Grenville Mills

Ken Livingstone receives the Kiss of Death from Mayor Lutfur Rahman

2012-03-03T19:05:00.006-08:00

My response to Lutfur Rahman's rather pathetic attempt to counter comments made in the London Evening Standard (LES). He used the itspolitical.co.uk web site to respond, as he says the LES refused to accept his response. I'm posting this here while awaiting moderation clearance from itspolitical.co.uk More here: http://bit.ly/zacNqm

'east-end-lies' Huzzah! And well said! But it barely scratches the surface of 'his' borough's festering malaise. How unfortunate we are to have a mayor who decided to 'go into' politics, rather than one prepared to devote himself to public service. Our borough deserves a finer thread than him weaving into its rich history.

I'm sure we all understand the parapraxis of 'to represent all the diverse communities', rather than, 'integrate the diverse ethnic mix'. We don't want diverse communities being represented; we want a single integrated community. Calling himself a Bangladeshi Mayor doesn't help; Mayor (albeit a 12.5% Mayor) is entirely adequate.

The Cabinet, now there's a topic worth highlighting. In a Council where Labour holds a 63% majority, his Cabinet consists 60% Independents and a mere 40% Labour, thus transforming the majority in the council chamber into the opposition. And if that weren't enough, the 'Mayor' retains sole executive power to make decisions. Demolition of democracy? - you decide. Hardly surprising he is under sustained attack.

Mr 'Mayor', history should tell you that Tower Hamlets has weathered the contradictions of wealth and poverty for over a 1,000 years, every since the Tower of London was built - a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted upon the hamlet by the then new ruling elite. Canary Wharf is the Tower in today's world. But the difference is that we now live in a free capitalist society where the benefits of capital, trade and entrepreneurship must become open to all; that's the challenge, to seek to strengthen the links between local individuals, organisations and communities that create social capital. We need action not worthless politicising platitudes.

Some of our schools may well outperform others academically, but academic excellence is a questionable achievement when it is borne out of a segregated schooling system. Ofsted confirms that many of our schools consist of over 80% Bangladeshi students - this is not an integrated schooling system. We should be integrating minority ethnic cultures into our wider community and national culture, not the reverse. These are not the statistics a 'Mayor' ought to be blowing his own trumpet about.

On the question of voter fraud, this case has certainly not been closed. The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Minister for Housing and Local Government has recently called for an investigation into accusations that Tower Hamlets Electoral Roll has been rigged. As well as this he has been asked to carry out an independent case review into how the jailed Cllr Shelina Akhtar - a convicted fraudster and social housing tenant, was allocated social housing.

I hope sufficient light is being shed on the darker side of someone 'going into politics' under the guise of representing Tower Hamlets' interests.

An Evening with the Spitalfields Community Group

2012-03-02T06:58:00.001-08:00

I was given the heads-up to attend the 1 March 2012 meeting of the Spitalfields Community Group as Rushanara Ali, MP for Tower Hamlets, was to attend. It presented an opportunity to raise the issue of Brick Lane (sic) and other heritage concerns including the demolition threat to the Fruit and Wool Exchange.

The Community Group has a sincere enough aim - 'to promote and protect the rights and amenities of those who live or work in Spitalfields and/or own property in Spitalfields'. And it certainly can't be challenged in its ability to attract major political players. When Rushanara Ali finally arrived, she was greeted by fellow Labour Party faithfuls, John Biggs the London Assembly Member (City and East Constituency), and Joshua Peck, Labour Group Leader at Tower Hamlets’ Council. All in all, one would think, a suitably well qualified panel to hear our concerns and answer our questions. The panel was chaired by John Nicholson on behalf of the Community Group (although he introduced John Biggs as the Chair, Mr Nicholson – to the bafflement of John Biggs – actually chaired the meeting himself).

A suitably well qualified panel? I’m not so sure as while the assembly was kept waiting for the local MP to arrive I began to question the need for such an event in the first place. The fact that any community considers it necessary to form such a group must challenge the effectiveness of our current system of local government, which presupposes local Councillors will fulfil the functions such groups are set up to deal with. This thought further alarmed me when I realised there were no local Councillors on the panel.

The first couple of questions from the floor concerned licencing laws, substance abuse and law and order. Clearly major concerns to the community and more pressing than my question about tarmac being laid in Brick Lane.

Undaunted by my lesser issue, I took the floor next and asked the panel how we could best represent our concerns to Council when the panelists themselves are in opposition - at Local, Assembly and National level? How could they effectively represent us when the majority (Labour) party is considered the opposition and the Executive is one man, Lutfur Rahman, wielding autocratic power?

I asked why there wasn't a local Councillor present, even if the remaining two local Councillors aren't obviously part of the Executive's sycophantic inner circle. After a puzzled look from the panelists someone pointed to a sheepish fellow in the back row who turned out to be Anwar Khan, Labour Councillor for Bow West. So, no show from either Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas, who holds the Chair at the Council's Development/Strategic Development Committee, or from the mysterious local Councillor Fozol Miah.

Let me just spend a moment to highlight the significance of this. Of Spitalfields three absentee local Councillors, one is in jail for benefit fraud, one (Fozol Miah) has a 70% absentee record at Council with a 100% no show as a member on the all important Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the third, Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas - the one sitting on probably the most relevant Committee, didn't see fit to attend. So the Group's representation channel through local Councillors would seem tenuous at best. But the problem runs deeper than this. The invited MP, Rushanara Ali, as a career politician has little time for representing local concerns. She is currently part of the shadow team for the Department for International Development and much of her time is spent shouldering this responsibility - although she did in fact find time to vote against her own party's anti-terrorism laws. Of the 4 Early Day Motions she participated in during 2011, one was related to Kenya, one Sudan and one Egypt.

It was very gracious of John Biggs to attend, but he also had little to contribute. The MP for her part, in one of the few exchanges with a resident, refuted she had ever seen correspondence sent to her from him - the Chairman of the Spitalfields Market group and continued to droll on in an acquired parliamentary style of humdrum platitudes offering no encouragement to the assembled audience. Only Joshua Peck provided any hope by stating the points he would follow-up.

By the time the session closed at 9pm, only Joshua Peck went away with a mission of sorts. Although John Nicholson attempted to create an awareness of the heritage issues in the Ward, it basically fell on deaf ears. I left feeling that little had been achieved on any front and that our dependence on the present system of democratic representation was no longer fit for purpose. If the Spitalfields Community Group is to achieve its admirable aims, I would humbly suggest it focuses on using e-Petitioning in the interim, rather than lobby career politicians with their concerns – at least until a more effective and reliable system of local government can be delivered.

Tower Hamlets and the Councillor Achievement Awards 2012

2012-02-27T15:46:00.002-08:00

The venerable Mayor Rahman was reported in the 23 February edition of Docklands & East London Advertiser to have nominated one of his close Cabinet allies, Clltr Rania Khan for a prestigious LGiU award.

On the day, she didn't win any award. The national winners are shown here http://bit.ly/yvSYxD

That this nomination happened at all just doesn't sit well with me. For a start, anyone - Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Dan'l Whiddon, Harry Hawke, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all can submit a nomination. I'm not sure the general public are aware of this. If they were, maybe we would have seen more nominations from among the 50 Councillors representing Tower Hamlets. But as it was, Lutfur Rahman decided to single out just one Councillor, from his own Cabinet and a close Independent ally, for nomination. (With only a small Independent team to choose from he should count himself lucky he didn't choose the jailbird).

Did he announce and justify his nomination to the full Council? Was his chosen one selected for work in the community or to give kudos to his own political image?

He certainly made sure his personal nomination was gazetted in the local press. East End Life splashed news of the nomination across the page coupled with a column headed, 'Councillor up for Award'. The Docklands & East London Advertiser took a more cynical approach with 'Politician up for Anti-Sex Club Award'.

Why was Jailed Cllr Shelina Akhtar allocated Social Housing

2012-02-26T17:13:00.003-08:00

Tower Hamlets' Cllr Peter Golds has quite rightly raised the question of how a woman with no known housing need could jump approximately 23,000 other claimants on the local housing list. The list is based on the Housing Act 1996 and managed through a 4 Band system of prioritisation (http://bit.ly/zlpfrm). It would also be helpful to know which Band Cllr Akhtar was registered under.

Cllr Akhtar, who is now classified as a criminal, is still officially a Tower Hamlets Councillor and member of Lutfur Rahmans inner circle of Independents members.

Like Cllr Golds, we are waiting for a response. The longer we wait the graver becomes our concern. The response needs to come from the Mayor himself. I would press Cllr Golds and other Councillors, to raise this issue regularly until it is answered to the satisfaction to the constituents in Tower Hamlets.

Minister Calls for Enquiry into Tower Hamlets' Electoral Role

2012-02-26T16:03:00.002-08:00

The news that a local Government Minister has called for a new enquiry into Tower Hamlets' electoral roll is encouraging for those who have been demanding an investigation into vote rigging. Absent from those calling for action has been - guess - Tower Hamlets Council. Now that's worrying, when the Government Minister responsible, both local MP's, the London Assembly Member, and local Labour and Conservative party leaders all join resolutely in airing their concern. The Council for its part responded by saying that it refuted suggestions that voter fraud is rife. One would have thought that a Council whose reputation had already been seriously damaged by the fraudulent antics of ex Councillor and Deputy Council Leader Manzila Uddin, and jailing of Councillor Shelina Akhtar for fraud, would adopt a somewhat more circumspect position. Not so, their attitude is defensive where it ought to be grave concern and agreement with those calling for an investigation. The Council's failure to robustly acknowledge that there is an issue further erodes our trust in the integrity of their current leadership.

Mind you, calling for an investigation is still some way short of getting it underway. All those united to see this happen need to ensure pressure is maintained on Central Government as a matter of urgency as local elections are only months away

A Call for Action Following the Defacement of Brick Lane

2012-02-26T10:46:00.000-08:00

Tower Hamlets' Council, as we now all know now, have defaced Brick Lane. We are not going to let it rest.

The issues are threefold; (1) an autocratic decision by Lutfur Rahman to tarmac Brick Lane in the face of local opposition, (2) a partisan publication promoting the political agenda of Tower Hamlets’ executive management, whilst excluding the voice of those opposing the Council’s actions, and (3) – linked to (2) – the lack of any cohesive representation to spearhead and publicise public objection.

Let’s firstly address the total lack of editorial integrity shown by the Editor of East End Life, Ms Loraine Clay in gazetting the pro tarmac articles by both Rahman and Rennie in the same issue, while omitting any reference to significant local objection. This, coupled with her refusal to respond to my own request for an explanation illustrates the paper’s shabby editorial oversight. We should not be deceived into believing this pretence for a newspaper is ‘by the people, for the people’; it is not. It is in reality simply a political vehicle for Tower Hamlets Council which as we know is itself a conduit used by the Mayor, Lutfur Rahman to promote his political aspirations and agenda. Until there are major changes to the editorial staff we can pretty much assume East End Life won’t effectively represent the views of those objecting. To the contrary, the paper can be expected to give bad press to any efforts made in challenging the Council’s tarmac decision. So we can assume East End Life will not be covering our endeavours in any supportive way. Better the devil you know as they say.

I don’t underestimate the great work everyone has done so far in objecting through blog comments, but we need to be a great deal more proactive, on and off the Internet. For example, I recommend we make better use of social networking to promote our cause as we’ve established that we don’t have the luxury of a tax payer funded sycophantic publication to support our case. Consistent use of Twitter, Facebook and a raft of complimentary social networking tools to publicise our case and gain support will potentially be more effective than the occasional item in the local press anyway – it simply needs organising in a disciplined way.

That being said, what other avenues are available to us to represent our cause? Well, we should formally approach the Councillors for the Ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown. Regrettably with one in jail, that only leaves two, namely Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas (Labour) http://bit.ly/zVNXBy and Councillor Fozol Miah (Respect) http://bit.ly/zwxSKo. I recommend we write an open letter to both expressing our concern and outlining our argument for reinstating original cobbles in Brick Lane.

Next we should arrange for a Petition to be signed by residents and businesses in Brick Lane and this petition formally handed to both Councillors, ideally with photographs of the event to publicise the presentation through our social networking channels.

Last but certainly not least important will be a public show of strength, and this means an orderly demonstration in Brick Lane with the consent of residents. Again photographed and networked. We can make this work without, or in spite of, the press.

To summarise I’m recommending:

(1) Build an effective Social Network presence branded as, e.g., #BrickLane
(2) Write to Spitalfields and Banglatown Councillors
(3) Organise and present a Petition
(4) Make a public show of strength to support our case

No progress will be made unless we push ahead with these or similar actions. My time is available to help. If others are prepared to step up to the line and get involved, please do so and let’s set the project up in a constructive way.

On a final note, regarding John Rennie, we oughtn’t to hold our breath for him to honour his promise. The last entry he made to his own web site, which few, if any read – eastlondonhistory – was on 7 December 2011!

Tower Hamlets’ dismantled democracy – where the majority is the opposition

2012-02-24T17:32:00.006-08:00

Events that unfolded during the Council’s 2012/13 Budget review, on Wednesday 22 February 2012, revealed the blatant misuse of power and the depths we have blindly allowed ourselves to sink to in accepting a dysfunctional democratic process.

Midway through the proceedings, shortly after the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold raised an issue of probity which challenged the council’s adherence to the Nolan principles of transparency, a surprise request for an ‘Emergency Amendment’ was tabled by the Independent member Cllr Alibor Choudhury (Cabinet Member for Resources). It proposed cutting the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) provided to Peter Gold, by some £5,000 pa. A paltry amount you may think, when the council was deliberating a £1.3billion budget.

Below is a copy of the Motion, with my notes added in italics. It refers repeatedly to the ‘Report from the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors in London’, published October 2006.

Motion – Independent Amendment: Additional savings and income opportunities

Proposer: Cllr Alibor Choudhury

Seconder: Cllr Aminur Khan

This Council Notes:

1. On SRA’s:

a) There are currently two levels of SRA’s for the leaders of groups with over 6 Councillors: The leader of a group with 6 members receives £5,531 pa, whilst the leader of a group with 7 or more councillors receives £10,174 pa (These arrangements do not include the leader of the majority group, who receives an SRA at the same level as a Cabinet Member).

Choudhury, or his boy adviser Landin, has the facts wrong from the start. The two levels are not for groups with over 6 Councillors, the first level is for groups, ‘up to 6 Councillors’. A minor point but they need to get their facts right.

b) Currently there is only 1 group in Council with over 6 Councillors.

Technically wrong again, as there are 2, Labour (with 32) and the Conservatives (with7); whether Labour is a majority or not, it’s a group in terms of the Motion. Now this is interesting, as they do not consider the Independent Councillors a group, and are accordingly referring in b) to the Conservatives only.

c) That the leader of this group’s SRA is £10,174 over and above the basic allowance of £10,065.

Referring to the SRA being ‘over and above the basic allowance’ is provocative as all SRA’s are payments made in excess of the basic allowance.

d) This is higher than the recommended level by the Independent panel on the remuneration of Councillors in London or £2,368 to £8,852

Indeed it is, and the Council approved and adopted the higher payments through the Members’ Allowances Scheme less than a year ago - on 13 April, 2011 – 5 years after the panel’s recommendations were published. This established the following SRA’s:

· Leader of the Majority Group on the Council: £12,658 (i.e Labour)

· Leader of any other Group with over 6 Councillors: £10,174 (i.e., Conservatives)

· Leader of any Group with up to 6 Councillors (subject to having at least 10% of the Council): £5,531

For reference, the Independent panel recommended 5 Bands and the figures given by Cllr Choudhury are taken from Band 1 (Leader of second or smaller opposition group).

e) This is far higher than in comparative boroughs Lewisham and Newham, where the SRA is £5,275 and £3,621

Entirely irrelevant, as any comparative analysis would need to take into account a far more complex sampling.

This Council Believes:

1. On SRAs:

a. The two tiered system is unnecessary and not supported by the Independent Panel’s recommendation.

The Council applied the two tiered system on 13 April, 2011 as part of the Members’ Allowances Scheme in full knowledge of the Independent Panel’s earlier recommendations.

This Council Resolves:

1. On SRAs:

a. To bring the SRA of the leader of any group other than the majority group inline with the recommendations of the Independent Panel and other comparative Councils.

b. That this level of SRA should be the same level as for a Committee Chair, at £5,531. This would create a saving of £4,643.

Cllr Choudhury has cherry picked from the Independent Panel’s recommendations. Should the Council have applied all the Panel’s recommendations, the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold should receive an SRA of between £14,418 and £26,609, i.e., under Band 2 as the leader of the Principle Opposition Group. And here is the crux issue that this slimy motion has revealed. In a constitutional sense (parliamentary constitutional conventions) a party/group cannot be both in a majority and at the same time in opposition. The Council has already accepted that the Labour Party is the Majority Group in Council (63%); it cannot therefore be the Principle Opposition Group at the same time. As the Conservatives are the next largest party/group after Labour, they logically and constitutionally become the Principle Opposition Group. Hence warranting a Band 2 SRA leader’s allowance.

The cunning Cllr Choudhury has been hoisted by his own petard and in so doing has highlighted a serious constitutional crisis at Tower Hamlets’ government. This has been the installation of an autocratic Executive Mayor with the authority to overrule an elected council chamber, including his own Cabinet, (see here). It is Mayor Lutfur Rahman who has turned a majority party/group into the opposition. Tower Hamlets’ Government, if we can call it that, is where the majority party is in opposition to just one man – Lutfur Rahman. Aren’t these the politics of a third world dictatorship?

A further example of the misuse of power was demonstrated by Lutfur Rahman in his ridicule of the Conservative’s amendments to the 2012/13 Budget. After spending time explaining his reasons for agreeing to Labour’s amendments, he picked up the Conservative’s amendments, dramatically motioned as if throwing it away, and said simply non of their amendments were accepted. It’s worth noting that of the 17 Councillors who attended the earlier 8 February 2012 Cabinet meeting to discuss the 2012/13 Budget, non were Conservative.

In my humble view Lutfur Rahman and his ‘Independent’ followers must expect to suffer the very serious consequences of undermining the integrity and process of our constitutional system. It won’t be enough for central Government to intervene and restore a democratic Cabinet, and remove Rahman’s executive powers. Lutfur Rahman must also be removed from ever taking public office for his blatant misuse of power in dismantling the democratic process; power unwisely entrusted to him by the people of this borough.

Update on the Controversy Surrounding Brick Lane

2012-02-21T18:11:00.015-08:00

Tower Hamlets Council, through there publicity vehicle, East End Life, support their decision to tarmac Brick Lane with the statement, 'The irony is that the 'traditional' surface of Brick Lane in centuries past is far likelier to have been hard-packed mud than fancy granite setts'..

Historically wrong, and dangerously misleading. This philistine act of replacing an earlier attempt to recapture the look and feel of our past with tarmac is an insult to all those who care fervently about heritage. It's extraordinary that their limited research into our heritage didn't uncover this photograph and others corroborating a cobbled surface - readily available in their own (underfunded) Local History Library and Archives. At best a sloppy oversight...

The photograph was taken in 1895

Update 23 February 2011

In response to the article in East End Life, I wrote to The Editor:

'Dear Ms Clay

I refer to the above article by John Rennie in your current edition (20 - 26 February 2012) of East End life.

It is both inaccurate and cynical. You will see that I have posted a photograph of Brick Lane circa 1985 at my blog; this clearly shows the street was originally cobbled well before tarmac was laid. Other photographs obtained from the same source - Tower Hamlets Local History and Archives - show connecting roads also laid in cobbles, corroborating the historical fact that the area as a whole was cobbled.

That your columnist was only able to refer to one photograph from Tower Hamlets Local History and Archives, and not those disproving his argument is cause for grave concern. As I have stated in my blog, this is at best sloppy investigative journalism.

Under the circumstances, I'm requesting that you issue an appropriate update and perhaps redrafting your story to account for the fact that the council recognises that they have laid tarmac on a street original laid in cobbles - and this against the wishes of the local community. Here then is the thrust of the issue - your paper, supporting the council's decision, run roughshod over local opinion and saw fit to ignore evidence contradicting the council's statement on Brick Lane's architectural heritage. It's dishonest reporting and lacks the integrity we so sorely need in our media. An apology please.'

She hasn't afforded me the courtesy of a reply; maybe she only responds to council communiques. However, my email was copied to John Rennie the journalist responsible, and here is his reply:

'Dear Grenville,
Thanks for your note. I'm not sure this is either inaccurate or cynical. My point isn't that the street was never cobbled - I don't actually say that - but that the setts that are being covered up aren't especially historical (dating from the 1990s), and that tarmac isn't especially modern. Personally, I like the cobbles, a point I make at the end of my piece ... I think it's a shame to cover them up, and my piece certainly isn't intended to be an apology for the council's love of tarmac. As for the picture - there's no great conspiracy there I can promise you, it was simply a picture I had to hand. Your point about older cobbles is of course an excellent one and well made. I have no control over what goes in East End Life but I will put your comments on the end of the piece when I publish it on my website eastlondonhistory.com.'

East London History? Draw your own conclusions. Never mind, the message here is clear, and one we already new. The paper lacks integrity - and under its present regime it's unlikely to represent the views of the community over the directives issued by the inner circle of the council.

ps In the same issue, Lutfur Rahman focused his column on Brick Lane too. He also conveniently ignored the historical fact that Brick Lane was originally cobbled. Referring at times to its 'tasty curries', 'quirky shopping' and naming it 'Curry Capital 2012', he placed little value on its heritage. In stating the estimated cost of re-laying cobbles (he says bricks but I hope he meant cobbles and understands the difference) he omitted to mention that TfL had partly funded this work. He goes on to say that the cost of ongoing repairs 'would not provide the tax payer with value for money' - a 101 phrase for career politicians unable to put together a sound argument in support of unpopular decisions. So, for someone who holds his position based on 13% of the Borough's vote, and a tax payers funded allowance of £65,000/year, he talks of 'value for money'! And, frankly who is he to tell us what price is to be paid for retaining our heritage. Wait, there's more, 'the tarmac will ensure Brick Lane remains a safe, exciting, and attractive place to visit'. Well, I suppose we ought to be replacing our historic cobbled streets nationwide in a sort of Rahman mania as they're all, on this basis, probably unsafe, unexciting and unattractive. His final learned words were, 'the tarmac will provide long lasting improvements'. Really? so tarmac will last longer than 300 year old cobbles with equally minimal maintenance, right?

Our Shameful 'Democracy'

2012-02-18T16:04:00.003-08:00

Or how we meekly allow ourselves to be are governed by a minority in our community.

Tower Hamlets Council consists of 51 elected councillors, i.e.,

32 Labour (representing 63% of the full council)
9 Independent (17%)
7 Conservatives (14%)
2 Respect (4%)
1 Liberal Democrat (2%)

However, the council operates on a Cabinet form of executive decision making. This means that key decisions are made by a smaller executive - in the case of Tower Hamlets - 9 councillors selected by the Mayor from the above. However the Mayor retains sole executive power to make decisions within his Cabinet.

Now to the layman, a Cabinet selection would logically, and democratically be based broadly on the representation within the full Council, i.e., it would consist 6 Labour, 2 Independent and 2 Conservative. Am I right or wrong?

What we have in fact is a Cabinet, autocratically selected by an Executive Mayor, (himself representing only 13% of the local electorate) consisting of 6 Independent (his followers) and 4 Labour councillors!

Democracy? You decide...

Tower Hamlets - 1,000 Years of Oppression

2012-02-16T17:08:00.000-08:00

How far has the lot of the underprivileged within Tower Hamlets progressed over time? Almost 1,000 years ago, the Tower of London was built - a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted upon the hamlet and London as a whole by the then new ruling elite. Today, the contrast between rich and poor is no less evident with Canary Wharf being the new home of the ruling elite..

Tower Hamlets Mayor, Lutfur Rahman Sanctions £1,000/day 'Advisor'

2012-02-15T13:57:00.002-08:00

The contract to hire a consultant on regeneration and development raises a number of issues. Firstly, when we (that is the honest taxpayer) already pay £100,000/annum for a Head of Strategy, Regeneration and Sustainability, plus a further £700,000/annum in salaries to the combined heads of other Development and Renewal departments, why do we need a consultant? Who challenged this appointment?

Secondly, we need to look more closely at the mandate Lutfur Rahman, who we are led to believe made this appointment, actually holds. Just 13% of the electorate in Tower Hamlets voted for Lutfur Rahman as Mayor: that's right, just 13% and based on this astonishingly low level of support he was gifted the position of Chief Executive.

On an allowance of £65,000 pa, he overseas a £1b+ annual budget without ever having to undergo the rigours of an executive selection criteria that shareholders demand in the corporate world. This is the unacceptable face of democracy.

To be fair, responsibility for this state of affairs is to shared between a dysfunctional electoral system that permits a candidate to be elected on such a small percentage of the popular vote, and 75% of the electorate of Tower Hamlets who didn't consider it important enough to go out and vote.

Under this Mayor's autocratic management style, we are left to assume the £1k/day contract to Mr Winterbottom slipped by any presentation to council; all of whom are there to represent our interests.

We must all be aware of the merit or otherwise of the person representing this Borough at the highest level, and the weaknesses of the (democratic) system that permits such an individual to assume this position of authority and responsibility without the due diligence of rigorous selection..

Change is needed to the way we run our borough. We demand a system of governance that embraces efficiency, honesty, and integrity; a system that we can rely on and trust. We owe it to our children so that they will inherit a borough to be proud of.

Why didn't Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman reveal benefit fraud cllr Shelina Akhtar?

2012-01-22T13:05:00.000-08:00

I'm incredulous that a person found guilty of falsely claiming jobseeker’s allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit at Thames Magistrates’ Court in July 2010, and with previous convictions for identical matters was ever admitted as a Councillor, or permitted to remain one! Was Lutfur Rahman unaware of her criminal record?! Why didn't he or fellow councillors act on this sooner?! As has been stressed by other concerned Tower Hamlet citizen's (far too few in fact), we demand integrity, and honesty from those elected to represent us. When this trust is abused we must also demand robust action against offenders including instant dismissal, legal action with an expectation of stiff custodial sentencing. Only then can we begin to stamp out this evil from our community and society as a whole. http://bit.ly/x1iEmy

The Avenging Axe of Honesty and Integrity Hangs over May, Green, Ghosh and Whiteman

2011-11-18T18:12:00.000-08:00

Following on from the evidence given by Brodie Clark and Rob Whiteman last week, Damian Green (current Minister of Immigration) and Helen Ghosh (departing Permanent Secretary, Home Office) will appear before the Home Affairs Committee next Tuesday 22 November; the interrogation is slated to start at 12noon. We can expect oily, evasive responses from the duo. In the short time they have been allotted to squirm, they should comfortably be able to sink any future career prospects down the same bog hole that May and Whiteman have already publicly dug. We can also look forward to an earlier event due to take place on Monday. That is the deadline for Teresa May (our here today gone tomorrow) Home Secretary to respond - by noon - with 6 key documents called for by the Committee.

Here's a copy of Keith Vaz's letter to Theresa May, just so we all know what we're expecting the good lady to deliver:

UK Border Agency

I am writing to you following the Committee’s formal evidence session yesterday with Brodie Clark, the former Head of the UK Border Force and Rob Whiteman, the Chief Executive of the UKBA. The Committee would be grateful if you would provide it with the following papers which are relevant to our inquiry:

1. Any paper or papers which contain your explicit instruction to UKBA officials not to go beyond the agreed terms of the trial of risk-based processes at the border, as set out in the Interim Operational Instruction of 28 July, or otherwise set out the terms of your agreement to that trial;

2. The Operational Instruction or similar document issued in 2007, which describes the temporary changes to border arrangements which the UKBA may take in order to mitigate serious health and safety risks at a port or airport;

3. The e-mail sent by Brody Clark to Rob Whiteman at about 7 am on 3 November 2011 (which we have been told draws a distinction between the two policies described in the documents requested above);

4. Copies of the periodic updates (which we understand were weekly, in the first instance) which were sent to you on the operation of the trial between July and November;

5. A copy of the UK Border Force Operations Manual (if it is currently being updated, we would be happy to receive a copy of the last edition that was issued), or the complete URL where it can currently be found on-line; and

6. A copy of the webpages which appeared on the UKBA website before the 2010 election under the heading “Managing our border”, or the complete URL where they can currently be found on-line.

The Committee would be happy to respect any protective marking which appeared on any of the documents requested.

I understand that some of the papers requested have been or will be supplied to one or more of the three inquiries you have established to consider these events. We nonetheless believe that it is necessary for the Committee to receive copies in order for us to pursue our own inquiries.

Whilst writing, I have noted that David Wood’s interim report has in the words of the Daily Mail (16 November, page 8) “been leaked to the newspaper”. As it appears the report is ready, it would greatly assist us with our inquiry if you could provide the Committee with a copy.

Could I also remind you that the Committee is awaiting two further pieces of correspondence from you:

(a) On 7 November, you told the House following a question from Douglas Carswell MP that you would “be making information available on the issue involving Raed Salah to the Home Affairs Committee” (Official Report, col. 57). We have been waiting some time for this information and I would be grateful if you could now provide it.

(b) When you gave evidence to the Committee on 8 November, Mark Reckless MP raised a question about whether police and crime panels would have to power to trigger referendums on police precepts (QQ 62–66). You undertook to write to the Committee with fuller details of the reasons why the policy in the Act does not reflect the policy in the Coalition Agreement and the White Paper.

I would be grateful for a response by noon on Monday 21 November 2011 so that it can be circulated before the Committee’s next meeting on Tuesday 22 November 2011.

I remain most grateful to you for your assistance and continued cooperation on this matter.

The stage is set….(ed., read scaffold)

Sale of Northern Rock to Virgin

2011-11-17T03:32:00.000-08:00

In the Guardian today (http://bit.ly/u3XbdL) A reader comment from 'matthewmacleod' reads, 'The banking bailout was much closer to "socialism" than "capitalism"!'

Absolute crap. This was an elite cartel using tax payer funds to re-float an enterprise, not for the common good, but the benefit of the Corporation of London - the 1% - and dispose of it through insider trading to its own at at huge loss. All this without any reference to the rightful shareholders - the British taxpayer

The Tragedy of the Brodie Clark Case

2011-11-16T18:00:00.000-08:00

Keith Vaz certainly has the integrity and experience to guide the Home Affairs Committee towards the only possible outcome: to vindicate Brodie Clark. In so doing we can only hope they use the Committee's authority to also dismantle the veil of deception erected by the Home Office and reveal mismanagement, errors and lies. Unless this happens, it won't only be Mr Clark who suffers, it will be the integrity of our parliamentary system.

Teresa May willingly reduced UK Border staffing by 900 in blind subservience to the coalition government's cuts. Incompetence on her part, in failing to comprehend the implications of these cuts, resulted in weakened border checks - the results of which are now abundantly clear. She disgracefully looked for a likely scapegoat to shoulder the blame and through her Permanent Secretary Helen Ghosh rushed to weave a web of lies and deception. It's a disgrace. So far in Parliament, it has been a shame cover up by Cameron (who is stumbling from one political cock-up to another) and the under performing Minster of Immigration, Damien Green (covering for a cowling Home Secretary).

No one has yet seen fit to clarify what the command structure is with UKBA. How many direct reports does the newly appointed Chief Executive (CEO) Rob Whiteman, who gave Clark his marching orders, have? Just Clark? Indications from leaks within the Home Office (ref: http://bit.ly/uNCNHr) show that Whiteman was strongarmed into incriminating Clark. Whiteman's own career path is worth exploring: staff at the London Borough of Barking and Barking and Dagenham Council where he was also their CEO state only,'no comment' - hardly a recommendation. He is of a type who believe in firing staff to create fear in subordinates and peers alike as a means to promotion and glory. It's a well trodden path by many failed executives who use it to conceal inferiority complexes and 'work face' incompetence. Whiteman acted recklessly demonstrating the same lack of knowledge and incompetence as May: this is unforgivable at this level. Indications were that the Committee was not impressed by Whiteman.

Vaz's recommendations should be for the reinstatement of Clark, with compensation, and the immediate removal of Rob Whiteman for incompetence and deceit. It will then be up to the Prime Minister to wallow yet again in the muddy waters of resigning another Cabinet Minister.

There is a ground swell of opinion that breaches of Ministerial conduct - not least blatant lies in Parliament should be criminal offences - how else can we ensure integrity within Parliament? Beyond this, as Keith Vaz has already stated, there needs to be a 'roots and branch' overhaul of UKBA - and that needs to start from the Minister down.

The Liam Fox and Adam Werritty Affair

2011-10-11T02:59:00.000-07:00

Liam Fox should be removed from office immediately while investigations continue. But it isn't happening - all we are witnessing are empty words and procrastination from Cameron and his government. They will be tarred by the same brush if they don't act on this as a matter of national concern. But remember, Cameron has shown us all too often that among his many shortcomings he is a man of dithering indecision.

We need to remind ourselves of the need to expect the highest level of honesty and integrity from those appointed to high office in this country. They are our representatives - reflecting our moral values. This man has lied, been evasive, and demonstrated by his own questionable standards of self management that he is totally incapable of recognising any similar shortcomings in his own department when it comes to protecting the integrity of the nation.

The fact that he lacks the good grace and integrity to accept his shortcomings reveals the character of a man who should never has been awarded the honour of serving the people of this country. Like so many in this government (and to be fair in opposition) they are are unfit for high office - lacking leadership skills and totally inexperienced - for the most part incompetent, and that's before we even get to assessing their moral character!

Latest Times Comment, 'Downing St scrambles to reject attack by Archbishop'

2011-06-09T08:52:00.000-07:00

Ref: Tory fury as Archbishop slams coalition policies | The Times http://thetim.es/jboZb

The Archbishop of Canterbury is absolutely spot-on with his comments: they represent the views of the vast majority of rational unbiased citizens. It just that we don't have the public platform to make our collective concern heard.

His comment that, “At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context.” rings particularly true and is driving many of us to question the democratic process we have constituted that permits so much abuse of power. A striking example of this abuse is shown in the comment made by Roger Gale, "..elected members of the House of Commons are not mandated....". But they are Mr Gale. Their mandate is the authorization to act in a particular way on public issues that is given to them as representatives of the electorate. Understand this and then we would see that the current government policies under attack would never have passed muster.

Well said Dr Williams.

My Comment on The Times, 'Martin Ivens: Lost an empire? At last we’ve got a role'

2011-05-29T06:11:00.001-07:00

Ref: http://thetim.es/ko50C1
(Blocked by Moderator - they don't appreciate criticism of their own 'journalists')

Martin Ivens should not have been told how to type, because he certainly can't write an intelligent article. This is a jumble of twaddle. It's the people who hire so called 'journalists' like this who need to be fired.

Great Britain doesn't need a 'role' in some global play by a here today gone tomorrow new world leader. We've done it all before and we prefer to sit this short run theatrical extravaganza out thank you.

"The business of Britain, to coin an American phrase (what?), is business!". What astonishing platitudes this man drivels out. Now it wasn't so long ago that we were referred to as a nation of shopkeepers. As a proud nation, we have buffeted the blows of many detractors during our long and illustrious history and and I'm sure we'll witness many more. It's of no consequence as we know who and what we are. And it's neither shop keepers nor business operatives.

For us, primarily, we're a nation borne of warriors, with battle honours that no nation over time has been able to equal. We have no need to align ourselves as second best to any nation. And those from our own ranks who belittle us might just as well be immigrants for they know so little about this country, its people and its history; that such individuals currently govern us is the tragedy. But be assured it won't last. We will create real government in this country; government that pays homage to no man or nation; that respects integrity and understands how best to manage the roles played on the global stage by others.

Belated Comment on The Sunday Times Feature Article, 'As a Muslim believing in Darwin, I’m a dead man', 13 March 2011

2011-05-23T09:07:00.000-07:00

Ref: http://thetim.es/kxpwcC

Hopefully there will be no death threat carried out in Great Britain, Dr Hasan. However, you are a brave man to publish your views and brother Muslims should try very hard to understand and accept your reasoning. "...that science has the same starting point, that life began in water or clay, in the earth....that God gave life but science could be seen as the process by which life happened,” is an enormous leap forward in Islamic interpretation of the Koran, as is “the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue ... is a children’s madrasah-level understanding and Muslims really have to move on as adults and intellectuals”. But move on they must and adjust to this view as it is intellectually sound and will help integrate Islam into modern society.

Regarding Quilliam, one wonders why the Home Office suddenly reduced the funding to the Foundation? And by how much? - this is an important omission from this article. On the face of it, the Foundation is a very necessary inter-cultural agent. If it truly is a counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of integrating Islam into a multi-cultural, pluralistic society then fine, so why deny it the funds it needs to continue this work?

Comment on the lead Feature in the Sunday Times, 22 May 2011, 'I come in peace'

2011-05-22T09:55:00.000-07:00

Ref: http://thetim.es/mjpNEJ

It's perplexing that a senior Diplomat who seems to understand the history of foreign intervention in Afghanistan, and who has proposed/supported three sound military/intelligence initiatives there, can conclude by stating that any solution must involve America.

To quote,"To have any chance of succeeding, such a process will need sustained and vigorous diplomatic engagement by the US. In particular, America will need to talk to all the internal and external parties to the conflict, including the Taliban". But, Mr Cowper-Coles, hasn't America had enough time already, sacrificed enough lives, to have achieved this by now? Are you completely unaware that this conflict has been the result of dubious America foreign policy, a continuously flawed 'end game' strategy and ineffective military tactics.

You quite rightly mention the lessons our own history has taught us from the North West Frontier (where our forefathers knew better than extend Empire beyond the Pass into Afghanistan) and Malaya where we succeeded because WE devised the strategy, planned the tactics and implemented this in the field of battle. But then you go on to show that nothing has been learnt from this, not least by the American overseers of the Afghan debacle.

And now you are telling us that America (qualifications; Vietnam, Iraq etc) is capable of resolving the Afghan polity involving conflicts between Islam and secularism, tradition and modernism, town and country, Sunni and Shi’ite.....I don't know whether you were smoking the same stuff as your American counterpart, but your tour of duty out there has seriously unbalanced your judgement.

The answer is out, and out now. There is no gain for the Afghans, or honour for our military by remaining there under American command. Our forces have been the whipping boys for failures in Helmet and earlier in Basra, Iraq. Enough is enough.

Your conclusion should have resolved that our troops must leave now and will never return unless part of a UN initiative. The reason, you know full well; those conducting this occupation have no understanding of the issues involved.

Another comment blocked by the Lebedev newsgroup. This time The Independent

2011-02-16T15:59:00.000-08:00

The US bank and the secret plan to destroy WikiLeaks

What follows was in response to a comment in the thread: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-bank-and-the-secret-plan-to-destroy-wikileaks-2215059.html#comment-149020574 by eYe M dEf

It seems the last paragraph caused the problem?! Baffles me

“Ironically you've strengthened the thrust of my argument. Take a handful of recent information, in no order or priority because that's how it showers down on us, whether leaked or gathered through good investigative journalism - whatever its source, lets call it 'informed' news, e.g., Chevron's unchallengeable devastation in Ecuador; Union Carbide's slithery escape from blame for the destruction in Bhopal; NHS cuts; UK Government assisted release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi; US release of 7/7 bomber Mohammed Junaid Babar; NHS cuts; cuts for the disabled; scrapping of Nimrods; sale of forests; illegality of Iraq war, children slain by rising knife crimes, et al - the list is now history and will be replaced by a new deluge tomorrow. It washes over us like water on a ducks back. The sheer volume of information intended to stir us into action, spiced by celebrity entertainment, produces such a heady mixture it simply doesn't penetrate our social conscience. With so much information flooding through our new social networks and the Internet, we have become blasé and apathetic. And that's the tragedy.

Governments are aware of this, i.e., our apathy. They of course expect criticism through channels such as this, but such diatribe doesn't threaten their hold on power; it doesn't deter them from implementing change not sanctioned by the electorate.

20-30 years ago, we were probably fed more propaganda than we knew at the time. But at least when we became aware of real issues, eg, Vietnam we got off our arses and demonstrated. Now, we receive so much 'news' we no longer care a shit. We Tweet or complain in these columns and believe we've done our bit. We are beginning to live in a world of virtual reality.”

Another comment blocked by the Lebedev newsgroup. This time the London Evening Standard

2011-02-05T16:44:00.000-08:00

Boris Johnson rages at Tube bosses after Jubilee line chaos

Dick Murray and Ross Lydall
4 Feb 2011

My comment referred to Johnson being the cause of the problem in the first place and rather than rage in the Press, he ought to be down where the problem is and sorting it out 'on the shop floor'. I expect my comment was pulled as I referred to him as a arse 'ol and tart. Now maybe the wording was a bit rich, but nevertheless warranted given the crass decisions of this man

Comment on 'The Electorate Didn't Sign Up to Cuts Like These' (Evening Standard)

2011-02-01T02:56:00.000-08:00

Good article by Jenni Russell on 31 January 2010. You can find it here: http://bit.ly/eLKMjW

My comment:
With the exception of misinformed belligerents like Dennis, N London, the vast majority of level headed citizens concur with your concern over the abuse of power we are now seeing. There is something very wrong with our democracy for elected representatives to ride roughshod over the very people who put them in office; to lie and deceive and know full well they can continue to lie because we have become a servile, belittled people. Unfortunately no amount of media exposure of what is happening will alter their political agenda, or modus operandi. Each of them should be held accountable for their actions, as we would hold a bent copper accountable to the point of imprisonment.

Consider this rather well worn but no less powerful thought:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Don't for one moment believe change results from peaceful demonstrations or that the causes led by Gandhi, Mandela, Grivas, and a host of latter day freedom fighters (referred to as 'terrorists' at the time) were without violence. We need to look no further than the unfolding events in North Africa to see what is required to realise change.

- Grenville Mills, London, 31/01/2011 22:56

The UK's 'Independent' newspaper unjustifiably censors reader's comments

2011-01-23T14:22:00.000-08:00

I entirely agree with a moderating function on any open comment page but what is extraordinary is the innocuous nature of a post that in my humble view doesn't justify rejection.

The article that I attempted to comment on was in Saturday's issue of the Independent, 22 January 2010, entitled, "Tony Benn: Protest is Vital to a Thriving Democracy" (http://ind.pn/f54noo) Benn's treatise would have us believe key historic demonstrations were peaceful. My response (the one blocked by The Independent) read:

Mr Benn, we are somewhat surprised by your naivety. Well before Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, or indeed the Suffragettes mounted their demonstrations, a North American slave encapsulated the need to demonstrate, but he called for more than just peaceful demonstrations. His name was Frederick Douglass, and he wrote:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

If you believe the causes led by Gandhi, Mandela, Grivas, and a host of latter day freedom fighters (referred to as 'terrorists' at the time) were without violence, you are mistaken.

The Independent has not responded to my subsequent emails asking why the comment had been rejected.

Be warmed, freedom of speech stops at The Independent. Who's to know whether our comments are or are not filtered and selectively fed to the ISS. Frightening thought isn't it, but one we need to consider seriously when attempting to speak 'freely' though some of the UK media who would have us believe they are independent of state censorship. It's disturbing to realise that The Independent does indeed resort to third world censorship.

Update 6 February 2011: A Laura Davis presumably from their Moderation section, finally responded to say she has posted my comment - that's over 2 weeks since Tony Benn's article! Go figure....

The Opening

2011-01-22T13:40:00.000-08:00