Translate

Showing posts with label Tower Hamlets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tower Hamlets. Show all posts

Monday, 18 May 2015

Former BNP man says he intends to vote for Rabina Khan to be Tower Hamlets Mayor

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/10_candidates_running_for_tower_hamlets_mayor_to_replace_deposed_lutfur_rahman_1_4075822




Rabina Khan - eloquently praising Lutfur Rahman who endorsed her candidacy while declaring that she is very much her own woman.


Nicholas McQueen the UKIP Tower Hamlets Mayoral Candidate


A former member of the BNP, no less, says:

Here is the choice.
Elaine BAGSHAW (Liberal Democrats)
John BIGGS (Labour)
Andy ERLAM (Red Flag–Anti-Corruption)
John FOSTER (Green)
Peter GOLDS (Conservative)
Vanessa Helen HUDSON (Animal Welfare)
Hafiz Abdul KADIR (independent)
Rabina KHAN (independent)
Nicholas MCQUEEN (UKIP)
Md Motiur RAHMAN NANU (independent)
I suppose I should say Nicholas MCQUEEN (UKIP). However, this time I think I would like to vote for someone who might actually win. 
I remember Peter GOLDS (Conservative) screaming at police officers near a polling station in an local election once that I was passing out 'seditious literature' (i.e BNP leaflets) and that I ought to be stopped. The police responded by asking me to move about 3 feet. I think it would be difficult to give such a man my vote. 
John BIGGS (Labour) is a boring Labour machine politician, forever burnishing his 'anti-fascist' credentials whenever necessary. And there is no point in voting for any of the others except - Rabina Khan. 
Why? 
(1) I have already had two leaflets from Khan's team, whereas the others have delivered none to me whatsoever. The Rahman/Khan team do seem to be the most serious about winning. 
(2) I don't think on reflection that Rahman received a fair trial, for a number of reasons, one of which is that criminal matters should not be tried in a civil court. 
(3) Even if Rahman is as corrupt as they say, his management of the Muslim vote is in many ways no worse than the manipulation of the Muslim vote practiced in the past by Labour. Labour are, of course, annoyed that they can no longer rely on this automatic caucus. 
The tribal and divided state of race relations in Tower Hamlets is largely the creation of the Labour Party, not of Lutfur Rahman. It was Labour that alienated the white vote, especially in the 1990s when they wanted to defeat the BNP as well as the Liberals. 
So I shall vote for Rabina Khan on the basis that her victory will weaken the Labour Party - a thoroughly anti-British party which supports unlimited immigration and is thus far more dangerous than Rahman's Tower Hamlets First group could ever be. 
The best way to stick it to Labour is to vote for Khan.

A political system that is not dysfunctional would allow its participants to vote positively for what they do want, not voting to to stick it to the party they hate most.

Unfortunately, we are all reduced to this. If we cannot decide whom we like most then we will decide on whom we hate most.

It is only the smaller parties that can be used to tell all the big parties who created all the problems in the first place that they got it wrong.

If I lived in TH it would be a toss up between the UKIP candidate and Rabina Khan - an attractive, eloquent, passionate and apparently sincere woman who is clearly very competent - against a middle aged man who is not attractive, not eloquent, not charismatic and who does not inspire confidence.

This does highlight the kind of power an attractive woman has over "mere" men. If the candidate Lutfur Rahman endorsed candidate had been middle-aged, Muslim and male, voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate who best represented their political principles, rather than be distracted by the candidate they would rather be having sex with ....

This is probably the real reason why it is said most women should not be allowed the vote (they would vote for the most handsome male candidate or a female candidate) and why most women should not be allowed to stand for election (because beta males would much rather vote for a woman they find attractive than another beta male).

There is a rule that candidates and activists who visit polling stations must always remove their rosettes, which I discovered when I was shadowing Tim Rait in 2008.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/26-june-2008-henley-by-election.html

At first I thought this rule unnecessarily strict and then revised my opinion. All it takes is a beautiful and silent woman wearing a rosette to influence the choice of most voters in a polling station.

Out of rational self-interest you would choose the most able candidate to be your mayor. Khan would put TH on the political map while it is impossible to imagine McQueen as mayor.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 27 April 2015

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE judgment against Lutfur Rahman an establishment stitch-up




http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html

"Lutfur Rahman is only banned from participating in the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election, I believe." - According to the press, he might also be disqualified from practising as a solicitor, his pre-politics profession.

How do you know he was tried in the Civil Division?

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-alternative-lutfur-rahman-election-petition-1

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/electoral-fraud-responsibilities#police

The police and prosecutors

The police are responsible for investigating any allegations of electoral fraud. Every police force in the UK has an identified Single Point of Contact Officer (or SPOC) for electoral fraud, who provides specialist support and advice to investigators.

Prosecuting authorities (the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland) are responsible for taking cases of alleged electoral fraud to court. They work closely with police forces to examine evidence about alleged electoral fraud before deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution.

None of this happened while the conditions for setting aside an election are stated below:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf

12. The legislation provides that the outcome of an election may be challenged on
the grounds of an undue election, an undue return, that the candidate was at the
time of election disqualified or that the election was voided by corrupt or illegal
practices.

13. In summary, taking into account Part 3 of the RPA 1983 and relevant case law, the grounds for challenging an election are that:

• an error was made by an electoral official that affected the result or at least
meant that ‘the election was not conducted so as to be substantially in
accordance’ with the rules (under this ground, the election court is able to
conduct a scrutiny of ballot papers to ascertain which candidate has the majority
of lawful votes);

• corrupt or illegal practices were committed by a candidate or his or her agent or
‘such practices so extensively prevailed in an election that they may reasonably
be supposed to have affected the result’;

• the successful candidate was disqualified.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/part/III/crossheading/prosecutions-for-corrupt-or-illegal-practices

None of these were satisfied either, yet Lutfur Rahman was "convicted" anyway.

Now, the police are busily gathering evidence.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tower-hamlets-scotland-yard-probe-new-allegations-after-lutfur-rahman-corruption-verdict-10218909.html

This is rather like eating your cake before you have even got the ingredients and then baking it. 
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

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 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Jeffrey Marshall's letter to East London Advertiser in support of Lutfur Rahman as Tower Hamlets mayor

Jeffrey Marshall has informed me at 1717 on 20 October:

"Mike Brooke, East London Advertiser, writes to say that my pro-Lutfur letter will be printed next week.

Too late to influence the election then, I replied (jokingly).

However he said he had put it on the ELA website under 'Features'.

Why would you want to influence it anyway, he said. So I mentioned comparable absence of democracy in Labour and BNP, but he hasn't responded as yet."


Below is the letter that would have appeared today in the East London Advertiser in the normal course of events, though I realise things are far from normal at Tower Hamlets, for it is polling day today.

Cllr Shahed Ali writes that mayoral candidate, Lutfur Rahman, is a ‘Respect collaborator disguised within Labour’ (‘There is really only one right candidate for mayor’, Advertiser Letters, October 14).

Since Cllr Rahman was leader of the Labour council for two years from 2008 to 2010, it is surprising that the Labour party failed to notice this at the time.

Cllr Ali also wonders how ‘an independent candidate with a proven track record of breaking party rules’ can be an effective mayor, and seems to suggest that submission to Labour party discipline is somehow in the best interests of the electorate, despite Labour’s National Executive Committee having a proven track record of ignoring party democracy.

In the final round of Labour’s ballot, Lutfur Rahman won twice as many members’ votes as the two runners up, John Biggs and Helal Abbas, put together.

But when two of his Labour rivals, Helal Abbas and Bill Turner, apparently alleged, among other things, that he was sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists, Lutfur Rahman was dumped by Labour’s NEC without even an investigation.

Unquestioning party loyalists might not care, but the lack of internal democracy and accountability in political parties has serious implications for our democracy as a whole.

So a degree of independence from any party might be useful for a mayoral candidate, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated when he stood as an Independent for London mayor in 2000, defeating an uninspiring ‘official’ Labour candidate.

The council’s election booklet shows four candidates in open-necked shirts, who look as if they are dressed for an evening in their local pub, and one serious contender, Lutfur Rahman, looking very presentable indeed in smart collar and tie.

The post of elected mayor creates a new opportunity for leadership in Tower Hamlets. The successful candidate will be a key representative for our borough. So it should be someone that Tower Hamlets can feel proud of.

The crowning irony of all this is that while Britain is constantly whining at China about is human rights records, none of any members of any political party capable of achieving office protects the rights of individual members against its leadership.

The Chinese, who have been through the Cultural Revolution, have at least acknowledged the importance of protecting members' rights in its party constitution.  Without this protection, any courageous front bench MP will find his career over the moment he says anything to displease his leader, just like Enoch Powell, when Heath expelled him from the Cabinet for speaking what most people then and now adversely affected by immigration feel to be the truth.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738_1.htm

Article 4. Party members enjoy the following rights:
    1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.
    2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.
    3) To make suggestions and proposals regarding the work of the Party.
    4) To make well-grounded criticism of any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party in a responsible way, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent cadre.
    5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.
    6) To attend, with the right of self-defense, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves or to appraise their work and behavior; other Party members may also bear witness or argue on their behalf.
    7) In case of disagreement with a Party resolution or policy, to make reservations and present their views to Party organizations at higher levels even up to the Central Committee, provided that they resolutely carry out the resolution or policy while it is in force.
    8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to higher Party organizations even up to the Central Committee and ask the organizations concerned for a responsible reply.
    No Party organization, up to and including the Central Committee, has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 16 October 2010

"HELAL DEAD MEAT" in "Rotten Boroughs", Private Eye, No 1273, 15-29 October 2010

"Labour is in meltdown in Tower Hamlets, where the party's cack-handed efforts to prevent its own former council leader, Lutfur Rahman, becoming elected mayor of the east London borough on 21 October have virtually guaranteed his triumph at the polls.

Lutfur has become an embarrassment to Labour because of his alleged links to the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe, which pulls the strings at the East London Mosque - first reported in this column two years ago (Eye 1219) and forensically examined by Andrew Gilligan on Channel 4's Dispatches back in February. 

In the blowback from Dispatches, Lutfur was ousted as Labour group and council leader in May.  He then put his name forward for nomination as the party's mayoral candidate and became an unlikely martyr after the London Labour Party twice removed him from the list of candidates.  Lutfur went to court to remain on the list and then romped home in a poll of local party members.  Labour's National Executive Commitee then dumped him as candidate, so Lutfur declared he would stand as an independent - shades of Ken Livingstone and the London mayoral race back in 2000.

Playing the frank Dobson role as doomed-to-lose official candidate is Lutfur's replacement as council leader, Helal Abbas, who has little democratic legitimacy because he was only the local membership's third choice, with 157 votes to Lutfur's 433.  Second-placed John Biggs, who unlike Abbas comes with no embarrassing baggage, won 251 members' votes.  He is assumed to have been passed over because he is, er, white.

Abbas, a former bankrupt, is hardly a breath of fresh air, having appeared in this column on numerous occasions over the past decade.  In a previous incarnation as council leader in 2003 he won the Eye's prestigious "brass-necked councillor of the year" award for pocketing a 49% rise in allowances (Eye 1096) and ungraciously responded to the accoldate by declaring that Eye readers were not "sane-minded" and should "get a life" (Eye 1099).

During his three years at the helm up to 2005, he took on the mantle of the fraud-buster and police opened investigations into four council-funded organisations.  Some of the shine came off this when leaked documents from a Housing Corporation investigation in to allegations of electoral fraud at a housing association referred to a certain "Candidate A" who had used "votes" from an out-of-date register - which included the names of dead people - in an attempt to win a seat on the association's board (Eye 1133).  Abbas was asked on at least four occasions if he was "Candidate A" and each time strangely lost the power of speech.

PS:   Labour has purged those Tower Hamlets councillors -eight of them - who supported Lutfur's mayoral candidacy.  These martyrs to principle include Rania Khan and Oliur Rahman, who were originally elected as Respeck councillors in 2006.  They then left to join a breakaway group called Respect: Independent Party (RIP - geddit?).  At the London Assembly elections in 2008 the pair stood for the Left List but were then persuaded by Lutfur to join Labour last year.  Principles - now you see 'em, now you don't!"

Lutfur's shabby treatment by the Labour Party, who sought to have him removed as candidate without a proper investigation, has echoes of the treatment meted out to as many as 30 BNP organisers who were suspended without being given a proper reason except that they might use the membership list to help Eddy Butler (who was calling for a leadership election and therefore needed to secure enough nominations) and that they may potentially breach the Data Protection Act, with no indication of when a decision might be given as to whether their suspension would be lifted and certainly no right to attend any hearing in order to defend themselves. 

Those in the BNP who wish to show solidarity with victims of their party's arbitrary decisions wish Lutfur a successful campaign. 
at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Lutfur Rahman and the BNP bloc vote


http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/an-nec-members-account/

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6812

http://www.lutfurformayor.com/about

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/sep/21/lutfur-rahman-removed-as-labour-tower-hamlets-mayoral-candidate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/sep/22/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayoral-campaign-marred-ineptitude-nastiness



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/oct/11/tower-hamlets-independent-mayoral-candidate-lutfur-rahman-interviewed

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100056657/lutfur-rahman-eleven-are-expelled-from-the-labour-party/

Labour Making a Big Mistake Over Lutfur Rahman
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6754

The Labour Party really hate Lutfur Rahman, don't they?  Here are a few anti-Rahman quotes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/oct/05/tower-hamlets-mayoral-election-campaign-london-citizens-labour-candidate-helal-abbas

Rushanara Ali, the newly-elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow congratulated the membership for "not tolerating intolerance" whether from "the far right or the far left - the Respect Party. You said goodbye to George Galloway [in May]. You said, we don't want division here, we don't want this community turned against each other - black against white against Asian; men against women; father against daughter; son against mother. That's what George Galloway's legacy has been." But she added: "Unfortunately, the Respect Party is not dead yet. It's rearing its ugly head again in a new way. It's calling itself 'independent'." This got a loud cheer. "It's not the same as Ken Livingstone becoming an independent," she continued. "Don't flatter them." She urged her audience to impress upon voters that the choice of who took care of a billion pound budget was between Labour, "a mainstream political party" that wants to unite the borough's different communities, and a divisive group of people who, among other things, want to "hijack Islam for selfish motives." She warned against intimidation and provocation and paid tribute to older Labour politicians who'd fought against the far right in her youth.

But then one hates and fears the person one has wronged.  Lutfur Rahman was to have been the Labour Tower Hamlets mayoral candidate until a rival Labour mayoral candidate, Helal Abbas, complained about him, causing Lutfur to be removed as a candidate without an investigation. 

This has provoked him into standing as an Independent against the Labour Party which will doubtless result in his expulsion.  Suzanne Moore, the Guardian and Mail columnist who was also a member of the Labour Party, was expelled from the party after she stood against Diane Abbott.

So this is party democracy in Labour, which is not much better than the kind of party "democracy" we get in the BNP. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/oct/01/tower-hamlets-mayoral-candidate-lutfur-rahman-antisemitism-respect-party


Lutfur Rahman does have a way with words, necessary to a politician and a lawyer of course, but also courage and determination from the array of his enemies:

"It has become fashionable among the right-wing to characterise Tower Hamlets as a 3rd World entity. If by that they mean a place where the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of unaccountable officials; where such basic principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" and the integrity of the democratic process are overruled by fiat, then they are entirely correct. But it is not me, or the borough's Bangladeshi community that are responsible for this sorry state of affairs, it is the Labour Party, who have for years treated Tower Hamlets like the last outpost of the British Raj."

Jeffrey Marshall and I have met Lutfur.  It was two or three years ago at a Safer Neighbourhoods meeting.  It was a Sunday and I remember Lutfur wearing jeans, for some reason.  Jeffrey complained about the intimidating gangs of youths hanging around street corners.  Lutfur even came over and chatted to us because we, being non-Asian, stuck out all like sore thumbs.

A few months later the gangs of intimidating youth had been dispersed with the dispersal notices that Lutfur must have had something to do with.

So, Lutfur's strong on law and order and gets things done.

Another reason why BNP supporters should vote for Lutfur is to show solidarity with someone who has been badly-treated by his party.

Details of how and why can be gleaned by reading http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/an-nec-members-account/

Some of you may have heard of the BNP's recent troubles.  The reason why the BNP have failed to enter a candidate for the Tower Hamlets mayoral elections was because it had escaped the notice of the Acting London Organiser (one Nick Griffin living in mid-Wales who relieved the previous London Organiser Chris Roberts of his post because he was suspected of being a supporter of Eddy Butler the leadership challenger that never was because he could never in a month of  Sunday secure enough nominations under the current rules) that there was a deadline to be met if one wanted to be a candidate for the mayoral elections on 21 October. 

There is just a hint that Lutfur is anti-feminist and anti-Zionist, which would be OK with the typical BNP supporter, I imagine.  (He has clearly outraged Rushanara Ali who  made unspecified allegations against him  to Harriet Harman, the Supreme Matriarch of Britain.  It could be that he suggested that Rushanara Ali - another female candidate of the Oona King mode - is but a creature of the Labour Party and can no longer be said to properly represent the Bangladeshi community.  Perhaps the Bangladeshi community prefer a middle aged lawyer in preference to a slip of a girl who has "gone native" and will probably slavishly support whatever line her party wants her to take.)

Lutfur was also against the invasion of "Afraq" which is another important BNP policy.

Also, Ken Livingstone (whose political antennae is as faultless as mine) supports Lutfur and Keith Vaz - a lawyer - is on record saying that Lutfur's sacking was against the rules of natural justice.

Lutfur won by a majority of almost 200 votes from a total of 881 casted votes and the Local and Regional parties and both expressed confidence that the election had been fair and democratic.

Lutfur Rahman - 433 votes

John Biggs - 251 votes

Helal Abbas - 157 votes

Shome mishtake, shurely?

http://www.labourbriefing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:breaking-news-press-release-21st-september-2010&catid=3:newsflash

It would be an excellent story of mature co-operation if the BNP bloc vote helps to keep the Labour candidate out.  Helal Abbas has been a bankrupt under his other name of Abbas Uddin.  Helal Abbas was also a member of Hope Not Hate - an organisation specifically set up to thwart the BNP.

http://londonmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/10/lutfur-rahman-is-democrat-while-helal.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100057592/lutfur-rahman-the-racists-choice/
and

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/10/07/lutfur-rahman-and-his-racist-supporters/ suggests that there is a very nasty and concerted campaign by Andrew Gilligan, Labour and Zionists to smear Lutfur as a racist and an anti-Semite.  I think people of all races who are branded as "racists" by the liberal establishment should stick up for each other. 

The way ahead is therefore clear.  BNP supporters in Tower Hamlets should vote Lutfur Rahman on the grounds of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  It will be very satisfying to deliver a good hard kick to Labour while proclaiming to the nation that the BNP bloc vote is something to be courted if your majority is anything less than solid.
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

​@WoodStoneAndSteel asks about the lolcows of the world

2:00   Incorrect diagnosis Chaste women 3:00  Political economy Abolishing no fault force 5:00  Socialising 6:00  Disposable relationships 7...