The Job is Done. After almost 4 years of battle, we have restored Democracy to Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Monday, 4 May 2015 | No Comments

The Times Editorial from 24 April 2015 sums up our victory

Rotten Borough

A campaign of electoral fraud and intimidation in east London has been rebuffed

A free people requires a safeguard against the destructive power of factions. This argument, advanced by James Madison in the federalist papers of the emerging American republic, remains one of the finest justifications of representative democracy. Its vindication is the sole redeeming aspect of a squalid, fraudulent and corrupt episode in the municipal government of east London. 

Lutfur Rahman was returned in May for the second time as mayor of Tower Hamlets. He secured this result through vote-rigging, bribery and fraud. At the end of a High Court hearing, Judge Richard Mawrey, an election commissioner, laid out a catalogue of malpractice more reminiscent of the rotten boroughs preceding the 1832 Reform Act than of a modern democracy.

Mr Mawrey found evidence of corrupt and illegal practices in the election. He ruled that Rahman must leave his post immediately and ordered him to pay £250,000 in costs. The election that Rahman “won” will now be conducted again; Rahman is barred from standing as a candidate. 

The evidence of Rahman’s fakery and bribery is expansive, and is enough to make the most world-weary observer of local politics gasp. Rahman, the first British Muslim to be directly elected as a mayor, used religious intimidation to secure support. More than 100 imams declared a few days before polling that it was a religious duty for voters to support Rahman. It was intended to exercise undue influence on the borough’s Muslim voters. 

In a grossly calumnious charge, Rahman and his supporters claimed that John Biggs, the Labour candidate, was a racist. And in one of his most shameless acts in public office, Rahman bribed voters by siphoning money from public-spirited organisations, including the Alzheimer’s Society, to “lunch clubs” serving the local Bangladeshi and Somali communities. Mr Mawrey further found that the behaviour of Rahman’s supporters had been “deplorable, even indefensible”. 

While Rahman has been exposed as a figure of duplicity, disrepute and permanent disgrace, there remain deeply troubling implications of this case. First, the fraudulent manner in which he secured his election would never have been exposed if it been left to the police. The court hearing took place because of a brave campaign by four local residents, who brought an election petition against Mr Rahman. Why did the Metropolitan police conclude last year, on reviewing submissions from government auditors, that there was no credible evidence requiring a police inquiry?

Second, Rahman’s supporters beyond the borough should explain themselves. Last November, Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor, spoke in support of Rahman and urged that Labour adopt him as a candidate. At the same event George Galloway, with characteristic demagoguery, declared action against Rahman to be “a racist, Islam-hating witch-hunt against the most popular and best mayor in the country.” 

Third, Rahman’s corruption shows how a peculiarly destructive form of factional politics can insinuate itself. Voters have all manner of affiliations, of ethnicity, language and faith, but the only identity that matters for civic purposes is common citizenship under the rule of law. Rahman and his supporters hold that identity in contempt. Their inflammatory, bigoted and corrupt campaign to subvert local democracy has been rebuffed, and must never again be enabled to flourish.

The Demolition of Democracy at Tower Hamlets Council, and why you need to vote on 22 May

Posted on | Friday, 11 April 2014 | No Comments

• Mayor Lutfur Rahman
• Cabinet member for Community Safety, Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor
• Cabinet member for Regeneration, Councillor Rofique U Ahmed
• Cabinet member for Children, Schools and Families, Councillor Oliur Rahman
• Cabinet member for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor Abdul Asad
• Cabinet member for Jobs and Skills, Councillor Shafiqul Haque
• Cabinet member for Culture, Councillor Rania Khan
• Cabinet member for Environment, Councillor Shahed Ali
• Cabinet member for Housing, Development and Renewal, Councillor Rabina Khan
• Cabinet member for Resources, Councillor Alibor Choudhury

• Councillor Maium Miah, executive advisor to the cabinet and Mayor on the third sector and community affairs.
• Councillor Gulam Robbani, executive advisor to the cabinet and Mayor on adult social care.
• Councillor Kabir Ahmed, executive advisor to the cabinet and Mayor.

UKIP To Scrap East End Life

No Comments

Fun with Numbers - Is Lutfur Rahman Innumerate or Just Putting a Favourable Spin on Tower Hamlets' Crime Figures?

Posted on | Sunday, 22 July 2012 | No Comments

On the subject of Crime, the Mayor has informed us, variously:

"Overall crime is down 30% since 2003"  East End Life, 9 July 2012

The Tragedy of Assigning Responsibility for Regeneration to Petty Politicians and Institutionalised Planners/Developers

Posted on | Monday, 16 July 2012 | 1 Comment

Or, how an opportunity to infuse social enterprise life-blood into the ailing, lifeless body of Tower Hamlets' Bromley-by-Bow Ward was scuttled by uncreative, unimaginative philistines, responsible for regeneration and planning.

None of us are in denial over the incriminating reality that in England around 1.75 million households are on the social housing waiting lists. As the demand for social housing has increased, so the supply has withered - there has been a drop of 1.7 million in the total number of social homes, from 5.5 million in 1981 to 3.8 million in 2009-10. But we need to realise that lack of work is a major cause and consequence of homelessness, eroding skills and self-esteem and acting as a practical obstacle to finding and keeping a home. It's no secret that job training and education can give unemployed and homeless people the skills and confidence required to get them back on track and help them prepare for, find and keep jobs.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets contributes significantly to the huge and growing national social housing list, estimated to be 10% of the borough's population. Yet the Council continue to foster the belief that this is a legacy problem best treated by infusions of new building stock. Their solution is to squeeze more and more poor and unemployed people into fewer and smaller homes. Their focus is on the effect of this 'legacy problem' - a social housing bottleneck - rather than its cause. Councillors and MP's alike drag the chains of this misery as if it represented some high moral cause to justify their existence. We repeatedly read of how they 'represent one of the poorest boroughs in the country', yet, as we can see by this one glaring example, they compound the problem, rather than recognise the cause, and set about curing it.

As stated earlier, lack of work is a major cause of Tower Hamlets' growing social housing list. Uncontrolled immigration into the borough is another, but that is less complex and ought to be solved by closer liaison between the Council and Immigration (more on this in a upcoming blog). From the Council's point of view, the long term strategic focus must be on reducing the social housing list not by simply building more units but by reducing the need for social housing through new social enterprise and local employment which will inevitably raise the standard of living. All regeneration and development ought to be aligned with this strategic aim so that employment enablers figure prominently in any development.

Let's relate this strategic no-brainer to the recent disastrous planning approval given for the Hancock Road development in the Ward of Bromley-by-Bow. You can read how this project for 741 residential units, office space, and a huge car dealership was steam-rollered through a poorly advertised 'public' Planning Committee Meeting held in Newham by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) on 12 July 2012.

The site is historic - most in East London are. But more than this, the Hancock Road site sits adjacent to the River Lea's network of underdeveloped canals, and at the intersection of two of East London's arterial roads - the A11 and A12. It screams out for redevelopment focusing on tourism, and that means local employment and income. Think Camden Market, the fourth-most popular visitor attraction in London, attracting approximately 100,000 people each weekend. The canal fronted Hancock Road site is far better located than Camden Market. It has the potential to become a vibrate tourist destination with restaurants, bars, shops and market stalls catering for crafts, clothing, bric-a-brac, and fast food. As part of the Olympic legacy development, the canal network will be revamped and this will further add to what may have been termed, the new Bow Bridge Market becoming a major attraction.

This is a wake up call to say that the shocking LTGDC decision was wrong and the site surely ought to have been used primarily for building social enterprise initiatives/models to kindle (re)training and employment, and raise the local standard of living, not to provide more cell like social housing which only further exasperates the problem.

This is not to underestimate the importance of our social housing need, and it should be accommodated on the site as part of a balanced mixed development, but supporting the strategy outlined above.

Alas, it is now too late. Gone is the opportunity for creative regeneration, servicing local needs; our Councillors and LTGDC have seen to that.

Maintaining Pressure on the Met for an Investigation into Alleged Postal Voting Fraud in Tower Hamlets (3)

Posted on | Thursday, 5 July 2012 | No Comments

Following on from my last post on this topic, its worrying to report that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Hogan-Howe has failed to respond as promised. Coupled with zero progress on the Commissioner front, it was necessary to remind Tower Hamlets Chief Superintendent Dave
Stringer that a response was also due from his office.  Finally, on 27 June, I received a response from a PC in the Borough Commander's office advising me that New Scotland Yard's Specialist Operations Department (SO15) are now investigating the matter. The PC advised me to contact SO15 for further details.

I did as the PC suggested, and as of the date of this post, have still not received a response - not even an acknowledgement to an online enquiry although their site promises (a term the Met are not unfamiliar with it would seem) a response within 24 hours.

Keep in mind that so far I, and I'm sure many others, have made representations to Tower Hamlets Borough Council, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the Electoral Commission, for an open investigation into this issue.

The latest attempt is my Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police. Let's wait to see whether a 4th post on this serious issue can deliver any news of progress....

Maintaining Pressure on the Met for an Investigation into Alleged Postal Voting Fraud in Tower Hamlets (2)

Posted on | Thursday, 21 June 2012 | No Comments

(1) How disappointing; the WebChat was little short of a farce, with a constant steam of unanswered questions rolling through the Met's HashTag #AskMetBoss.  

As for my own questions, they received this (Private) response:

Host@MPS:
[Private Message to Grenville Mills] Hi, if you give us your contact details we will follow it up after the chat with the Commissioner?  (Reply Privately)

Maintaining Pressure on the Met for an Investigation into Alleged Postal Voting Fraud in Tower Hamlets (1)

No Comments

Tomorrow, Thursday 21 June, I will be (1) joining the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's afternoon WebChat during which I will raise the issue of alleged Postal Voting fraud prior to the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election, and (2) in the evening I will be attending a Community Briefing by Tower Hamlets Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, during which I will again raise this issue, specifically:

Why Tower Hamlets Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer has not answered THREE emails concerning accusations of electoral fraud prior to the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election. For reference, the Electoral Commission stated that it does not have power to investigate alleged electoral fraud and it is the responsibility of the Police. The Police have so far not even provided (separately requested by me) a single point of contact for electoral offences.

In light of the exceptionally high and unprecedented postal vote and rejection rate during the bi-election, there is ample justification for the Metropolitan Police to investigate and they were asked to:

1. Interview each of the 956 constituents who submitted a postal vote to establish whether any were forced to vote under duress (a clear risk in postal voting), and

2. Examine each of the 135 rejected PVS and in the case of fraudulent signatures/submissions, prosecute as appropriate. (These documents will be destroyed after 1 year)

To recap:
40% of votes were Postal (i.e., 956)
Of these the reject rate was 14% Reject (i.e., 135)
The margin of victory was just 43 votes

Anti Social Behaviour and Lutfur Rahman's Cheeky Roadshow

Posted on | Sunday, 17 June 2012 | No Comments

There is an old East-End Music Hall monologue that starts, "Saturday night in Bethnal Green, naptha lamps a-flarin' Along the gutters for nearly a mile, and men and wimmen blarin". Times have changed in a 100 years, but we can still find a modern version of long lost Music Hall entertainment at the Town Hall and every Sunday night courtesy of clown Lutfur Rahman's East End Life (EEL). This little man's army of quisling editorial staff routinely haul the integrity of a free press through the gutters of dictatorial third world censorship and cheap propaganda, and then have the gall to force this rag through every letter box in the Borough. I say 'force' as it somehow appears in letterboxes in secure apartment blocks, but then that's another issue. 


Today's monologue - how much of this rag does today's Joseph Grimaldi write himself? - promotes him, his small posse of followers, and his THEOs. It's the sheer impudence of the man that's turning him from a threat into a Music Hall act. Most in the Borough will remember that the Metropolitan Police, in conjunction with Safer Neighbourhood Teams, recently completed an exhaustive series of Ward by Ward community meetings. They were big, and well resourced by the Met, SNT, and occasionally THEOs. The focus was unreservedly on anti social behaviour (ASB) and it was a Met initiative.


Notwithstanding the sheer effort and co-operation of the above exercise, scantily reported in the EEL incidentally - in fact I only remember the Met's own advertisements, Mr Rahman has ordered the penning of this piece of self publicity in today's EEL:


'Residents had the opportunity to raise their concerns about ASB....when Mayor Lutfur Rahman put on a community road show with his Deputy, and Cllr Gulam Robbani'. Gulam Robbani, remember, is the controversially elected councillor for Spitalfields and Banglatown. 


Music Hall, aka Town Hall - have times changed that much after all? Perhaps the difference is that we once laughed with the clowns, not at them.

Monarchy or Republic? The Proposition is Premature

Posted on | Friday, 1 June 2012 | No Comments

On Tuesday 29 May 2012, I attended a debate at the Bishopsgate Institute entitled, 'Monarchy or Republic?’ The Panel of speakers were:

Supporting Monarchy
Jacques Arnold (former MP and member of Council of the Constitutional Monarchy Assoc)
Peter Conradi (journalist and author)

Supporting a Republic
Graham Smith (Republic’s CEO)
Joan Smith (columnist and author)

Before the debate commenced the audience were asked to vote on the proposition, 'should we end the Monarchy'.  4 voted 'no', 3 'undecided', and the remainder (around 60) voted 'yes'. The effect of this overwhelming support for the Republican argument resulted in raucous shouts of outrage whenever the Monarchists spoke and rounds of applause extolling almost every Republican viewpoint, regardless of the banality of many comments.

However, it soon became apparent to me that the whole argument of Monarchy v Republic is a side issue to whether we want to be administered within a true democratic system or a sham one.  I’ve blogged many times on concerns over our democracy here, here and here.  

I was one of the 3 abstainers by the way, but by the end of the evening, was left deeply concerned that so many in the audience blindly supported pro Republican arguments that were clearly flawed, or at the very least, were open to more critical debate. Here is an extract from the first speaker, Joan Smith which basically summed up the level of debate:

She commenced by proclaiming that she loves voting and elections, emphasising the value of our democratic process.  Her naïve faith in what I consider to be an outdated and dysfunctional process undermined her credibility from the outset.

Next she ploughed into the quagmire of the Sovereign’s wealth, tax concessions and restricted Freedom of Information (FoI) access. Well, excuse me for mentioning this but our Government gives away unmandated sums far larger than the Sovereign's collective wealth to failed banks and in Foreign Aid. I’ve only to mention Dave Hartnett to send shivers down the spine of HMRC when they reflect on their reluctance to claw back tax owed by major corporations. As for FoI (aka transparency), hello Mr Lansley can we have that NHS Risk Report please?

Already disillusioned by the banality of the lead speaker’s arguments, Ms Smith then announced, ‘the Queen was never interviewed for the job!’  Words almost fail me on this revelation by the obviously popular columnist and author, who incidentally complained that the Queen ignored her after the prickly journalist greeted HRH (at the Palace no less) with a simple ‘hello’. One suspects she’s carried the grudge ever since. Does Ms Smith believe for example that Lutfur Rahman, Tower Hamlets ‘elected’ Mayor (elected incidentally by just 13% of the electorate) was interviewed before he took office controlling a £1billion+ annual budget and wielding almost despotic power? Or that any politician for that matter is interviewed other than by their own party electoral committees that are by definition not representative of the total electorate?

The remaining speakers swayed me to believe there is no substantive case for a Republic and I was getting an uncomfortable feeling that an angry petite bourgeoisie jealousy was bubbling to the surface through their flimsy arguments. Did this Republican cause consider that society ought to be respecting them rather than the untouchable Monarch – seen as a barrier to their own oligarchy’s upward mobility? One dreads to consider the prospect of a Joan Smith Lord Protector.

The final pitiful comment by Ms Smith was to decry the national campaign for the country to be bedecked in ‘red, white and blue’ to mark the Jubilee celebrations. But then perhaps that’s in line with a Cromwellian Puritanism that would denounce any form of revelry, or festivity.  Personally I’ll be flying the flag and hanging bunting - out of national pride; the celebrations are an opportunity for the nation to unite – young and old, poor and rich, black and white. One flag, one people. For the time being at least, God Save the Queen.

Who to Trust when it comes to Reporting Anti Social Behaviour in Tower Hamlets?

Posted on | Monday, 28 May 2012 | No Comments

This week's East End Lies (EEL) reports (page 2), 'Anti Social Behaviour falls by a third in a year'. On the face of it, this is excellent news, notwithstanding the fact that credit for this is exclusively given to Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets's THEO's. No mention is made of the Met's Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT), but we have to remember this is EEL reporting..

It's worth highlighting this EEL report as, coincidently, a recently released statistic under FoI tells us that an associated statistic for Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC's) shows an overall fall of just 13%. Accepted that an ABC is distinct from Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) incidents, but nevertheless they are very closely linked.

What is also revealed by the FoI file is the worrying trend that ABC's have increased almost 4 fold for individuals under 18 Years of Age. An unpalatable reality for both Lutfur Rahman and his rag. Here's an extract from the FoI:

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC's)


Request
1. In the past 24 months, from 14th January 2010 to 13th January
2012, how many Acceptable Behaviour Contracts were signed at the
station or in its operational area? How many refused to sign? (the request was for Bow Police Station, but the Met provided stats for the whole of Tower Hamlets)

2. Of those, how many were issued to people aged under 18 years of
age?

3. What is the male/female ratio?

4. In the case of under-18s, were all parents sent a letter asking
them to attend with their children to discuss signing an ABC?


Response
During the financial year 2010-2011, Tower Hamlets had 55 ABCs signed. Of

these ABCs:
44 of those were signed by MALES
11 of those were signed by FEMALES
6 of them were signed by individuals under 18 Years of Age.
In 100% of those cases where the individual was under 18, parents received
letters asking for them to attend.

During the financial year 2011-2012, Tower Hamlets had 48 ABCs signed. Of
these ABCs:
43 of those were signed by MALES
5 of those were signed by FEMALES
23 of them were signed by individuals under 18 Years of Age
Again, in 100% of those cases where the individual was under 18, parents
received letters asking for them to attend.

As usual, you are left to draw your own conclusions on the veracity of EEL's reporting..

The Shame of Tower Hamlets' East End Life

No Comments

And the shame of all those directly associated with this publication. It's a sham and we all know that, but what I find particularly distasteful and loathsome is the editorial staff's bootlicking subservience to this third world political regime, so clearly steeped in cheap propaganda, accusations of corruption and racial disharmony. It's quisling editor applies a third world meaning to the paper's byline, 'News from Tower Hamlets Council'. Let's all understand what the editor means by this, i.e., 'What Tower Hamlets Council Want You to Know'. Familiar propaganda stuff isn't it?!

Real Council News this last week would have been, as every other local 'news'paper reported - 'Councillor Arrested for after Brawl and Death Threats in the Council Chamber'. But, no, not a mention in East End Lies!

And what of the illegally hung portrait of the Führer Mayor in Brick Lane - where the planning Application was never granted and the Banner swiftly removed after unprecedented opposition. Not even a back column mention.

Clearly these newsworthy events were of a type that Mayor Lutfur Rahman and his multicultural quislings consider politically too damaging to the Mayor's image. Honest News from Tower Hamlets Council will have to wait until honest people take the helm - and write the log.

Lutfur Rahman - a step too far

Posted on | Monday, 21 May 2012 | No Comments

Left Futures, describes itself as dedicated to socialism and democracy but endorses derogatory reporting, calling a respected Tower Hamlets' Councillor a 'gay Jew', and comfortably aligning itself with the belief that biased reporting and censoring out criticism of its political drivel is all part of left wing democratic principles. Take a look at this article, published on the 19th May, and lapped up and Tweeted by Tower Hamlets' Mayor Lutfur Rahman, 'Time for Ed to apply the lessons of Bradford to Tower Hamlets'.

It seethes with the dogma of personal abuse and ignorance. And to make matters worse it moderated out critical comment. Here's their response to my comment:

.....Your comment at Left Futures is abusive and will not be published.


This is rich from an article labelling a Councillor as a gay Jew. Like me, you may ask yourself why make issue of sexual orientation and religious belief? would a celibate Christian or a heterosexual Muslim carry the same prejudiced undercurrent?  Against this offensive piece of 'journalism', what did I say that they considered so abusive....just this:


"An inept, bigoted article that has found a follower in a similarly minded (here today, gone tomorrow) politician".

Hardly abusive in my humble view, critical yes, but 'abusive' no, and definitely not by their own low standards. No surprise that Lutfur Rahman's own publication, East End Lies, suffers from a similar aversion to criticism.

It's interesting, and potentially explosive to note that Mayor Rahman applauds through Twitter this article, labelling one of his own Councillors as a gay Jew! And this from a man gripping an anti-racism gun with a feather trigger!

Thank goodness for the open debate of blogs, and the freedom a good spanking allows us through Tweeting the truth.

Believe it or not: Britain Chooses a Dog as Kingdom's Top Talent!

Posted on | Sunday, 13 May 2012 | No Comments

With all the cheap glitzy superficiality of a modern day amusement side show together with its chintzy presenters, the TV extravaganza 'Britain's Got Talent' provided some insight into our (voting) psyche.

At a time when voter turnout at local and national elections remains low, it strikes me as extraordinary that people actually paid, yes paid, to vote for a dog.

Can politicians learn from this? - probably yes. I'm not suggesting they urinate on lamp posts or defecate on pavements, although jumping over peoples backs and licking their benefactors is already par for the course in career terms. No, more than this, they can now be assured that voting in this country in no longer seen by the electorate as a duty born out of national pride - its become a side show capable of selecting the most unsuitable  candidates based purely on novelty value.

Take for instance, Boris Johnson; definitely a novelty, though to be fair there was really no effective alternative, but we nevertheless have a tendency to settle for circus acts. Better a clown than a dourer faced socialist you might say: a dog rather than a spectacular opera duo.

Police arrest 6 as Postal Poll Fraud Investigation gets underway

Posted on | Sunday, 6 May 2012 | No Comments

The Sunday Times today reports, 'Six people have been arrested and appeals have been made for suspects allegedly impersonating voters. Police inquiries are under way in Kirklees in West Yorkshire, Peterborough and London.'


How many of the 6 arrests were made in Tower Hamlets is still unclear, but indications are that the Met has responded decisively in the case of the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election.

It remains to be seen whether the arrests will result in a new Tower Hamlets bi-election.......

A Closer Analysis of Postal Voting in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Wednesday, 2 May 2012 | No Comments

I have previously blogged that 41% of votes cast in the recent Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election were postal. This staggeringly high figure included all postal votes received, including those subsequently rejected. The reason we need to focus on total postal votes received as a percentage (of all votes cast), rather than the lesser percentage after correcting for rejects, is because the rejected figure is a subjective one. To explain, received postal votes and enclosures are checked and counted numerous times under dual control to verify the number of postal votes received - 956 in this case - were correct.  However, the 'rejected' count on the other hand, is arrived at through a process of subjective judgements, not necessarily conducted under dual control, and that is why the figure of 135 rejects is unreliable. As I'll explain, the already high reject rate of 14% (135/956) could well have been considerably higher if for instance a more stringent, professional judgement had been made on signature irregularities. Alarmed yet? You should be, because this raises serious doubts over the validity of Gullam Robbani's marginal win by only 43 votes.

Appalling Lies from Tower Hamlets Council Over Police Investigation

Posted on | Tuesday, 1 May 2012 | No Comments

As related in yesterday's blog on alleged postal voting fraud, East End Life categorically stated, 'The police have also confirmed that there is no substance to allegations made so far'.

Fast forward to the BBC news here which states, 'Metropolitan Police probes Tower Hamlets fraud claims'.

It goes on to say:


"We are currently investigating this allegation plus a further allegation of offences linked to a recent by-election in Tower Hamlets received on 28 April.


"All allegations of electoral fraud are assessed, and where appropriate, thoroughly investigated by officers from MPS Specialist Operations, in close liaison with local authorities, the CPS and other relevant agencies."


What trust can we have in a Council and 'newspaper' that so blatantly lie to residents and readers?

They are a disgrace!

Since When has East End Life Been the Mouthpiece for the Metropolitan Police?

Posted on | Monday, 30 April 2012 | No Comments

East End Life, Issue 907, 30 April - 6 April 2012

Quote, "...The police have also confirmed that there is no substance to the allegations made so far".


This is under the heading, 'Council responds to postal vote allegations', where they regale in the announcement from the Electoral Commission that the Commission has no investigative powers. The article goes on to regurgitate the spiel about the public confusing fraudulent activity with a 'mobile population'....blah blah blah

They cherry pick from allegations, selecting just two (without identifying or describing them), and summarily dismiss them.

Where is the integrity in a Council that refuses to acknowledge obvious public concern - concern and indignation repeatedly broadcast in the mainstream media? And what type of quisling editorial staff can produce a 'newspaper' that has never - NEVER - criticised or found the Council wanting?

Also of concern is the fact that we haven't heard from our two local parliamentarians on the issue of electoral fraud? What do they have to fear? I'll tell you what they lack - the courage and integrity to acknowledge the stark fact that this is an ethnic/cultural issue. It's a culture of electoral fraud that we will not tolerate in our society.

For public record, I have written to the Metropolitan Police twice on this issue but so far have not received any acknowledgement.

MoD Missiles in Bow

No Comments

Amusing story from the BBC…"London 2012: Missiles may be placed at residential flats".  Yet our amusement is tempered by the free publicity it gifts to Bethnal Green and Bow MP, Rushanara Ali to question it.


The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on the turrets of the old Bryant and May's match factory, now residential flats, during the Olympics. Strange choice one would think, requiring a direct line of fire from a parapet might well have been appropriate to an archer and longbowman a thousand years ago, but surely not for a laser aimed missile travelling at Mach 3+. The Starstreak HVM is anyway intended for slow moving ground targets, so seems singularly inappropriate as a single point of defence against incoming high speed low altitude air born targets. Ah, but wait, this is of course the British MoD – cunning fellows they are – perhaps the HVM is a cover for a Section of longbowmen.

It’s a non issue. And let ‘s be clear about this, if the MoD considers the nation’s security is at risk, they have no obligation to publicise their counter terrorism plans before hand and certainly not through inconsequential parliamentarians.

As for (here today, gone tomorrow) Rushanara Ali well, of course she lunged at the opportunity for air time. This was an easy piece of local PR for a career politician focused on (Asian) International Affairs rather than her own constituency issues. Repeating scripted platitudes on a comic scale was so much easier for her than the serious challenges of tackling electoral fraud, racism, ethnic unrest, housing shortage and allocation abuse, not to forget anti-social behaviour; you name it, she’s dodged it. (Which we hope is not what will happen to incoming targets when fired at with HVM's, or arrows from the water tower).

Grave concerns over the electoral process in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Tuesday, 24 April 2012 | No Comments

In a letter I received from the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 11 April, a spokesperson stated, ‘Ministers in this department certainly have grave concerns over the upkeep of the electoral roll in Tower Hamlets’. However they then proceeded to wash its hands of any responsibility stating, ‘Ministers hope that recent allegations will be taken seriously and appropriate action is taken by the Council, the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police’.

How then do we deal with the latest scenario affecting the bi-election in the Tower Hamlets Ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown?

The issue on this occasion focuses on the abuse of Postal Voting

On the day following the bi-election (Friday) I requested details of postal returns and was promised these would be emailed to me by the end of the day; unfortunately nothing arrived. It turns out all the departmental staff were told they could leave early (by 3:30pm) as they had worked so late to cover the bi-election the previous day. So be it - it meant I had to wait over the weekend before I could access the data available to the general public.

The Manager at Electoral Services finally returned my numerous telephone calls on Monday afternoon to say the information I requested would be emailed to me by 4pm that day. And here is the information I finally received:

Name of Candidate Number of Votes
BLAKE, Kirsty
Green Party 99

MACMILLAN, Richard Alan
Liberal Democrats 39

ROBBANI, Gulam
Independent 1,030 (Elected)

SMITH, Matthew James
Conservative Party 140

UDDIN, Ala
The Labour Party         987

Electorate: 7356  Ballot Papers Issued:  2,312 Turnout:  31.43  %

Number of envelopes returned (956) divided by number of postal votes issued and not cancelled (1418) = 67.42% return

Number of rejected envelopes (135) divided by number of envelopes returned (956) = 14.12% rejected.

Reasons for Rejections

No Signature 0
No Date of Birth 1
No Signature and No DOB 5
Signature No Match 72
DOB No Match 30
Signature and DOB No Match 17
Valid PVS - No BP 7
Ballot Paper - No PVS 3


My understanding of the process is that all votes – polled and posted – are scanned into the council’s files by the end of the polling day, albeit that is involves working into the early hours of the following day. Once scanned and counted the completed polling forms are held in a secure polling box. It’s unclear whether rejected voting papers are also retained.

With regards processing postal votes, they are opened and checked for completeness and accuracy; this includes the Voting Paper and Polling Vote Statement (PVS). Valid postal votes are then added to the polling station votes to be counted. Unfortunately no record is maintained of whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station – I believe this is a weakness. For example we have no record of the postal votes received for a particular candidate. Further we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate.

It’s disappointing that it takes so long to extract basic information from what, let’s face it, was a small bi-election with a small turnout. It’s also disappointing that we cannot scrutinise invalid submissions to establish which candidates they related to, or how many were rejected. This should surely be part of the due diligence embedded in the process.

Of greater concern than the reject rate of postal votes (14% compared to 0.7% for polling station votes) is the stark fact that 41% of votes cast were postal votes. That’s a huge percentage. We have to keep in mind that postal voting is stripped of the key controls administered by polling stations, e.g., there is no control to either prevent duress or enforce secrecy. Refer to Andrew Gilligan’s article; it provides potentially incriminating evidence, and sufficient grounds one would think, for a criminal investigation into the abuse of postal voting. Notwithstanding this, postal voting was essentially intended for those unable to get to the polling station. Are we to believe that 41% of those who voted in Spitalfields and Banglatown were unable to get to any of the three polling stations?!

The Electoral Commission does state that a person on the electoral roll does not need to state a reason for preferring to vote by post, however it goes on to say, voting by post is an easy and convenient way of voting ‘if you are unable to get to the polling station’. In my humble opinion this is a clear abuse of the postal voting facility.

As I mentioned earlier, no record is maintained to show whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station. At this stage we don’t know how many of the 1,030 votes cast for Gulam Robbani were postal. This is important in light of the foregoing, i.e., the postal votes should roughly match the proportionality of the overall vote distribution.A significant deviation would be a Red Flag in anyone’s book. Further, we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate and the same argument applies.

I am assuming a ‘probe’ ordered by the Council's returning officer will scrutinise this data. However, to cover the unlikely possibility it doesn’t, I’m calling for it under a FoI request. I am also requesting appropriate action is taken by the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police.