Can Lutfur Rahman stop Tower Hamlets Council sinking beyond repair? The SPECTATOR magazine web site 'debates' [2]

Can Lutfur Rahman stop Tower Hamlets Council sinking beyond repair? The SPECTATOR 'debates' [2]

SPECTATOR magazine web site, London UK

The 2nd COMMENT posted online by MUHAMMAD HAQUE this morning Tuesday 09 April 2013 sharing the CONCERNS about the dysfunctional bureaucracy [or clique of people in publicly paid posts and behaving irresponsibly, with callous disregard to the duties they owe to the people in the Community] that has been disregarding the Tower Hamlets Council.

the key thrust of this Second Comment is a wake up call to all those, including and in context typified by Lutfur Rahman as the “executive mayor”, who are in place following "elections", to take note and act before Tower hamlets Council is destroyed totally.

that destruction will be brought about by key decision-making Council-employees behaving wrongfully and illegally and doing so with the democratically elected post-holders failing or neglecting to hold these employees to account without any more delay.

In my initial comment on this piece

"Right to reply: Mayor Lutfur Rahman responds to Nick Cohen" 

I had said that Tower Hamlets Council was not being held to democratic accountability.

I had said that because that was true then and that remains true today, Tuesday 09 April 2013, a day that I am going to have to dedicate to finding out more evidence of why "my local Council" is failing the local community so abysmally.

There is no better place to start than by looking at the evidence of my own direct communications.

If we say that I have had to create in the past 30 months several thousand separate and originally researched and verified items of communications examining the behaviour of the various decision-makers in Tower Hamlets Council perhaps that will give a fairly representative idea of the detail of the evidence.

Based on that, I can share the findings here say that most of Tower Hamlets Council’s decision-making goes on without any democratic audit, accountability or oversight.

And that it is costing people affected by the adverse decisions dearly. And there is no known viable recourse for people who badly need redress but cannot find any.

Lutfur knows what I am talking about here.

As do at least five of his very closely active colleagues in “the cabinet” that he fronts. Over the past 30 months, I have had to communicate with him more times than I had ever imagined should have been necessary.

Why then was it necessary?

As I have already stated in a number of broadcast programmes on radio and on satellite TV, this has been done by a number of key decision-making employees in the Council who behave as if they do not have to abide by any laws or any constitutionality, let alone with any ethics or any sense of fairness.

Some of that was also hinted at and in a particular case extensively detailed by the MP Robert [Bob] Neil who spoke in a House of Commons debate he had been involved in calling for on 23 January 2013 about local Councils which debate featured Tower Hamlets as, in the context of that speech, one of the failing Councils in England and Wales.

On the evidence of my communications and clear concerns about the wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional behaviour of Tower Hamlets Council’s key decision-making employees, there is a serious dysfunction in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.

And someone has got to democratically accountably and transparently and conclusively admit it and immediately start dealing with it in real terms.

As opposed to in making excuses, being in denial or worse in even suggesting that the evidence does not exist or that the Council’s critics are somehow making things up!

Otherwise the very existence of Tower Hamlets Council as “we have known it” will be exposed to serious and real threat!

That will in turn mean that the vast majority of people in one of England’s most deprived Boroughs will get even worse “service” than they have ben doing recently.

Which brings me to the little matter of the “mayor election” as scheduled for 2014.

Do those who claim to be set on replacing Lutfur Raman from his perch as the “elected executive mayor of Tower Hamlets Borough” have a programme?

I have not seen any that contains a programme for a really democratic accountability by the Council to the Community in Tower Hamlets Borough. This is what I call ground for raw discontent about the Council as a whole. This means the discontent is set to come in the direction of Lutfur Rahman faster and more forcefully than he appears to have realised so far.

Margaret Thatcher: What forces had created this image of Political Violence on Society?

Margaret Thatcher: What forces had created this image of Political Violence on Society?

The © Muhammad Haque Daily Ethical Commentary: Margaret Thatcher -

What forces had created this image of Political Violence on Society? [1]

0302 [0245] [0220] Hrs GMT London Tuesday 09 April 2013

 This front page [image above this Commentary] is of the British Communist Party Daily Morning Star’s front-page dated Tuesday 09 April 2013.

It is tame, misleading and the contents that go with it are even more misleading. In the following Commentary, I shall be examining the bankruptcy of the "British Left" in the context of the tool that the Neo Cons had invented in Maggie [Margaret Hilda Roberts] Thatcher. 

There is NO evidence that she had either the intellect or the depth of understanding or the dedication to “her work” [what WAS her work when compared to the destruction of the values and the assaults on Society that she was engaged in?] which are being attributed to her. 

She was being used as a strategically invented political tool, as one of the most effective Trojan horses, to coin a phrase, the real enemies of Society found in her and rammed it through under the guise of her APPEARANCES as a ‘woman...’ and all those ‘features’.... that the and the worst use from Society’s standpoint was being deliberately done by depicting her gender and the ‘fact’ of her being “a woman”. Of course she was a biological woman with all that that entailed. 

But politically, why was she being repeatedly cited as “a woman”?

 What message was being intended to be conveyed by that reference, that ‘identification’?

 If being “a woman” was supposed to show, amongst other qualifiers to that portrayal in that temporal and social, Economic and Political context, the non-violent, ethical, moral, compassionate, just view towards Society then she failed totally. 

She personified and coney the worst image of a woman in power: the image of a woman who was bent on attacking Society. How was that a good thing for Society? Or for humanity? 

Or for the world? 

Wasn’t she also the one who berated the other image, that of Nelson Mandela, still incarcerated in the Apartheid prison on that Island off the coasts of mainland South Africa and called him a terrorist without hesitation, remorse or regret? 

She did more damage to women than has yet been admitted. Isn’t it time to remember her interview in January 1978 on ITV that is still full of venom and hatred as based on ethnicity, race and racist intolerance? How are those being ‘tackled’ if they are being tacked at all? 

And is Ed Milibrand any ‘good’ at all at confronting the Thatcherite resurgence that the Neo Cons Collusion is embarked on now, as at 09 April 2013, with the aim of finishing off Society? Who had scripted that phrase that Margaret Thatcher mouthed to the effect that “there is [was] no such thing as Society”? 

As the footage has already been played, the Political Margaret Thatcher was an invention. 

Thought up by men some of whom are still around and are openly admitting to having played parts in the programme that manufactured her. 

To the point of coaching her to put across the “strategic” diction! 

As a ploy to fool the gullible public already prepared to receive the messages of poison and discord that she had been scripted to pledge to discourage [all those phrases about “St Francis of Assisi” etc that she had been tutored to mouth at the inception of her formal embarkation of Office] which would show that she was uttering an utter untruth on that pledge. 

[To be continued]