What does Denise Jones know about shame and honour?

UPDATING on the contaminated Environmental Health of Tower Hamlets Council -2 UPDATING on the contaminated Environmental Health of Tower Hamlets Council -2

UPDATING on the contaminated Environmental Health of Tower Hamlets Council -2

1725 Hrs GMT

London
Tuesday
25 September 2012
By
Muhammad Haque

The atmosphere in the Tower Hamlets Council Chamber on Wednesday 19 September 2012 was truly toxic. Contaminated.
Hatred and hostility was fierce.
So who was the target of the hatred and the hostility?
Who else but “other councillors” in the same Chamber.
And that pillar! The pillar did not help at all
As one of those who stood up and spoke during at least the “public” “presentations ” pointed out, she could not see the memeb4r5 of the public who was presenting a concern
M
Why couldn’t she see him?
Because of the pillar.
There is a pillar bang in the middle of the floor of the Council,  Chamber that divides the seated councillors in a most awkward, indecent way. Undemocratic, inelegant way.
Like the endless numbers of stinking staircases cases that are littered across Tower Hamlets borough with the  refuse of the anti-social elements, the pillar in the middle of the Council Chamber stalks everyone struggling to address in a decent way. In an unobstructed way.


Rabina Khan, as she stood up to speak, came across as  too elegant in her outlook to get too hung up on the unsightly sight of the pillar that was blocking her vision, irritating her and deviating her focus away from what she wanted to speak and get across. Whatever that was in accordance with the due rules of a really democratically devised, drafted and agreed Tower Hamlets Council Constitution.

But then why should it be left to a single councillor to make that point about the pillar barrier? Why not the entire chamber that should explode in democratic outrage at this barrier?

The answer perhaps lies in the fact that very elegance that came across from Rabina Khan’s particular moment of contribution is absent from the vast majority of what was on offer from the majority of participants seating on either side of the barrier pillar.
Spiel after  empty spiel came forth allegedly about something of substance but carrying none of the rigour nor the relevance that the Poplar Councillors [1920s, Poplar Borough, led by George Lansbury, 1920s East End of London] would represent.

The vacuity and the emptiness of the contributions by speakers at the “Full Council”  on Wednesday 19 September 2012  were truly shocking and offensive to all democratic people observing or rather suffering the evening.

None offended more  than Denise Jones, who claimed that she had been a  councillor for 18 years! No mean feat that! Especially not as seen from the prostrated position of one or so “admirers” that Denise Jones still had in the “public gallery”.

Denise Jones is in no position to give ethical lectures about shame and honour.
And when it comes to her time as “leader” of the Council, she performed so undemocratically that when the time did come for her ouster, not many even pretence tears were shed at her demise

Except in the strangely personality-cult-like dedicated slot carried in the then East London Advertiser, now merged with a Docklands based PR and marketing operon for the Big Business occupiers of the Docklands.
Denise Jones said that she was “ashamed” that Lutfur Rahman was silent and was refusing to answer the questions
I spoke to Lutfur Rahman a day later and he assured me that he deliberately allowed the floor to be taken up by Councillors.
HE said that at cabinet meetings, he, Lutfur, does take a different stance and does speak. I am going to observe some of his cabinet and will come back and report.

Back to Denise Jones and her time as a councillor for 18 years

What does Denise Jones know about shame and honour? 
I shall be seeking evidential answer to this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       very important question in the next part of this commentary.

[To be continued]