2305 [2250] Hrs GMT
London
Saturday
26 February 2011.
By © Muhammad Haque.
The importance to the East End community of a women’s education and training project like HEBA is that it has been a unique initiative.
Then there is the fact that despite seeking £Millions from central Government by using the FACT of the East End Borough of Tower Hamlets as a ‘most deprived’ borough, the locally installed occupiers of 'positions' IN THE NAME OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY and PAID FOR by the public [on the claim that these position-holders and position-seekers were gravitating around those positions in order to serve and to support the community] have failed to support this valuable service.
So how in that case has HEBA been running all these years with the uncertainty of funding? ‘Kay Jordan’ is the answer to that question.
For almost 20 years, Kay Jordan has been mothering the project in one way or another and has done everything possible to keep HEBA funded.
I shall be reporting on the Kay Jordan battle for HEBA Women's’ project’s funding. Starting on Sunday 27 February 2011
[To be continued].
2606th Edition.
1105 Hrs GMT London Sunday 05 October 2014
AADHIKAR Media Foundation.Editor©Muhammad Haque London E1 UK. AADHIKARMEDIA Foundation supporting KHOODEELAAR! Defending the community in the East End of London, including KHEYDAIEELAAR! ‘Keep Banglatown’ IN. In association with 62+non-profit initiatives active 53rd year: The KAY JORDAN FOUNDATION, All Volunteers News, Brick Lane Community
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Muhammad Haque London Commentary updates the diagnosis on how Ken Livingstone had done a disservice o democratic accountability in Tower Hamlets
1425 [1415 ] Hrs GMT
London
Saturday
26 February 2011
Muhammad Haque London Commentary continuing the diagnostic update on Ken Livingstone's career plan in London. The following has appeared on the web site of the London DAILY TELEGRAPH in the last hour.
the commentary contains a diagnostic of the morass that is tower hamlets council.. which has become even less democratic with the alleged adoption of an elected mayor thing than it had been before! The elected mayor thing was one of Ken Livingstone's zealously plugged 'models' for Tower Hamlets!
QUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog]
:
Noting your cryptic aside about Ken Livingstone's 'disclaimer' [quoting:now why would he say that?], perhaps you will allow me to share this little historic update I am making today on Ken Livingstone's constantly changing stance on such matters as 'benefits' and 'rewards' and so on.
I have examined the known evidence on Ken Livingstone's career in various London "elected” offices, all maintained and paid for by the people of London and I have yet to come across any independently verifiable entry of one single individual who is not linked with the 'personality' either via a job or a grant or some trade union or a 'patch' in electoral terms [such as, in recent years, the 'Muslims'] who has been a supporter of Ken Livingstone's career plan for the sheer principle of it! I am ethically opposed to the career plans of the likes of Boris Johnson.
So what would my preference or choice be? I cannot see Ken Livingstone fitting the objectively verifiable criteria of universal appeal to the democratic demands.
Yet he keeps being foisted before me as if he were 'my' 'preferred' 'choice'. To break this really morality and ethics and democracy-free mould, we in London need some truly democratic campaigns. All parts of the population must be able to debate, diagnose and discard the violations that the central Government and the London mayor are imposing on us in every borough in every single area of our existence in the over-hyped city.
When Livingstone boasted on BBC Mayor Special editon Question Time [April 2008] that he had LIED to get the 2012 Hosting for London and said that he had done the lying to help 'regenerate' East London, he was let off without being quizzed on the definition of each of the three components of his broadcast bragging: lying, regeneration and East End. Had he been quizzed, there would be no difficulty in showing up that outrage as the three components would not connect.
For a start, the East End had never asked for the imposition.
Regeneration has not been defined to make ordinary people better off in the East End. The 2012 Hosting does not have any logical or empirical connection with a licence that Livingstone should have been allowed to connect and then perpetrate the lying.
In the context of the CONDEM regime's continuation of the 'elected' executive model - for the Police - it is necessary to examine the democratic state of the areas that have been lumbered with elected executive mayor, a 'cause' that Ken Livingstone backed with such blatant ferocity that he was adamant to risk internal and publicly expressed opprobrium from the Blaired party bureaucracy doing it in Tower Hamlets. So undemocratic and dysfunctional has Tower Hamlets Council become since Ken Livingstone's' s fantasy 'executive mayor' mode was allegedly adopted that the Council's budget cannot be passed at a single sitting! It was LIVINGSTONE who had bragged on 6 February 2010 at a hyped up platform he shared with Keith Vaz [from the ‘East End’ borough of Leicester!] that Tower Hamlets Council would function as an efficient and accountable and uncorrupted body if only an elected mayor was allowed to get into post in the name of the people of the inner city deprived area’s local Council!
It is time that Ken Livingstone apologised for his touting of the elected mayor thing and did some really serious work on the ground ‘restoring’ his relevance to the democracy movement in London, including Tower Hamlets.
1350 Hrs Saturday 26 February 2011
UNQUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog]
[To be continued]
London
Saturday
26 February 2011
Muhammad Haque London Commentary continuing the diagnostic update on Ken Livingstone's career plan in London. The following has appeared on the web site of the London DAILY TELEGRAPH in the last hour.
the commentary contains a diagnostic of the morass that is tower hamlets council.. which has become even less democratic with the alleged adoption of an elected mayor thing than it had been before! The elected mayor thing was one of Ken Livingstone's zealously plugged 'models' for Tower Hamlets!
QUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog]
:
Noting your cryptic aside about Ken Livingstone's 'disclaimer' [quoting:now why would he say that?], perhaps you will allow me to share this little historic update I am making today on Ken Livingstone's constantly changing stance on such matters as 'benefits' and 'rewards' and so on.
I have examined the known evidence on Ken Livingstone's career in various London "elected” offices, all maintained and paid for by the people of London and I have yet to come across any independently verifiable entry of one single individual who is not linked with the 'personality' either via a job or a grant or some trade union or a 'patch' in electoral terms [such as, in recent years, the 'Muslims'] who has been a supporter of Ken Livingstone's career plan for the sheer principle of it! I am ethically opposed to the career plans of the likes of Boris Johnson.
So what would my preference or choice be? I cannot see Ken Livingstone fitting the objectively verifiable criteria of universal appeal to the democratic demands.
Yet he keeps being foisted before me as if he were 'my' 'preferred' 'choice'. To break this really morality and ethics and democracy-free mould, we in London need some truly democratic campaigns. All parts of the population must be able to debate, diagnose and discard the violations that the central Government and the London mayor are imposing on us in every borough in every single area of our existence in the over-hyped city.
When Livingstone boasted on BBC Mayor Special editon Question Time [April 2008] that he had LIED to get the 2012 Hosting for London and said that he had done the lying to help 'regenerate' East London, he was let off without being quizzed on the definition of each of the three components of his broadcast bragging: lying, regeneration and East End. Had he been quizzed, there would be no difficulty in showing up that outrage as the three components would not connect.
For a start, the East End had never asked for the imposition.
Regeneration has not been defined to make ordinary people better off in the East End. The 2012 Hosting does not have any logical or empirical connection with a licence that Livingstone should have been allowed to connect and then perpetrate the lying.
In the context of the CONDEM regime's continuation of the 'elected' executive model - for the Police - it is necessary to examine the democratic state of the areas that have been lumbered with elected executive mayor, a 'cause' that Ken Livingstone backed with such blatant ferocity that he was adamant to risk internal and publicly expressed opprobrium from the Blaired party bureaucracy doing it in Tower Hamlets. So undemocratic and dysfunctional has Tower Hamlets Council become since Ken Livingstone's' s fantasy 'executive mayor' mode was allegedly adopted that the Council's budget cannot be passed at a single sitting! It was LIVINGSTONE who had bragged on 6 February 2010 at a hyped up platform he shared with Keith Vaz [from the ‘East End’ borough of Leicester!] that Tower Hamlets Council would function as an efficient and accountable and uncorrupted body if only an elected mayor was allowed to get into post in the name of the people of the inner city deprived area’s local Council!
It is time that Ken Livingstone apologised for his touting of the elected mayor thing and did some really serious work on the ground ‘restoring’ his relevance to the democracy movement in London, including Tower Hamlets.
1350 Hrs Saturday 26 February 2011
UNQUOTING Muhammad Haque London Commentary on the London DAILY TELEGRAPH [Ed West’s blog]
[To be continued]
Muhammad Haque diagnoses Ken Livingstone's commitment to fight a pro-democratic campaign over the needs of London as scheduled in May 2012
The Muhammad Haque London Commentary has been posted on the web site of the Wandsworth Guardian title at 1030 Hrs GMT Today Saturday 26 february 2011.
In the commentary, which has ben prompted by the 'exclusive' interview that title has been carrying with Ken Livingstone. also published online by that local newspaper web site.
Muhammad Haque has long commented exclusively as the evidence shows, on the role Ken Livingstone has played in the “London political office” circuit. According to Muhammad Haque’s studies of Ken Livingstone, the former ‘London mayor’ and ex-leader of the over-hyped Greater London Council [=GLC] has been a deterrent to local democratic movements in London.
Those whom Ken Livingstone has ‘befriended’ over the decades, have been almost exclusively people who have either sought or been given one type of preferment or another via the outfits where Livingstone has held a decision-making power-linked post at one time or another. Other than those, Ken Livingstone has not got any citable number of political allies who are his allies because of the principle full stop.
Throughout Livingstone’s career in elected offices,. he has been criticised over the generation of cronies around his given tenure in a given office.
This is something that Muhammad Haque sought to focus attention on DECADES before any of the ‘mainstream’ media were prepared to even recognise its existence.
In the three years or so since creeping allegations began to mar Ken Livingstone's ‘re-election’ ‘campaign’ of May 2008, Muhammad Haque has observed on the record that Livingstone has got to deal with this aspect of his ‘political career flaw’. But Livingstone has left it aside. In fact his fabricated acolytes have sought to carry on the denial thus damaging any image of a politician with integrity that Ken Livingstone must configure himself to be.
There is now undeniable evidence that those who have sought to promote the image of the invented ‘London-scene’ ‘politician’ Oona King are not sitting idly even after they had fast-tracked the ‘former’ ‘East End ‘ “MP” into the ‘House of Peers’ - thus giving her a look of ‘parliamentary platform’ ‘legitimacy’ that evidentially baffles the people in Tower Hamlets who had been left with no option but to reject her in Bethnal Green and Bow in May 2005.
The evidence of this activity to ‘derail’ [see more later in this commentary on the interesting word, ‘derail’] Ken Livingstone are spotted all over the “mainstream” “media” where strange claims - all unfounded on facts - are planted regularly under all kinds of excuses to create a ‘persona’ called ‘Oona King’ as a recognisable political entity’.
In contrast, Ken Livingstone is berated at the readiest of excuses. Nothing is more fantastic than the ‘allegation’ that Ken Livingstone has taken the dirty [in the sense of being dubious, less than legitimate] money form the Iranian regime!
It is entirely factually correct that Ken Livingstone has been one of the ‘personalities’ from the UK who has been making regular [or at least ‘periodic] appearances in the PRESSTV slots. But the venom that has been aimed at Ken Livingstone by accusing him of links with the Iranian regime because of the PRESSTV appearances is not accidental. Why? Because even one or more than one of Ken Livingstone’s ‘accusers’ have themselves been recipients of the Iranian regime’s cash via PRESSTV!
So why do they hurl their venom at Ken Livingstone?
This question has been raised a few times already but these accusers do not answer. Because they know that they are being deliberately and unjustifiably venomous and are picking on Ken Livingstone because of his political stance on international issues REGARDLESS of his appearances on PRESSTV.
Had his accusers been objective and fair then they would have investigated Yvonne Ridley, Lauren Booth, Andrew Gilligan AND a hundred or so OTHERS from the UK who have made various appearances on slots broadcast by the PRESSTV network.
Some of the ‘guests’ on PRESSTV have included the likes of ‘Charlie Wolf’, an American-accented and demeanoured die-hard critic of everything ‘Revolutionary’ Iranian. Charlie Wolf in effect constitutes almost one half of the duo of GWBush Brigade that has operated on the British media stands for as long as recent and contemporary memory stretches.
Yet the ‘mainstream’ media ‘commentators’ do not raise one hair of discomfort at the role of Janet Daly or Charlie Wolf. Or indeed that of Anne Leslie, the most effective Right wing, reactionary, pro-empire, pro-discrimination propagandist that has been allowed to dominate the BBC and allied ‘mainstream British media’ platforms and slots for the past at least 20 years.
Against this evidence, Ken Livingstone would do well to review his tactics as well as reviewing his ‘principles’ as far as those affect his use of the intention of his use of any public powers when in office or near it. If Livingstone either refuses to heed this or fails to then he alone will be the main party to blame for the failure to restore a pro-democratic political atmosphere in London as far as that is possible by linking the electoral behaviour of the registered eligible voters in May 2012.
There is a lot more that Ken Livingstone must do to prove his relevance to the ordinary people of the East End of London. He has got no option but to stop deterring democratic and being party to the pro-democracy movement in the East End of London.
[To be continued]
Interested to observe that in your account as published of the exclusive interview with Ken Livingstone, there is no mention of the words “audit”, “accountability”, “transparency”, “democracy", "discrimination”,“prejudice, “ethics”, “morality” or indeed of “poverty”.
Could it be because neither Ken Livingstone nor you [that is your publication] referred to the concepts denoted by these words?
Or was it, just by chance, the fact that either of you did mention to one of more of these words [quoted above] and it was decided, afterwards prepublication not to recognise their importance to the potential voters of the suitability of the candidate who is one of only two [so far] declared candidates that can electorally return to that post after the scheduled election in just over a year’s time? In the context of the events that have been reported by the ‘mainstream’ ‘British media’ from the Arabic-speaking countries [in the past five weeks or so], of which Libya has been being treated with the most intensive Western Media attention, what would the man who has occupied one or more than one “elected” office in the name of the people of London [a Borough or of the “Greater London” area itself have to say by way of sharing his views on the rights of ordinary people in the context of long-in-post ‘rulers’?
I am asking this in view of the fact that in the period since Oona King’s promoters encountered a slight ‘delay’ [my diagnosis] in installing her in the post of official candidate of the Bliared Party, Ken Livingstone has been given the sort of media configuration that inevitably leads to the temptation to conclude that he is not quite democratic! This looks set to get even more intense as polling day gets nearer.
And Livingstone LOOKS [as he did last Sunday when he shared the BBC TV slot with Andrew Marr] resigned to play it ‘safe’ so that he does not upset the promoters of Oona King or the agenda that they are running. It is also quite possible, going by the contens of your report, that Ken Livingstone is playing it too safe and is thus failing to raise even those issues that he could raise without having to fear internal Blair Party ‘reprisals’ from Oona King’s entrenched promoters! If this is indeed the ‘reasoning’ then London is going to get even less democratic than it has been under the CONDEM regime. And that London will get even less accountable, less transparent and less ethical under a newly-rubber-stamped [May 2012, as currently scheduled] occupant in the “Onion’.
1030 Hrs London Saturday 26 February 2011
In the commentary, which has ben prompted by the 'exclusive' interview that title has been carrying with Ken Livingstone. also published online by that local newspaper web site.
Muhammad Haque has long commented exclusively as the evidence shows, on the role Ken Livingstone has played in the “London political office” circuit. According to Muhammad Haque’s studies of Ken Livingstone, the former ‘London mayor’ and ex-leader of the over-hyped Greater London Council [=GLC] has been a deterrent to local democratic movements in London.
Those whom Ken Livingstone has ‘befriended’ over the decades, have been almost exclusively people who have either sought or been given one type of preferment or another via the outfits where Livingstone has held a decision-making power-linked post at one time or another. Other than those, Ken Livingstone has not got any citable number of political allies who are his allies because of the principle full stop.
Throughout Livingstone’s career in elected offices,. he has been criticised over the generation of cronies around his given tenure in a given office.
This is something that Muhammad Haque sought to focus attention on DECADES before any of the ‘mainstream’ media were prepared to even recognise its existence.
In the three years or so since creeping allegations began to mar Ken Livingstone's ‘re-election’ ‘campaign’ of May 2008, Muhammad Haque has observed on the record that Livingstone has got to deal with this aspect of his ‘political career flaw’. But Livingstone has left it aside. In fact his fabricated acolytes have sought to carry on the denial thus damaging any image of a politician with integrity that Ken Livingstone must configure himself to be.
There is now undeniable evidence that those who have sought to promote the image of the invented ‘London-scene’ ‘politician’ Oona King are not sitting idly even after they had fast-tracked the ‘former’ ‘East End ‘ “MP” into the ‘House of Peers’ - thus giving her a look of ‘parliamentary platform’ ‘legitimacy’ that evidentially baffles the people in Tower Hamlets who had been left with no option but to reject her in Bethnal Green and Bow in May 2005.
The evidence of this activity to ‘derail’ [see more later in this commentary on the interesting word, ‘derail’] Ken Livingstone are spotted all over the “mainstream” “media” where strange claims - all unfounded on facts - are planted regularly under all kinds of excuses to create a ‘persona’ called ‘Oona King’ as a recognisable political entity’.
In contrast, Ken Livingstone is berated at the readiest of excuses. Nothing is more fantastic than the ‘allegation’ that Ken Livingstone has taken the dirty [in the sense of being dubious, less than legitimate] money form the Iranian regime!
It is entirely factually correct that Ken Livingstone has been one of the ‘personalities’ from the UK who has been making regular [or at least ‘periodic] appearances in the PRESSTV slots. But the venom that has been aimed at Ken Livingstone by accusing him of links with the Iranian regime because of the PRESSTV appearances is not accidental. Why? Because even one or more than one of Ken Livingstone’s ‘accusers’ have themselves been recipients of the Iranian regime’s cash via PRESSTV!
So why do they hurl their venom at Ken Livingstone?
This question has been raised a few times already but these accusers do not answer. Because they know that they are being deliberately and unjustifiably venomous and are picking on Ken Livingstone because of his political stance on international issues REGARDLESS of his appearances on PRESSTV.
Had his accusers been objective and fair then they would have investigated Yvonne Ridley, Lauren Booth, Andrew Gilligan AND a hundred or so OTHERS from the UK who have made various appearances on slots broadcast by the PRESSTV network.
Some of the ‘guests’ on PRESSTV have included the likes of ‘Charlie Wolf’, an American-accented and demeanoured die-hard critic of everything ‘Revolutionary’ Iranian. Charlie Wolf in effect constitutes almost one half of the duo of GWBush Brigade that has operated on the British media stands for as long as recent and contemporary memory stretches.
Yet the ‘mainstream’ media ‘commentators’ do not raise one hair of discomfort at the role of Janet Daly or Charlie Wolf. Or indeed that of Anne Leslie, the most effective Right wing, reactionary, pro-empire, pro-discrimination propagandist that has been allowed to dominate the BBC and allied ‘mainstream British media’ platforms and slots for the past at least 20 years.
Against this evidence, Ken Livingstone would do well to review his tactics as well as reviewing his ‘principles’ as far as those affect his use of the intention of his use of any public powers when in office or near it. If Livingstone either refuses to heed this or fails to then he alone will be the main party to blame for the failure to restore a pro-democratic political atmosphere in London as far as that is possible by linking the electoral behaviour of the registered eligible voters in May 2012.
There is a lot more that Ken Livingstone must do to prove his relevance to the ordinary people of the East End of London. He has got no option but to stop deterring democratic and being party to the pro-democracy movement in the East End of London.
[To be continued]
Interested to observe that in your account as published of the exclusive interview with Ken Livingstone, there is no mention of the words “audit”, “accountability”, “transparency”, “democracy", "discrimination”,“prejudice, “ethics”, “morality” or indeed of “poverty”.
Could it be because neither Ken Livingstone nor you [that is your publication] referred to the concepts denoted by these words?
Or was it, just by chance, the fact that either of you did mention to one of more of these words [quoted above] and it was decided, afterwards prepublication not to recognise their importance to the potential voters of the suitability of the candidate who is one of only two [so far] declared candidates that can electorally return to that post after the scheduled election in just over a year’s time? In the context of the events that have been reported by the ‘mainstream’ ‘British media’ from the Arabic-speaking countries [in the past five weeks or so], of which Libya has been being treated with the most intensive Western Media attention, what would the man who has occupied one or more than one “elected” office in the name of the people of London [a Borough or of the “Greater London” area itself have to say by way of sharing his views on the rights of ordinary people in the context of long-in-post ‘rulers’?
I am asking this in view of the fact that in the period since Oona King’s promoters encountered a slight ‘delay’ [my diagnosis] in installing her in the post of official candidate of the Bliared Party, Ken Livingstone has been given the sort of media configuration that inevitably leads to the temptation to conclude that he is not quite democratic! This looks set to get even more intense as polling day gets nearer.
And Livingstone LOOKS [as he did last Sunday when he shared the BBC TV slot with Andrew Marr] resigned to play it ‘safe’ so that he does not upset the promoters of Oona King or the agenda that they are running. It is also quite possible, going by the contens of your report, that Ken Livingstone is playing it too safe and is thus failing to raise even those issues that he could raise without having to fear internal Blair Party ‘reprisals’ from Oona King’s entrenched promoters! If this is indeed the ‘reasoning’ then London is going to get even less democratic than it has been under the CONDEM regime. And that London will get even less accountable, less transparent and less ethical under a newly-rubber-stamped [May 2012, as currently scheduled] occupant in the “Onion’.
1030 Hrs London Saturday 26 February 2011