Update on the Controversy Surrounding Brick Lane

Posted on | Wednesday, 22 February 2012 | No Comments

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?  

Category: , ,

Our Shameful 'Democracy'

Posted on | Sunday, 19 February 2012 | No Comments

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...

Category: , ,

Tower Hamlets - 1,000 Years of Oppression

Posted on | Friday, 17 February 2012 | No Comments

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..

Category: ,

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

Posted on | Wednesday, 15 February 2012 | No Comments

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.

Category: ,

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

Posted on | Sunday, 22 January 2012 | No Comments

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

Category: , , ,

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

Posted on | Saturday, 19 November 2011 | No Comments

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)

Category: , , , , ,

Sale of Northern Rock to Virgin

Posted on | Thursday, 17 November 2011 | No Comments

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

Category: ,

The Tragedy of the Brodie Clark Case

1 Comment

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.

Category: , , ,

The Liam Fox and Adam Werritty Affair

Posted on | Tuesday, 11 October 2011 | No Comments

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!

Category:

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

Posted on | Thursday, 9 June 2011 | No Comments

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.



Category:

Search This Blog

Categories

Grenville Mills