Apparently there was a bit of a bust up at the council meeting last night when my old mate and Lutfur’s biggest fan did a bit of an ambassadorial role for the borough by boorishly leading the cheers from the public gallery.
There was also some homophobic and anti-Semitic abuse thrown in from some sitting nearby, it has been alleged.
The police are now investigating. If I were Lutfur, I’d tell Mr Haque to stay away in future. I saw his behaviour first hand in December and it was not only ugly, it was intimidating.
And if I were Shiraj and after lucrative contracts to supply the Olympics with his curries, I’d also stay away…
Anyway, I wasn’t there and I’ve not been able to comment on it because I’ve been away on the other side of the world. And I don’t mean Newham.
Back next week.
Trial by Jeory 
Rubbish. First allegations of homophobia and now antisemiticism.
There was no homophobic allegations and the 7/8 officers who were in the audience confirmed that. Ted it’s ridiculous for you to now invent that there was also anti Semitic remarks. Where did you hear that from??? Or is it just a figment of your imagination!
And before anyone criticise me let me make it clear I’m against any prejudice.
I think its prejudicial to think that all middle aged Muslim men are homophobic! I guarantee you there will be no action and Anna Lynch will look like a fool as no one said anything like that! I was there!
So who are you then “left winger”(sic)?
Is that important or the facts?
Left winger = Stuart madewell
Sorry mate wrong guess
Still deleting Terry Fitz then?
Ted, stop writing rubbish, if officers, security people and public didn’t hear any statement like this why are escalating this unnecessarily. Did you not know Chair withdrawn his statement for accusing Shiraj and went to electronic media and said sorry to him. Why are after him, is it again he is successful Bangladeshi and Muslim Businessman? Or is it because he is supporter of Lufur? You didn’t do same for curry man Amin Ali, where is his Bnagla Mail (people named black mail) because ehe is supporter of right winger like Rush Josh and Abbas? Shiraj should take legal action against you.
How long some Labour right wing politicians will carry on with dividing community tactics? Few of you working closely with Tory and that weakening Labour not Lutfur. Anyone attended the meeting could notice the communications between Peter Gold and Joshua Peck. There are people rightly think (leaked from unknown call) there was a right winger pre-meeting and Peter Gold, Joshua Peck, Rush Ali, Keith, Rachel Saunders, Anna Lynch, Chris Weavers , Anwar and Abbas attended the tea meeting, this where they made the plan.
This is ridicules and utterly reprehensible when people use this kind of method to divide our community. All I can say is God is watching from the sky and everyone of will have to pay a big price fro this kind of discrimination and lying because Mayor is Bangladeshi and Muslim which you didn’t want.
You never mentioned in your statement that Cllr Khan and Deputy Mayor made a statement on behalf of Mayor that the administration condemns any kinds of homophobic or racial actions or statement, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets made wide statement on 24th Feb 2011. If you didn’t see than go to Council website and RSL such as Harca website.
I think some Labour politicians understood after the investigation Labour might take harder approach on them like Phil Wollas if found the statement was false and dividing the community with the slur. I think they well that their final destination is Tory Party this is why they are working closely with Tory.
“There are people rightly think (leaked from unknown call) there was a right winger pre-meeting and Peter Gold, Joshua Peck, Rush Ali, Keith, Rachel Saunders, Anna Lynch, Chris Weavers , Anwar and Abbas attended the tea meeting,”
ROFL. They clearly forgot to invite me and Jim Fitzpatrick.
Ted, God will strike you down according to the last comment.
Ash = totally bonkers
For what its worth one senior council officer pleaded with councillors not to report the homophobic abuse to the police “because it wouldnt be good publicity for the council”.
Tower Shamlets council – totally taking the piss on this one.
Some typo’s on previous one (read this version)
Ted, stop writing rubbish, if officers, security people and public didn’t hear any statement like this why are escalating this unnecessarily. Did you not know Chair not only withdrawn his statement for accusing Shiraj but went to electronic media and said sorry for his mistake. Why you are after him, is it again he is successful Bangladeshi and Muslim Businessman? Or is it because he is supporter of Lufur? You didn’t do same for curry man Amin Ali, tell me where is his Bnagla Mail (people named it Black mail)is it because he is supporter of right winger like Rush Josh and Abbas?
How long some Labour right wing politicians will carry on with dividing community tactics? Some of the Labour colleague working closely with Tory and that weakening Labour not Lutfur. Anyone attended the meeting could notice the communications between Peter Gold and Joshua Peck. There are people rightly think (leaked from unknown call) there was a right winger pre-meeting (tea party) and Peter Gold, Joshua Peck, Rush Ali, Keith, Rachel Saunders, Anna Lynch, Chris Weavers , Anwar and Abbas attended, this where they made the plan.
This is ridicules and utterly reprehensible when people use this kind of method to divide our community. All I can say is God is watching from the sky and everyone of will have to pay a big price for this kind of discrimination and lying.
Rachel never mentioned in her statement that Cllr Khan and Deputy Mayor made a statement on behalf of Mayor that the administration condemns any kinds of homophobic or racial actions or statement, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets made wide statement on 24th Feb 2011. If you didn’t see than I request you go to Council website and RSL such as Harca website.
I think some Labour politicians understood that their time is up – after the investigation if found the statement was false and dividing the community with the slur – Labour might take harder approach on them like Phil Wollas. I think they understand well that their final destination is Tory Party this is why they are working closely with Peter Gold.
I have not left a comment on this blog on this topic.
I do not know who ‘Fighting for miliban’ is! Rachael Saunders has stated elsewhere that anti-semitic comments were not made.
I have no knowledge of a right wing pre-meeting.
I do not wish to comment further on this matter at this stage
Thanks For clarifying Stuart
It’s a shame this is the first time I’m hearing someone (Ted) add anti Semitic issues when clearly even Racheal Saunders is saying otherwise. Evidence that there is a ‘consipracy’ theory of creating false issues to character assassinate people.
“There was also some homophobic and anti-Semitic abuse thrown in from some sitting nearby, it has been alleged.”
At least you have added “alleged” to your post on the incident Ted. Councillor Rachael Saunders though, has written this headline for her article:
Homophobia has overshadowed Full Council meetings in Tower Hamlets http://bit.ly/gxygG8
8:25 AM Feb 27th via bitly
Retweeted by RachaelSaunders and 6 others
The councillor wrote her article for the Labour List weblog, putting it out further via this tweet title – however the actual title, perhaps written by Labour List themselves, is ‘Homophobia allegations overshadow Tower Hamlets budget meeting’.
The words “Homophobia has overshadowed Full Council meetings in Tower Hamlets” are Cllr Saunders’, from her article. Whether she took out this part for a headline for Twitter or the Labour List editors did, it is a scandal that it went out as an ‘established fact’ from a Councillor. Yesterday, Labour List altered it and “allegations” was put at the front of the headline. Cllr Saunders did not retweet. The altered retweeted headline from Labour List is now
‘Allegations of homophobia cast a shadow over Tower Hamlets’
9:14 AM Feb 28th via HootSuite
Ted, you refer to alleged anti-Semitic abuse. Currently, The Guardian have had to change a headline with regard the John Galliano investigation, explaining,
‘The original headline, ‘Bon viveur? Yes. Racist? Non’, was felt to have been misleading, by giving the impression the writer had concluded John Galliano was not a racist before any allegation had been fully investigated. It has now been changed.’
Councillor Saunders’ headline which was part of her article too, is similarly misleading but further, nowhere in the Cllr’s article does she say allegedly or allegations about the events of that night*. And these are allegations that are now the subject of a police investigation. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? There are other witnesses and perhaps we will be asked by the police for a statement; meanwhile a ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ have been published on the web by a witness who is a Tower Hamlets councillor. This must be wrong.
*events now, that co-incidentally are also(?) being investigated for alleged anti-Semitic abuse
The Tower Hamlets Council logo which gave Cllr Saunders’ article the appearance of an official Council communication has now been removed from her article.
Interesting to hear from anyone as to who, why and when. At the request of TH Council legal dept? Or Labour List made a belated decision to remove it, given the possible legal action and police investigation?
The article surely creates a problem for TH as it pre-empted the findings of any investigation and will further expose the council to legal action – with the alleged homophobic abuse and the misidentification issues.
The removal of the Council logo hardly mitigates the damage done.
This makes troubling reading, is anyone able to shed any further light on these allegations?
http://lattelabour.blogspot.com/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-update.html
…this is all such bullshit… so now – basically – the argument is made that to be anti-homophobia means you are pro-islamophobia.
If the planned EEGB has been infiltrated by some people who are vaguely supportive of the EDL does this mean the whole event and everyone on it is anti-Muslim…erm surely not? It seems that when circumstances are the other way around and it is an anti-islamophobia event that [sadly] finds itself infiltrated by Islam4UK and/or other extremists then those elements are dismissed as “a tiny minority” and should not be used as a reason to condemn the whole event… another example is people who demonstrate against Israeli atrocities being unfairly labelled as anti-semitic.
Frankly this now seems like advanced justification for some people to attack any gay people and those who support their rights who dare go on this march… this would have the effect of proving the de-facto existence of so-called gay free zones. Go on, shoot me down, but I for one am heartily sick of all this double standard bullshitting.
I have now seen that someone who appears to be an organiser of the EEGP facebook group has been admitting people applying to join the associated EEGP facebook page who are clearly members of the EDL. This is obviously highly damaging to the reputation of that event which should be all about promoting tolerance. That said, I think any EDL people at the EEGP would be in a tiny minority and this should not detract from the VAST majority of decent people who expressed an interesting in supporting the EEGP and are doing so because they want to campaign for tolerance in the EastEnd and reject the notion of a “gay free zone”.
It was probably an inevitability that a demonstration like this would arouse the interest of people seeking to exploit divisions in our community… and sadly this outcome was probably the motivation of the people who initially put up the “gay free zone” posters.
I think the best way to combat this is the killing two (or three) birds with one stone approach. That would be for the EEGP march to be supported by people in favour of more (not less) tolerance from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community, gay and straight. This would send out a very clear message; a) there are no “gay free zones”, b) mainstream Muslims reject the notion of “gay free zones” and c) attempts by the people proposing a “gay free zone” and by the EDL/etc to encourage division between Muslims and non-Muslims in the EastEnd have failed.
Us Eastenders Mr, er,’Folgate’ may want to go on this march but we may not want to do it waving or under Union Jacks tinted any which way. Down Cable Street? Brick Lane? – which was BNP territory. Oh, but it’s ok coz “We’re all pink on the inside” – and that’s not about what colour we are on the outside?!
Add these Union Jacks to the “tiny minority” of EDL “infiltrators” that even you suggest may be marching in the East End and maybe that is the reason for the disquiet?
(Ron Storm: R.I.P. We should be marching in memory of such East End pioneers at the Gay Pride event in Victoria Park in September.)
As a gay man of Bangladeshi and Muslim heritage, let me make a number of things clear.
No-one is claiming that to be anti-homophobia = pro-Islamophobia. That equation exists only in your own head.
The planned EEGB has not just been infiltrated by vague supporters of the EDL. It has been infiltrated by the EDL. A brief perusal of various EDL forums will show you that they don’t give a flying f**k about gay rights, this is just another opportunity for them to wreak havoc and engage in violence in an area with a high concentration of Muslims – some EDL members have been quite explicit in saying that.
If the EDL attempt to march through Tower Hamlets, there will be a community mobilisation against them. That mobilisation, as evidenced the last time they threatened to descend on Tower Hamlets, will be primarily made up of young, Bangladeshi, Muslims. They will be demonstrating and rallying against the EDL and NOT against EEGP.
You may be happy to march side by side with the EDL, but as a gay man, I certainly am not. And I know which mobilisation I’ll be a part of.
Coincidentally, they want to march down Cable Street. An area of historical significance when it comes to the EDL and their ilk. When the EDL come marching down Cable Street, which side of the barricades are you going to be on, James?
Well ‘anon1’ I hardly need to answer that statement, but I will, of course “if the EDL come marching down Cable Street” I would be on the same side of the barricades as you, and just to make it absolutely clear; vehemently against them.
As I said previously it is a tragedy that what was supported by many as a demonstration in favour of tolerance and against the intolerance of the “gay free zone” protagonists has been hijacked by just the sort of intolerant people you and I should both be against. That said, I think gay people have every right to demonstrate against the “gay free zone” and not be threatened with counter demonstrations.
It is also a shame that any discussion of this sort of issue (particularly on this increasingly tiresome blog) always ends the same way with people immediately insinuating other people are fascists etc just because they dare discuss the issues. I say I support the EEGP as an initiative despite the fact the EDL are trying to get their people to go (which was inevitable really) and therefore I am ipso-facto a fascist myself. Are we all expected to be intimidated by this mudslinging and not dare to discuss these issues? That would seem to be the case.
For the sake of information I have copied and pasted the “Public Statement” recently made by the organisers of the EastEndGayPride@groups.facebook.com
“We can 100% confirm that the EDL or the SWP have absolutely NOTHING to do with this event in any way, shape or form.
Any person or persons attempting to display any banners from ANY political pressure groups will be asked to leave the rally immediately.
This is NOT a political demonstration.
The aim of this event is firmly establish to the community as a whole there is a large and active gay community within east London. It is soley a direct reaction to the hateful sticker campaign that has been taking place in the area over recent weeks.
That is our ONLY agenda for this rally, it has been our only agenda from the start and will remain our only agenda until the end. This is wholly a non-political demonstration and purely a high visibility demonstration of the eastend gay community.
This is NOT an Anti Muslim March. This is not an Anti ANYTHING march. We have stated this over and over again, here AND on our Website. We simply want to say…”hang on. You’re wrong. The East End is NOT a Gay-Free Zone”
This is organised by a group of friends doing something for the LGBT Community as a WHOLE! Whatever your religion, race, creed or nationality.
If you support the Community….. support this event.
Its freedom of choice.
We are not forcing you to attend. We are not demanding you attend. We are ASKING you to attend. You have the right to say no, just as much as you have the right to say YES!
We welcome EVERYONE from EVERY Community. If you support what we’re trying to do, then support this event.”
It seems that this event is now marred by controversy due concerns about EDL involvement and Out East are now boycotting this event.
http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/03/12/gay-groups-divided-over-east-end-pride-march/comment-page-1/
And now the entire article by Councillor Saunders is gone. The explanation:
“This article has been removed at the author’s request”
Of course it can be removed by Councillor Saunders now the damage has been done. How cynical an action this has been, apart from the legal consequences. It was left up in the public domain for days and spread out over the web to establish a ‘truth’ and then, the headlines are changed to insert “allegations”, followed by piecemeal retraction with the Council logo and now this.
Has this publication by Cllr Saunders left no trace? No legacy? Of course not. This past week a ‘truth’, from a councillor no less, has been widely distributed and commented on, while other witnesses, just residents, are left waiting to be asked what they heard, saw etc. But the truth is now owned by Rachael and other TH councillors.
On a separate note: everytime Ted is ‘away’ the blog becomes dead! I mean there’s hardly any comments here. Which means he must be ‘sock puppetting’ like his dear friend Andrew Gilligan!
Hi Ted, thought you might be interested to know what Ofcom said about two of the false allegations in the Dispactches programme you took part in?
If you recall, Andrew Gilligan fabricated a claim about the Centre for Muslim Affairs (the project of a Jewish charity), and then also false told IFE that Cllr Golds make the accusation…
Ofcom said he has a case to answer? What you think of his lies and the fabrication?
http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/2011/03/03/ofcom-delclares-gilligans-dispatches-has-a-case-to-answer/
Just for the benefit of saving readers time I’ll point out that Ofcom’s report considers that the complaint was not frivolous and there might be a case to answer (emphasis on the word ‘might’).
But we’ll never know whether Gilligan was right or wrong because Ofcom’s report also says that the complaint was made 181 days after the broadcast so they’re not going to entertain the complaint on grounds of the significant delay.
(Ofcom’s procedures state that complaints should normally be brought within 20 working days of a broadcast. They also only require broadcasters to keep tapes for 90 days).
So when the pro-Lutfur elements keep throwing in everyone’s faces in future Ofcom’s decision that Gilligan might have a case to answer remember two things:
1. Gilligan might, or he might not, have been correct in what he broadcast
2. We’ll never know because Ofcom refused to take the complaint forward anyway.
Please don’t fabricate what the report says in black and white, and which people can check for themselves: http://www.islamicforumeurope.com/live/wordpress/ofcom.pdf
“Ofcom considers that Mr Faradhi’s complaint is not frivolous. This is because, on the face of it, there appears to be a case to answer of unfair treatment in the programme as broadcast.”
“appears to be a case” means they think there is a case. Where did you get the word “might”?
And Ofcom didn’t “refuse” to take the case forward. They “cannot” proceed becuase of the time limit set in law.
Obviously you have no legal training, and it seems don’t understand the English language either. Instead you are here trying to be an cheap spin doctor fabricating a false word (“might”) into an offical report.
I take ‘on the face of it there appears to be a case’ as ‘might be’. On the grounds that if the complaint had been submitted within the timescales and Ofcom had launched an inquiry then once they dug below the face of the complaint they might have found that Andrew Gilligan was justified. Or they might not.
And as for the timescales there is flexibility for Ofcom to consider complaints brought outside the timescales. They go into great depth in their report to explain how they have assessed the complaint and the delay against those factors before concluding that they cannot entertain the complaint.
Racheal Saunders shame on you for retracting your article. That is wholly unacceptable. You and Anna Lynch deliberately made up those lies of homophobia to divert the attention. Anyway your own Labour colleagues have humiliated you and your cronies. The public and decent Labour councillors did not get diverted. We will turn up again at the next council meeting. We will not be tarnished with false lies and accusations of people who we elected and we hold to account.
I feel disgusted that some people have the audacity to create false lies to stir disharmony in a already fragile community. Shame shame shame
Good point Amin. It seems the world of Gilligan/Ted/Racheal and co are falling apart! Oh no. Someone help!
They called Lutfur a fundamentalist first…but that didn’t work.
Now they try and call him homophobic….that didn’t work (and the budget still passed)
What will they try next? Anyone any guesses??
Hey ‘left-winger’ are you claiming it as some sort of victory for the left that the budget passed? Some of us are far less interested in the competing allegations than the fact that the ‘anti-cuts’ Mayor and his Respect and Labour supporters are cheering on £52 million worth of cuts. If you are really a ‘left winger’ how do you sleep at night?
Hey RD
Come back to the real world. The mayor has no choice. If he ‘votes against the cut’ as you suggest, the officers pass the budget as a legal process. There is no other way. Get you head out of your a@@e and think reality. I am proud as a leftist to know that politicians pass our budget not bureaucrats. I think your just Racheal or Joshua peck. Anyway still licking your wounds from the disastrous performance the other day?
@14. James “Folgate” responds to us re concerns about the East End Gay Pride event by copying their Public Statement and telling us that any EDL “infiltrators” would be just a “tiny minority” – under those Union Jacks being waved on the streets of the East End.
James, have you seen that today the (pink) Union Jack is back on the EEGP home page with the same instruction to ‘Please bring an abundance of Rainbow Flags, Pink Union Jacks and any other NON POLITICAL banners or placards..’ but now the strapline ‘We’re all pink on the inside’ has been taken down by the organisers?
James, have you bothered to google any of the EDL “infiltrators” on the “associated EEGP Facebook page” that you looked at? How about the one who said she was coming on the EEGP March – “Donna Mortimer edl”?
But she’s okay, because it is just a “tiny minority”? Can’t see either how you can say this is “infiltration” when she plainly stated that on the EEGP page that she is coming to the March.
But this is all such “bullshit” right? Please get informed about East End history and why Union Jacks being waved on marches in our streets – and by EDL “infiltrators”/one confirmed attendee and named individual (responsible for EDL’s media, I think) – is causing the controversy.
Ted, as a journalist, could you do something on this, here on your blog for James “Folgate”? He’s so busy telling us we are talking bullshit, that he hasn’t got time to google a name.