Comments on: The Tower Hamlets population boom: is it all bad?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:46:58 +0000

Village of the Damned – that’s surely the most sensible post I have read on the topic of Tower Hamlets in a long, long time. Thank you for summing things up so much better than I could.

Tim.

By: Village of the Damned

Village of the Damned — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:51:19 +0000

People getting called “racist” again by GT… he does this whenever someone dares speak against the project.

Everybody knows this is all about the process of Bangladeshi colonisation – otherwise why are Tower Hamlets and Newham so far ahead of all the other parts of the UK? Anyone with two eyes can see the process of demographic change going on, particularly amongst the young, in east London. I wouldn’t mind if I was confident that the new arrivals were as committed to the supposed benefits of diversity as we are told we must be.

Lutfur’s response by the way it so blatantly tries to divert attention is also very revealing. The people involved with “the project” are very keen to stop us lot from talking about it.

And as well as that, this is probably only the tip of the ice-berg. I suspect the number of illegals and not quite legals and not sure if we’re legals who were left off census returns was highest in this borough too.

Ben Kenobi was right, “Sand people always ride single file to hide their numbers.”

By: Anon1

Anon1 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:47:43 +0000

Erm. People in Wapping are setting up a free school because they don’t want their children mixing with the local riff raff.

But speaking of council meeting needs, which of the needs of BGTC were the Council failing to meet that led to you deciding to opt for Academy status given that the much needed investments and improvements were spear-headed (and provided) by the local authority just before you decided to opt-out of the local education authority?

By: Graham Taylor

Graham Taylor — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:05:54 +0000

Shahed.

Thanks for recognising my longevity of service and loyalty to one party

and please forgive my ignorance about planning matters.

I may be showing even more ignorance now. If councillors are acting in a quasi-judicial role, how can they do anything but make sure that the policy adopted by the executive is correctly and legally implemented?

Surely the officers that you employ are there to give them the corect and impartial advice?

By: Cllr. Shahed Ali

Cllr. Shahed Ali — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:29:34 +0000

Graham,
You have been long enough in politics, and in Tower Hamlets Labour party, to be aware of the powers the planning committees have as a quasi-judicial body. Labour party councillors have a clear majority in this body so therefore hold the ability to decide which way these applications go, not the executive as you incorrectly point out.
Yes I agree the executive can devise the planning policies you refer too. However upon this occassion, all the Labour and Tory members at this committee meeting (7) voted against these policies, designed as you rightly point out, to guide for example, the number of school places required. Only myself and the Lib-Dem member voted for these policies by agreeing with officer recomendations, based upon the planning policies of our council.
So in summary Graham, you are wrong to point the finger at the Mayors Executive. The finger should clearly be pointed at your close friends who are Labour members of the planning Committees.

By: Graham Taylor

Graham Taylor — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:09:11 +0000

Racist nonsense from Jonathan Cohen. I don’t really get how illegal immmigration is counted in the census (!), nor why the the ‘related child bearing practices of these communities’ should matter. If this was significant, there would be a variance with Hackney which has totally different demographics.

The point is that the council need to have a planning policy that adresses whether we want more housing, what the mix of private and social is and make sure that we have schools, healthcare and transport as part of the deal. And that is down to the Executive Mayor.

Public transport in my end of the borough (west Bethnal Green/Shoreditch) has massively improved with the opening of the Overground. Some schools are undersubscribed. When I changed GP recently it was an absolute doddle. There has been a huge amount of well planned development. But it is hit and miss as Ted points out. Look at Wapping, where parents have had to set up a free school, because the council haven’t met their needs.

Shahed makes some valid points – but seems to forget that he is part of the executive that are in charge now. They set the planning policy. And it is down to Mayor Rahman to ensure the provision of healthcare, schools and public transport as part of his planning strategy.

By: Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup

Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:11:45 +0000

Re households: the census is taken from households and ‘communal establishments’ (student halls of residence, hostels and – whisper it carefully – hotels. Yes, people actually want to stay and visit Tower Hamlets – gasp!)

Also anyone staying overnight with friends/family has to be listed.

These are all stripped out in order to get the household statistics. So Jesus, Mary and Joseph (were they to try to get a room at the Britannia in Canary Wharf) would be counted in the population figures but not the household figures.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:28:02 +0000

One wonders how these figures should be regarded in the light of the Tower Hamlets magically elastic population figures; that a very significant number of people are bought into existence around election times.

I note Cllr. Ali’s interesting comment, “… which will only provide 24 social rented homes, 10 affordable rent homes, but at the expensive cost of another 126 private apartments for sale!” The social rented and affordable rent homes are the ‘expense’ here; they are the ones that will cost taxpayers money to build and maintain, and will be filled with people costing more money in the form of benefits. The private apartments are the dwellings that will bring money into the area which will grow local businesses and help regereate Tower Hamlets. If I was the developer who built 160 homes but was only allowed to sell 124 of them I’d wonder whether I was wasting my time.

I’d be interested to know how many of the ‘new’ people in the borough are destined to permamently live in these ‘social rent’ and ‘affordable rent’ homes?

Tim.

By: Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup

Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:18:20 +0000

Sweeping statements indeed. What about the growth in development of old warehouses/factories/offices in Spitalfields and other areas which has brought in an increase in housing and residents with people moving from elsewhere in London to live? Buildings being brought back into use. God forbid that Tower Hamlets should be seen by other Londoners or UK residents as a desirable part of London to live instead of an insular ghetto of poverty.

By: Jonathan Cohen

Jonathan Cohen — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:25:38 +0000

What a load of utter tosh from Lutfur Rahman, we all know the man doesn’t think for himself, but at least he could have could got one of his legion of paid apparent intellectual giants to write something a bit more credible than crediting the population growth to the Olympics.

Everybody knows immigration is the main reason (both legal and ilkegal) and the related child bearing practices of these communities.

I’m not making a judgment as to whether this is a good good or bad thing. Save to say that we need balance and control in all things. But the fact that the Mayor, Cllr Golds and Snowden all seek to ignore this speaks volumes as to their mendacious self serving politics. They are all bad as each other.

And as for Cllr Golds and Snowdens