February chill brings back 14 year old lunacy to Tower Hamlets Counc il

AADHIKAROnline will examine the homeless crisis in Tower Hamlets and how the Council has been CAUSING a lot of the homelessness in the East End borough,...

[To be c continued]

Thursday, February 12, 1998 Published at 15:43 GMT UK Housing the homeless - 200 miles away Housing offered in "difficult-to-let" estates Tower Hamlets council in East London has come up with an unusual solution to its housing problem - it wants homeless people to move 200 miles away. The plan is to offer 900 empty homes in Hull in north east England to people on the London council's housing waiting list. Hull City Council is considering whether to change its current housing policy to broaden the range of people who are allowed to inhabit council homes. Cllr Abdus Shukur: "If people don't want to move it will stop there." A quarter of the population of Tower Hamlets are waiting to be rehoused. But Councillor Abdus Shukur, Chair of Housing, says no-one will be coerced into moving. "The reality is that people will only move to boroughs that they want to. If people want to move to Hull then they will have the opportunity to do so. If they do not want to move, then that's where it stops," he said. Tower Hamlets originally wrote to 21 councils around England but has received a very poor response. It insists that it was merely coincidence that Hull City Council was considering changing the criteria of its housing policy. The full text of the letter sent to councils around England appears under the 'Related Stories' heading. Chris Holmes, Director of Shelter: worried by the plans The move is causing concern at the housing charity Shelter. The director, Chris Holmes, said: "Clearly there's a desperate shortage of housing in Tower Hamlets so anything to help relieve the pressure is welcome. "But I'm concerned that people are not coerced into accepting properties in Hull, particularly in hard-to-let estates. Just shipping people to other areas of the country is not the answer. We need to solve the problems of affordable housing in London." Chris Holmes voices Shelter's worries (12") Maggie Santos left London for Hull 10 years ago. She now works for the Hull Independant Housing Aid Centre and says that people need to know what they would be coming to. She said: "Hull is very different from London. People from Tower Hamlets need to see Hull before they come. The homes that Hull could offer are basically hard-to-let properties on out-of-city estates. Some of the estates, rightly or wrongly, aren't too popular with local people." Tower Hamlets has underlined that "there was never any question of penalising people on the waiting list who didn't take up a place in Hull." Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage ©

Timely reminder to Ken Livingstone: Drop the manipulative tactics and ploys, be for the whole community and you may have a chance..

2130 GMT
London
Saturday
18 February 2012.
Editor © Muhammad Haque.
It is never a good policy for anyone with any “power” that affects other people to use that power carelessly. It is always counterproductive to ignore wise advice. What the “power”-holders must understand is that “power” is a mirage. It is not to be taken for granted. What matters more is character.
In a week that has been dominated partly in Britain by the row started by David Cameron’s manipulative use of Sayeeda Warsi as a Champion of “Christianity” and generally of theism as the CON-DAVE propaganda cover, we can say that what we are saying here about character is true of those who are believers in God as well as of non-believers.
Without such moral character, there is no true point in anything any human does. By character we mean the unambiguous evidence of honesty, integrity and reliability AND unselfishness AND true generosity of heart. Assuming of course the normal blessings of all the human faculties working in a person.
The crisis that faces Ken Livingstone’s re-election campaign has now engulfed Tower Hamlets Council. Something we have been exclusively examining.
We can say without any hesitation and most transparently that Ken Livingstone must ditch his manipulating behaviour.
There is nobody in Tower Hamlets Council or in any ”grouping” or “individuals” beneficially linked with the controlling elements in that Council who can say that they have any claim on the electoral intentions or behaviour of the people of the borough.
So Ken Livingstone must address the people of Tower Hamlets as a whole and come across and mean to come across as a modest servant of the community here. If he can do that, and if he DOES do that then the community will reciprocate and generally support him. Ken Livingstone cannot get re-elected in May 2012 unless in the next few weeks he can genuinely credibly demonstrate that he is no longer a manipulator of other people. [To be continued]

Through no fault of our own, we the ordinary people in and of Tower Hamlets are lumbered with these “new" scandals

1705 GMT
London
Saturday
18 February 2012

© Muhammad Haque continuing the original, exclusive and diagnostic reports on the latest series of scandals that has hit the interests of the people of the country’s “most deprived” inner city East London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Through no fault of our own, we the ordinary people in and of Tower Hamlets are lumbered with these “new" scandals.

I am therefore looking for an ethical, democratic and sustainable way to get the community out of the morass that is closing in on us. Unless these scandals are reversed, the people of Tower Hamlets will lose out even more.

Whose abysmal idea was it to give Tony Winterbottom, Ken Livingstone's ex LDA “aide” a contract costing Tower Hamlets people at the rate of £125.00 per hour payable to him?

And how many hours “advisory” “work” does he have to show before making the “contractually valid” claim for the equally contractually valid and neat sum of £1,000 at that rate?

If he “works” seven hours then that will take the total to £875

He has to show only an extra hour’s worth of “work” to be counted to reach the magic sum of £1,000.

That is exactly the sum that has been highlighted by the EVENING STANDARD!

Nice hourly rate if you can show what you actually do and deliver for it.

So on to the next question: what has Tony Winterbottom done since he acquired contractual access to the Tower Hamlets £Billion?

And is it unheard of that in every ordinary day there are at least 8 hours available to be spent doing any “work”, whether real or faked, as long as there is “agreement” that the necessary logging in and logging out arrangements are all accepted by the parties concerned?

So when Mr Winterbottom put up within the real hard work and actually turned up yesterday [Friday 17 February 2012] to take part in a very private meeting inside the bureaucracy of the Tower Hamlets Council which had arranged the "do” to get him to confirm that the EVENING STANDARD had published a “biased” claim about the contract being worth £1,000, why didn’t Mr Winterbottom deny that claim and thus “help prove” that on that occasion the EVENING STANDARD had published an untruth?

Mr Winterbottom is not the first obsolescent “expert” who has “tasted"

proximity to Ken Livingstone’s “power”. In addition to him, there are several dozens of his likes running around London looking suitably useful and promoting themselves for hire.

There is nothing that they could really offer that the local people in Tower Hamlets have not already provided and with no charge on the Council’s expenditures.

The problem is that in Tower Hamlets, the “elected” councillors, judging plainly on their published and publicly known records, have been in the main, a collection of dormant time-servers and collectors of various perks and petty allowances.

They have not been representatives of the people on the Council on issues that matter.

And the Tony Winterbottom scandal reports merely illustrate the irrelevant existence of those councillors.

To them, the concepts of “morality, ethics, accountability, transparency” do not constitute anything.

Those councillors have shown no respect to the people of Tower Hamlets.

If they had shown that respect and had done so genuinely, there would be no such scandal as we are here diagnosing.

But the councillors are not with the people. In fact they are weary of the community whose scrutiny they are unable to survive.

So the councillors are escapists. Escaping the community.

Hence the fact that it took a very small number of Thatcherite Tory elements who dug up the details about Winterbottom and made those public.

As for the majority of the councillors, they are as useless now as they ever have been.

They are “in post” collectively and they scarcely hide their arrogance of that CAPITAL fact!

Capital as in cash-generating enterprise.

To them, being a “councillor” is like being in a sort of business.

There is no evidence that whoever nominates these as candidates has a clue as to why they should be councillors at all.

As for Mr Winterbottom, the plain fact is that he has already become a liability as has the controlling clique concerned that has been responsible for “hiring” him in the first place.

There is nothing proper that ordinary efficient and accountable employees of the Council could not do.

Quite apart from the fallout that has begun from the publication of the FACT of the EXISTENCE of Mr Winterbottom's particular contract, the people of Tower Hamlets will lose out even more as a result of this latest scandal.

As has been observed, none other than Eric Pickles the man occupying the front seat on “local Councils” has already held forth and has condemned Tower Hamlets people by association as he has lambasted those who have wasted this money on hiring the likes of Tony Winterbottom.

Pickles should not matter. Why?

Because he is already prejudiced against communities like Tower Hamlets.

This is why it is a bad thing that Pickles can now claim ANY moral ground at all over the one held by the ordinary people of Tower Hamlets.

And there is nobody in any of elected posts put there by the people of Tower Hamlets who can really claim a clean moral ground and answer back!

So widespread is the stream of informal reports about the incidence, whether formally reified or not and of abuse, dishonesty, nepotism and fraud associated with people allegedly in “charge of” Tower Hamlets Council that the entity called the “democratically elected local Council” is very near to being a laughing stock.

And that, remarkably, is not the worst of it!

Shockingly, the ones who are “opining” allegedly on behalf of Tower Hamlets Council are in denial about all of it.

Isn’t it extraordinary that a Borough that is also being called the most deprived in England is also the one which is being presented in the "mainstream" AND in the experience of most ordinary members of the public in Tower Hamlets itself as the least deserving of whatever public-sourced financial support it [the Borough Council] needs?

[To be continued]

Through no fault of our own, we the ordinary people in and of Tower Hamlets are lumbered with these “new" scandals.

1620 GMT London Saturday 18 February 2012

© Muhammad Haque continuing the original, exclusive and diagnostic reports on the latest series of scandals that has hit the interests of the people of Tower Hamlets.

Through no fault of our own, we the ordinary people in and of Tower Hamlets are lumbered with these “new" scandals.

I am therefore looking for an ethical, democratic and sustainable way to get the community out of the morass that is closing in on us. Unless these scandals are reversed, the people of Tower Hamlets will lose out even more.

Whose abysmal idea was it to give Tony Winterbottom, Ken Livingstone's ex LDA “aide” a contract costing Tower Hamlets people at the rate of £125.00 per hour payable to him?

And how many hours “advisory” “work” does he have to show before making the “contractually valid” claim for the equally contractually valid and neat sum of £1,000 at that rate?

If he “works” seven hours then that will take the total to £875.00

He has to show only an extra hour’s worth of “work” to be counted to reach the magic sum of £1,000.

That is exactly the sum that has been highlighted by the EVENING STANDARD!

Nice hourly rate if you can show what you actually do and deliver for it.

So on to the next question: what has Tony Winterbottom done since he acquired contractual access to the Tower Hamlets £Billion?

And is it unheard of that in every ordinary day there are at least 8 hours available to be spent doing any “work”, whether real or faked, as long as there is “agreement” that the necessary logging in and logging out arrangements are all accepted by the parties concerned?

So when Mr Winterbottom put up within the real hard work and actually turned up yesterday [Friday 17 February 2012] to take part in a very private meeting inside the bureaucracy of the Tower Hamlets Council which had arranged the "do” to get him to confirm that the EVENING STANDARD had published a “biased” claim about the contract being worth £1,000, why didn’t Mr Winterbottom deny that claim and thus “help prove” that on that occasion the EVENING STANDARD had published an untruth?

Mr Winterbottom is not the first obsolescent “expert” who has “tasted"

proximity to Ken Livingstone’s “power”. In addition to him, there are several dozens of his likes running around London looking suitably useful and promoting themselves for hire.

There is nothing that they could really offer that the local people in Tower Hamlets have not already provided and with no charge on the Council’s expenditures.

The problem is that in Tower Hamlets, the “elected” councillors, judging plainly on their published and publicly known records, have been in the main, a collection of dormant time-servers and collectors of various perks and petty allowances.

They have not been representatives of the people on the Council on issues that matter.

And the Tony Winterbottom scandal reports merely illustrate the irrelevant existence of those councillors.

To them, the concepts of “morality, ethics, accountability, transparency” do not constitute anything.

Those councillors have shown no respect to the people of Tower Hamlets.

If they had shown that respect and had done so genuinely, there would be no such scandal as we are here diagnosing.

But the councillors are not with the people. In fact they are weary of the community whose scrutiny they are unable to survive.

So the councillors are escapists. Escaping the community.

Hence the fact that it took a very small number of Thatcherite Tory elements who dug up the details about Winterbottom and made those public.

As for the majority of the councillors, they are as useless now as they ever have been.

They are “in post” collectively and they scarcely hide their arrogance of that CAPITAL fact!

Capital as in cash-generating enterprise.

To them, being a “councillor” is like being in a sort of business.

There is no evidence that whoever nominates these as candidates has a clue as to why they should be councillors at all.

As for Mr Winterbottom, the plain fact is that he has already become a liability as has the controlling clique concerned that has been responsible for “hiring” him in the first place.

There is nothing proper that ordinary efficient and accountable employees of the Council could not do.

Quite apart from the fallout that has begun from the publication of the FACT of the EXISTENCE of Mr Winterbottom's particular contract, the people of Tower Hamlets will lose out even more as a result of this latest scandal.

As has been observed, none other than Eric Pickles the man occupying the front seat on “local Councils” has already held forth and has condemned Tower Hamlets people by association as he has lambasted those who have wasted this money on hiring the likes of Tony Winterbottom.

Pickles should not matter. Why?

Because he is already prejudiced against communities like Tower Hamlets.

This is why it is a bad thing that Pickles can now claim ANY moral ground at all over the one held by the ordinary people of Tower Hamlets.

And there is nobody in any of elected posts put there by the people of Tower Hamlets who can really claim a clean moral ground and answer back!

So widespread is the incidence of abuse, dishonesty, nepotism and fraud associated with people allegedly in “charge of” Tower Hamlets Council that the entity called the “democratically elected local Council” is very near to being a laughing stock.

And that, remarkably, is not the worst of it!

Shockingly, the ones who are “opining” allegedly on behalf of Tower Hamlets Council are in denial about all of it.

Isn’t it extraordinary that a Borough that is also being called the most deprived in England is also the one which is being presented in the "mainstream" AND in the experience of most ordinary members of the public in Tower Hamlets itself as the least deserving of whatever public-sourced financial support it [the Borough Council] needs?

[To be continued]

Lambeth Council still submerged in the sewer of stupidity and disrespect to the local community.

1315 Hrs GMT LOndon Saturday 18 February 2012.

By © Muhammad Haque.

Quoting the London EVENING STANDARD about the Streatham MP:

the Labour MP for Streatham who has carved out a high profile under party leader Ed Miliband

Perhaps that is what his problem is. He is more interested in that “rising” curve than in the contents of common sense beings spoken by the community backing the Country Show.

Haven't we encountered across London similarly "carved" careers hitherto? We indeed have. From “Brent, South” had come in 1987 that boastful slogan about “Soweto, tomorrow". In Brent EVEN today, almost a quarter of a century later, we see the local Brent Council behaving [collectively] like a deranged power-grabber in the Dark Ages EVERYWHERE! But we don't have to be confined to "Brent, South" or to Lambeth. It is true that “the Labour MP for Streatham” is currently featuring as an Ed Miliband “front-bench” “star” in your vocabulary. But the truth of life under CONDEM as being daily experienced by most people of all ethnicities, nationalities, genders, orientations and cultures and backgrounds is this: that no matter what their claimed affinity with whatever “special interest in electoral terms” is, the elected holders [or seekers] of publicly paid for posts in contemporary Britain are as unrepresentative of the objectively defined ordinary life and perspectives as they always have been. This is a central defect in a “democratic” settlement in Society. [To be continued]