Tower Hamlets Council is openly attacking the local community's very physical existence now. Thus also exposing as a wanton lie the line which had been contrived and uttered by the strategic planners [25-30 years or so ago] behind the recruitment of “ethnicity-linked” ‘candidates as councillors” that having "councillors from your own community" [whatever is THAT now?] would help the community's future! the entire batch of Tower Hamlets Councillors that has got in there by claiming "community commitment" has become recruited to the project for the destruction if the community, making way for Big Business, big buildings and big takeover of the East End....

Tower Hamlets Council is openly attacking the local community's very physical existence now. Thus also exposing as a wanton lie the line which had been contrived and uttered by the strategic planners [25-30 years or so ago] behind the recruitment of “ethnicity-linked” ‘candidates as councillors” that having "councillors from your own community" [whatever is THAT now?] would help the community's future! the entire batch of Tower Hamlets Councillors that has got in there by claiming "community commitment" has become recruited to the project for the destruction if the community, making way for Big Business, big buildings and big takeover of the East End.... Tower Hamlets Council goes OTT to give 3rd highest building in the country planning permission! This image [above, left] which has the Gherkin at the centre, has been used in another misleading piece by the "East London Advertiser". The figures seen on the foreground in the picture are supposed to be in Devonshire Square, which is closer to Bishopsgate, Bevis Marks and Liverpool Street than it is to "Aldgate". But the use of the word "Aldgate" by the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER web site is a part of the calculation to falsely show that the East End is already a part of the "City of London" culture and its "celebrations". [To be continued] The following item has been retrieved by AADHIKARonline from the website www.wharf.co.uk at 0415 GMT Sunday 2013 Solely for use by AADHIKAROnline visitors as a reference item We have included the comments as well, which are displayed by the www.wharf.co.uk editors i n a way that shows open brazen attack on the ordinary East End people and their rights AADHIKAR Media and KHOODEELAAR! are publishing these here as parts of the evidence of just how Tower Hamlets “ our local Council” is now part of the war on the community on behalf of Big building developers and big business and the City of London Agenda-pushers as against the local people in the East End [To be continued] Fears for community cohesion as City Pride scheme approved By Beth Allcock on July 25, 2013 3:13 PM | Tagged with: chalegrove properties, city pride, development, isle of dogs, peter golds, tower hamlets borough council, westferry road A controversial application to build a 75-storey skyscraper on the site of the former City Pride pub has been given the green light - despite being rejected by Tower Hamlets councillors last month. The scheme, by developers Chalegrove Properties Limited, will see private housing focussed on the north of the island, with the social housing shunted to a separate scheme. This notion of separating out social housing directly contradicts the council's own policies. At the City Pride site, 752 homes will be private while just 70 will be allocated for shared ownership. Councillors turned down the plans in June voicing citing a failure to represent "a mixed and balanced community". The developer's separate affordable housing development, Island Point, will offer 173 homes in a six-storey tower on the south of the Isle of Dogs. At Thursday's strategic development committee meeting, chairman Cllr Helal Abbas used his casting vote to push through the City Pride plans while Island Point was passed by four votes to two. The developer said it was "delighted" to be granted the opportunity to regenerate the sites and create an "iconic landmark" for the Isle of Dogs. But concern about the separation of social housing remains, with Conservative councillor Peter Golds, representing Blackwall and Cubitt Town, branding the approval a "terrible decision". He said: "It's sending out the wrong message. It does nothing for community cohesion. The [City Pride] site is going to be ghastly serviced apartments. "It's not people who will live there, it's people who are passing through. It should be mixed. Every survey there is shows you build a stable community with a mixed development. Tower Hamlets has regressed 40 years." A council spokesman said the approval of the application did not commit the body to give the nod to similar developments. He said: "In relation to City Pride, it is not considered that the development would detrimentally affect the balance of the community in the locality as there are a number of mixed tenure schemes including the adjacent development at the Landmark. "It was considered that the Island Point site afforded a better opportunity to provide good quality family housing with access to private gardens and better open space for children's play." The plans will now be referred to the Mayor of London for approval. To see The Wharf's view on the decision, click here Share: Comments (5) | Permalink | Older/Newer « Granada flights launched at London City | Comment: City Pride? City shame » 5 Comments steve arnold said: Excellent. Great decision. Why on earth does London have this nonsensical policy to dump people on benefits in the middle of affluent areas in the fantasy that the wealth will somehow rub off on the poor? It beggars belief. The precise reason that canary wharf does not have a sense of community (as councillor Peter Golds alludes to) is because of the ridiculous idea to mix these residential developments. It is why middle class families do not see canary wharf as a realistic place to live. The simple fact is they do not want to be rubbing shoulders with unemployed people on benefits. I live in the canary central development which in itself is full of pleasant hard working people. However, TH council forced the developers to build social housing right next door in a bizarre effort to mix the community. What we now have is some people working incredibly hard to buy a 2 bed flat for £400k, whilst next door someone on benefits gets it for free. We also have a terrible problem with dog mess from dog owners within the social housing site next door and rowdy anti-social teenagers. The idea of social inclusion is bonkers!! The two parts of the development NEVER interact. Furthermore, any young middle class families are forced to leave the isle of dogs when their kids reach schooling age because the schools are full of children from parents on benefits. It really is a tragic state of affairs and unless it is changed, CW will never become a stable, safe and pleasant residential area. Sticking the social housing developments right next to the private developments offers no benefit to either cohort. July 26, 2013 1:37 PM Mike Anonymous said: Completely agree with Steve Arnold. Why on Earth these people are able to be on benefits and given houses or flats to live in within exclusive areas is hard to fathom. People work all their lives to afford these properties and if people choose not to work then the choice should be made for them by making the houses available to them in areas outside of London. July 26, 2013 2:51 PM Concerned Resident said: Both of you appear to be of the misinformed opinion that everyone in Social Housing is on benefits. Little do you realise that any number of the future owners of these properties could let them out to private renters who... then claim Housing Benefit. You appear to live in a black and white world where you can either afford a £400k flat, or alternatively, you are on benefits. Where are young people supposed to live, the old, the hard working low paid? Your arguments are ill thought through, terribly prejudiced and although I am not saying there is not some merit in the discussion, your base assumptions and ignorance is quite disgraceful. July 26, 2013 4:18 PM Local Resident said: Mike and Steve - your comments are hilariously outrageous and unbelievably ignorant. I would challenge you as to whether you genuinely believe what you're writing, but shamefully I've heard other similar narrow minded comments from others living in the so-called more "exclusive" areas of the Isle of Dogs. I also doubt you could qualify them with anything even remotely sound, besides annecdotes of yobs outside your house. You do realise that the Isle of Dogs and the wider area surrounding it already had residents before all the glossy towers started popping up. Presumably you are suggesting those that have lived here all their lives are fair game when it comes to developers pricing them and their children out of the area - both in terms buying and rental. Granted we live in a largely capitalist market, but we are also supposed to be a civilised and developed country where decisions on development need not solely be focused on money, greed and ignorance - which seems to be the principles you value your existence by, which is fine, because to be honest, you're probably in the minority. July 26, 2013 4:44 PM christopher littley said: i agree w the first comment, why do the councillors think that people on benifits and low incomes can afford to live in that area anyway? its crazy to think people will get their benifits on a monday morning and then stroll into cabot circus to buy their groceries?

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary: On hearing the news that former BBC journalist Clarence Mitchell is a candidate for MP from Brighton Pavilion [1]

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary: On hearing the news that former BBC journalist Clarence Mitchell is a candidate for MP from Brighton Pavilion [1] This question added at 0652 Hrs GMT London Saturday 27 July 2013 Will this rare BBC journalist who has in his portfolio of ordinary reporting one very special moment which so resonated with a large number of peoples’ lives, prove to David Cameron that he, Clarence Mitchell, will not accept racist prejudice or allow racism to be any part of his political life? 0332 Hrs GMT London Saturday 27 July 2013 I have just posted this on the Evening Standard website. There is a slight error in the version on the Standard have corrupted that in the version below Another note as well: I think Clarence Mitchell was part of a small BBC News team that did care for some of the moral issues in the news. I know this for a fact. More on that in due course. Here [below] is my first Comment on the STANDARD [which happened to also to be fist Comment on that story to appear on the web site of the London EVENING STANDARD] about Clarence Mitchell's having just been selected to stand as a candidate for Parliament from Brighton Pavilion. My Comment is NOT at all an endorsement of the Tories but in fact a warning to Clarence Mitchell against their agenda that they will push through his candidature and or [possible] election..... Clarence Mitchell has been a good journalist. Can he reconcile the best instinct of a good journalist with the Neo Cons Agenda or the corruption that is the dominant culture at the Palace of Westminster? I have had empirical evidence on another former BBC journalist, Martin Bell. Unlike in relation to Mitchell, I have reported on some events along side Bell. Both however belong in a rare group of British journalists, with propriety and decency being the stronger features of their work. So while Martin Bell has proven his pledges, can Clarence Mitchell match Bell’s work as a leading exponent of ethical politics at Westminster? 0314 GMT Saturday 27 July 2013

Defence of the East End of London is done much better with the founding values of the Labour Party

Defence of the East End of London is done much better with the founding values of the Labour Party AADHIKAROnline Action Montage with the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Defending the Community in the East End of London 0600 Hrs GMT London Thursday 25 July 2013 Editor © Muhammad Haque UPDATES 24.7 twitter.com/khoodeelaar We are denoting Len McCluskey as the relatively bigger sized figure to show proportion and we are thus showing Ed Minibrand [our word for him] as the relative miniature figure to keep the proportion as reported by pollsters yougov and by the associated PR outlets operating the Big Biz Agenda for the elimination of democracy and any remaining signs of ethics morality or FairPlay in Society in the UK. We also tell the Minibrand to stop being so futile in his utterances and tell him to get going with some overdue conviction commitments that Society desperately needs and the still significantly wide base of Labour supporters are crying out for! We warn the Minibrand against succumbing to any tendency, induced by the reactive Bliaring influence or otherwise, to minimise the values on which the Labour Party was founded and on which it must be again rebuilt and reconsolidated. [To be continued]

KHOODEELAAR! leading the action as the first comprehensive comment on the NUJ's entry into the "fray" over Tower Hamlets' Council's "town hall" "pravda" dubbed "East End Lies" -1

KHOODEELAAR! Leads the way again in voicing the truth about East End Lies and much more... Image may not appear here [due to Internet factors] of Eric with the overblown Pickles [his ego, for a start] as published by the UK PRESS Gazette, now known only as press gazette.co.uk. Muhammad Haque is a historian of the UK Press Gazette, having been an avid original writer and contributor to its column where he helped launch the campaign in the 1970s and 1980s against racism in the British Media 0610 Hrs GMT London Friday 19 July 2013: The Most Original Journalism for the East End of London is being brought here by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign - The Campaign in the mainstream Media and in the UK Parliament over Tower Hamlets Council: The Muhammad Haque Commentary straight from the front line in the Community in the East End of London,m exposing the East End Lies and also putting Eric and his over-blown Pickles in the context where the Community must have the say on what our local Council owes to us and how we hold this Council to account and why the East End Lies must stop lying to us and begin to tell us the truth about our whole community.... The © Muhammad Haque Evidential Commentary on the dire state of the East End Lies, also known as the "town hall Pravda" The Commentary below has been posted online on the PRESS GAZETTE web site. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-plans-curb-them-nuj-comes-out-defence-council-newspapers London Friday 19 July 2013. Helen Watson, from Tower Hamlets NUJ Branch which is involved in the “East End Life” writes: “Most of us came here because it represented a better offer than the publications we were working on. Our wages and conditions were much improved, it allowed us to provide a better standard of living for our families and helped us achieve a decent work/life balance.” Has it occurred to Ms Watson that the people who ordinarily live or try to live in Tower Hamlets may be also entitled to a “work/life balance”? In relation to the Council which is obliged to deliver services that directly affect work, life and the balance that is deserved? Where in the current edition of the “East End Life” would she say is an accurate reflection of the Life of the people of the borough of Tower Hamlets? I would suggest that the title is a false one. It should be called “East End Lies” which is what I have been calling it on the records for the past at least 14 years. I know most current councillors, the majority of whom have been in the Borough for years before getting into the Council. But I do not see them being reflected on the East End Lies as people. I see some of them who are featured only because they are in “the Cabinet”. They come across as caricatures, not as real life people with real links connections or concerns about the community which has been experiencing one of the most depressing economic and social, communal times, as even the Guardian has had to admit [against its own record of mysteriously “approving” of the L B Tower Hamlets Council controlling bureaucracy] only this week when comparing the glaring disparity that exists between Canary Wharf, HSBC and the ordinary Tower Hamlets. It is not Eric Pickles who is leading the call for a truthful “in-house” title. It is ordinary people like me who are and have been doing so. I even know when the first issue of the East End Life was published and who edited it and where that person is now. A can confirm that from that issue on, all the promises made then have been broken and the ordinary people depicted with nothing short of contempt by whoever has been setting the toxic, dishonest editorial tone of the “East End Lies”. Deny, divert and dissemble are three words that combine to make up the attitude of the East End Lies: Distort! Sure, Eric Pickles will gain a few points as a Conservative Politician. But the real losses, damages and misinformation have been caused to the ordinary people in the Borough for as long as the editorial contents of the East End Lies” have been geared to please the controlling “political faction, group or entity”. As the organiser of the first openly political and democratic mobilisation on Sunday 7 May 1978 following the racist murder of Altab Ali on Thursday 4 May 1978, I spoke of the moral legacy that our peaceful but ethically determined and restraining Campaign for a tolerant Society has had. I spoke on 4 May 2013 at the Altab Ali Park. There were a number of others who had later become involved in that year and helped mobilise many people in the peaceful Actions of all races against racism. Did the “East End Life” report that anniversary event? Not really. It carried an offensive, misleading, tokenistic piece of anonymity that had neither any mention of those who had taken part in that socially and in the universal context a significant even a pioneering consciousness-raising, universal movement in May 1978 nor ddi it have any in-depth ethical lessons or social far less international humanitarian or political lessons recounted. Yet our movement in may 1978 had all those elements and they transformed the environment not only in the East End but seriously impacted for the good on the rest of what happened, and has been happening, in British politics, as a whole. As at least one of the speakers said exactly that at the rally this year at the Altab Ali park on 4 May 2013. But the “East End Life” was busy faking up its own set of lies to insert in place of the real life on the streets of Tower Hamlets. Not only that, the Council has been caught as being callous on the memorial on the victims of racist violence. Altab Ali again in context: I have published, twice now in the past two years, criticism that the “mural” inscription on the side of the Altab Ali Park, written in Bangla, gives the wrong year as being that of Altab Ali’s murder and martyrdom! In the English language text, the year is correct, 1978. But the Bangla language version has the year 1977 as the year when Altab Ali was murdered and martyred. But even that is not a consistent text! Tower Hamlets Council, which commissioned that work, has ignored the error and the fact that it has been pointed out, more than once. I last spoke about it on a satellite TV programme on 29 May 2013. Whatever Ms Helen Watson and her “NUJ” branch colleagues may say in support of their work and wages in Tower Hamlets Borough Council, one thing is clear, they cannot say that the “East End Lies” is telling the basic truth about the life of the community outside the Council! All self-respecting NUJ members must pay a little attention to the constituency in whose name they take part in the editorial decision-making and in the publication of something like the “East End Life”. How can Ms Watson’s branch be so careless and inattentive to what we the ordinary people out in the Borough of Tower Hamlets have been saying for years, many years before anyone had ever heard of Eric or had any idea of his own Pickles? As the NUJ has been my only trade union, I would not refer to it carelessly. But I believe that one of the aims that the NUJ has aways claimed to encourage its members to support is to tell the truth about ordinary Society! That aim is being weekly trampled on by the editorial practices of the East End Lies. And there cannot be any basis for claiming that it is a right practice. Finally, I am and have been very active in this community for a very long time. In 1981, I was involved in an effort to create an alternative to the “East London Advertiser”. That was called EAST END NEWS. So, I cannot be and must not be in any associated with any agenda that the East London Advertiser or their owners ARCHANT would have for liaising with Eric Pickles or anyone of that ilk. What I am saying here is a fraction of what I have always said and I have done so both on the EVENING STANDARD website, on the Guardian and also on broadcast programmes where I have evidentially dealt with the dishonesty that dominates the “editorial” line which is based on pretending that in Tower Hamlets there is no life in the ordinary community except in the diversionary, the dubious, the distorted, the twisted fabricated contents of the fantasy title they call “East End Life”! On most of the photos they publish, the supposed human characters are seen mostly beaming! Whatever for, especially in a borough where most of the ordinary people are undergoing experiences that do not constitute grounds for putting on cheesy, cheeky or cheery appearances! Written and posted this online at 0455 Hrs GMT London Friday 19 July 2013 Eric Pickles picture [below] as used by the PRESS GAZETTE where the Muhammad Haque commentary [above] appears about the dire role of the town hall pravda the "East End Lies". Muhammad Haque dismisses Eric and his Pickles when it comes to claiming what the ordinary people of Tower Hamlets have to say about the Council’s “town hall” “pravda” the “East End Life” which Haque has been calling “East End Lies” for longer than Eric or his Pickles have been heard of far less have had any recognition about real Life of the people in the the East End of London at all. Muhammad Haque's trade union, the National Union of Journalists had an attempt in the early 1980s in Bethnal Green to establish an alternative to the East London Advertiser. That is one of the historic foundations Muhammad Haque uses above to dispel any even suggestion that criticism of the diabolically “edited” "East End Lies" is linked with the East London Advertiser or with the Conservative Party. Muhammad Haque's Political Party is the Labour Party, the only Political Party he has ever been prepared to join and remain a paying member of! http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-plans-curb-them-nuj-comes-out-defence-council-newspapers

A "Big Debate" on the Future of the Community in the East End of London, sparked by KHOODEELAAR!

A "Big Debate" on the Future of the Community in the East End of London, sparked by KHOODEELAAR! IMAGE here is of TOMORROW's ACTION News front page today The MORNING STAR front page Thursday 18 July 2013 confirming Dave's latest plot and sleaze against Society 1945 [1920] [1915] Hrs GMT London Wednesday 17 July 2013 Editor © Muhammad Haque 1928 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 17 July 2013 KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Action UPDATER Commentary in defence of the Community in the East End of London, emphasising the utmost need to have a really honest, decent, accountable and democratic Tower Hamlets Council that must be required to really stick up for the local Community in the East End of London ...... just as indications are spotted of Big Biz and Neo Cons and Looting Banks' agenda being hatched at No 10 Downing Street as part of yet another plot against Society... TOMORROW's Campaign news front page today at 1920 GMT Wednesday 17 July 2013 The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Public Question to Tower Hamlets Council on 26 June 2013 has had another consequence. It was that Question on Housing presented by Muhammad Haque that prompted John Wright to start filming. The “Newham Recorder” has begun today Wednesday 17 July 2013 a “Big Debate” about the Council’s Meetings being recorded. In a first response to that “Big Debate”, Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque has posted a detailed diagnostic on the democracy deficit in Tower Hamlets Council. Related video reports by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign as published by AADHIKARonline Featuring East End Housing rights campaigner and activist John Wright http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1RoOZDUcQ Featuring East End Campaigner and historian Tom Ridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLVex-PGSro And another contextual KHOODEELAAR! Campaign post online http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFOIE0G-w2I Featuring John Biggs interviewed on the Future of the Community in the East End of London

1928 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 17 July 2013 KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Action UPDATER Commentary in defence of the Community in the East End of London, emphasising the utmost need to have a really honest, decent, accountable and democratic Tower Hamlets Council that must be required to really stick up for the local Community in the East End of London ...... just as indications are spotted of Big Biz and Neo Cons and Looting Banks' agenda being hatched at No 10 Downing Street as part of yet another plot against Society..

1920 [1915] Hrs GMT
London
Wednesday
17 July 2013

Editor © Muhammad Haque

 

1928 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 17 July 2013   KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Action UPDATER Commentary in defence of the Community in the East End of London, emphasising the utmost need to have a really honest, decent, accountable and democratic  Tower Hamlets Council that must be required to really stick up for the local Community in the East End of London ...... just as  indications are spotted of Big Biz and Neo Cons and Looting Banks' agenda being hatched at No 10 Downing Street as part of yet another plot against Society...

TOMORROW's Campaign news front page today at 1920 GMT Wednesday 17 July 2013

The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Public Question to Tower Hamlets Council on 26 June 2013 has had another consequence. It was that Question on Housing presented by Muhammad Haque that prompted John Wright to start filming. The “Newham Recorder” has begun today Wednesday 17 July 2013 a “Big Debate” about the Council’s Meetings being recorded. In a first response to that “Big Debate”, Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque has posted a detailed diagnostic on the democracy deficit in Tower Hamlets Council.

Related video reports by KHOODEELAAR! Campaign as published by AADHIKARonline


Featuring East End Housing rights campaigner and activist John Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1RoOZDUcQ

Featuring East End Campaigner and historian Tom Ridge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLVex-PGSro

And another contextual KHOODEELAAR! Campaign post online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFOIE0G-w2I

Featuring John Biggs interviewed on the Future of the Community in the East End of London

1715 [1632] [1615] GMT London Wednesday 17 June 2013. KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Defending Democracy for the Community in Tower Hamlets. UPDATER Commentary by © Muhammad Haque on the poor state of democracy on offer to the East End by our "elected" Council. This Commentary contains crucial evidence of just how many weaknesses CURRENTLY undermine the Community’s receiving a genuinely manifestly democratic, accountable, transparent service from Tower Hamlets Council. The Commentary has been posted online as the first response to the ARCHANT-owned ‘local newspaper title’ the Newham Recorder carrying a piece about the public recording and filming the Council Meetings in the adjoining “East End” boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets. The evidence referred to by Muhammad Haque also relates to the fact that Tower Hamlets Council has been being used as a tool by Big Business which has been taking over vast parts of the Borough by destroying it and by displacing the communities that have lived in their home estates, neighbourhoods and streets for generations and generations. The focus is placed again at Muhammad Haque’s Public Question to Tower Hamlets Council on 26 June 2013 bout he unaccountability by the Housing associations in the borough which had been handed massive amounts of the Council’s Housing stock a decade earlier...

1632 [1615] GMT London Wednesday 17 June 2013.

One paragraph has been rewritten since the posting on the Newham Recorder web site:

KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Defending Democracy for the Community in Tower Hamlets. UPDATER Commentary by © Muhammad Haque on the poor state of democracy on offer to the East End by our "elected" Council. This Commentary contains crucial evidence of just how many weaknesses CURRENTLY undermine the Community’s receiving a genuinely manifestly democratic, accountable, transparent service from Tower Hamlets Council. The Commentary has been posted online as the first response to the ARCHANT-owned ‘local newspaper title’ the Newham Recorder carrying a piece about the public recording and filming the Council Meetings in the adjoining “East End” boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets. The evidence referred to by Muhammad Haque also relates to the fact that Tower Hamlets Council has been being used as a tool by Big Business which has been taking over vast parts of the Borough by destroying it and by displacing the communities that have lived in their home estates, neighbourhoods and streets for generations and generations. The focus is placed again at Muhammad Haque’s Public Question to Tower Hamlets Council on 26 June 2013 bout he unaccountability by the Housing associations in the borough which had been handed massive amounts of the Council’s Housing stock a decade earlier...

As Lutfur Rahman appears to be concerned to protect the implied privacy of those members of the public who may not wish to be filmed, perhaps your readers who are unfamiliar with the architecture of the Tower Hamlets "Council chamber" may like to know that the members of the public are not likely to be in the focus of the camera. 

The Tower Hamlets Council Chamber “public gallery" is really not a gallery in the conventionally understood sense. 

The Council Chamber is obstructive with a big pillar blocking a lot of the scenes!

As the building, “Mulberry Place” could not have been designed by an architect with democratic thoughts, the “Council Chamber” reflects a disregard to democracy that must have dominated the minds of those behind the obstructive visual space within.

The other related thing about filming or recording “Council Meetings” is the concept of democracy in action.

What do those who work at the publicity scripts think democracy to be?

Do they think democracy is a parade?

Democracy is not a parade.

Democracy is the crux of the behaviour of the entrusted towards their electors, their real line managers.

The outrage that the public feel whenever elected post-holders misbehave or behave unsatisfactorily is to be found in the fact that the vote is a precious commodity. 

That it is a symbol of trust which is then to be monitored throughout the duration of the mandated period.

Filming is a part of that democratic monitoring by the voters.

Be that filming done by a single one, John Wright, or by more than one.

Back to the Tower Hamlets Council Chamber and its architecture.

It is rows of seats that face the "Council in session” from one side. 

So anyone who may film or photograph the “Council” can do so by carefully focussing only on Councillors or on Lutfur himself if he speaks. 

He rarely speaks in the Council Meetings. 

When he does, his is a prepared item that is over very soon.The issue is not whether Lutfur can get involved in an extra curricular reference that includes the insertion of a byte of praise for something Ed Miliband has done - which cannot be a contextual reference about the filming of the proceedings of Tower Hamlets Council - but whether the public who do care for a democratic local Tower Hamlets Council feel that they are getting democracy delivered by the Council when it sits. 

I have already extensively published on my own evidential part [as John Wright later confirmed to me] in John Wright’s decision to start the filming on 26 June 2013. 

It is vital that elected Councillors and the “elected executive mayor” are seen to be delivering a democratically accountable service to the people of Tower Hamlets as verifiable by and acceptable to the people ourselves.

I don’t believe that Tower Hamlets Council has been behaving anywhere near the standard of democratic delivery that it should do. Whether filming or recording will make such a substantial change in the contents of what councillors do deliver on the “floor of the Council” is not automatically guaranteed. 

It cannot be said with absolute certainty that the present batches of councillors from all the five “groupings” will be transformed overnight directly liked with the Meetings being allowed to be filmed. 

The option to be able to film is in fact linked with the outlook towards the Council. When such an option is in place, most people will not even bother to record the proceedings. Some will. But most are unlikely to do so. People want to feel that Tower Hamlets Council is not a dodgy assembly and that it is with the people of the Borough.As John Wright asked on 26 June 2013: “are you all corrupt”?If Tower Hamlets Council has nothing to hide it should not be prolonging the litany of excuses that deny the people in the borough the option that is now beyond any legitimate questioning.

As I do not write these comments from any party political or careerist standpoint, I may suggest that Lutfur Rahman is being unduly bothered about what Jim Fitzpatrick may or may not have to say. 

Let Jim Fitzpatrick have his piece. 

He only made what to me appears to be, in substance, a monosyllabic intervention in the House of commons on 8 July 2013. 

As for Eric Pickles, Tower Hamlets as “the Council” should take care not to come across as looking for further excuses. 

Eric Pickles, politically, career-wise, has had a not-so-high image. 

The less scope given to him to come across as being on a higher level of accountability than Tower Hamlets is preferable from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy that the local Tower Hamlets council should enjoy. It is not a good tactic for anyone who objectively cares for the reputation of Tower Hamlets Council and the Community in this borough to give any opportunity to either Eric Pickles or to any other party outside to come across as being on a higher moral or democratic plane than our elected Borough Council.

In any case, a local Borough Council has Constitutionally speaking many reasons to think about its remits when comparing itself with the UK central Governments or with the UK Prime Minister!

One obvious reason why No 10 Downing Street should not be open to filming is that it is in actual fact the place where they do discuss some very sensitive matters that will be compromised if done openly or on openly accessible records.

Tower Hamlets Council can make that comparison between itself and No 10 Downing Street if it is included as part of the UK national Operations of Governance by No 10 Downing Street.

So fas as I know, the briefings that the local Borough Council may be party to will have implications for local Policing, crime, disorder and similar issues.Nobody in the community is asking those to be open to filmingPeople have more sense than to ask for that kind of openness.

There has to be balance and there has to be fair comparisons.

Alibor Choudhury, who is reported frequently by the East London Advertiser as the “Cabinet member for resources”, has now made, during Tower Hamlets Council Meetings more than one reference to Eric Pickles’ “biscuit” expenses. 

In what way is it so important to people in Tower Hamlets to try to show Eric Pickles as being irresponsible? How is that the same as Tower Hamlets Council delivering on democratic items that are owed to the people in Tower Hamlets by the Council elected by voters in Tower Hamlets for a decent, accountable Tower Hamlets Council?

Eric Pickles’ biscuit expenses reference has been made as an apparent stick with which to [in a manner of speaking] hurt Tower Hamlets Conservative councillors leader Peter Golds

Every time it has been tried, Golds has survived the “intended injury”.

The much more appropriate approach, theoretically speaking, would be to aim the weapon at some real failing by the Tower Hamlets Tories over their duties to represent their voters.

They may be in the Tory party but they do not have any duty for Eric Pickles’ abuses of Pickles’ own position or power in the CONDEM Collusion.

The SUBJECT that I was asking Tower Hamlets Council the Public Question about when John Wright felt prompted to start the filming on 26 June 2013 was the absence of audit and accountability by the housing associations to which Tower Hamlets council had transferred so much of the Public Council housing stock. 

What has Tower Hamlets Borough Council to say about this stark absence of accountability? What does it say to John Wright’s question, which I have published on video, that housing associations are beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act requests? 

What does LBTH Council say to John Wright who has asserted that many of the Council housing estates that were transferred to the housing associations by Tower Hamlets Council have not been protected? 

On 30 April 2013, I helped tenants, residents and families on a housing estate [that is controlled by one of the housing associations that has benefited from the housing stock transfer] deliver a petition to the “executive mayor” and to the Tower Hamlets Council. 

That petition had been organised to obtain rights of say by the tenants and residents and families on what that housing association does on the estate. 

To date, neither “the executive mayor’s” office nor the Council’s “Democratic Services” has responded to the tenants over that petition. 

How is that delivering democracy to the people in Tower Hamlets?

So filming and recording will not cover most of the Council’s and the “executive mayor’s” conduct. 

What it will do is to provide a glimpse of what they do in the formal settings. 

As for the recording of the “Executive Mayor’s Cabinet Meetings”, there is no need for making any excuses against recording.

Why do I say this?

Because as I witnessed on 3 July 2013, the “Cabinet” could and did exclude the “press and the public” from a significant part of its “proceedings”.

Not only that, my own Question, which I presented to that Cabinet that day, has, since, been the subject of substantial correspondence between me and the “Democratic Services”.

So deficient in democratic consistency, transparency and logic has the relevant part of the LBTH Council’s “Democratic Services” been on this occasion that I have had to send a complaint against their stance to, yes, Eric Pickles!

Now, if that is the way that “Tower Hamlets Council is showing Eric Pickles in a poor light” then of course it is they who will be found wanting and neither the public nor Eric Pickles, in context!

And the fault will lie with Tower Hamlets Council and whoever keeps making these really unacceptable, undemocratic, unaccountable decisions in the name of the Council!

 

1234 GMT Wednesday 17 June 2013

 

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/big_debate_should_the_public_be_able_to_film_council_meetings_1_2282844

DEFENDING the East End of London against Big Biz takeover aided and abetted by local Council's stooged "planning" "structures" and made worse by irrational, ignorant, irresponsible "local newspaper journalism" - UPDATER Tuesday 16 July 2013

DEFENDING the East End of London against Big Biz takeover aided and abetted by local Council's stooged "planning" "structures" and made worse by irrational, ignorant, irresponsible "local newspaper journalism" - UPDATER Tuesday 16 July 2013 © MUHAMMAD HAQUE Comment online in response to the following item on the East London Advertiser web site: http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/new_report_says_londoners_are_migrating_east_to_stratford_bow_and_stepney_green_1_2281180 Your [www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk] online piece, dated today 16 July 2013, is a shorter copy word for word of the promoters’ own piece on the web published on 26 June 2013. I cite their web page here: “http://www.cebr.com/reports/ea... One of the astonishing things that they had said and which you repeat is this: “Other factors enhancing the desirability of E20 include the close proximity of the Westfield Stratford retail centre, as well as growing employment prospects in the wider Stratford area and the prospect of 15,000 jobs at the new International Quarter, adjacent to East Village, which is set to begin construction in 2013-14.” Both they and you are promoting irrationality in the context of the dire dearth of jobs and income security for local people in “Stepney Green” and in “E20”. Anyone actually walking down the Stratford High Street can see that it is a people-free zone, in the sense that ordinary people avoid the place because there is nothing going on there. So when you say that “construction” is set to begin in 2013-14 at the “New International Quarter” are you saying that people are MOVING in there ahead of that because the “construction” really is nothing like ordinary construction but more like a gold mine being opened up in the formerly derelict site that is now OTT-plugged as “east Village” and “E20”? If so, where did they get the money to afford this? And overall, where are the “east London” people going to? or [being] driven to? Any student of basic economics will know that demand is a function of capacity. Here that capacity is either ready cash or its de facto equivalent. Whichever it is, the “new movers and shakers” of your gold-mining imagery cannot be among Iain Duncan Smith’s targets for this week’s caps: the hundreds of thousands in London who face drastic further reduction in their lives’ standards and their access to income that they purely need. They may very well include some of the fancy foreign billionaires that are also in today’s [Tuesday 16 July 2013] news. You are betraying your basic duty to tell the ordinary people in the East London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney that they are being pushed out by this sort of “migration”. You should also apologise for having used [that term and concept of migration], as the title the “East London Advertiser” over the past 70 years to denote something negative. Here, for a rare occasion, you sue that term positively. Although once again, you get the context totally wrong. I had invited your newsroom to attend a Future of the Community in the East End of London which I had organised and conducted on Saturday 6 July 2013. You have not reported this hereby showing where your affiliation lies. I have sent the Tower Hamlets Council the key demands that arose from the Seminar. Lutfur Rahman is yet to reply to the demand. The key finding at the Acton Seminar was that ordinary East enders are being economically displaced and deported from their homes and their communities and from their home estates and neighbourhoods. This is starkly happening along the west of Tower Hamlets extending to Hackney. Huge demographic engineering and social, economic, cultural and communal displacement are afoot. And your glowing plug for the ones with the cash proves that they and you do not care about the huge impact and massive negative implications for individuals lives, families and for the whole of the East End of London. I notice that neither the original promoters [CEBR] on which you your piece is based nor you use the expression “East End of London”, preferring instead to use the materialistic “East” of London, devoid of all associations with communities, home, culture, history, tradition! You ape the “Cebr Fundamentals Index of key London postcodes” approach and thereby help to demolish what the East End of London represents to people who belong here within their neighbourhood estates and the wider East End Communities! It is quite possible that some of those East Enders may wake up to what you have been engaged in peddling for quite a while now. On the very date 26 June 2013, when CEBR published their piece I refer to above, I was addressing, in a very short formal Pubic Question, the Tower Hamlets Council about the serious absence of accountability to the community by the “social landlords” who had been handed huge Council hosing stock by Tower Hamlets Council 10 years earlier. As I was on my feet, John Wright, a housing and community rights activist from Shadwell began to fi,m the Council proceedings, telling me minutes later that he had been prompted to start the filming by my SUBJECT. John added, as you can see in the youtube post I published, accessible via the youtube link below, that Tower Hamlets Council had failed to protect the estates that they had handed over to the “social landlords”, in other words the housing associations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... He said that he had already spent 8 years fighting for the Council to uphold the promises that the Council had made at the time of the transfer of the housing stock! A week earlier, I filmed local historian and campaigner Tom Ridge telling me that the East End of London was already surrounded by the takeover operations. He highlighted the zone along the West of the Borough and including Aldgate, Aldgate east, Commercial Street, leman Street and the Games complexes in Stratford on the East and canary Wharf in the South of Tower Hamlets. You can view my report with Tom Ridge’s observations in the vie on youtube cited below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Time for you to let these facts get included in your reporting. 2132 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 16 July 2013

Disastrous state of housing in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets ....

Disastrous state of housing in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets .... The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary on the dearth of Campaigning Journalism in England: UPDATING on the dire state of idiocy and ignorance in the “Fleet Street” and “Westminster” “mainstream” “Meeja” and their surrogates stooges and peripherals about the disastrous state of housing in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as caused by the “Bliaring-John Prescotting” transfer of Council housing stock to “social [NOT!] landlords” - [N’th UPDATE] 2030 [2014] [1950] Hrs GMT London Saturday 13 July 2013 CONTINUING to update on how STUPIDITY dominates those belonging to the "mainstream" "Meeja" in Britain who "think" they are telling it as it is about Tower Hamlets. For the n'th time, I can confirm that they are lying. John Wright of Shadwell, Tower Hamlets, TOLD ME on film that he was PROMPTED to start filming on 26 June 2013 in the "Tower Hamlets Council Chamber" by my SUBJECT. Housing associations unaccountability to the people living in or trying to live in Council housing stock that Tower Hamlets Council had transferred to "social landlords", that is ;' housing associations. I was on my feet, in the middle of completing my PUBLIC QUESTION to Tower Hamlets Council when john Wright began his filming. When the Chair of the Council, 'Speaker" Lesley Pavitt asked John Wright to stop the filming and then suspended the Meeting for a good 10 minutes or longer, John Wright went out side to, amongst other things, have a cigarette. And he spoke to me as well. On film. I have published that video and reported on what happened many times since. But the "Meeja" keeps repeating the lie that John Wright began the filming because of what Eric Pickles said! He may have known of and been supportive of some of Eric Pickles' statement concerned. But on that occasion, John Wright began the filming because of what I was saying in presenting my Public Question to the “full” session of the Tower Hamlets Council. As I was on my feet, John Wright was sat only two rows behind in the public gallery. So he could see and hear me address the Council’s duties to make the “social landlords”, the housing associations accountable for heir conduct. Here, once again, is the published text of my Question to Tower Hamlets Council [Wednesday 26 June 2013]: [QUESTIONS Nine questions have been submitted as set out below:- 6.1 Question from Mr Muhammad Haque, Organiser, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in Defence of the Community in the East End of London] What is Tower Hamlets Council’s Constitutionally installed and transparently DEMOCRATICALLY active audit procedure for overseeing the conduct of those bodies especially the ones that have been allowed to take over the control of formerly Council-owned and Council controlled Housing stock in the context of the clear and the express undertaking given by LBTH Council to the Community and parts of the Community in the Borough on the relevant estates affected by the implications of the stock transfer procedures that were put into operation? Accessible on this web page: http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s45739/Report%20Public%20Questions%2026.06.13.pdf And what I was saying to the Council had a special appeal to John Wright himself, having spent a good eight years struggling to get the truth out if the Council about the disastrous transfer of the Tower Hamlets Council housing stock. [This is all on the video report and the KHOODEELAAR! blog reports and AADHIKAROnline reports and transcript that I have since published online] Here is the UNTRUTHFUL, ignorant and misleading post on the website of one of the Westminster-centric "mainstream" "Meeja" outlets http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/07/10/are-you-hiding-something-threats-from-westminster-after-71-y They are as misleading and ignorant as the "others" who they have been citing have been. By the "others" I of course mean those immoral and prejudiced and ignorant elements in and or on the periphery of the “Mainstream Meeja" in and near Fleet Street that claim that they have been reporting the ruth of what happened at Tower Hamlets Council on Wednesday 26 June 2013 when in fact they have been lying and been doing so to give, as they appear to think they are doing, an evidential basis for further Neo Cons assault on Society. To those lying elements, “Tower Hamlets Council” is “wrong” not because it is exposed in their coverage as doing wring but because of its association with a [or more than one] particular ethnicity or ethnic, nationality or cultural background/s etc. To me, and to John Wright, and to the majority of the people in Tower Hamlets, the Council is wring because whatever the faces ethnically, on the Council sats, the Council is a malfunctioning bureaucracy that is failing to protect the Community against rogue landlord outfits. In fact, John Wright stressed the fact that after the Tower Hamlets Council Housing stock had been transferred, Tower Hamlets Council has failed to “protect the estates” [that is to protect the rights of the people, tenants, residents and families on the housing estates] that Tower Hamlets Council had handed over to the [in Muhammad Haque’s words] rogue landlord outfits mis-called “social landlords”! Here, once again, is the online post of the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign video report published by AADHIKAROnline containing John Wright’s ORIGINAL interview with me on 26 June 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1RoOZDUcQ [To be continued]

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary on the dearth of Campaigning Journalism in England: UPDATING on the dire state of idiocy and ignorance in the “Fleet Street” and “Westminster” “mainstream” “Meeja” and their surrogates stooges and peripherals about the disastrous state of housing in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as caused by the “Bliaring-John Prescotting” transfer of Council housing stock to “social [NOT!] landlords” - [N’th UPDATE]

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary on the dearth of Campaigning Journalism in England: UPDATING on the dire state of idiocy and ignorance in the “Fleet Street” and “Westminster” “mainstream” “Meeja” and their surrogates stooges and peripherals about the disastrous state of housing in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as caused by the “Bliaring-John Prescotting” transfer of Council housing stock to “social [NOT!] landlords” - [N’th UPDATE] 2030 [2014] [1950] Hrs GMT London Saturday 13 July 2013 CONTINUING to update on how STUPIDITY dominates those belonging to the "mainstream" "Meeja" in Britain who "think" they are telling it as it is about Tower Hamlets. For the n'th time, I can confirm that they are lying. John Wright of Shadwell, Tower Hamlets, TOLD ME on film that he was PROMPTED to start filming on 26 June 2013 in the "Tower Hamlets Council Chamber" by my SUBJECT. Housing associations unaccountability to the people living in or trying to live in Council housing stock that Tower Hamlets Council had transferred to "social landlords", that is ;' housing associations. I was on my feet, in the middle of completing my PUBLIC QUESTION to Tower Hamlets Council when john Wright began his filming. When the Chair of the Council, 'Speaker" Lesley Pavitt asked John Wright to stop the filming and then suspended the Meeting for a good 10 minutes or longer, John Wright went out side to, amongst other things, have a cigarette. And he spoke to me as well. On film. I have published that video and reported on what happened many times since. But the "Meeja" keeps repeating the lie that John Wright began the filming because of what Eric Pickles said! He may have known of and been supportive of some of Eric Pickles' statement concerned. But on that occasion, John Wright began the filming because of what I was saying in presenting my Public Question to the “full” session of the Tower Hamlets Council. As I was on my feet, John Wright was sat only two rows behind in the public gallery. So he could see and hear me address the Council’s duties to make the “social landlords”, the housing associations accountable for heir conduct. Here, once again, is the published text of my Question to Tower Hamlets Council [Wednesday 26 June 2013]: [QUESTIONS Nine questions have been submitted as set out below:- 6.1 Question from Mr Muhammad Haque, Organiser, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in Defence of the Community in the East End of London] What is Tower Hamlets Council’s Constitutionally installed and transparently DEMOCRATICALLY active audit procedure for overseeing the conduct of those bodies especially the ones that have been allowed to take over the control of formerly Council-owned and Council controlled Housing stock in the context of the clear and the express undertaking given by LBTH Council to the Community and parts of the Community in the Borough on the relevant estates affected by the implications of the stock transfer procedures that were put into operation? Accessible on this web page: http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s45739/Report%20Public%20Questions%2026.06.13.pdf And what I was saying to the Council had a special appeal to John Wright himself, having spent a good eight years struggling to get the truth out if the Council about the disastrous transfer of the Tower Hamlets Council housing stock. [This is all on the video report and the KHOODEELAAR! blog reports and AADHIKAROnline reports and transcript that I have since published online] Here is the UNTRUTHFUL, ignorant and misleading post on the website of one of the Westminster-centric "mainstream" "Meeja" outlets http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/07/10/are-you-hiding-something-threats-from-westminster-after-71-y They are as misleading and ignorant as the "others" who they have been citing have been. By the "others" I of course mean those immoral and prejudiced and ignorant elements in and or on the periphery of the “Mainstream Meeja" in and near Fleet Street that claim that they have been reporting the ruth of what happened at Tower Hamlets Council on Wednesday 26 June 2013 when in fact they have been lying and been doing so to give, as they appear to think they are doing, an evidential basis for further Neo Cons assault on Society. To those lying elements, “Tower Hamlets Council” is “wrong” not because it is exposed in their coverage as doing wring but because of its association with a [or more than one] particular ethnicity or ethnic, nationality or cultural background/s etc. To me, and to John Wright, and to the majority of the people in Tower Hamlets, the Council is wring because whatever the faces ethnically, on the Council sats, the Council is a malfunctioning bureaucracy that is failing to protect the Community against rogue landlord outfits. In fact, John Wright stressed the fact that after the Tower Hamlets Council Housing stock had been transferred, Tower Hamlets Council has failed to “protect the estates” [that is to protect the rights of the people, tenants, residents and families on the housing estates] that Tower Hamlets Council had handed over to the [in Muhammad Haque’s words] rogue landlord outfits mis-called “social landlords”! Here, once again, is the online post of the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign video report published by AADHIKAROnline containing John Wright’s ORIGINAL interview with me on 26 June 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1RoOZDUcQ [To be continued]

KHOODEELAAR! told Tower Hamlets Council so! As did John Wright! Now the Daily Mirror's Jason Beattie joins in and INDEPENDENTLY objectively echoes our stance and our demands for accountability by Tower Hamlets Council on Housing

KHOODEELAAR! told Tower Hamlets Council so! As did John Wright! Now the Daily Mirror's Jason Beattie joins in and INDEPENDENTLY objectively echoes our stance and our demands for accountability by Tower Hamlets Council on Housing The BBC Paper reviews panellists Mina al Oirabi and the Daily Mirror’s Political Editor Jason Beattie [BBC News Channel 10 July 2013], KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser Muhammad Haque [pictured by KHOODEELAAR!] [Broadcasting the KHOODEELAAR! Champaign Hour] and John Wright. The two AADHIKAR and KHOODEELAAR! posters are part of the Campaign Publishing images archives that are added for SOURCE RECOGNITION. Muhammad Haque had made dozens of calls - on a series of broadcast programmes - asking Tower Hamlets Council’s Executive Mayor Lutfur Rahman and or his “housing spokesperson” Cllr. Rabina Khan to answer the hundreds of long outstanding and very urgent Questions the people in Tower Hamlets had about the Council’s failures covering all aspects of Housing in the East London Borough. Lutfur Rahman and Rabina Khan did not reply to the dozens of emails, telephone messages to the Tower Hamlets Council’s “press Office staff” and “Executive Support Officers” about the same subject, conveyed to them by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser between 2011 and 26 June 2013. It was on Wednesday 26 June when the PUBLIC QUESTION about HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY to the full Council was put by Muhammad Haque. John Wright, himself an activist for housing rights and concerned about the negative impact that transfer of Council Housing stock had had on the people in the Borough, was prompted to start filming when Muhammad Haque was in the middle of presenting his Question to the formal Council. This is how John Wright explained his filming when he spoke to Muhammad Haque moments after the Council Meeting was suspended by Council Speaker Lesley Pavitt. [To be continued]

CROSSRAIL Big Biz PR-peddling VINCE Cable was unplugged by our CAMPAIGN in 2009. Now we again do another exclusive contextual ethical update diagnosing why Vince Cable the Neo Cons Sell-Off Man was always ready to sell Society out to the Big Biz bidders! The Lib Dumbs really must get rid of the tag “Lib” anywhere about them. They are Sub-Cons from now on and this tag is given to them by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign at 0048 GMT London Thursday 11 July 2013

CROSSRAIL Big Biz PR-peddling VINCE Cable was unplugged by our CAMPAIGN in 2009. Now we again do another exclusive contextual ethical update diagnosing why Vince Cable the Neo Cons Sell-Off Man was always ready to sell Society out to the Big Biz bidders! The Lib Dumbs really must get rid of the tag “Lib” anywhere about them. They are Sub-Cons from now on and this tag is given to them by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign at 0048 GMT London Thursday 11 July 2013 Vince Cable's been caught without his political cables again! He is unplugged and is a stooge! Image of the “British Communist Party” daily outlet the MORNING STAR [published from an address in London E3 in the Borough of Tower Hamlets] reporting on the Vince Cable role as the CONDEM Collusion minister [Oops! "Secretary of State"!] doing the bidding of Big Business and the City of London interests and serving the Neo Cons overall Assault programme against Society The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary: UPDATING on the vicious Neo Cons Agenda that Vince Cable is now poised to take even further than any Neo Con-labelled operative or stooge in UK Collusion regime had ventured to do before [1] 0030 [0015] Hrs GMT London Thursday 11 July 2013 The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in Defence of the Community in the East End of London KHOODEELAAR! Told the Daily Mail and Paul Dacre so: that they were wrong to paint Vince Cable as "Saint Vince" at all! UPDATING on another world exclusive exposing the Neo Con s Agenda if the CONDEM Collusion, months before the Collusion came into cobbled toter existence: Vince Cable was EXPOSED as being UNPLUGGED from reality when in October 2009 we had filmed him at a Lib Dems stunt staged in the Oxford House, off Bethnal Green Road [opposite the TESCO store] in Tower Hamlets. KHOODEELAAR! also had reported on other Vince Cable dubiousness. The incident at the Oxford House, libDems stunt was the utterance by Vince Cable of this Question referring to the Crossrail route: “Does it come/go through here”? The “here” being/ meaning the London Borough of Tower Hamlets! Given that the Bethnal Green Road was in Tower Hamlets and even more importantly, given that there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of “results” on the internet search engine sites stating the word “KHOODEELAAR!” at the very time that Vince Cable was appearing at that Oxford House Lib Dems “do”, the fact that Vince Cable didn't;t even know if the Crossrail route [as plotted] went through “here” where he was sat as he uttered the stupid question, completed for us, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign against the Crossrail hole plot against the East End of London, the overdue answer to an unwarranted myth and a puzzle that had been created by the DAILY MAIL group creating the stupider suggestion that Vince Cable was the most “sincere and honest” of all the Front Bench Politician in the UK! We had never seen any evidence that Vince Cable was anything like the image that the corrupting agenda worked via the Daily Mail group was seeking to construct of him. We DID see enough evidence to conclude that Vince Cable - far from being “Saint Vince” as the DAILY MAIL group corruptly peddled him in the key period leading up to the disastrous antidemocratic poll staged in the UK in May 2010 - to conclude that Vince Cable was an opportunist whose careerist agenda was just as vicious as that of the others in the Parliamentary Political front row and that he was milking maximum benefit from the accidental notoriety that he had obtained by a craftily configured, rehearsed and delivered - but very small - intervention in the UK House of Commons. Now that he is poised to sell off the Post Office, it is time for Paul dacre et al over at the DAILY MAIL GROUP to provide evidence how this latest act of destruction of Society amounts to anything saintly. [To be continued]

KHOODEELAAR! DEFENDING DEMOCRATIC DEMANDS that are overdue for delivery by the "local" Tower Hamlets Council

UPDATER ETHICAL COMMENTARY: State of Undemocray in Britain and the utter untruthfulness of “The Meeja” including the lying behaviour of the BBC bureaucracy behind the Sunday Politics programme - the London segment about Tower Hamlets  Contextually the N'th post 

 

1534

1508 

[1450] Hrs GMT

London

Wednesday

10 July 2013

 

“Look what you said”

“I actually started filming because of your subject”

 

John Wright to Muhammad Haque on 26 June 2013 about Muhammad Haque’s Question to the Council that PROMPTED John Wright to start the filming at all:

 

[See more on the video for the entire statement about the housing mess in Tower Hamlets that John Wright made to me on Wednesday 26 June 2013]

 

And my SUBJECT that had PROMPTED John Wright to start the filming is, was and remains: the abysmal, the awful housing in Tower Hamlets and the abysmal failure of Tower Hamlets Council to get a grip on the anti-social, unaccountable, illegal and criminal behaviour by so many of the so-called Social Landlord outlets to whom the Council had handed over vast amounts of the Council Housing stock.

 

That is my subject.

That was my subject in my Question to Tower Hamlets Council on Wednesday 26 June 2013.

That Question can be found on the Tower Hamlets Council web site at this address
http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s45739/Report%20Public%20Questions%2026.06.13.pdf

and here, BELOW, is the full text of my QUESTION as contained in the Tower Hamlets Council’s Agenda for 26 June 2013

QUESTIONS Nine questions have been submitted as set out below:-

6.1 Question from Mr Muhammad Haque, Organiser, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in Defence of the Community in the East End of London

What is Tower Hamlets Council’s Constitutionally installed and transparently DEMOCRATICALLY active audit procedure for overseeing the conduct of those bodies especially the ones that have been allowed to take over the control of formerly Council-owned and Council controlled Housing stock in the context of the clear and the express undertaking given by LBTH Council to the Community and parts of the Community in the Borough on the relevant estates affected by the implications of the stock transfer procedures that were put into operation?

 

UPDATING:

 

KHOODEELAAR! SCOOPS and exposes the following as lying about the filming of the Tower Hamlets Council Meeting on 26 June 2013:

 

1. The BBC Sunday Politics Programme [the London segment, fronted by Tim Donovan and reported on “Tower Hamlets” by A Cryer] 

2. The Dockland and East London Advertiser

3. The Private Eye magazine - The Rotten Boroughs column, the first item [dated Friday 12 July 2013] and

4. The website politics.co.uk which repeats the untruth that John Wright had been “prompted by Eric Pickles’ statement to start the filming in the Tower Hamlets Council Chamber”.

 

NOT to mention dozens of others...

All of the above outlets have either deliberately lied or have negligently left out the truth about why Tower Hamlets resident John Wright, widely reported to be 71 years old and a disabled person, had BEGUN to film the Tower Hamlets Council Meeting on Wednesday 26 June 2013.

 

As the KHOODEELAAR! Youtube post shows, John Wright VOLUNTEERS on camera to me that he had ONLY begun to film because of the subject on which I was SPEAKING when he had begun filming...

 

So it was MY SPEECH and the SUBJECT of it that had sparked him to start the filming.

 

Wasn’t that significant?

 

Yet all the above outlets say that it was what Eric Pickles had said that got John Wright to start the filing.

 

But John Wright did not say that when he made the statement to me on record as I was recording the statement which he was making it to me within literally minuets of the Council Meting being suspended!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1RoOZDUcQ&feature=youtu.be

 

Image of John Wright [shown on this post] from my original video report on him which I had filmed on Wednesday 26 June 2013

 

[The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary on the abysmal, dysfunctional state of Tower Hamlets Borough Council is to be continued]

ACTION SEMINAR ACTION CALL

ACTION SEMINAR ACTION CALL The ACTION SEMINAR respectfully mentioned the work of Kay Jordan through the SSB A fir the defence of the Community against BiG Biz Agenda attacks 1532GMTLondonMonday08July2013. Tower Hamlets Executive Mayor Lutfur Rahman is being asked to take action to defend the Community from Big Business Agenda attacks. The call is in the 5-Point Action Programme, sent to mayorattowerhamletsdotgovdotuk address this afternoon by the Organisers of the Action Seminar held in the Brick Lane London E1 Area on Saturday 65 July 2013. T he Seminar was conducted by Muhammad Haque the Khoodeelaar! Campaign Organiser against the Crossrail hole plot on Brick Lane [ACTION UPDATES will be continued]

ACTION SEMINAR calls on Tower Hamlets Council to start action to defend the Community against Big Business takeover and displacement programme

1440 Hrs GMT London Monday 08 July 2013 What did the ACTION SEMINAR, held in the East End of London, not far from the RBS Building on Bishopsgate near Liverpool Street Station, on Saturday 06 July 2013 hear? That Tower Hamlets Borough Council [=LBTH] the local Council, was letting the City of London, Big Business interest take over the area. So has Lutfur Rahman, the present executive Mayor of LBTH, been aware of the Action Seminar? Answer: he indeed has been. He was sent information about the Seminar but he must have had some prior other engagement. However, he can have no problem in learning about the ACTION SEMINAR. The Organisers of the ACTION SEMINAR have just in the past few minutes sent Lutfur Rahman an email [mayor@towerhamlets.gov.uk ] the first communication specifying some of the most urgent steps that Tower Hamlets Council must take to protect and to defend the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area. The key substance of that email to Lutfur is quoted in full below: Race Equality in Tower Hamlets রেইস ইকুয়ালিটি ইন টাওয়ার হ্যামলেটস FAO Lutfur Rahman The Executive Mayor LBTH Key decisions made at the end of the Action Seminar on Saturday 6 July 2013: 1. That the takeover of the western areas of the LBTH by Big Developers and associated incursions and invasions were taking place with the participation of the Tower Hamlets Council which was LEAVING the community out of the contacts, communications, negotiations that have been taking place and are taking place between the LBTH COuncil and those parties and their agents and agencies. THIS was having a manifest and demonstrable adverse effects on the Community from the standpoint of the anti-discrimination legislation that has been in the UK statute Books for decades. One of the most directly adversely affected groups in the population has been and is the Bangladeshi community in the area. Others with similar ethnic, racial, cultural and related faith orientations and interests and affiliations have also been adversely affected. This process of planned displacements has been taking place with no evidence that Tower Hamlets Council is active over this as the electorally representative body that should be supporting the people, the electorate and the key community housing the electorate, over the huge range of planned attacks that have been going on in the programme that could only have been conceived by the combined inputs from Big Business, City of London and those parts of “Business” that remain still dedicated to a pro-racist, racist and apartheid programme for Britain. The beneficiaries of the LBTH Council’s abdication of its democratic and representative duties and of the Council’s abandonment of its option for interventions to defend the community have been the property speculators, land-grabbers and Big Business that have been making strategic sorties for decades to take over the area. The Crossrail hole plot and the ploy to get rid of the word “Banglatown” are two of the most recent examples of that Agenda being active against the parts of Tower Hamlets covered in these analyses and URGENT ACTION CALLS. 2. That the elected councillors for the Spitalfields and Banglatown Ward and those for the adjoining Wards of Weavers and Whitechapel were not engaged as elected representatives of the Community on the key decisions being made in this context. 3. That Tower Hamlets Council has no programme to protect the Community in the areas covered and that it must have a programme as based on the evidence and most importantly as based on the long-standing views of those who have been defending the community on every key economic, planning, environmental, social, demographic, democracy crisis and critical point stretching back decades. 5. That the Executive Mayor be given the opportunity to urgently meet with the Race Equality in Tower Hamlets organisation and to take steps for the LBTH Council to [a] address the LBTH Council’s duties and role in the context of the Race Relations, the Human Rights and the Equalities Acts in this context and [b] help start the very urgent process of reversing the takeover of the Community that has been ongoing and to create the series of activities that can at once defend the community and create the necessary gains in social, economic, demographic and electoral terms for the whole of the Community in the parts of the LBTH.

The Future of the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area

DATELINE Brick Lane London E1 in the East End of London UK 1320 Hrs GMT Sunday 07 July 2013 Images for the FUTURE OF The Community in the BRICK LANE London E1 Area. UPDATED on 06 July 2013 by © Muhammad Haque Main picture of Kay Jordan by © Muhammad Haque taken at a KHOODEELAAR! Action Event in the Greatorex Street and the inset, photographed by © Muhammad Haque showing two of the founding members of the Spitalfields Housing Cooperative [since re-designated ‘Spitalfields Housing Association’] and the Spitalfields Small Business Association. For over 30 years Kay Jordan stewarded the Spitalfields Small Business Association and in doing so made unparalleled contraction to the defence, stability and cohesion of the many small traders, businesses, families, individuals and their extended families both in the UK and beyond [The Action Archives Continue to be Reported, UPDATED by © Muhammad haque] DATELINE BRICK LANE: Original Commentary on the British Media on Sunday 07 July 2013 খেদাইলার! The © Muhammad Haque Daily Socio-Linguistic and Ethical Commentary: The Future of the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area - Introducing the context for the follow up reports on the Action Seminar that I had organised and conducted on Saturday 06 July 2013 [1] 1320 [1225] Hrs GMT London Sunday 07 July 2013 This খেদাইলার! [above] is a Seelotee Language word - transliterated into English by using phonetics: Kheydaieelaar! - that I UPDATED in 2012 in the context of the then proposal by the "Boundary Commission" about "England and Wales" to drop the word "Banglatown" from the official name of the Tower Hamlets Council Ward "Spitalfields and Banglatown". They, the Community’s Biggest, the most resourced and the most politically and economically powerful Enemies in Britain including and acting as extensions of the Agenda of Big Business, the Big Conglomerates, the Big Power-Wielders, are displacing, driving the Community out, pushing the Community out of our home, our neighbourhood, our Society, our land.. As can be seen from y description at the top of this Commentary, I am addressing the battle for the existence of the Community that is facing the threats from the very same sources and their likes which were threatening the same Community previously when they had plotted to dig the Community out of the area via the “Crossrail hole”. More than 13 years ago, the UK Labour Party controlling Bureaucracy and Clique, then very much Bliared and Right-wing, was allowing the BiG biz, Conglomerates and the Military industrial Complex [MIC] interests to add new pressures behind the already ongoing City of London Interests’ push for the takeover of the East End of London. The idea of the Brick Lane London E1 Area as a politically galvanisable entity in the context of what passes for “democratic mobilisation” had already been tested and given expressions to. In fact that was 40 years ago in 1973 when the pre-Murdoch [EVEN the pre-Murdoch!!!!] Sunday Times “Colour Supplement” [Magazine] carried an upfront naked assault on the Community as located in Brick Lane! I had no option in December 1973 but to mobilise immediate Opposition to the contents of that Sunday Times Colour Magazine attack on the Brick Lane Community but also to its immediate and long term impacts and implications. And the 1973 SUNDAY TIMES Colour Magazine ASSAULT on the Community in Brick Lane London E1 had an even more concentrated focus against the people it had decided constituted the central part of the population here: the Seelotees! Sylhet! The Sunday Time Colour Magazine Attack on the Brick Lane London E1 Bangladeshi was given extra toxicity by targeting the people who had come to the UK, to London from Sylhet. So why had the Sunday Times Colour Magazine carried that piece? Who had given the Sunday Times Colour Magazine ANY excuse to even mount that naked attack? What was the “response” [NONE at all!!!!] from the “Bangladeshi political activists employed in Britain at the time” to the Sunday Times Colour Magazine attack on the SEELOTEE-speaking Bangladeshis in 1973? [To be continued]

DATELINE BRICK LANE: Original Commentary on the British Media on Sunday 07 July 2013

খেদাইলার! 

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Socio-Linguistic and Ethical Commentary: The Future of the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area - Introducing the context for the follow up reports on the Action Seminar that I had organised and conducted on Saturday 06 July 2013 [1]

1225 Hrs GMT

London

Sunday

07 July 2013

This খেদাইলার!  [above] is a Seelotee Language word - transliterated into English by using phonetics: Kheydaieelaar! - that I UPDATED in 2012 in the context of the then proposal by the "Boundary Commission" about "England and Wales" to drop the word "Banglatown" from the official name of the Tower Hamlets Council Ward "Spitalfields and Banglatown".

They, the Community’s  Biggest, the most resourced and the most politically and economically powerful Enemies in Britain including and acting as extensions of the Agenda of Big Business, the Big Conglomerates, the Big Power-Wielders, are displacing, driving the Community out, pushing the Community out of our home, our neighbourhood, our Society, our land..

As can be seen from y description at the top of this Commentary, I am addressing the battle for the existence of the Community that is facing the threats from the very same sources and their likes which were threatening the same Community previously when they had plotted to dig the Community out of the area via the “Crossrail hole”.

More than 13 years ago, the UK Labour Party controlling Bureaucracy and Clique, then  very much Bliared and Right-wing, was allowing the BiG biz, Conglomerates and the Military industrial Complex [MIC] interests to add new pressures behind the already ongoing City of London Interests’ push for the takeover of the East End of London.

The idea of the Brick Lane London E1 Area as a politically galvanisable entity in the context of what passes for “democratic mobilisation” had already been tested and given expressions to.

In fact that was 40 years ago in 1973 when the pre-Murdoch [EVEN the pre-Murdoch!!!!] Sunday Times “Colour Supplement” [Magazine] carried an upfront naked assault on the Community as located in Brick Lane!

I had no option in December 1973 but to mobilise immediate Opposition to the contents of that Sunday Times Colour Magazine attack on the Brick Lane Community but also to its immediate and long term impacts and implications.

And the 1973 SUNDAY TIMES Colour Magazine ASSAULT on the Community in Brick Lane London E1 had an even more concentrated focus against  the people it had decided constituted the central part of the population here: the Seelotees!

Sylhet!

The Sunday Time Colour Magazine Attack on the Brick Lane London E1 Bangladeshi was given extra toxicity by targeting the people who had come to the UK, to London from Sylhet.

So why had the Sunday Times Colour Magazine carried that piece?

Who had given the Sunday Times Colour Magazine ANY excuse to  even mount that naked attack?

What was the “response” [NONE at all!!!!] from the “Bangladeshi political activists employed in Britain at the time” to the Sunday Times Colour Magazine attack on the SEELOTEE-speaking Bangladeshis in 1973?

[To be continued]

By © Muhammad Haque: REPORTING from the Action Seminar- One man detailed the nightmare 3 years of noise hell he and his family suffered because of Crossrail digging in the East End near Whitechapel.

By © Muhammad Haque: REPORTING from the Action Seminar- One man detailed the nightmare 3 years of noise hell he and his family suffered because of Crossrail digging in the East End near Whitechapel.

2310 Hrs GMT

London

Saturday

06 July 2013

REPORTING STRAIGHT from the Acton Seminar on the Future of the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area in the East End of London.

Jointly Organised by the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign and THREC [now renamed Race Equality in Tower Hamlets] and supported by associated campaigners groups invaliding the Brick Lane Community Business Forum, CBRUK, the Kay Jordan Foundation and others.

In the proceedings, one fact came out as a crystal clear vindication of the Community Campaigners carrying the KHOODEELAAR! banner in defending the Community against the City of London interests and their linked Big Business Agenda pushers bent in  taking over the East End of London.

Of particular note was the role played by Kay Jordan who was at pains to paint the true picture of the devastation that the Crossrail Big Biz Agenda plot would cause to the community in the East End of London.

Kay Jordan, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaigner in defence of the East End of London against the Agenda of the Big Business City of London Interests last spoke at the Vallance Gardens in August 2008.  

On that occasion, certain employees of the local Tower Hamlets Council as well as a number of the Crossrail project employees were also present, as were certain intermediary personnel speaking for the Big Biz agenda. 

Kay Jordan and the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser Muhammad Haque exposed the bankruptcy of the pedlars of the Crossrail hole plot line in their diagnostic rejection of the fakery that the employees put there. 

Kay Jordan and Muhammad Haque accurate warned that 

At one point, Princelet Street [off Brick Lane] resident and Khoodeelaar! campaign supporter Askir Miah joined in and condemned the line being then taken by certain individuals who had been ignorant of the severe impact the planned Crossrail hole would have on the community.

That meeting took place in a small room in the corner of Wodeham Gardens and Vallance Road on Friday 6 August 2008.

Today, Saturday 6 July 2013, FOUR years and eleven months to THE DAY since then, Kay Jordan’s stand against the Crossrail hole was vindicated at another local meeting, held in another room, slightly bigger, again in the Brick Lane London E1 Area.

There, one of the speakers was Mr Yeabor Miah who too had been present at the 6 August 2008 meeting at the corner of Wodeham gardens and vallance Road. He had heard what Kay Jordan and Muhammad Haque said about Crossrail hole plan bringing noise, pollution and contamination.

Mr Yeabor Miah said today that he and his wife had to endure three long years of noise pollution, vibration and other environmental attacks on their home and on their street, Trahorn Close, because of the digging that was being done by Crossrail behind their home.

[To be continued]

Future of Brick Lane Area is under serious threat: warns, Osman Gani a founder of Spitalfields Housing Coop

Future of Brick Lane Area is under serious threat: warns, Osman Gani  a founder of Spitalfields Housing Coop

By © Muhammad Haque 

Action SEMINAR on the Future of the Community in Brick Lane London E1 Area 2 PM Local time [1300 GMT] Saturday 06  July 2013. 

The SEMINAR Supporters: “Osman Gani has been a frequent contributor to a number of Bangla language outlets over the years, mainly as part of his involvement with various initiatives in the late 1970s and during the 1980s that were taken by the many active people concerned for and actively engaged with one another in creating the structures for the protection of the community as a whole...”

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary:

UPDATING on the run up to FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY, the Action Seminar in Defence of the Brick Lane London E1 Area in the East End of London: How the ethnicity-linked Media, some of whose “trade operators” “celebrated” 20 years of their trading grouping called “London Bangla Press Club” at a venue on the Mile End Road London E1, in the Borough of Tower Hamlets which is the subject of one of the most severe brazen take-over programmes taking place with the active collusion of the “local” Tower Hamlets Borough Council as the “planning” Authority. The other side of the toxic coin of dysfunction affecting the ordinary people in the East End is the numerically very present “ethnicity-linked” “Media” whose sole preoccupation seems to be to supplicate to the status quo of pro-Empire, pro-racist, State and sub-state Agencies while being in contemptuous and brazen denial of the very Community in whose name they, these “ethnicity-linked” “Media” claim their relevance when approaching the many sources of patronage, funding and “official validation and affiliation [4]

2224 Hrs GMT

London

Monday

01 July 2013

The Future of the Community Action SEMINAR on Saturday 6 July 2013 is being supported by a number of local campaigners in the East End of London.

One of them is Mohammed Osman Gani who spoke to me outside the water Lily Centre where the London Bangla Press Club was holding its Fund-raising Function celebrating 20 years of its existence.

Osman Gani has been a frequent contributor to a number of Bangla language outlets over the years, mainly as part of his involvement with various s initiatives in the late 1970s and during the 1980s that were taken by the many active people concerned for and actively engaged with one another in creating the structures for the protection of the community as a whole. 

He has never really belonged to any media outlet as a full time “member of staff” or as part of the "proprietors" or "businesspersons" who happened to start the out;let at any given time but has been well connected with many of the outlets which appear to be mushrooming at an inexplicable rate from addresses in the East End of London.

So he is well placed to comment on what those outlets are doing now as we approach the First Action Seminar of Saturday 6 July 2013 in the East End to defend the Community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area:

Here is a sample of what he told me in his response to the questions that I had put to him in the Mile End Road yesterday:

“.... taking over part of Tower Hamlets, particularly Banglatown, Brick Lane Area...

“ In a way, the Community is under real threats and there is no-one [who is defending the Community which is feeling] defenceless.

And our Media, particularly the ethnic Media and the mainstream Media are failing.

They are pandering to the developers.

And the developers are ruthless.

Twenty years ago, the got rid of [the] Spitalfields Market and the whole Market has been taken over ..

It is a matter of time... Brick Lane, Bangla Town will be non existent.”

[To be continued]

Seminar supporter Osman Gani [pictured by © Muhammad Haque on 30 June 2013] tells Muhammad Haque how the very future of the Brick Lane London E1 area is threatened with extinction in 10 years...