon route, which took in parts of Tower Hamlets and finished in the Olympic Park, was amended in October, with the new route beginning and ending in the Mall. Organisers said that the decision was made for the sake of “minimising disruption”, but many, including the borough’s MPS, disagreed, saying that it was a cynical decision designed to showcase some of London’s more tourist-friendly sights and keep the eyes of the world away from the insalubrious streets of the East End.
Despite the IOC confirming the route, and Lord Coe stating that their decision is final, Mr. Rahman is to seek a judicial review. There is also a petition on the council’s website that supporters can sign. Yet there seems little chance that the route will be revised a third time. Lord Coe is not one for turning, and it seems likely that poor Tower Hamlets, despite being an ‘official Olympic borough’ and experiencing all the disruption that entails, will be left without a single event.
Photo / Stuart-Lee
News
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,
Loading comments...

Problems loading Disqus?
Like Dislike
Community

About Disqus
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Facebook
Twitter
Share
No thanks
Sharing this page ...
Thanks! Close
Showing 1 comments
Sort by Popular now Best rating Newest first Oldest first Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

Muhammad Haque 0 minutes ago
You say about Tower Hamlets Council that it “...has begun legal action against the 2012 Olympic organisers…” but the hypertext link you provided takes the viewer to a BBC online item. That is NOT evidence of legal action. Have you seen actual claim documents seeking the stated judicial review? If you have, what is stated there to be the ‘legal ground’? You should tell viewers that and more. Such as the assertion, attributed by another ‘news’ outlet a fortnight ago to the same Council bureaucracy, that the change of the 2012 Games marathon route was “illegal”. There has been no statement anywhere that we can access in the public domain that has been categorically referring to any contract between any party representing Tower Hamlets and the decision-makers of LOCOG to the effect that there would be a route or indeed an ‘Olympic event’ in 2012 ‘in [or substantially covering or including] Tower Hamlets’.
We have formed the view, purely on the basis of the key evidence in this context, that Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy has been exposed as being – and as having been for the past five years- incompetent.
That incompetence has been in the main a direct consequence of the undemocratic way that the ‘powers’ and the ‘remits’ of the Council have been misappropriated by the controlling clique that has taken away the key decision-making powers from the elected councillors.
This misappropriation in our view and on the evidence has been taking place for years and it is this grotesquely unjustifiable deficit that deserves the utmost and the first attention of anyone who may be wishing to come across as b being interested in turning the Council into a democratic one.
Under the circumstances, such a prospect looks very unlikely.
So what is the answer?
The answer must be sought by mobilising ordinary people behind a credible and community-based call addressed at the Government via all elected holders of office that the people of Tower Hamlets are shown the respect that is owed.
2030 Hrs
Wednesday
24 November 2010
BHANGEELAAR!
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS





Post as …
blog comments powered by Disqus
/* */
/* */
/* */

Related Posts

Day Of Student Protests In London
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
4.30pm update: According to Sky News, eight arrests have been made during the protests. Six have been treated for injuries, and two police officers have been taken to hospital. 3pm update: Large numbers of students have convened on Whitehall, where things have turned violent. The …

London 2012 Gold Challenge Launches
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
Feel good three ways! Try new sports, raise money for charity and be part of London 2012 is the message of the Gold Challenge. It’s a campaign to raise £20 million for over 100 charities by the end of the Olympic year, boosting mass participation …
←
→
Search for:
GA_googleFillSlot('Londonist_300x250_Interior');

var keynoir_target = "http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=3047&id=113844&p=http://www.keynoir.com/london?utm_source=&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=widgetv1&utm_campaign=";
.keynoir-widget {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
color: #666666;
background: #ffffff;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 1px solid #000000;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-wide-and-thin-first-section {
width: 44%;
float: left;
}
.keynoir-widget .keynoir-title {
font-size: 20px;
line-height: 24px;
text-align: left;
background-color: #CC0000;
color: #ffffff;
padding: 10px;
margin: 0;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-title.smaller {
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 16px;
padding: 5px;
}

.keynoir-image {
overflow: hidden;
}

.keynoir-wide-and-thin .keynoir-image {
height: 100%;
width: 28%;
float: left;
}

.keynoir-image img {
position: relative;
}

.keynoir-image.smaller img {
width: 230px;
height: 160px;
top: -40px;
left: -57px;
}

.keynoir-clickable {
cursor: pointer;
}
.keynoir-widget .keynoir-intro {
font-size: 11px;
padding: 6px 10px;
text-transform: uppercase;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-intro.smaller {
font-size: 10px;
padding: 0px 5px;
line-height: 18px;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-subtitle {
font-size: 12px;
padding: 10px;
background-color: #000000;
color: #ffffff;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/shadow.gif) no-repeat bottom right;
margin: 10px 0 0 10px !important;
margin: 10px 0 0 5px;
position: relative;
float: left;
left: -2px !important;
left: 7px;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow div.keynoir-outer {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.png) no-repeat left top !important;
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.gif) no-repeat left top;
padding: 0px 5px 5px 0px;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow .keynoir-image {
background-color: #ffffff;
border: 1px solid #cacaca;
width: 280px;
}

.keynoir-price-area {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/widget/arrow.gif) no-repeat;
height: 50px !important;
height: 70px;
width: 120px !important;
width: 140px;
margin-top: 8px !important;
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 8px;
padding-top: 20px;
padding-left: 20px;
font-size: 24px;
color: #ffffff;
float: left;
}

.keynoir-wide-and-thin .keynoir-price-area {
position: absolute;
right: 0;
margin: 0;
margin: 0 !important;
line-height: inherit;
float: none;
}

.keynoir-price-area-small {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/widget/arrow-small.gif) no-repeat top right black;
height: 50px !important;
height: 50px;
width: 100%;
margin-top: 8px !important;
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 8px;
font-size: 22px;
line-height: 50px;
text-align: center;
color: #ffffff;
float: left;
}
.keynoir-view {
float: right;
margin-right: 10px;
margin-top: 30px !important;
margin-top: 22px;
}

.keynoir-view-small {
display: block;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
width: 107px;
text-align: center;
}

.keynoir-widget-footer-small {
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
}

.keynoir-alpha-shadow div.keynoir-outer {
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.png', sizingMethod='crop');
background: none;
}

Daily London offers
£550 for a Made to Measure Suit from Boland & Banks
£550 for £1,100 value

£550
Popular
Recent
Comments
Tags
Free Wifi in London…Mapped
May 26, 2007 · View Comments
Sponsored Post: Free London Restaurant Festival Dinner for Two at Hawksmoor
October 5, 2010 · View Comments
Sponsored Post: London Restaurant Festival Street Food Competition
October 4, 2010 · View Comments
TfL To Trial Wi-Fi On The Tube
October 29, 2010 · View Comments
Free Wifi In London: Londonist App Launches
October 26, 2010 · View Comments
Extra, Extra
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
Londonist Out Loud: Knitting Maven Gosia Dzik-Holden
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
http://londonist.com/2010/11/music-preview-terry-edwards-the-victoria.php
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
http://londonist.com/2010/11/theatre-review-end-of-the-rainbow-trafalgar-studios.php
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
http://londonist.com/2010/11/opera-review-a-dogs-heart-coliseum.php
November 24, 2010 · View Comments
carly on Day Of Student Protests In London:
The government seem to think that everyone is made of money, like them...
Cat on Day Of Student Protests In London:
I understand that students are currently occuping University College, ...
richard on Day Of Student Protests In London:
As a Pensioner I am really pleased to see that the students are standi...
Screwup44 on Day Of Student Protests In London:
good luck guys, hope you make yourselves heard...
Whizz-Kidz charity on London 2012 Gold Challenge Launches:
I'm from the disabled children's charity, Whizz-Kidz, which provides m...
art arts Arts and media bar BBC books christmas cinema City comedy crime dance David death entertainment events film Flickr food football fun history House interview London London news love money Music news Olympics people Photography photos police politics running sport theatre The City this week transport TV video Wednesday
GA_googleFillSlot('Londonist_160x600_Interior');

var keynoir_target = "http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=3047&id=113844&p=http://www.keynoir.com/london?utm_source=&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=widgetv1&utm_campaign=";
.keynoir-widget {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
color: #666666;
background: #ffffff;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 1px solid #000000;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-wide-and-thin-first-section {
width: 44%;
float: left;
}
.keynoir-widget .keynoir-title {
font-size: 20px;
line-height: 24px;
text-align: left;
background-color: #CC0000;
color: #ffffff;
padding: 10px;
margin: 0;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-title.smaller {
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 16px;
padding: 5px;
}

.keynoir-image {
overflow: hidden;
}

.keynoir-wide-and-thin .keynoir-image {
height: 100%;
width: 28%;
float: left;
}

.keynoir-image img {
position: relative;
}

.keynoir-image.smaller img {
width: 230px;
height: 160px;
top: -40px;
left: -57px;
}

.keynoir-clickable {
cursor: pointer;
}
.keynoir-widget .keynoir-intro {
font-size: 11px;
padding: 6px 10px;
text-transform: uppercase;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-intro.smaller {
font-size: 10px;
padding: 0px 5px;
line-height: 18px;
}

.keynoir-widget .keynoir-subtitle {
font-size: 12px;
padding: 10px;
background-color: #000000;
color: #ffffff;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/shadow.gif) no-repeat bottom right;
margin: 10px 0 0 10px !important;
margin: 10px 0 0 5px;
position: relative;
float: left;
left: -2px !important;
left: 7px;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow div.keynoir-outer {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.png) no-repeat left top !important;
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.gif) no-repeat left top;
padding: 0px 5px 5px 0px;
}
.keynoir-alpha-shadow .keynoir-image {
background-color: #ffffff;
border: 1px solid #cacaca;
width: 280px;
}

.keynoir-price-area {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/widget/arrow.gif) no-repeat;
height: 50px !important;
height: 70px;
width: 120px !important;
width: 140px;
margin-top: 8px !important;
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 8px;
padding-top: 20px;
padding-left: 20px;
font-size: 24px;
color: #ffffff;
float: left;
}

.keynoir-wide-and-thin .keynoir-price-area {
position: absolute;
right: 0;
margin: 0;
margin: 0 !important;
line-height: inherit;
float: none;
}

.keynoir-price-area-small {
background: url(http://www.keynoir.com/images/widget/arrow-small.gif) no-repeat top right black;
height: 50px !important;
height: 50px;
width: 100%;
margin-top: 8px !important;
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 8px;
font-size: 22px;
line-height: 50px;
text-align: center;
color: #ffffff;
float: left;
}
.keynoir-view {
float: right;
margin-right: 10px;
margin-top: 30px !important;
margin-top: 22px;
}

.keynoir-view-small {
display: block;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
width: 107px;
text-align: center;
}

.keynoir-widget-footer-small {
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
}

.keynoir-alpha-shadow div.keynoir-outer {
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='http://www.keynoir.com/images/inverse-shadow.png', sizingMethod='crop');
background: none;
}

Daily London offers
£550 for a Made to Measure Suit from Boland & Banks
£550 for £1,100 value
£550
Latest Tweets
For the knitting fans...interview with Gosia Dzik-Holden http://bit.ly/eegJm7 about an hour ago
A round-up of today's news, including David Cameron's vow to clear Parliament Square ahead of the Royal Wedding http://bit.ly/fD4lXI about an hour ago
RT @GoingGoingBike What good anti-bike theft ideas do you have? #lockitorloseit http://bit.ly/9PzNys about 2 hours ago
Maybe it's because he's a Londoner http://bit.ly/e2wok1 (beautiful music video) about 2 hours ago
Judy Garland fans rejoice: End of the Rainbow at Trafalgar Studios http://bit.ly/i8zQjr about 3 hours agoFollow Londonist on Twitter
London Free WiFi iPhone App
Features:
Displays nearest free wifi spots to your location, or any other part of town
Hundreds of venues throughout Greater London
Sort results by location type - cafes, pubs, coffee shops, etc.
Every location checked for accuracy of information
Browse by map or index
Contribute additional locations with a simple contact form
Full contact details for all venues
Access to venue reviews via Qype.comDownload
Find us
Find us on Vimeo
Find us on Facebook
Find us on Flickr
Find us on Twitter
Find us on Foursquare
Sign up for Londonist Daily

Email Address *
First Name
Last Name
* = required field

© 2010 Londonist
Powered by WordPress
var site="s18londonist"


var disqus_shortname = 'londonistwp';
(function () {
var s = document.createElement('script'); s.async = true;
s.src = 'http://disqus.com/forums/londonistwp/count.js';
(document.getElementsByTagName('HEAD')[0] document.getElementsByTagName('BODY')[0]).appendChild(s);
}());
var skimlinks_pub_id = '2637X588413';
skimlinks();

var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));

try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-65258-3");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
pageTracker._trackEvent('Index_View', 'Summary_Load', '');
var u = mtGetUser();
if (u && u.is_authenticated) {pageTracker._setVar('ist member');} else {pageTracker._setVar('ist non-member');};
} catch(err) {}
Posted by at No comments:

BHANGEELAAR! Telling the "East London Advertiser" to publish answers to vital questions about the 'former' Daneford School, now being re-promoted

BHANGEELAAR! Telling the "East London Advertiser" to publish answers to vital questions about the 'former' Daneford School, now being re-promoted

[The following is] from the web site of the "East London Advertiser" online:

Mark Keary, Lutfur Rahman, Kevan Collins, corporate director Isobel Cattermole and Lionel Christolomme, managing director of Bouygues UK, with pupils

Mark Keary, Lutfur Rahman, Kevan Collins, corporate director Isobel Cattermole and Lionel Christolomme, managing director of Bouygues UK, with pupils

Bethnal Green Technology College celebrates £17m revamp

Nadia Sam-Daliri
Wednesday, 24 November, 2010
12:49 PM

A SCHOOL celebrated it £17million refurbishment during its official opening ceremony.

To send a link to this page to a friend, simply enter their email address below.

The message will include the name and email address you gave us when you signed up.

New buildings, upgraded computers and better equipped outdoor recreational areas were part of the revamp for Bethnal Green Technology College, in Gosset Street.

The college is the first to be completed of the 21 schools in the borough earmarked for cash under the government’s Building Schools for the Future project.

Headteacher Mark Keary said: “This project has been far more than just building work for us. It’s given the school a spectacular transformation.”

Students past and present were joined by mayor Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets chief executive Kevan Collins, among other education chiefs, for the ribbon cutting on November 18.

Mr Rahman said: “These facilities are fantastic and will give pupils a solid foundation for a bright future.”

Secondary schools in the borough are set to benefit from a £350 million fund over the next few years.

Some 25 pupils were awarded for exceptional achievement and contributions to student life during the opening.

Music and drama performances were also held.

1 Views

You say: “New buildings, upgraded computers and better equipped outdoor recreational areas were part of the revamp for Bethnal Green Technology College, in Gosset Street.” Where are the facts about “education” in the place? How many pupils are there? How many actually failed in the past year? How many parents and or guardians have had complaints about how many aspects of the former Daneford School? How many pupils were excluded, ‘barred’ from the school and what account was done of what happened to those that had been so excluded and or barred. What part of Tower Hamlets had they been consigned to and at what cost to how many people in the Borough due to the “consequences” that followed as chains from the school’s “achievements” there? Your report says nothing about those.

1320 Hrs Wednesday

Bhangeelaar!

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR

IN TOWER HAMLETS

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 22 November 2010

BHAN GEELAAR! Diagnosing the failure of the "mainstream media" to report on what the elected Cllrs and Assembly members get up

BHANGEELAAR! THE CAMPAIGN “AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS” to the Guardian London Blog

"Manifesto matters"!

NOT as much as people in the communities do. Not surely as much as allegedly politically alive occupants in the 'elected seats and slots' on the "London Assembly" should!

So what are you waiting for Dave?
When will you start publishing facts about what the London Assembly members are actually doing and demanding, if these two concepts are not too exacting?

Likewise, are you going to examine the behaviour of the ‘elected councillors’ on Tower Hamlets Council, as defined in our vocabulary of universal and objective democratic criteria?

We are aware of the particular line that the Tory Councillors’ ‘leader’ Peter Golds carries with the Daily Telegraph’s resident expert on all things to do with Tower Hamlets [NOT!] as opposed to showing to the community in the Borough what they actually do on the Council itself. Why is it that on London we are being told mainly about what Boris Johnson had said or not.
Why not report on what the ‘elected’ ones on the “London Assembly” are actually saying, arguing for and doing about not just the fares in London but on everything else that the London Assembly is supposed to be concerned about and even “responsible for”?
Applying that logic to what Boris Johnson has been up to since he made that claim in May 2008 to occupy the Onion, how can it be enough to refer to what he had promised instead of reporting on what the London Assembly members are constitutionally and democratically doing [assuming that THEY ARE AWAKE!] about the many Boris breaches, de facto denials and his countless fakeries that are fanatically promoted by the Telegraph and the Spectator as his ‘achievements’?
Why should it be assumed by “mainstream journalists” that “the main event” is either what [in this context] Boris Johnson says or fails to say or do?

Why not show what the London Assembly members have ASKED him to do and under what democratic, constitutional remit and in what way and then report HOW Boris has evaded or avoided it or been in denial about it and on what evidence [e-mail, direct question, ordinary question sent by internal mail or whatever other mode of communication on what date or dates etc]. Lastly on Boris, have you [singular and plural] seen any protests, demonstrations outside the Onion?

If so, where in the Guardian have those been reported? In principle, the same analysis applies to your reporting of Tower Hamlets [and other London Boroughs in context] so far.
1738 Hrs
Monday
22 November 2010
BHANGEELAAR! THE CAMPAIGN “AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS”

Posted by at No comments:

BHANGEELAAR! Reminding Guardian London Blog of ordinary people in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere in London...

London week ahead: houses, buses and boats

Discord continues to reign over the forthcoming housing benefit reductions, with politicians quarreling about the scale of their impact on the capital, everyone disputing everyone else's statistics and Boris sticking to his line that he's sticking up for Londoners. Lots of angles to explore here, including the attitude of the wealthy west Central London Tory boroughs (which I made a start on last week).

Also on the list: more fascinating facts about the New Bus for London, the disappearance of the Mayor's tourism promotion budget, the significance of Boris letting his domain name lapse, the sinking of the Thames riverboaters' dream and how Mayor Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets Labour are trying to work out what to do about each other. Plus a dead Boris bike docking station. You have been warned.

  • Notoanexecutivemayor

    22 November 2010 9:51AM

    You say:

    “….how Mayor Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets Labour are trying to work out what to do about each other. Plus a dead Boris bike docking station. You have been warned.”

    You left out all the ordinary people both in Tower Hamlets and in the other parts of London!

    What could be worse ?

    0950 Hrs
    Monday
    22 November 2010
    BHANGEELAAR!
    THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)