Having been partly involved in the making of tomorrow night’s Panorama documentary on Mayor Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets, it’s more difficult to judge what its impact will be (it’s a 30 minute programme and lots has been left on the cutting room floor).
From what I know, I think it’s a very measured, balanced and fair investigation and I suspect Communities Secretary Eric Pickles will take some action as a result. The programme exposes serious inadequacies in the checks and balances of a directly elected mayoral system, particularly when there’s a context of dysfunctional party politics.
Although pretty much every theme of what will be broadcast tomorrow will not be new to readers of this blog, there will be some disturbing details of what’s been going on behind the scenes. It’s clear a number of senior officers have had major concerns about process and decisions. To the wider national audience that Panorama is aimed it, the entire story will be worrying.
I’m not going to give anything away about the broadcast (except to say Lutfur may regret his decision to be interviewed), but I think the bigger story, in the short term at least, will be the background to the production itself: accusations of racism against the BBC and a so-called journalist betraying highly confidential sources (and then absurdly, in my view, claiming to be a whistleblower).
Lutfur Rahman’s council has spent tens of thousands of pounds (we don’t yet know the final figure) on City lawyers Taylor Wessing and PR outfit Champollion, whose remit was to suppress the programme. Over the past few weeks, they, Lutfur and the council’s interim monitoring officer, Meic Sullivan Gould, have tried to badger the BBC into pulling it at every opportunity.
This culminated last week in a letter to the BBC’s Director-General Lord (Tony) Hall (who, having seen the programme with the corporation’s editorial high command, gave it the thumbs up judging it to be fair and impartial).
Their main argument has been that the BBC should not be engaging in the sort investigative journalism that might affect the outcome of an election so close to an election. Which is a curious argument indeed.
They have also argued the production was biased from the outset and that its primary aim was to unseat the Mayor. And surprise, surprise (given what we know about the tactics of Lutfur’s people in this regard), they’re again playing the race card.
Instead of me doing the talking, here’s the statement Lutfur himself issued last night (after it became clear the programme would be aired):
BBC Panorama whistle-blower reveals racist and Islamophobic programme
Criminal investigation underway as BBC Panorama whistle-blower reveals racist and Islamophobic programme on Tower Hamlets
You may be aware that BBC Panorama is due to air a programme about Tower Hamlets next week.
I believe the programme is being used for political campaigning and electioneering purposes just weeks before local and Mayoral elections in May.
A dossier passed to us by a BBC whistle-blower has revealed it to be in total breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines as a public broadcaster.
It has clear racist and Islamophobic overtones targeting the Bangladeshi Muslim community in Tower Hamlets.
The BBC and the undercover production company, Films of Record, have also been referred to the Information Commissioner and there is now a criminal investigation underway.
Sadly this programme is already being used for political campaigning by politicians from Tower Hamlets Labour Party and promoted by right wing journalists.
The BBC’s targeting of our borough is nothing short of a direct intervention in the outcome of an election.
I’m proud that with your support I have been able to deliver some of the most progressive policies of any council in the country, whether that’s building the most homes; supporting our young people; providing free school meals to all primary school children; protecting our heritage; looking after our elderly or improving our environment.
I’ll let the people of Tower Hamlets judge my record in office – not by a programme with a clear political bias, broadcasting for Tower Hamlets Labour Party.
Here is my 3 years in office report – Transforming Tower Hamlets: Three Years On.
You can also watch this short counter documentary for an alternative perspective on the Panorama programme http://vimeo.com/90422433.
So let’s look at this “whistleblower” accusation.
First, here’s the BBC’s response:
“The BBC emphatically rejects any suggestion that its investigation into Lutfur Rahman’s administration was either politically or racially motivated. We can confirm that there has been a breach of data protection at an independent production company working with the BBC on a Panorama investigation as a result of unauthorised disclosure by a former researcher on the production team, in breach of her obligation of confidentiality. This breach includes material relating to the programme’s confidential sources. Our primary concern is to protect our sources and we are urgently investigating the matter. We have also notified the ICO.”
Now the background.
In January, Panorama reporter John Ware and the production company Films of Record (it’s a production company, not an undercover production company) hired a young Bengali broadcast journalist student). At her interview, she was highly critical of Lutfur Rahman and his administration.
They got her to do some research on some of the third sector organisations they were investigating as part of the programme’s focus on taxpayer grants. She was also asked to do some translating and she’d also been keen initially to do some undercover work.
She was only with the team for four days in mid-January and on the last day she was given access to a shared but restricted computer file.
After she started demanding more money, the team let her down gently and said thanks but no thanks. But then some six weeks later, the team were dropped with a bombshell. A dossier containing a significant amount of confidential material had been taken from the shared drive and handed to Mayor Lutfur’s office.
It is thought the council had this dossier for a number of weeks before their lawyers Taylor Wessing disclosed it to the BBC and Films of Record. This is important to note.
How this dossier was accessed is not yet fully clear. I understand the BBC is satisfied as to the involvement in handling the “dossier” of certain paid individuals in the Mayor’s office. Inquiries by the Corporation are progressing.
As to whether there is a criminal investigation into the BBC/Films of Record, my understanding is that is manifestly not the case. The BBC has told the Mayor this but he seems to have ignored it. Both the BBC and Films of Record quite rightly notified the ICO as soon as they were aware of the data breach. Note my point re the council’s actions above.
In my view, the journalist they hired should be ashamed of herself. She apparently claimed she had become concerned about the nature of the programme, that it was somehow trying to bring shame on Britain’s Bangladeshi community. Whether any pressure was exerted on her from external sources, I don’t know. I do know that many, many Bangladeshis are terrified about speaking out in public for fear of vilification in their own community. They’re quite happy to talk to journalists in private but very rarely go on the record. The few that do are brave.
What also galls is that this journalist now claims whistleblower status for betraying whistleblowers. It’s my understanding that she made not one attempt to raise apparent concerns about the programme with any of the Panorama team. As a journalist, she would have known the BBC has in place strict and confidential channels for such concerns.
As for the other allegations in Lutfur’s press release….
Panorama was ‘politically motivated’: Rubbish. Their methods were exemplary; the team knocked down weak hypotheses at every stage. They were rigorous and judicious.
Panorama has been Islamophobic: Rubbish. Lutfur Rahman (by even his own admissions and boasts) is a highly public and controversial figure. He boasts he’s Europe’s first directly elected Mayor, he invokes Islam and Allah in his speeches and he boasts that he’s the first to put such high priority on faith buildings. His support is drawn almost exclusively from one community, the Bangladeshi population in Tower Hamlets. There is undoubtedly a strong public interest in scrutinising him and his policies.
Mayor Rahman is also putting it about that John Ware is a Zionist Islamophobe who targets Muslims. Rubbish. They’re claiming this is ‘proved’ because the BBC paid out libel damages from a previous investigation of his in 2006 into the charity Interpal. Well, actually, that documentary led to a Charity Commission reprimand for Interpal. The libel damages were incidental to the main story: they were paid to a man whose face had not been blanked out on a photograph featuring one of their main subjects.
Whether or not tomorrow’s Panorama proves to be a game-changer in Tower Hamlets on May 22, I don’t know.
But the evidence has been submitted to Eric Pickles who now says this:
“There is a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and mismanagement of council staff and resources by the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets. I will carefully examining the evidence provided by Panorama’s thorough investigation and will consider the appropriate next steps, including the case for exercising the legal powers available to me.”
In the meantime, Lutfur is publicising this 26 minute attack video on Panorama (quite how it was funded or who made it hasn’t been disclosed, but it features a number of useful idiots)…it’s all the fault of the ‘right wing’, you see.
Enjoy the warm-up (and oh, by the way, I gather that John Ware found the council’s head of communications Takki Sulkaiman to be one of the most manipulative press officers he’s ever dealt with in a long career in journalism…which I can’t disagree with: he should have stuck to politics.)
When is a whistleblower not a whistleblower?
When she has brown skin, it seems.
lol, ted jeory is shitting his bricks about the criminal investigation. when the wheels come falling off.
Christ that’s desperate. Uncle Luftur needs to give you some tips on trolling.
And what whistle has she blown? Leaking names of those who oppose Lutfur to Lutfur isn’t whistleblowing. Telling a crook that his crookery’s about to exposed, and letting him get his cheap and tiresome slurs about racism and Islamophobia in first, isn’t whistleblowing.
John Ware and his panorama programe should investigate all the white politicians who fiddle their exspenses and avoid paying taxes. The BBC is not only full of white sex offenders and peadophiles, it’s full of xenaphobic hypocrites.
A whistleblower is not a whistleblower when she divulges confidential information to the subject of a journalistic investigation rather than blowing her whistle to the appropriate regulator, in this case Ofcom.
Dave Hill at the Guardian sets out a more balanced historical overview of the rise of Lutfur Rahman compared to some journalists
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/30/bbc-panorama-tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman
I suppose Dave has the advantage of not being as deeply involved with investigations and from dipping his toe in only infrequently..
Or maybe he’s not planning on becoming a cycling advisor after the guy he supported out the ass wins.
Since when has The Guardian ever been “balanced”?
Dave Hill has just confirmed he did not write the word “unproven” when he filed this sentence:
It was likely inserted by an overly cautious lawyer or sub in the Guardian newsroom…who probably hadn’t read this.
Check out the tactical down voting! Lutfur’s drones are working on this blog!
Is that the little thumbs-up and thumbs-down thingies? I never understood how those work. What’s the significance of them and how do you make them do something?
You just click on them. They’re used to signify whether or not you agree with the view expressed.
The fact that they are so very much out of kilter with the normal pattern on this blog must mean “the drones” as you call them are really rattled. I can’t remember the last time there was such a concerted drive to down vote.
The more comments there are as to the noticeable and unusual pattern of down voting the more it highlights that something has hit a nerve.
Of course they might all be fans of Dave Hill…..? 😉
Really? Is that why any comment criticising Luftur’s dubious practices, or any mention of this blog is instantly censored by Luftur’s trolls?
luftur Rahman is actualy improving Tower Hamlets by improving housing providing free school meals for ALL primary school children. He is also looking after the elderly as well as promoti diversity. Mayors from other boroughs are doing naff all to help the people and Boris Johnson is a useless bumbling idiot. The abbc is full of prejudice/racist sex offenders
Ted, if either your involvement in the Panorama programme or your hosting (/ owning / maintaining) of this blog manages to achieve fairer and more accountable politics in Tower Hamlets then you will be able to consider it a success. Several will argue that this blog has already achieved that aim. Bravo.
I am heartened by your (rightly guarded) comments that the Panorama programme may be the thing that sparks Pickles into doing something serious about the current administration. I sincerely hope that you are right.
Tim.
20 years ago, Panorama did a followup programme looking at corruption in Westminster City Council which was due for transmission on Monday 25 April 1994 – with full council elections due ten days later. At the last minute John Birt delayed the transmission until Monday 16 May, after the election.
I don’t see a problem with the timing.
The convention of “electoral purdah” is that:
1) it applies to central government activity only
2) there is no codified legislation in relation to local government i.e. it is a ‘self-denying ordinance’. It’s also frequently been ignored.
3) it doesn’t apply to other public bodies e.g. the BBC which are supposed to be completely independent of the government
4) it’s limited to 17 working days prior to an election unless there is specific guidance issued which suggests otherwise – remembering that guidance is exactly that – it’s not a requirement.
Which means 10 days before an election it was a judgement call for John Birt. He wasn’t actually obliged to do anything but the transmission was clearly within the conventional time period.
Equally clearly, the Panorama transmission tomorrow night is completely outside any ‘normal’ period of “electoral purdah” – even if it was required of either the Council or the BBC.
On another matter….
If the BBC is breaking purdah does that mean the Mayor’s film also does likewise? I’m unclear as to whether or not the Council has reached the date at which all electoral communications on behalf of the Mayor need to be declared as an electoral communication and the source of the associated funding identified?
Perhaps Ted you could clarify as to whether or not that date has been declared?
and finally….
I wonder if anybody has submitted an FOI as to how much council cash – as opposed to the funds of Mayor Rahman’s political party – has been spent on lawyers while trying to get this programme stopped.
Might there be scope for an investigation for whether such activity is politically motivated – and hence falls outside the scope of proper and lawful public expenditure by the Council?
It seems to me that the question should at least be asked and answered. This Council Tax payer certainly deems it to be a matter of public interest.
BTW – if somebody asks the FOI question in the near future I believe the answer MUST be provided BEFORE the election. I can’t think of any relevant exemption which might apply.
Such information would I am sure give the politicians something to debate in terms of the best use of public funds.
Maybe the person who downvoted my comment about getting the answer to an FOI question about the use of public funds for lawyers’ fees would like to make clear are they:
1) opposed to complete transparency in the use of public funds? or
2) opposed to the answer to an FOI question about the use of public funds for lawyers fees to try and shut down the BBC programme coming out before the election? or
3) both the above?
I really can’t think of any other reasons for a down vote. Can you?
Golly.
Its this what the bible calls Judgement Day ?
I know Eric is planning something significant. Don’t ask me how I know ‘cos I can’t tell you – but trust me he is.
I trust you GM. I just hope that that ‘something significant’ is significant enough to make a difference. Eric’s track record is somewhat less than sparkling with TH.
Pickles need to lose some weight and investigate white politicians considering the amount of white politicians who fiddle their exspenses and housing claims.
Eric Pickles taking action.The image of that amuses me.
Dave Hill is a nasty little creep who shilled for Livingstone and Jasper all through the controversy over money to black groups that brought his guru down.
He still claims that the three and a half million or so pounds that went to a half dozen front groups is all accounted for and that the exposure of the scam by Gilligan was a racially motivated right wing smear campaign against a completely blameless and innocent Jasper.
He owes his position as a “writer and blogger” to the fact that is wife is a Guardian executive, now that’s nepotism if ever there was any. He is firmly in the Kennite hard left camp and blames Boris Johnson for everything that is wrong with London which of course never happened under his Newtness.
I wonder whether it’s supporters of Dave Hill or Rahman who are giving a very unusual profile to the voting on individual comments compared to the norm.
I think you can take it as read that means you’ve hit a nerve Ted!
One does have to question the wisdom of any production company allowing new recruits/students access to “classified material”. Clearly positive vetting is not a practice employed by this company in relation to the handling of sensitive stories!
I’ll be interested to hear the ICO’s take on all of this.
Questions I’d be interested in knowing the answer to include:
1) Who exactly is the Council officer charged with the statutory responsibility with respect to Data Protection and matters relating to breaches of data protection which need to be reported to the ICO?
2) When was he or she made aware of what had happened?
3) What did he or she do when made aware of the situation – and how long did he or she take to act?
I don’t understand – wasn’t it the company which committed the data protection breach and which had to file the report with the ICO? You can find out their data controller easily, it’s a public register. Not sure what TH Data Protection has to do with it.
Read it again.
[QUOTE]After she started demanding more money, the team let her down gently and said thanks but no thanks. But then some six weeks later, the team were dropped with a bombshell. A dossier containing a significant amount of confidential material had been taken from the shared drive and handed to Mayor Lutfur’s office.
It is thought the council had this dossier for a number of weeks before their lawyers Taylor Wessing disclosed it to the BBC and Films of Record. This is important to note.[UNQUOTE]
In other words the Council was IN RECEIPT of digital material which it wasn’t entitled to have and failed to report it.
I’m reading between the lines but this seems to suggest to me that the files contained material NOT generated by the Council. That seems a reasonable assumption given this is an investigation.
That means the Council breached the Data Protection Act by failing to report a breach of data protection which happened when they accepted the digital files relating to individuals produced by the student. Very, very silly.
I can’t quite recall what the appropriate action is but normally responsible organisations would hand it straight back.
If ever Rahman needed an event to galvanize support, this must be it. The program will make absolutely no difference in gathering an opposition to him. It will simply state what his opponents have been saying all along.
Such programs would be critical in areas with large amounts of undecided voters. This is not the case in TH. Who will and will not vote for Rahman is already known, only a fool would think otherwise.
The question is will the program bring more of the supporters or foes to the ballot box?
My view is this, the program will probably show TH politics to be corrupt without showing any alternatives to the status quo. This will alienate already disenfranchised voters who would otherwise be Rahman’s opposition.
The program will also be seen as ‘an anti Muslim Zionist conspiracy’ against Rahman. Thereby energizing the some Muslims to ‘defend’ their faith.
Either way Rahman is likely to benefit. I seriously doubt his opposition would have the same level of energy as his supporters would have following this program.
It will all come down to will enough of his opponents come out to vote on the day?
I have seen no evidence they will. So unless Pickles has something up his sleeves, I think Rahman is unstoppable.
Whilst I agree to most of your comments…I truly do.
I have one questions….What’s Zionist got to do with it.
I’m a female and an atheist at that. I simply want. Democracy, Transparency and Equality…I don’t give a fig if you are green with pointed ears and sing or not at certain times of the week. Democracy and Equality with full Transparency is what I would like to see here at LBTH
He was commenting on the perception the Islamic community will have on the programme. It’s no secret there is an acceptable level of anti Israel/Zionism amongst the dinner table circuit in this country particularly in the Islamic and lefty community.
So ergo a large amount of his supporters will just discount this as a Zionist attack and they need to go out and vote to stop the evil zionists
A good call, we should all want transparent democracy. Sadly, and realistically, what you have in the LBTH is third World corrupt politics in action. Worse still is that there is nothing we can effectively do about it as (1) the Bangladeshi electorate are voting fodder for this shyster, and (2) both main political parties are frozen with fear at the prospect of dealing properly with Islamic dishonesty. Ho hum!
Isn’t “anti Israel/Zionism” just a Guardian NewSpeak formulation of what used to be called “antisemitism”?
Yes
I’m not sure what you are replying “yes” to Ted.
He was replying to the question if he felt Panorama is a game changer.
What an anti-climax that was. If the game changed in anyway as a result of Panorama, it certainly isn’t the way Ted had hoped. Lutfur now has a baying mob behind him, while prior to Panorama and his counter doc it was merely passive acknowledgment of his existence.
This is especially the case with first time voters, who now have a battle cry of ‘carrying on the east end legacy of fighting the right wing’ to spur them on.
John Ware really did a number on the anti Lutfur camp. He over-promised and under delivered. Meanwhile Lutfur, preparing for the worst, readied a more than adequate response that’s stirred a great mass in his favour; one which would not have been there if Panorama had never been on the cards.
The issues are still the same. A section of the Bangladeshi community will always vote Lutfur because he is of they and he has bought sections of the vote and has the backing of the IFE and the mosques.
Whites are almost entirely against him and simply didn’t turn out to vote last time because, as many have told me, there were two Bangladeshi candidates and they wouldn’t vote for either. And where did you get the battle cry from? Pathetic.
It’s on the video. On their twitter. And the texts they’ve been sending round.
The problem of white voter apathy was more to do with labours betrayal of the white working class rather than the lack of a white candidate to vote for. John Ware, the great saviour that was meant to startle the English East enders into action, did anything but that.
The documentary was full of white people praising the mayor, albeit set pieces prepared for the camera but the audience won’t know that, and a bunch of illiterate Bengalis bad mouthing Lutfur. Is that his idea of jolting the audience in to righteous indignation? All it did was create ferver amongst Bengalis (made to believe it was a racist attack) and greater apathy amongst white voters who saw labour as the party for Bengalis, and this is just infighting.
Ken, really stuck it to labour by nonchalantly announcing Lutfur-labour reunion after the elections, as if Lutfur’s VICTORY is a foregone conclusion…
Conservatives have put too many of their eggs in the labour basket, and haven’t provided a viable candidate themselves. It’s only ukip that can do with white voters what Lutfur so readily does with Bengalis.
I find it all quite laughable.
Oh and by the way. Voter turn out in local elections are always crap. Only difference here is that amongst Bengalis it’s high. Just yesterday I heard a conversation on LBC where the caller was saying she’s looking forward to the ‘real’ elections so she can vote ukip etc. And the the host, rather than explain that local elections actually matter, simply agreed that local elections are a minor affair.
That is your primary explanation for low turn out. It’s seen as a not so important election all around the country. Whereas for Bengalis it’s the most important election, because it is their chance to get their candidates into offices for some representation. These bengali candidates are local celebs for Bengalis.
Now compare that to how the rest of the country view their local councillors. It’s anything but glamorous. In fact interest in local elections is probably a good sign for most that you have no life. And councillors are hardly the most high powered of people anyway. Imagine what a normal English person sees when they see John Biggs. What is he compared to national level politicians? Nothing.
Bengalis don’t have nationally famous politicians to trump their local ones.
Very astute analysis.
Further, idiots seem to be under the impression that the turnout last time was 13%. It wasn’t. It was 25.6% (http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/elections__voting/election_results/2010_mayoral_election_result.aspx).
Which is about the same turnout as the first mayoral elections (all in October – which always lowers turnout and was one reason Brown called off the election that never was) in in Hackney (26.34%), Lewisham (24.75%) and the glorious Newham (25.49%). No-one ever said these white, Labour mayors lacked a mandate. Funny that.
And by the way, Lutfur came top in every single ward of the borough – so the assertion that it was only ethnic-Bengalis voting for him is not sensible.
Hello Ted, I attach a link regarding 106 funds.
I was made suspicious regarding the expenditure of 106 funds when our building was asked to pay for it. We asked where it would be going, LBTH said they couldn’t tell me. I sat in a planning meeting and I witness a 106 fund payment of £3.5Millin sought by McDonalds. It got me thinking, how much did all the other Canary Wharf buildings pay towards their 106 funding….. AND where has all this money gone to.
It took me ages to get this information. I eventually had to ask for it under the Freedom of information, but they gave it to me in such a messy manner.
I don’t know who the various ‘schools’ are OR who the bodies mentioned are real or not. LBTH were not helpful…surely there must be a system that collect this data.
BTW…the £90K that our building paid is not on the list, neither is the McDonald payment. Coming from a southern Italian background…the odour is similar to that of administration in and around Naples and the ‘Mezzo Giorno’ regions..
Please do view it….I asked for a 10 yrs span, I have not managed to keep it up, its too much for one solitary person to chase, when I pointed out to LBTH that some items were missing (I used my building as an example) they said that docs were lost !!!!
Click to access S106_Portfolio_Register%20august%202012%20FOI%20final.pdf
I believe I calculated it to be £20Mil per month….. over a period of 10yrs….. that is a wealth of extra funds for a Loc Auth to have
LBTH due to Canary Wharf is one of the most affulent boroughs in the UK with its 106 agreements….My questions is May we see the full list as surely the planning dept should have all planning applications AND where is this money being spent on, and who decides? I believe a lot is being spent on propping up LBTH pension fund but I could be wrong…I dare not think of where else this money is going to.
Nobody, nationally or regionally (ie Mayor of London) or locally via MPs seem to give a fig as to what’s going on at LBTH, everyone seems to be sharing the same trough….excuse my language
Kindest regards Annamaria
Oh well this the season in tower hamlets.
I believe the BBC is seriously biased in the news they allow to be produced on east london and bangladeshis. However, we do live in a post BBC world so the more evidence Aunty hands over for its own judgement the better.
Not wanting to get into your parochial election battles, my key experience with this comes from them covering up a massacre committed by the state in Dhaka last may. From Sabir Mustafa, the BBC World Service Bengali Editor to Resident Bergman, there has been an astonishing and ideological silence on this state crime.
There is also a rather empty space on this very blog when it comes to investigating the autocratic Bangladesh regime’s footprint and investments in East London.
you only dip into the the desh when it suits you. fun blog though!
Yes Rahman is unstoppable?
OR Yes Pickles has something up his sleeve?
OR Yes Rahman is unstoppable AND Pickles has something up his sleeve?
Personally, I think the new factor in the equation is the UKIP candidate.
Previously those who were disgusted with the way politics are conducted in Tower Hamlets had no real option as to alternatives and hence a lot voted with their feet – and refused to leave home.
If a lot of previously disenchanted voters actually come out to vote this time then as I’ve suggested previously it could get very interesting indeed. I rather think they will – and I rather think there are politicians of every persuasion who are more than a bit concerned.
For example this time, it’s entirely possible that the Bengali community may split their vote. Members of the Bengali community have told me they’re more than fed up with the activities of Rahman et al – in particular that which generates bad press. (e.g. Quite apart from anything Panorama has to say tonight, is it really wise to provide character references on Council headed notepaper for rapists and convicted conmen?).
They too may also find an alternative to vote for.
My solution for all the politicians in all the parties is this:
* do your job properly,
* work hard for your constituents – whether or not you are elected – in a fair and even-handed way
* choose your sponsors wisely
* think before you act – and be accountable for your actions (and references!)
* make sure the money you spend is always done legitimately
* don’t get involved in anything which generates bad publicity for you or your party; and
* remember the ordinary man or woman in the street does have a vote and can exercise it.
That way we can have a reasonable set of candidates to vote for and a fair fight – and may the best man or woman win!
Noble sentiments but, I fear, naive hopes.
[…] Jeory wrote this: https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/betrayal-and-panorama-student-bengali-journalist-reveal… […]
Aha! Presumably you mean “Yes – Pickles will send in the Inspectors?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26716862
That makes the Council’s response to the FOI question about the ethnicity of organisations receiving grants rather interesting doesn’t it? (see https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/decriminalise-heroin-in-tower-hamlets-and-moses-clubs-in-every-school-a-piece-by-nick-mcqueen-ukips-candidate-for-mayor/ )
The only surprise is that you are surprised. Just what did you expect from these characters
‘You couldn’t make it up!’ You are spot on..
UKIP is Everywhere, and fielding 15 Candidates across the 20 Wards…
And you one of them, yet still an “independent” member of the council’s Standards Committee. How does that work?
Current members of the Council’s Standards (Advisory) Committee – as per the Council’s website
Grenville Mills
John Pulford MBE
Elizabeth Hall (Observer)
Ezra Zahabi (Observer)
Patrick (Barry) O’Connor
Matthew William Rowe (Chair)
Eric Pemberton (Vice-Chair)
Salina Bagum
Barry Lowe
Councillor David Edgar
Councillor Judith Gardiner
Councillor Zara Davis
Councillor Sirajul Islam
Councillor Fozol Miah
Councillor Abdul Asad
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman
Councillor Harun Miah (Deputy)
Councillor Gloria Thienel (Deputy)
Councillor Dr. Emma Jones (Deputy)
Councillor Rofique U Ahmed (Deputy)
Councillor Mizan Chaudhury (Deputy)
Councillor Ann Jackson (Deputy)
Councillor M. A. Mukit MBE (Deputy)
[QUOTE]
The Standards (Advisory)Committee performs a number of functions to maintain high standards of conduct in public life. These include:
* Promoting and maintaining the Members Code of Conduct and other local protocols.
* Assisting in training and offering advice on matters relating to the codes.
* Advising the Council on the adoption and revision of the Code of Conduct and the various Protocols included in the Constitution.
* Considering any potential breaches of the Members Code of Conduct. [UNQUOTE]
Which reminds me – what part has the Standards Committee played in the current state of affairs?
Wrong.
I was a temporary co-opted member of the Standards Advisory Committee. I no longer serve on the Committee.
During my short term on the SAC, it became evident to me that the SAC – previously the Standards Committee – has no power to enforce a Code of Conduct over Members (improving Member behaviour was a primary reason I accepted an Appointment on the Committee).This is a sad legacy of the Localism Act 2011, which created an ‘Advisory’ role only. Sanctions available to the Council for a breach of code are now extremely limited and ineffective within the ‘advisory’ legislation.
The net result of this – as we have all seen – has been a circus of totally unacceptable behaviour at Council meetings, and a string of investigatory reports presenting a dysfunctional local authority.
The reality is, under the present legislation, the council can choose whatever level of behaviour it deems appropriate and we have seen where that has taken us. Keep in mind that the current Code of Conduct was written with an understanding that it would be enforced by a Standards Committee. Without that Committee and its original Terms of Reference, it is my view that the Council’s procedures are no longer fit for purpose. They desperately needs to be reviewed and this can only be done, post the Localism Act 2011, by the electorate voting for candidates who uphold the reinstatement of NOLAN principles of behaviour by Members.
I concluded that the only way to bring this change, would be through the ballot box, i.e., acknowledging that the electorate has to be the enforcer. And that is why I have decided to stand for election; to make changes required as a Councillor.
Like others standing under the UKIP banner, I have no political background or aspirations. We are, in a true Democratic sense, Representatives of our various Wards, prepared to stand up and liberate Tower Hamlets Council from the appalling regime it is currently shackled to.
ps my last action on SAC was to update the Council’s web site which up until last week still misleadingly referred to the existence of a Standards Committee.
Good for you Grenville. I’ve decided how I’m going to vote now. In my ward I’m voting for the Labour so I’ve still got someone to turn to when I need it who is not only interested in Bengali/Somali votes (in my case it’s Helal Abbas who has been a good ward councillor for all sections of the community). For the mayoralty I’m voting with my heart and am voting for McQueen of UKIP.
That way I will feel both happy and prudent.
I hope Eric now deals with the mayor and perhaps we won’t have to worry about him and the plot he represents for too much longer.
We were canvassing at Chrisp Street Market on Saturday and met some Labour activists who, interestingly, were handing out a flyer advising people to tune into tonight’s Panorama. As we pointed out to them, Rahman is a creation of the Labour Party. He is just another socialist as far as I am concerned, redistributing my money. That is what socialists do, they take the money that you earn and give it to other people in return for their votes.
My annoyance is also with the Labour administration and the then labour gov. They created this monster, by simply expelling Luftur from their party was not enough, They should have had the morale fibre to pick up the issue and address it legally, but not..typical Labour let’s just wash our hands of it and its no longer our problem.
You guys (Labour) are the Frankenstein to this monster.
You failed to do due diligence on him, you supported him and ARE still supporting him now via your Leftie council workers, aka civil servants. As a member of the public who lives at Tower Hamlets will the Labour administration get the money paid back that Luftur has used for PR and legal without our knowledge and without our consent.
The lefties council wont lift a finger to address this, because they all know that their finger prints are all over this scandalous perverse anti democratic, fascist cronies based establishment.
Tower Hamlets is a disgrace to 21st C politics.
What Labour Administration? There isn’t one!
The Labour admin that were and ARE still there supporting him.
The Labour admin that allowed vote rigging via postal votes to take place and ignored calls from all and sundry to investigate the matter.
The Labour council that allowed Lufter’s hench men to accompany people from/of a certain community to the ballot box under the ‘remit’ that they could not read english and needed guidance!!!
The Labour admin whom even when I complained about the thuggish behaviour of a certain group of men outside my local pooling booth, when I last voted, my complaint was dismissed as racist.
Labour, in the same way you took us to war and then tried to wash your hands of any culpability are the defacto creators of this corrupt undemocratic fascist, sexist human who has his thumb and fingers well and truly in our coffers pie to the tune of £2.2Billion did not have the moral fibre to call in the police and investigate, because you didn’t want to upset the unions at the council and you didn’t want your dirty linen to be washed in public.
Labour council workers and Councillors who had the opportunity to call in investigators DID NOTHING.
Labour who have royally shafted the working class person in the borough and when some old dear ask the ‘Kings clothes’ question is called a bigot, in the same way that anyone who asks the same at Tower Hamlets is called a bigot.
Labour who created (whom I can only describe as ‘the shite’) now doesn’t want to get their silver spoon socialist hands dirty.
And if you think that the people of Tower Hamlest are not aware of your failings and how you look the other way…well let’s see what happens in May.
The Labour council workers and Labour Councillors who are happy to take the wages paid to them by the people of Tower Hamlets but are devoid of any moral accountability towards their actions.
And if Prickles doesn’t do anything, doesn’t call in the Police, and the EC doesn’t get involved then that lot are just as bad as your band of inept weasels.
The position of Mayor was never one asked by the public of Tower Hamlets, It was created and voted in by the Labour run council.
We the public were never give a vote as to whether we wanted one or not.
I remember Labours’ condescending words of, it will only cost the Borough £100K p/a…my back side.
You voted n the Mayoral position and then YOU gave us a list of whom to vote, WE never asked for one.
Take account of your actions.
At least Milliband had the decency to apologise about the open flood gates that Blair and Brown introduced, whilst the other EU nations held back, feebly saying ‘we only thought it was going to be 300K new entrants’. Will the Labour councillor that created this monster stand up and apologise?
No I didn’t think so….just happy to take the money and run…..Well I hope the lot of you get a ruddy good chasing in May.
Yes I am angry I have every right to be angry when I see in LBTH expenditure pamphlet gloriously stating that nearly a quarter (25%) of revenue will be spent on Cultural activities, where as Homes will get 6% and Roads 3%…go figure that one….I don’t often swear on public forums but the word … TOSSERS … does come to mind
“Labour Administration” is a technical term used to refer to a Council which is controlled by the Labour Party. This Council is NOT controlled by the Labour Party and hence there is no Labour Administration
If you are referencing a particular Council maybe you could be clearer as to dates?
Note I’m not disagreeing or agreeing with anything you’ve said – I’m just finding it very difficult to get any sense of a timeline or source for your complaints. I’d just like you to make clearer what you mean through the use of the correct terminology.
Try using the term “Labour Party” when you mean the political party and the Labour Council (include dates) when you mean a particular administration. Otherwise what you’ve written is just plain confusing as to whether you are referencing past or present and Party in general or the party controlling a Council.
“The position of Mayor was never one asked by the public of Tower Hamlets, It was created and voted in by the Labour run council.”
err…no, it was supported by 60% of voters on a 60% turnout.
Oldford – you are being rather disingenuous. The petition was organised by the IFE/Respect and approved by the council when, coincidentally, it was led by Lutfur Rahman. The petition was, according to Gilligan (who has seen it) exceedingly dodgy with pages filled out in the same hand writing and almost all names being Bangladeshi. Also, something like 40% of names were found to be invalid; yet it was still accepted. The decision to allow the referendum was corrupted and the referendum itself was, I suspect rigged. I say this because in the same election the voters turned against Respect, ejecting all bar one of their councillors yet – bizarrely deciding to support Respect’s petition.
It stank to high heaven.
Old Ford…no it was not.
I know it was not because I argued like hell with the council about it..its when they said it’l only cost £100K
The public of Tower Hamlets was never given a referendum or asked whether they wanted a mayor.
The position of the Mayor was created and voted in by the councillors and the people of Tower Hamlets along with local elections were then given a list to vote from
So I stand by my statement
No election rferendum was given to the public that said…Do you want a mayor or NOT
The Labour councillors voted for the public, we just got asked to choose…
Well, what’s this about?
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/elections__voting/election_results/2010_council_election_result.aspx
Interestingly there is a general theme among the comments on The Guardian indicate that “as ever the BBC and the Guardian are years behind”
i.e. Private Eye has been reporting the story for some time – and they’re finally beginning to catch up.
Plus another emerging one which suggests white gay males absolutely love Lutfur – but there might be an element of irony here 😉
Seriously – maybe the other part of this story ought to be to ask how come it has taken so long for some so-called serious investigatory and news reporting organisations to finally catch up?
I read the Guardian ( as well as a range of other newspapers) on a regular basis. However I must confess I find the Dave Hill column sometimes significantly out of kilter with the concerns of local communities. All I’ve seen on The Guardian are “puff” pieces about Rahman – suggesting a serious lack of proper journalism. Time for a change?
In terms of keeping its eye on the ball, I’m also not sure that the BBC has quite got over its own domestic troubles and been getting out and about enough.
Or maybe the purpose of tonight’s Panorama exercise is all about showing Londoners that they don’t need a brand new TV channel devoted to London.
It’ll be interesting to see whether Evgeny Lebedev’s new TV channel focused on London which opens for business TODAY makes of it all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26808641
Personally I’d be happy to see Private Eye on TV!
Private Eye’s light went out when Ingrams left
Sorry ‘You couldn’t make it up’ I should clarify you’re right, apologies my frustration was over whelming…what do I mean by Labour….
I mean the Labour Councillors, I mean the Labour supporting council workers, who are predominately recruited from Labour supporting individuals, AND I do mean the Labour Party itself.
Each one of them had at the beginning an opportunity to act but choose not to ..choose not to….
Tower Hamlets has in the past always been red, and I consider myself to be a working class person from an immigrant family that still live up north even though I’ve been here (LBTH) for almost 30yrs….like many of my family and friends, I hope to giddy aunt that this May LBTH colour will be mauve.
I am 1st generation Brit, born of an immigrant working class family and I have been so incensed by the going-ons here at Tower Hamlets, scenarios that I would expect to see in Naples and around Calabria that has led me to stand up and be counted. My one and only ambition as per all of my other UKIP colleagues is to bring back Democracy, Transparency and Equality, is this too much to ask in 21st C Britain ?
Total utter tosh
1) You’ve just consigned the Liberal Administration which ran the Council between 1986 to 1994 to oblivion. If you’ve been here for almost 30 years I assume you slept through this bit?
2) Council workers are not all red and never have been. They do not all vote Labour and never have done. That’s blatant ignorant prejudice of the worst variety. If as a UKIP member/sympathiser/aspiring politician/(whatever) you demonstrate such complete contempt for council workers you can expect them to really help you when you need it – NOT!
3) If you are one of the UKIP candidates and representative of the political nous that UKIP has to offer then I really do think the other parties can stop worrying.
If I were you I’d go back to sleep rather than showing off your ignorance of politics in Tower Hamlets.
If you have any respect for the voters of Tower Hamlets, now is the time to address your ignorance of political history in Tower Hamlets and how to string a sentence together.
Or have you been drinking?
Oooh touchy
>You couldn’t make it up!
‘utter tosh’!? …that’s a naughty term for a Lib Dem. The Liberals/SDP alliance ran themselves into oblivion, they didn’t need help from anyone else; – an outfit of boy scouts who were never able to light a fire under any major issue and their Lib Dem offspring are still struggling to navigate themselves out of the woods; they were lost in scattered suburban coppices a long time ago. (btw, during the 1986 to 1994 camp-in, approx 50% of the chamber were RED)
You’e not ex LBC are you? Just that you come across with that ethos of abandoning the central trust of an argument for the sake of sniping at minor intellectually titillating irrelevances.
The theme we’re debating here revolves around the need for open Democracy, and Transparency, as AM, at some length, has explained to you. The minutiae of petty political issues is a malaise of the current council chamber, and its their executive gang that will be emboldened by your ‘balanced’ rhetoric
The BBC and the Guardian are politically as one. The Beeb takes it’s lead from the Guardian – not surprisingly as it’s senior current affairs staff are hand picked from that newspaper. So they are not both “years behind”, they are just trying to kill off ( that is CENSOR) this story.
[…] security breach was revealed by investigative journalist Ted Jeory [1]ahead of tonight’s documentary, which will probe Mr Rahman’s use of the public funds […]
Just to be clear then, Rahman is complaining of a breach of DPA for a document that was leaked to him.
Surely the postal vote has already been weighed
Can someone please name this ‘journalist’ who leaked the info to Rahman’s office.
Yes – please do Ted
Wow! I have never receivever so may whatsup messages as I did just after the program. And they weren’t forwarded rubbish. Just angry comments from friends and family.
Best campaign video for the Mayor ever. Even channel S could not have done a better job. Well done BBC.
This will give unimaginable boost to Rahman’s campaign. There is genuine feeling he is being victimised and unfairly treated once again.
One small local man from poor immigrant background against the entire British establishement. David verses Goliath in real life. What a story!
I and most of my family and friends will be out campaigning for the Mayor coming weekend to show two fingers to establishment.
So, I don’t have a TV and didn’t watch the program (although I’m sure it’ll be available online.) What was the response to it? Was it any good?
Tim.
Tim – you’re surely not going to break the law and watch it online without a licence?
I am Eric Pickles’ inspector. I came to inspect Mayor Rahman in TH. I found the following:
– TH is number 1 in the country in building social housing under Lutfur
– Lutfur’s record in education is astonishing from being the most failing borough to an exemplary borough with outstanding results and prospects for students
– Education Maintenance Allowance for all college going kids when this was abolished by the Tory government in the rest of the country
– Free school meal for all primary school kids
– Faith buildings improvement programme conceived in a synagogue which supported mosques, churches, synagogues and temples alike
– Substantial reduction in crime and the fear of crime in TH
The list goes on……
He is overwhelmingly the people’s choice to be re-elected as Mayor in May 2014. John Biggs is no threat to Lutfur. White, disaffected voters will vote for the UKIP candidate.
My brief was to inspect an inept, incompetent, extremist/fundamentalist and shariah implementing despot in TH, but I did not find any such evidence here. The opposite was true. They must be talking about another mayor in a different place. I hope Eric will listen to what I have to say and that I’ll still have my job as his inspector!
:PointsAndLaughs:
So, so amateur!
Tim.
20% of the electorate does not make him a ‘people’s choice’….or a majority… think you may need to go back and study maths again…. ohh and by the way… “an inept, incompetent, extremist/fundamentalist and shariah implementing despot in TH”…. YOUR words…couldn’t have said it better myself …. extremist/fundamentalist shariah implementing despot
You do realise that the social landlords that actually built the houses are completely independent of the Council?
It also appears you aren’t aware that the only influence that the Council has is determining the number of houses for social rent when the developers arrive asking for planning permission. Many would say that the number of houses for rent permitted by the Council are far too few and that the rents are far too high.
So that means:
1) he didn’t build the houses
2) the council doesn’t own the houses
3) he lies – badly
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/just_one_new_affordable_home_built_in_tower_hamlets_in_three_months_1_2673869
BTW I’m sure when the Inspectors do arrive they will also be looking at:
* what services were cut to fund the faith buildings and which parts of the community were affected as a result
* whether the expenditure was lawful or ultra vires. I certainly don’t recall any law which permits it per se.
Such a pity the surcharge was abolished – it used to prove very effective in reigning in councillors with grandiose ideas.
I guess the LBTH experience might prompt Pickles to have another think about who should really pick up the bill for anything which is ultra vires. It’s certainly in the public interest that it should NOT be the tax-paying public.
Election map from 1964 to 2010…bar two elections, LBTH has been Labour for the past 20yrs… an unbroken Labour run council. At a time when LBTH has gone through its most greatest of change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Hamlets_London_Borough_Council
Very few council workers at LBTH are Conservatives or indeed Lib/Dems
The council workers I have met and from direct experience of having worked for a very well known HA, the standard of employees commitment, accountability and dedication to ones work and customer is abysmal. And what’s worse comparing their salaries to the private sector salaries, council workers are paid way more. much more than the private sector.
If I do get elected, Being ‘nice’ should hold no sway in whether one does their job properly. The resident is the customer and focus. I have worked for people I didn’t find endearing, however it never and should never stop one from delivering their best and being accountable for their actions. An under current that pervades across LBTH if it didn’t Luftur would have long been investigated.
And the only political historical lesson that the people of LBTH are interested in, is that which maintain the values that many a people gave up their lives for. Democracy, Transparency and Equality
all the best
:o)
Let’s face it – Annamaria Mignano – you’re given to making sweeping statements without checking your facts. (see http://towerhamlets-ukip.org/candidate-bios/)
You’ll find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Hamlets_local_elections provides a more detailed perspective on elections.
Counting back to 1982, a little over 32 years there have been:
* 5 Labour Administrations
* 2 Liberal Administrations
* 1 Independent Administration i.e. the current one
The last time Labour was totally in control was 1977.
I think you’d find if you asked people that the period of greatest change was the second world war when the area in general was a major target for the bombs which fell on London.
I really don’t think any other period compares and to behave as if the second world war never happened as well as ignoring two Liberal Councils suggests you have your head well and truly buried in the sands of ignorance.
The next period of greatest change was during the period of the LDDC i.e. between July 1981 and March 1998. This affected the southern half of the borough to a huge extent – but was wholly independent of ANY of the Councils in place during that period due to the powers the government awarded to the LDDC.
The biggest change in councillors occurred as a result of the two Liberal Administrations. The ‘old guard’ largely disappeared as a result of this major shock to the Labour system. Since then the Labour Party has appeared at times to be preoccupied with infighting and I’ve lost count of how many Leaders it has had. The fortunes of the Conservative and Liberal democrats have also waxed and waned during this period. Other parties have come and gone e.g. National Front and Respect.
In recent years changes in political parties has been a function of the bed-hopping characteristic of a number of councillors who now align themselves to Rahman and who have been members of various parties during their lifetime as councillors. In fact one would be hard put to know what some of them actually stood for other than their own self-interest given their habit of changing parties every so often.
Latterly it’s believed that there has also been a major change in the percentage of electorate turning out to vote. Difficult to prove as the Council doesn’t provide the figures of votes cast relative to numbers on the electoral roll. However I understand that in 2010 the Mayor was elected on the votes of 13% of the electorate (i.e. the total votes which could be cast).
Your evidence for making a statement about the voting persuasions of council workers makes it sound as if you have had access to their secret ballots. Have you – as this would be illegal?
Or is this yet another of your sweeping statements of ‘fact’ you’re making without any foundation whatsoever. Extrapolating your views based on your impression of how council workers vote based on very limited access to a tiny percentage is not very sensible – to out it mildly!
Salaries of council workers vary from those in the private sector – as does the content of their jobs. Unless you know for certain you are comparing like with like it’s unwise to criticise. Moreover you are obviously not aware that local government pay awards are fixed at a national level. See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-sector-pay-awards-for-2014-15 Also there have been pay freezes for council officers in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and a below inflation pay increase of 1% in 2013. According to Unison NJC pay has fallen some 18% in real terms since 2010. So the point of whinging about the pay of council staff is what exactly?
Your statements generally give a very poor impression of the UKIP selection process.
Learn how to say “In my opinion” closely followed by “based on the very little I know” until such time as you have educated yourself.
Learn how to discriminate between statements which can be adduced from factual evidence in the public domain and those which are wholly uninformed speculation on your part.
Learn how to back up your statements. How often have you met any council workers? How many have you met? What percentage are they of all those working for the Council?
If you’re a political candidate for UKIP learn how to say what your name is and stand up for what you believe in rather than indulging in a flurry of anonymous fantasy and mud-slinging. I’d say the same to any other politician. If there’s one thing the voting public really don’t like it’s those who criticise rather than standing up for what they believe in.
Keep up your indulgence in mud-slinging and making statements without fact or substance and you will find that those who comment on this blog will treat such statements with the same contempt that they reserve for all other politicians – of any political persuasion – who do the same thing.
It’s not a great start to your electioneering is it?
Why not take a break and go and find out what impresses voters as opposed to annoying them?
Is the thirty nine thumbs up to my post above about Dave Hill a record? It seems that I am not the only one who thinks he is an obsequious little charlatan who has only got his Guardian blog because of his wife’s executive position in that organisation.
Interesting to hear the researchers side of the story. She claims the Panorama programme makers were, unethical, manipulative and racist.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/31/lutfur-rahman-panorama-bbc-accuses-racism
And she’s wrong and naive. She’s being manipulated and I fear she’s trying to justify something she knows deep down was wrong. She’d do v well to step back and reflect for a while and not allow herself to be used as a pawn by Lutfur’s gang.
I wonder what made her do it…..was it family pressure? or some naive ethical upmanship…in Italy one would look at how the family (if at all) has gained from this… as she is surely now persona non grata with her next role. Silly girl she’s too naive to understand the magnitude of the spiders web she has just walked into…The world of journalism is a small one, she’s just made hers even smaller….silly silly girl
I suspect she was a member of the IFE and was shown how and where to apply by a mole within the BBC working for “the plot”
The Mayor’s office gave her permission to go public. She’s being set-up.
Yeap, but she is also being used as a distraction….I work in PR and this is a tactical move to distract from main man’s issues…create another story where the race card can be appended upon, and thus be seen as victims + dilute the light on the main issues, which then get forgotten, in amongst all of hoha.
His corruption in my eyes still stands
If I get voted I will seek to have the Mayors role eliminated it being simply a ceremonial one. As a borough of London we already have a Mayor, the Mayor of London. What LBTH needs is a CEO and competent, accountable teams.
Standard tactic when in a weak position, accuse someone.
You couldn’t make it up! – You are so right! The council built nothing, instead they allowed certain social landlords to temporarily transfer OUR land to allow development companies,(usually Telfords) to build highly profitable flats. The disgusting thing is that our council allowed all this without insisting on the maximum amount of social properties. I would love to know how much profit companies like Telfords have made from OUR land. Another huge shame is that when the developers have built social flats into these new developments they have been very low quality and certainly will not stand the test of time. I am a great believer in the community but how can these huge new blocks containing a pittance of social tenants ever be community minded when 95% of the block are transient residents. Someone in the council has probably been receiving a lot of fat brown envelopes!
Ted – Should the council have issued their response to the Panorama program on their website? Surely any statement should reflect the councils view and not one group. Will those councillors who agree with the program be allowed a view?
The Council has responded:
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news__events/setting_the_record_straight.aspx
See ‘Latest News’ where the Council attempts to put the record straight.
Hah….just read the text.
If they are so good at equality and transparency then they can begin by closing down East End Life which is merely a propaganda rag-mag.
I have tried on a number of occasions to have one or two article placed there criticising the council on various issues, be it park facilities, old peoples facilities and traffic facilities inc planning/development, below standard quality of material and design etc….the editor told me herself that she would not think that would be included..I asked her why, she was the editor after all, she told me she din’t think the councillors who vet the paper would agree….
So you’re transparent are you…get rid of East End Life, buy some pages from the local independent press re housing etc and allow a local press to voice all of the locals opinions, grievances and thoughts…
Well even Livingstone here ….
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ken-livingstone-throws-backing-behind-tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-9228636.html
…. says that the Labour council at LBTh are a load of tosh. LBTH for 50yrs has been run by Labour 8 of those Lib/Dems where as Grenville says 50% was Labour anyway…. So 50yrs of Labour at LBTH and WTF has it given the people of Tower Hamlets….? They created…….let me quote ….”an inept, incompetent, extremist/fundamentalist and shariah implementing despot”
Livingstone, Gallaway & Rahman…well theres a holy trinity of extremism.
who are you quoting there?
What was your view of the programme?
Pickles Inspector above
The programme? I didn’t understand why Lutfur’s policies were read out in a voice over to a video of Muslims bending down and praying in a mosque.
Mayhaps because of his faith buildings initiative giving an unfair proportion of our money to MOSQUES. But then you were watching the programme with your fingers in your ears, blindfolded in your special “I’m in complete denial” room weren’t you.
If you are all we all think you are you are not making it easier for anyone to vote for your party however much we despise Lutfur.
Labour bat for Lutfur – What madness is this!
Labour’s Grandee, Jack Straw applauds Rahman after watching the Panorama doc. Well done Labour. One party, one Voice huh. Hear Ye, Hear Ye Labour create the Monster and now feed it with naive statements from their out of touch heirachy http://bit.ly/1ombKeU
OMG.. You are kidding ….
If this doesn’t jolt Labour asupporters NOT to vote Labou….then….all I can say is that they have seriously being brain washed…Jack Straw…woohhh siding with a person that wants Sharia Law…ohhh my lordy….Milliband is going to lurve this….NOT
It’s an April Fool.
You reckon, serious Ted? hmmm
I’m not sure whose being fooled here…I get the feeling that the joke is on us, the ordinary member of the public….
Its still there Ted. ergo don’t feel its an April Fool gag, though I do feel that some liberty has been taken on content. Jack Straw’s quote does feel as if it has been taken out of context somewhat….but then..if it has I am sure Jack’s teams will re-address……and waiting……
Well perhaps you can tell us who the think tank ‘Trinitas’ is.
have no idea sorry
Neither do I
Dave Hill has written a follow up to yesterdays Panorama programme that is far more balanced and nuanced than some of the comments that are doing the airwaves. Too many people on both sides with axes to grind.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/apr/01/lutfur-rahman-mayor-tower-hamlets-bbc-panorama
Yesterday’s Panorama programme certainly doesn’t need the Guardian’s flawed ‘subtle and balanced’ critique to further blur the picture. Far from it, the programme itself manifestly failed to deliver on the promise of a clear, authoritative and revealing insight into the seamier side of the Rahman regime. In fact, we’re left wondering whether Rahman himself scripted, directed and edited the production. Hill, for his part, with his schoolboy naivety, just provides further sustenance to a regime gaining strength from ineffective examination.
If much of Ware’s work was left on the cutting room floor, he ought to have had the integrity to distance himself from the released version. I’m rather surprised that Rahman saw the need to produce a counter video after successfully fencing with Ware’s amateurish interviewing skills. Maybe the Beeb cut more than even Rahman had expected.
As for the threat of any investigation from the Jellyman’s department: unlikely in the extreme. Pickles barely seemed alive. I doubt whether he’s able to wipe away a drool of spittle let alone mount a rigorous investigation. This is the face (and not unsubstantial body) of the Conservative action man overseeing Communities and Local Government. It worries me that he probably babbles words like ‘act’, ‘decision’, and ‘now’ in convulsive nightmares wondering why he can’t mouth them when he’s wheeled into his office. Maybe he never learnt how – again ideal fodder for a back-room job in Europe. The here today, gone tomorrow Conservative and LibDem coalition could do worse than freight him out to the distant bureaucratic catacombs of Brussels or Strasbourg to join others of their kind who do bugger all but procrastinate, waste tax payers money, and impede progress. No, I doubt we’ll see any beam of hope coming from this SoS.
Hello from Pickles’ Inspector.
I will start by responding to AM’s comment “20% of the electorate does not make him a ‘people’s choice’….or a majority… think you may need to go back and study maths again”
At the last general election, David Cameron got 23.5% of the total electorate’s vote, but he is our Prime Minister. Welcome to democracy. (Here is how you do the maths: Tories got 10,726,614 votes out of a total 46.5 million eligible voters – my sources are BBC and the Electoral Commission in case you are wondering). In fact, Cameron only got 36.1% of the votes cast whereas Lutfur got more than 51% of the votes cast. You tell me who has more popular backing of their voters? Although you might say that the analogy (TH mayor v PM) is not right, it certainly helps to illustrate how we elect our representatives in a democracy.
Now that 24 hours have passed since the Panorama programme, here are some more thoughts:
(1) The BBC apologised for their schoolboy error in how its sources were leaked to Lutfur
(2) Panorama has helped to galvanise Lutfur’s supporters – they are now much more active on social media, internet and other platforms to defend their mayor
(3) At the 2010 mayoral election, Lutfur was seen as the victim of a Helal Abbas ‘dodgy dossier’ and in 2014, Lutfur is being seen as the victim of John Ware’s Panorama smears
(4) Tens of thousands have watched Lutfur’s counter-documentary which is very well made and responds to his critics rather well
(5) Panorama actually portrayed Lutfur in a very positive light i.e. he was seen in a Jewish synagogue with a ‘skull’ cap, couple of white women said how much they love the mayor, a white guy talked about how Lutfur installed bollards outside his mother’s house so that she had access to enter her house and so on
(6) Panorama also showed a Bengali guy (ex Cllr Helal Rahman) who could not speak English properly criticising Lutfur – he was the only person from the Bengali community and has no credibility (not least because of his poor English)
(7) Panorama could not find an English speaking person from the Bengali community to criticise Lutfur
(8) John Ware was very aggressive in his interrogation of Lutfur – he did not even let Lutfur finish his sentences. Lutfur had to repeatedly say, “Mr Ware, Mr Ware, Mr Ware…” to allow him to speak. Mr Ware enjoyed the sound of his own voice (maybe that is why he made the programme in the first place!)
Ohhh Lordy lordy a raw nerve has really been pricked, which I am most pleased with….
1) Error relates to data protection infringements NOT the financial and prejudice facts that Luftur …your words…”is a despot”
2) Yes it has galvanised a lot of people, who didn’t vote last time BUT this time they will. Fair, decent working people from all races, creed and gender that want such a …your words…. extremist/fundamentalist … out from public office so that a democratic process can begin to heal the divisive community that Luftur has created
3) 2010 people were apathetic, in 2014 much has changed. But then playing the victim card is the only crutch Luftur has left. People remember the Terrorist link exposure, the vote rigging exposure and now this. The British public are very forgiving but I think even you guys have pushed them to the hilt
4) Tens of 000s have viewed it,,,!!! ohh purlease !!!…. show me the TV data stats …ohh you can’t…we can all make up numbers and the expose did eloquently show that you are accustomed to offer bare faced lies even when the facts are there in-front of you, but then misinformation is what you excel at
5) Panorama was kind to Luftur I agree, too kind…so why are you getting all flustered for? huffing and a puffing….and why are you so bisotted with people’s colour and creed, it makes you sound racists…..are you racists?
6) Karma my dear…I hope that the family and friends of that Bengali chap have not read your text….Karma, what goes round comes around…and again you pigeon hole people into sects, this nationality, this colour…. be careful you come across as very racist in your view
7) ohhh gawd….I know what they call that in Calabria….’cosa nostra’ silence. People have every right to protect themselves, and I would not blame them. But speak to anyone in the community on a 1-2-1 basis ohh boy the stories of improper processes etc etc…. What Panorama did last night was not new on the streets of LBTH….its been common knowledge for years
8) John Ware was not aggressive, he was actually very calm. If Luftur thinks that’s aggressive god only knows what he’ll think if and when a public enquiry takes place… John Ware interrupted at times when Luftur was giving bare faced lies to facts that were placed before him :o) but its funny how Luftur wont speak at committees…some people thought he may be mute,,,but he can speak..maybe he would like to answer many of the valid questions which he has ignored…ohhh well…his days are numbered…and Labour’s too I hope
Pickles’ Inspector
If I were John Biggs, I would be very worried following Panorama. Lutfur is now more popular than before. Nothing like a national TV programme (a la Despatches four year ago) to put the spotlight on Lutfur and get all the sympathy votes out. As they say, any publicity is good publicity. Lutfur is now the talk of the town. Everyone is talking about him and I analysed a lot of the media coverage today. Most of it is quite positive regarding Lutfur and very critical of the Beeb’s incompetence over its leaked sources. MPs’ have also laid into the BBC’s incompetence.
Cllr Josh Peck was featured on Panorama criticising Lutfur. You were left wondering if the BBC was being used as a mouthpiece for the TH Labour Party. I mean, it is Cllr Peck’s job to criticise Lutfur. He is not exactly going to give a glowing endorsement of Lutfur. Nothing new or ‘newsworthy’ there.
From what I remember, Peck has no noteworthy legacy of when he was leader of the Labour group in the Council. At best, he can be considered as a failure. He has no record of standing up to Lutfur’s administration. A number of councillors defected to Lutfur’s team under Peck’s leadership. Peck can be credited with bolstering Lutfur’s team from a handful of councillors to a dozen councillors (in other words, he failed to prevent it).
For all the hype the BBC research was weak and this programme pulled punches. If the BBC had engaged with other community members much more they would have unearthed so many examples of blatant mayoral manipulation.
Faces on posters – contravening the electoral commission guidelines
Non Bengali boys football clubs funding being cut
Strange meetings in parks with stranger exchanges … And on it goes…
Only UKIP and Nick Mcqueen will open the belly of this beast…our community wants – no – needs integration not segregation.
Luftur wants to look after his own – at the expense of the majority. That is so poor
It takes one scumbag to know another one. http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/home. Livingstone defends Lutfur Rahman. And this guy is on Labour’s NEC. Milliband has got to sack him and expel him from the party. Either that or Milliband has to go because such a weak leader is never going to win an election.
I have said here before that ignoring what is going on in Tower Hamlets isn’t going to work for Labour nationally. They have got to show leadership or pay the price for the consequences.
Totally agree. many many ordinary people, traditional Labour voters in LBTH feel that they have been totally betrayed by Labour and are telling us that they will vote UKIP. Immigration is a problem, it is not a race issue but one of capacity and they want an open debate.
I know of manual labourers who have been pushed to work for ‘cash in hand’ and accept below minimum wage by unscrupulous business owners and if the worker doesn’t want to accept they were/are told that there’s a queue of immigrants ready to take their shoes…Yes you can expose them and report them to various authoritative bodies, but that man or woman just simply wants to work and earn a living. The worker is then on a less than minimum wage, earning cash in hand, which means his/her NI is being affected, ie no contribution so that will be a future gap in their pension…(as if that will be worth anything in the future) as the owner does not pay NI, they are in affect defrauding the state and tax man. It places the worker in a NOT too good a position either for when they want to rent a house even with the council as they need to show steady income…. The community sees this unscrupulous business owner getting richer via illegal means and when someone does blow the whistle the authorities are limp and devoid of any teeth. The people who have traditionally said we will support you the worker, turn the other cheek
I know of many, many people who are ex Labour voters who have unfortunately moved out of the area because of the abysmal standard of schooling in the area. Grammar schools were the key that allowed a working class boy or girl who was bright to aim high. The every day person understands that not everyone is equal in ability, some are more academic than others, some more mechanically minded than others, but that doesn’t worry them, neither does competition as long as its fair competition.
Eroding or… being condescending towards popular local traditions and values, under some ‘health and safety’ regs, or that it may offend someone whilst celebrating and supporting other niche traditions, is simply regarded as dishonest double standards and its not understood, and i can’t say I understand it either. The goobeldygook from silver spoon socialists, is alien to the ordinary, honest hard working person. Plain, straight forward talk is what is most appreciated, which is in itself transparent.
Anyway, the ex Labour voters I have spoken to feel that Labour has become filled with socialist elite, who pretend and wants to be like the ‘common people’ and that condescending attitude they will not stand for.
UKIP is taking from both sides, from the more conservative minded Labour voter and the more socialist minded Conservative voter.
Ted – If you are paid by the word, you can’t be earning much! (JOKE!!!)
Its worth noting just one more time, as his name came up…that slimeball Takki Sulaiman is a failed labour candidate. He’s paid 120k a year to write press releases about how wonderful the dear leader Lutfur (crook) Rahman is. Also as an aside, he was also heavily involved in the appointment of Sharon Shoesmith…that went well too didn’t it…..
I want to know how much taxpayers money this bastard Rahman has wasted employing lawyers to suppress information that he doesn’t want coming out. Like this programme for example.
Suppressing free speech. Pictures of himself everywhere. He’d make the leaders of North Korea blush.
I now have fifty thumbs ups on my post above about Dave Hill being creep. Is this a record and will it appear in Guardian Diary?
It probably is a record on this blog but the chances of it making the Grauniad Diary are fairly remote as Hugh Muir who runs the column is a firm supporter of the complete innocence of Jasper and co in relation to the missing millions.
He is at one with the critics of the Panorama programme that all of this is simply racism. In Jasper’s case to get rid of Livingstone and in this case Islamophobia. The fact that most of Lutfur’s critics are Bangladeshi is a bit of a problem but I have no doubt that Mr Muir will find a way around that.
Can someone explain how the Panorama programme was racist as Lutfur claims, and why it is not racist to favour organisations that serve only non-whites?
Name this journalist
Name this treacherous journalist
[…] wrote about her here. She lasted four days before the team waved her goodbye. She took a very important dossier […]