Translate

Friday 24 April 2015

Claire Khaw's free legal advice to Lutfur Rahman



Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election - Thursday, 21st October, 2010

Lutfur Rahman Independent 23283 51.76%
Helal Abbas          Labour             11254 25.02%

Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election - Thursday, 22nd May, 2014

 Lutfur Rahman Tower Hamlets First 36539 43.38%
 John Biggs          Labour                            27643 32.82%

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-found-guilty-of-electoral

Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor, said he was “distinctly uncomfortable” with a court’s ability to remove an elected mayor. “If there is any illegality, then surely that’s a matter for the police.

 “I’m uneasy that a mayor who has taken on the political powers in a borough can be removed by someone who is essentially a bureaucrat. What I don’t understand is why he [Mawrey] found evidence of corruption that the police have so far failed to identify,” he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_%28politician%29

He was re-elected at the 2014 mayoral election, but the result of this election was declared void in April 2015 by the Election Commissioner after Rahman was reported guilty of electoral fraud under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
On 16 April 2014 the Metropolitan Police said there was "no credible evidence of criminality" to substantiate allegations made against Rahman, so they are not carrying out an investigation at this stage. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1983

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3052100/Mayor-Tower-Hamlets-guilty-electoral-fraud.html

- Rahman 'let loose a mob of excitable, politically committed, young men' who 'approached voters, particularly Bangladeshi voters and harangued them in a manner that appeared to some onlookers to be rather aggressive'. Some voters said getting into polling stations was like 'running the gauntlet'.

Is this illegal?

- Up to 300 votes were 'dubious' or the result of 'personation', an electoral offence where someone votes as someone else.

Is there proof that Rahman was personally responsible for this or could it have been done by his over-enthusiastic supporters? One also has to wonder how many elections might have up to 300 votes that are "dubious', whatever that means.

- Rahman 'ran his campaign on the basis that it was the religious duty of faithful Muslims to vote for him'.

Is it illegal for Rahman to say to the voters of Tower Hamlets "Vote for me because I am Muslim and you are Muslim than vote for a non-Muslim?"

- He ran his party, Tower Hamlets First, as a 'personal fiefdom', which 'had no other aim, objective or ideology beyond the continuation of Mr Rahman in the office of Mayor of Tower Hamlets'.

Surely it is the purpose of a politician to remain in office? Is this criminal now, if you are Muslim?

But most disturbingly, he had close links to an Islamic extremist group – the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) [which campaigns for a sharia state] - and allegedly channelled millions of pounds of council money to its front organisations, while diverting council grants away from secular bodies. 

Let us see how "extremist" they are at:



If you wanted to campaign for a sharia state, you would have to campaign for a change in the law. An example of this would be to campaign for the constitutional right of citizens not to be taxed more than a 20% flat rate tax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums for example, or lashing unmarried single mothers 100 times in public for each illegitimate offspring, http://quran.com/24/2 both of which I myself advocate. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts


My ideas are undoubtedly radical which will of course have me labelled as an extremist, but I don't mind. But I would just ask this: Who is the zealot and fanatic?

The election court heard how, during his time as mayor, Rahman had siphoned public funds to IFE front organisations and presided over £2million in council funding for the East London Mosque and the Osmani Trust, a Muslim-only youth group allied with the IFE. Indeed, the IFE mobilised hundreds of supporters to achieve Rahman’s election victories.
Is any of this proven, and is any of this illegal?

It has links to the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ plot and, according to own leaflets, wants to change the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed…from ignorance to Islam’.

It seems reasonable for non-libtard parents of all races and religions to protect themselves from the abomination that is sex education for 5 year old children currently being proposed in the UK and about to be implemented in Canada. I suspect socially conservative non-Muslims who are usually Catholic and chauvinistically Islamophobic secretly envy the effectiveness and social cohesion of the "Trojan Horse" Muslim parents.



Rahman also got rid of his competent chief executive, and ordered that all grants over £1,000 must be decided by him. In 81 per cent of cases, council officer recommendations were overruled by Rahman or his cronies, who would cite ‘local knowledge’ as their reason for diverting millions away from non-Muslim groups.

Why did he get rid of his chief executive? What does he say and what do his opponents say? Is he not entitled to order that all grants of over £1,000 be decided by him? Were the reasons for overruling council officer recommendations irrational and unfair?

While mayor, he also appointed a 100 per cent Bangladeshi and Muslim cabinet – even though the borough is only 34 per cent Muslim.

Were the reasons for doing so irrational, unfair and not conducive to the good running of the borough?

Rahman ignored the non-Bengali media but diverted thousands of pounds to Channel S, an influential TV station broadcasting to nearly half a million Bangladeshis, in return for fawning coverage. Astonishingly, he even paid the station’s chief reporter, Mohammed Jubair, £1,050 a week as a part-time ‘community relations adviser’.

Are the British media complaining that thousands of pounds had not been diverted to them? Was Rahman breaking any rules when he did this? 

Rahman threatened to dispose of a Henry Moore artwork which offended Islamic sensibilities. The borough’s public libraries stocked large quantities of extremist literature.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lutfur-rahman/henry-moore-old-flo-sculpture_b_2093809.html gives Rahman's explanation for his reasons for doing so pointing out that his is not the only borough to sell off works of art. It is hideous anyway and you can imagine the vandalism that would be regularly wreaked on this monstrosity. Is Rahman to be held responsible for public librarians' choice of books?



He transferred valuable council property to close associates at far less than their true market value.
Which ones? What was the "true market value"? Who valued the property? What was the purchase price? Was any of this illegal or corrupt?

DID LABOUR ADD TO THE MESS? JUDGES SLAMS PARTY'S ACTIONS

 Despite multiple findings against Mr Rahman, the judge yesterday also criticised the Labour Party for its treatment of him in 2010.

 Labour sacked Rahman as its mayoral candidate on the basis of smears following an order from the party's National Executive Committee (NEC), which was attended by Harriet Harman.

 Rahman was left 'completely unaware' he had been accused of links to extremist groups by a party rival, Helal Abbas, the judge said.

 Commissioner Mawrey said there was 'not a shred of credible evidence linking Mr Rahman with any extreme or fundamentalist Islamist movement'.

 The judge said: 'The Committee did not even decide to hold an investigation. It did not summon Mr Abbas and ask him to justify his serious allegations. A resolution was passed to suspend Mr Rahman, unseen and unheard.

 'The upshot of the meeting was thus that Mr Rahman, completely unaware of the accusations and given no opportunity to counter them, was summarily sacked as candidate and his accuser substituted. '

 Condeming the party's actions, he added: '[Mr Rahman's] treatment by the NEC was, by any standards, utterly shameful and wholly unworthy of the Party.'

I am delighted Mr Mawrey mentioned this. Wouldn't it be nice to have political parties declared public bodies and subject to judicial review, as India has done? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/indian-court-acknowledges-indian.html

When local Tory councillor Peter Golds phoned the Daily Mail in May 2010, he and a reporter visited east London addresses where large numbers of voters had been added to the electoral roll. At one Labour candidate’s home, five voters had mushroomed to 12 within a month.
When a reporter for The Independent knocked on the same door, he was badly beaten by a mob. No one was charged. Mr Golds said: ‘Why on earth have the police been arresting journalists [over alleged phone hacking and paying officials] … ?
‘We need a free press to expose things like electoral fraud … the police are too frightened to do it.’

Why are the police "too frightened"?





So, basically, Lutfur Rahman was convicted of a criminal offence in a civil court. If the CPS is dealing with it, then it is a criminal matter. Lawyers will know what I mean and so should Mr Mawrey. I would damn well appeal if I were Rahman. If they still stitch him up Muslims and non-Muslims would know what to damn well think about a government that ignores its own rules, wouldn't we?

... the then education secretary Michael Gove, said pupils must be made aware of fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different beliefs.

What is the rule of law? It means putting down your laws in writing and abiding by them, including your established legal principles and traditions.

What makes English law different and superior to other legal systems?

It is considered superior to other systems because a higher standard of proof is required to convict for those accused of criminal offences and is therefore more protective of the liberty and reputations of those who are subject to it.

Are the British going to throw out this rule of law now, in its mania to satisfy its Islamophobia?

We won't know till Rahman appeals and the judgement of the Court of Appeal goes against him. 


at
Labels: , , , , ,

2 comments:

Jeff Marshall said...

“He transferred valuable council property to close associates at far less than their true market value. Which ones? What was the "true market value"? Who valued the property? What was the purchase price? Was any of this illegal or corrupt?”

This Telegraph article points out that the old Poplar Town Hall (a building of great historic interest and potential) was sold by Rahman to his friends for only £875,000.

A smallish Victorian terraced house nearby was sold at around the same time for £575,000.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266479/lutfur-rahman-council-assets-and-close-personal-allies-the-evidence/

An article in the East London Advertiser about the sale reports that although auditors could find no evidence of unlawful practices in the way the sale was conducted, they were critical of the fact that records of the sale had gone missing.

Not that anyone planned to do anything about the missing records, it seemed.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/poplar_town_hall_sale_lawful_says_independent_report_1_3718002

26 April 2015 at 14:41:00 BST
Claire Khaw said...

When faced with a situation of insufficient evidence, especially if he is Muslim, assume the guilt of the accused and proceed straight to punishment and jail. Do not pass go and do not collect £200.

26 April 2015 at 20:37:00 BST

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Theology, philosophy and morality with Vincent Bruno

Noahide laws mentioned at a presidential rally 2:00  Jen Scharf: Jews haven't been living in their own theocracy for 2000 years and ther...