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
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
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
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.
Me on Social Networks
My Twitter Feeds
