Further to my post here yesterday about Lutfur Rahman’s court reference for the convicted minicab molester Zamal Uddin, the Mayor has sent me the following explanation:
Dear Ted
I refer to your blog post dated 11 March. I do not usually comment on correspondence of this nature but given the circumstances it is important that I set out clearly what happened. Before I do so I want to make it crystal clear that I condemn all forms of criminality and my thoughts are with the victim in this case.
The family of this man resides in my ward of Spitalfields. They approached me on numerous occasions to give a reference for their brother who I also know as one my constituents. I was not aware of the nature of the charges against him and had no reason to believe or suspect him of any such conduct.
Based on the information provided by the family I was told that the named person was in court due to a revocation of his driving licence as he was not currently insured. They made the case to me that this was an oversight and that a reference would help him to convince the judge that he be allowed to retain his licence as it was a one off mistake.
Elected politicians are often approached with reference requests particularly where a family’s livelihood is at stake – however no one in the past has abused my trust in this way and had I known about the nature of the offence I would never have agreed to supply a reference.
I gave a reference as did many other councillors, who clearly were misled as to the nature of the offence. I am in the process of seeking advice so as to retract the reference and make my views very clear that such offences should be punished without any form of leniency and that I wholly support the judgment of the court in this case.
I hope this seeks to clarify my position in some ways.
Regards
Lutfur
I then asked him when he supplied the reference. He said: “The reference was sent well before the court hearing [on February 15 January 18]. As I stated earlier, I would not have even contemplated sending a reference if it was for a criminal offence, let alone a sexually motivated one.”
I also asked him if it was written on council stationery, and he has now confirmed it was.
Lutfur’s decision to respond shows how serious this matter is. He is a professional solicitor and a member of the Law Society. That he failed to check and verify the nature of the charge on someone for whom he was providing a character reference beggars belief. It seems as if there is a bunch of “elected politicians” out there chucking around criminal character references like confetti.
I’ve spoken to a legal source about this, who sits as a judge. They tell me it is “absolutely incredible” that someone of Lutfur’s standing would supply a reference without checking what the charge was. And just so I’m clear, the source used the word “incredible” in its literal sense.
Lutfur’s decision is I think seriously damaging. At the very best, it shows great naivety and a major lack of judgment, two criticisms that have been chucked his way in the past. As I’ve said before, if I were him, I’d be a bit more careful about the friends I keep.
[By the way, I also told Lutfur I was extremely surprised that Takki Sulaiman’s council press office had decided to provide a “no comment” when I called yesterday. Here’s Lutfur’s ominous reply: “I agree with you, this could have been dealt with earlier. I will look into that.”]
UPDATE, Monday, March 14, 10.30am
I’ve just spoken to Snaresbrook Crown Court. Zamal Uddin’s plea and directions hearing was actually on January 18 and not mid-February as originally thought. His sentencing hearing was on March 8. Why the January hearing was only reported in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph a month later, I don’t know: I can only think that the news agency decided to have another stab at pushing the story. However, it means that there was a gap of seven weeks between Uddin’s guilty plea and the sentencing at which the Mayor’s reference was mentioned in court. That is seven weeks in which the full nature of Uddin’s crime was known – time enough for the mayor and the councillors to both find out what had happened and then retract their references.
Also, I emailed Lutfur yesterday to ask for a copy of his reference and to ask why he failed to contact the court before the sentencing hearing to retract it. He has yet to respond.
Trial by Jeory 
This is unbelievable!!!!!
Rahman CLAIMS he did not check out what a man he was writing a reference for was actually in Court for. Either he didn’t ask any questions
Rahman needs to release a copy of the reference so we can judge this matter for ourselves. Even it was just a driving issue uninsured drivers are a menace to the whole community. It seems Rahman didn’t even speak to the individual involved before writing his get of out jail free card to test his story.
The wording is important in relations to Sulaiman. He claimed to speak on behalf of the Mayor yesterday. The Mayor denied this today. One of them – at least – is therefore lying and should resign or be forced out.
Someones just put an FOI request in for this information
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mayor_lutfur_rahmans_and_council
I understand you can’t defend this, but he’s written in and said that he was mislead, decieved and I think anyone with the amount of pressure he has can make that mistake. I think your readers should remember that the mayor is under alot of pressure, and was in fact working hard to deliver the budget for the 23rd Feb which was the month that this court hearing took place and with half a cabinet! After being pestered on numberous occasions by the family, he didn’t spare enough time to research the case himself and instead relied on information provided on by the family, his mistake for not doing so but we are all human and he provided a character references for the character which he believed the constituent to be. Had this been at a different time where he wasn’t under these pressures he without a doubt being a lawyer, would have second checked the details. Any one of you that has ever made a mistake in your job will be able to understand that sometimes you can make errors and are more likely to under alot of pressure, workload and stress. Many politicians and lawyers have also been lied to in the past in casework by their clients, it’s not something new.
It’s pretty clear that he would not have given the reference had he known the nature of the case and had taken the time out in his busy schedule in that month to determine the details. But the crime and its seriousness are known now and so it’s a lesson learnt..
1. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this sort of behaviour.
2. The reason why there is no excuse is because he could have said “no”. That’s what you do when you don’t have time to do the proper research and/or to act in a responsible way.
3. The fact that he did this as Mayor of Tower Hamlets rather than as an individual or a local ward councillor means that the Mayor now needs to be held accountable to every last woman in Tower Hamlets for his actions. His explanation needs to be an awful lot better than the one given to date. A profuse apology to all the female electorate wouldn’t go amiss!
4. It very much prompts questions about how many other things Mayor Rahman fails to look into properly before saying agreeing to do……
Come on Ted come to reality. He hasn’t committed an offence. If he claims he was misled than that’s an embarrassment no doubt but not illegal or criminal.
Anyway find another story
Left_winger – Zamal Uddin was a minicab driver. Let’s assume Lutfur didn’t know he was an unlicensed one, but he surely would have known that’s what he did for a living. According to Lutfur, Uddin’s family then ask him to write a character reference to a judge telling him that he had lost his licence because he had been driving said cab without insurance. So Lutfur would have known at the very least that he was writing a reference for a man who had been driving his passengers around in an uninsured car. If you were the Mayor of Tower Hamlets and in charge of improving the safety of the highways and trading standards etc, wouldn’t you ask the guilty man himself the very simple question, ‘Why have you been driving a car uninsured? Why have you been putting my residents at risk? What was the nature of the oversight?’
That he did not suggests very strongly that these unchecked character references are a regular occurrence and that handing them out has been a habit, not only by Lutfur but also by other councillors.
If the Transport Secretary or indeed any other minister had done what Lutfur has, they’d be forced to resign – for sure.
Think about this for a minute people. A character reference IMO should only be written for someone you personally know otherwise how can you vouch for someone.
So did Mr Rahman and others lie and state on the references that they knew Zamal Uddin?, because our Mayor seems to hint that he didnt really personally even know this sexual predator in his reply to Ted.
Although he does claim that he knew Zamal was one of his constituents in Spitalfields, but this cannot be as Zamals address on the Rogers Estate on Globe Road is not in Spitalfields but Mile End.
Is this another Lie?
Not at all. He says the convict’s family resides in the Spitalfields ward, not the convict himself.
His description of the convict himself as a constituent is accurate: Lutfur is no longer a Spitalfields councillor, as Mayor every Tower Hamlets resident is his constituent.
So what you think ‘yes we got him now. Let’s force him to resign!
Stop your withhunt and do something better. To be honest most people have real issues to deal with like unemployment, tsunami in Japan, etc etc. Why don’t you do a blog about Japan and how we can help and what we should be doing??
Well, buy tomorrow’s Sunday Express and you’ll see that I have been writing about Japan.
By the way, you lose enormous credibility by not conceding what a gross error of judgement this was by Lutfur. Making a false or careless representation to a court of law is serious.
You don’t think real people include real women whose real concerns include the behaviour of sexual predators?
SHAME on you!
Ted please don’t be judgemental. I said I will speak against Lutfur if he does a wrong. And I agree he has made a mistake and he needs to be aware of this. Where have I defended him on this point?? Just pointing out different points. Anyway I am not a blind supporter of Lutfur
“Left winger” seems to write with Rahman’s sanction. It’s insulting and pathetic to talk about the Japanese earthquake – a tragedy nothing to do with this situation.
The idea that Rahman – apparently a lawyer – would write a reference for someone – FOR A COURT – without knowing what they were in court for is extraordinary.
This might turn out to be a resignation issue.
It’s essential Rahman releases the reference before it is obtained by other means.
This might turn into a Law Society issue in relation to bringing the profession into disrepute.
Rahman was using his official position to try to get preferential treatment for someone from ‘the state’. It’s not dissimilar to David Blunkett’s resignation as Home Secretary for trying to push from a visa for his mistress’s nanny. Wrong – definitely – but better than trying to get a SEX OFFENDER off the hook.
Rahman’s quote “I would not have even contemplated sending a reference if it was for a criminal offence” digs his filthly little hole even deeper.
Driving without insurance IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
He of all people should though that.
Rahman has a serious problem on his hands.
Your points noted…..go back to watching eastenders. Clearly your in a different planet
Why is that “left winger” ?
“Left Winger”
Do you agree that Rahman should release the reference to the public?
What difference will it make? We agreed it was a grave mistake to give a reference to this man. If you want it you go and do an FOI that’s upto you
So basically you dont agree?
Your willing to take the word of a man accused of trying to protect a sexual predator, and just take him on his word?
You must be really close to the guy, are you one of the other councilors that also tried to protect this predator from imprisonment and potential deportation?
The judge said that the testimonials were handed to him just before sentencing this week. That seems to indicate that these idiots could well have and probably did fully know what this vile dog had been accused of. The question is as lutfur states;
“many other councilors” gave references.
not one, not just a few, but many thats more than 3 more than than the ward councilors, what political bargaining chips was this man or his family using.
By your standards we should believe a man who states he got tricked into something so vile because he did not check the evidence, and that we should not bother about him clarifying his position without producing his own evidence. I for one believe that all of these idiots should produce their references and these should be cross-referenced by the court submitted ones.
Many councilors apparently got tricked, why are not they all on here admitting there own positions and condemning this man and his vile dog of a family, who tricked our beloved politicians. You know why? because Lutfur was the only one identified and the others are so two faced they’d rather hide their true colors.
Ted just a suggestion, why don’t you interview/account all the party leaders – which includes the independents, to demonstrate that you are genuinely trying to scrutinise all those who are in power or in positions of influence. That will so dramatically increase your credibility. Just an idea. Cheers
I am truly astonished by those defending Lutfur’s actions of writing a character reference for a molester. A friend of a friend was attacked in a similar situation in Tower Hamlets. I am not claiming it is the same person who carried out the attack but these unlicensed cab drivers are a menace who are often difficult to trace due to the very nature of being unlicensed. Any decent Council would be campaigning against them. The Mayor of Tower Hamlets should resign NOW. No excuse. Absolutely none.
I smell an underlying motive of racism here. Name me one MP or councillor in a similar situation who resigned because of a botched up reference??
So why are you lot so persistent Lutfur resigns over this error? I doubt this would have been the case if it were a non Bangladeshi person.
Deary me, do you not realise how by hurling around the R word so freely you undermine its effectiveness in genuine cases? It’s truly sad.
You don’t seem to grasp the severity of a very senior politician firing off a letter to a judge without having checked any facts. That this politician is a professional lawyer makes it worse. I would imagine that the judge, if he knew someone had attempted to dupe him so, would take a very dim view.
There is another point: Lutfur sent the letter before the first hearing in February. That hearing was reported widely in the national press. It is inconceivable that Lutfur would not have heard the outcome. Why then did he not contact the court to withdraw his reference? Ditto the other councillors.
Ted
I would still argue that he probably handed it in after February knowing full well the implications. But I think you just nailed it, if he’s to be believed that he handed it in before the 15th of February then why did all these councilors still not bother to retract the statements. I dont think you can retract statements once they’ve been submitted to court records, and Lutfur must know this. They had almost a month to retract the statements, and not one of them did so.
I think they all knew, I think that there is more to Zamal than there letting on. Maybe a connection that none of us are seeing just yet.
I smell a cover-up that blew up, why didn’t the ELA pick up on this, why did they not blow this up in the first place. Why did it take the blogosphere to reveal the concerns expressed by individuals.
Yes, I’d like to know more about Zamal and I’m sure that will emerge.
The ELA did not report the first hearing, which is surprising. I’m neither sure why they didn’t pull out the Lutfur and councillor angle in the latest issue. The copy is supplied by an agency reporter who has nothing to do with the East End. I spoke to him on Friday and he said he was going to angle it on Lutfur, but decided not to because there weren’t any other details, which is understandable. However, anyone with a feel for Tower Hamlets politics would have seen the obvious angle. Again, well done to Tower Hamlets Watch for reading the paper thoroughly and spotting it.
Typical left wing response.
If in doubt cry racism
It’s a great pity the ELA is a shadow of what it once was the move out to Ilford can’t have helped together with Eastend Lies still going despite Mr Pickles unenforceable pronouncements.
“Left winger”
Ha! Accusation of racist conspiracy took about 24 hours. Any criticism of Lutfur and you will “detect” racism and act as judge and jury on the matter. What a f____king joke you are.
In answer to your moronic question – David Blunkett.
Where is Stuart Madewell I wonder what he thinks?
Or Sultana and Shahanara Begum?
I wonder if this story will make the columns of the “London Bangla”?, I predict if it does it is only as an example of “racism”
Ted lets stop going around in a circle. My question was not whether or not I condone the botched up reference, I dont! My question to you was you have no where on record or you Sunday Express paper, of ‘accounting’ or ‘withhunting’ a person of a different background. That to me is problematic. Your bloog seems to be about Lutfur, I am 100% confident that if Lutfur was not mayor your blog would disappear from the WWW!
Shadwell: please explain to me in your own words that you can muster, how the two cases are similar. You would make a good lawyer (not)
My understanding of this blog is that it is about Tower Hamlets. Lutfur makes it very easy for him to be the ‘star’ because of his dodgy goings-on, stupidity, lack of judgement, lack of accuracy, dodgy connections….THE LIST GOES ON. Banding about racism is making me yawn. Do you not see that this is worthy of reporting? Of course Lutfur sees it as’oversight’that he and his band of (racism screaming) supporters would happily like to see buried. It needs MORE exposure. Well done Ted.
@Ted
‘That was widely reported in the press’…Ted please provide some links of where it was widely publicised prior to the first hearing
Thanks
read teds response he mentioned the date of the hearing and that ‘That was widely reported in the press’
Lutfur claims in his response to have sent in his ‘sexual-predator-get-out-of-jail-free-card’ before that hearing
You really are having problems grasping this, aren’t you?
Prior to the hearing, only Uddin, his family, Lutfur and a group of councillors were aware there was to be a hearing. On February 17, the Daily Mail ran the piece I linked to in my original post and the following day, the Daily Telegraph published the following piece on p4.
It may well have been reported on TV and radio news as well.
I’m not sure when the first hearing or the sentencing took place, but I’ll check with the court when I speak to them tomorrow about the references.
However, the Mail and Telegraph pieces would have been picked up by the council’s press office. It produces a weekly press digest for the Mayor and councillors on any news reports mentioning Tower Hamlets. It’s inconceivable that details of the guilty plea would not have been known.
What is the connection between Andrew Gilligan and Ted Jeory? Remember the notorious Channel 4 Dispatches?
Well, Andrew was recently away on a “secret mission”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100074026/away-for-a-bit/
Where could he have gone to? There is some interesting speculation that he went to Bangladesh see here:
http://atowerhamlet.blogspot.com/2011/02/tower-hamlets-politics-run-from.html
Ted was also away for a bit:
https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/away-a-while/
Some sources have said that both Andrew and Ted met up during their holidays. Is this true Ted?
Keep taking the tablets, Steve (or stop, as the case may be).
Thanks Ted, a simple yes or no reply would have sufficed rather than hurling insults. Unless of course that’s a trait of journalists who work for tabloid newspapers like the Express. It would seem you take umbrage to legitimate questions being posed to you, but fail to see the irony when you ask searching questions of others. Hmm…
Where was the “legitimate” question, Steve?
Ted thanks for that but I do get it! I was just trying to work out myself if Lutfur gave the reference before the 17th court hearing or after. That establsihes a different point when he gave the reference.
Anyway thanks
In my latest post, I wrote:
As I said, I’m going to check all the court dates.
Left winger.
No – Blunkett isn’t a great comparison – he resigned for a lot, lot less. That’s the whole point!
Whatever the failings of Pipe, Wales or Bullock it’s completely inconceivable that they would ever get themselves into this mess – if they did there would be justified calls for them to go.
That is not the case. Read your history blunkett did far worse and not only one case of trying to abuse his position to do someone a favour. However much I may hate this incident with Lutfur it is not the same especially it it is found to be the case that the reference was given innocently before the 15th. It’s damaging, wrong but not illegal or so wrong for someone to resign
Left winger. What is worse – to try to use elected office to help a nanny get a visa or use elected office to try to get a reduced sentence for a sex offending parasite?
I guess it’s a question of personal judgement but I know where I stand on that issue
You don’t know that unless you have proof Lutfur gave that reference knowing it was for a sexual offender ie before the first court hearing
Okay, what is worse – to try to use elected office to help a nanny get a visa or use elected office to try to get a reduced sentence for somebody you’ve been told has been driving a cab without insurance (ie committing a criminal offence).
Not even to get onto the actual offence (sex-offending parasite who is also driving unlicensed minicabs which could be deathtraps in themselves).
Check man post at socialist unity before Andy E Neuman deletes it. An absolute cracker!
That should be “my post”.
link?
Typical that it was the Die Mail that picked up on this story.
I’m sure they have someone paid to scour the HM Courts Service listings for Asian-sounding names.
Far from it. There is a news agency called Court News UK which has reporters based at major crown courts. Those reporters look at the day’s listings and summary of charges. In this case, the reporter would have seen or heard about from his contacts within the court about minicab driver up for molesting a female passenger. That is the basis for a possible story. He would then have sat in the hearing and taken down the quotes, which in this case from the judge were newsworthy. He would then have filed to his bosses who then send out the copy to all national and locally relevant newsdesks on the wires. Individual news editors then select the story if they think their readers would like it.
Sorry to provide a long response to what I’m sure was a mere quip!
Yeah but come on, the Daily Mail only ever picks up on court cases where it involves:
* benefit fraudsters (preferably single mothers),
* gruesome murders (although obviously they love to decimate the character of anyone suspected of the murder first before an actual arrest is made and they can be held in contempt of court)
* anyone of a different skin colour, especially Asian, and particularly if they are Muslim.
Of course! It’s all a racist conspiracy. Who could think of criticising a senior politician for trying to get a sex offender out of jail. Doing so must be racist.
Ted, Can you block your friend I guess Josh (disgusted of Shadwell)
If not I think we should try to avoid logging into Trial By Jeory (Lutfur on Trial). As mentioned before only few of us constantly posting using compare to approx 24,000 residents voted for the mayor. Ted, did you ever try to find out how many reference letter your friend Abbas and Josh wrote, I know you won’t answer because of hidden connection.
I wonder how many references were written by the councillors in this case before the election……
There’s a word for that.
True Ash, and apart from the trendy left they were all Bangladeshi votes bought and paid for by IFE and the businessmen.
It’s extraordinary that Lutfur’s backers still support him on this disgusting act!
Ash – how many of the 23,000 people who voted for him will be happy to find out he acted so as to try to keep a Sex Offender out of prison?
Ted, when will you do an expose on your friend Peter ‘the strangler’ Gold?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7PhyGH26L7QJ:edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx%3FEDMID%3D16158+peter+golds+strangle&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari&source=www.google.co.uk
getting desperate aren’t you. The next few weeks will be tough for Lutfur.
He’s already been humiliated as the ‘sex offender’s friend’ and he knows he has some VERY tough questions to answer.
Theoretically he might loose both the Mayoralty and his legal career.
That’s why he replied to Ted in person – but he’s only dug a deeper hole for himself!!!
I hope he thinks that the filthy piece of scum Uddin was worth it!!!!!!!
Suse, in reply to response 13, makes a quite important point. It wasn’t just Lutfur who gave references but a number of other councillors.
I’d like to know who they were because Lutfur is arguing that he was approached by members of the individual’s family who were constituents of his. If the other councillors who gave references were outside that ward – why were they giving references for the individual?
On a separate note Lutfur won’t have made himself any friends in Hackney (not least the Mayor there) by this action. They’re constantly taking action to tackle unlicensed minicabs and making sure people get back safely (eg from Shoreditch).
Lutfur’s action, even if the individual had really been driving an uninsured cab because he’d lost his licence (as the family is said to have alleged), will have undermined Hackney’s safety campaigns in one fell swoop.
Just one more thing – Lutfur claims to know the individual’s family as his constituents.
Also (if that is a verbatim repeat of what he’s sent you) Lutfur claims to know the individual himself as one of his constituents (even though the individual does not live in Lutfur’s ward!!)
But Lutfur has not been responsible for a ward with constituents since he became Mayor in the autumn. And in December his former seat was taken over by another person.
So by the time of the trial and the statements Lutfur could/should not have been acting formally as a ward representative. And if he was doing it informally, on a personal basis, then (a) are all Spitalfields residents going to get preferential treatment from the Mayor and (b) why did he write as Mayor of Tower Hamlets?
It will be interesting what the references actually say as they should normally state clearly how an individual knows the person they’re giving references for.
Have just updated this post with new information about the court dates. I’m hoping to get the references at a later date.
Ted – Presumably there is now the Issue of whether the Council’s Standards Committee should start an investigation into the actions of the Mayor and ALL councillors who provided references to this man in their capacity of elected representatives.
The scope for an investigation by the Council’s Standards Committee is set out in the Code of Conduct which requires every Councillor to comply with it when acting when an indiviual “act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting as a representative of the authority”. Writing on Council notepaper is such an indication.
Paragraph 3.4 states
“You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the authority into disrepute.”
I think on that basis alone it could be argued that there is a very onbvious case to answer in relation to ALL Councillors who need to be accountable to ALL their electorate – including the ones who are the targets of sexual predators.
Or do double standards apply to councillors in Tower Hamlets?
Anybody care to set the ball rolling?
Great posts Ted.
Makes Sir Robin look like a saintly mayor… worrying.
I think the last line of his letter is interesting. ” I hope this seeks to clarify my position in some ways”. With English like that you wonder how he passed his Law Society exams.
Just followed the link to the Tower Hamlets Blogspot. What a load of old cobblers. It is so much crap that Stuart Madewell must be involved. One poster says that Gilligan has been suspended from the Telegraph but he was reporting from Japan yesterday.
He has also supposed to have been on a secret mission to Bangladesh to conclude a deal with the Awami League government which seems to be that in return for their supporting Boris against Ken they will get rid of Lutfur and the IFE JI mob currently running Tower Hamlets. You couldn’t make it up. Well somebody did.
I have no connection what so ever with Tower Hamlets Blogspot.
I am monitoring this blog carefully!!!
Sorry Stuart, It’s just that over the years you have come out with the same old conspiracy theories and Marxist drivel. There must be a type of person like that who lives in Tower Hamlets.
Those three exclamations marks have got me really worried Stuart !!!
It’s my blog, ‘whitevanmanlondon’, and how smart of you to dismiss the article based on someone’s anonymous comment! Or your own wishful hope that my story on Gilligan just couldn’t be true. Well, wait and see. He spent a good deal of time there as a guest of the Awami League, I understand he was filming, and I’ve heard several credible reports that Jeory joined him there for a while.
It’s almost impossible to understand politics in the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets without appreciating the huge power and influence wielded behind the scenes by Awami league activists, often centred on businesses and the mosque in Brick Lane.
Er, what exactly were these “credible reports”, Frank?
And yes, the Awami League exerts “huge power” in Tower Hamlets politics, doesn’t it. That’s the reason why their man, Lutfur Rahman, won the mayoralty. Oh, hang on a sec…
Ted, you cannot pretend not to know this after all your years of reporting in LBTH and all your political contacts. The ding-dong battle between Awami League and B(angladesh)NP supporters has been an unwelcome backdrop to local rivalries, with the JI lot thrown in for good measure.
And you also know full well that Lutfur’s current ascendancy takes nothing away from the Awami powerbrokers who see this only as a setback, though they are only one factor in determining local fortunes.
LBTH will continue in disarray until the likes of Lutfur and Helal and all the other corrupters of Labour politics are ousted. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this to happen, any more than the numerous young Bangladeshis I know who are sick of the ‘back home’ corruption of the local political landscape.
I’m sure too, Ted, that you are well aware that Gilligan plans to muddy the waters further.
Frank, why don’t you expand on your “credible reports”?
If they’re not true, simply say so.
Do you not see, Frank, that when you peddle incredible “credible reports” you lose credibility for all your other arguments?
Do you not see, Ted, that your evasion fuels speculation? As a journlist you know full well the difference between a ‘credible’ and a ‘confirmed’ report. So, did you go?
Frank,
Having lived in Bangladesh and been involved with the Bangladeshi community in East London for almost forty years I can say without any fear of contradiction that you are talking crap.
You seem to have discovered some plot, what exactly the point of it is isn’t made clear, which involves Gilligan and Ted Jeory having made a secret journey to Bangladesh for reasons which are also not made clear.
Normally when I have secret meetings with people I do it in an East End pub and don’t fly half way around the world but then I am a bit staid and old fashioned about that sort of thing!
There have been no reports of the presence of wither person in the Bangladeshi media either in English or Bangla, I read both languages.
This however will no satisfy the nutters as there is obviously a huge intergovernmental conspiracy on the scale of the ones that invented the holocaust and have been covering up the fact that UFOs have been visiting earth for years.
Is Frank Stuart Madewell? I think we should be told.
Holocaust? UFOs? I think we cn tell who the nutter is.
whitevanmanlondon, despite your forty years that has made you such an authority, I have no doubt that Gilligan was out there, facilitated by Awami League officials, and quite possibly with a film crew.
As for Ted, ‘he has refused to deny going there’ – which is what he would write if someone didn’t give him a straight answer to one of his enquiries. Oh yes, I have first hand experience of this when I was at TH Council and Ted was forever ferreting around for the ELA.
By the way, you do know that Gilligan was granted a special interview with Hasina on her last visit to London a couple of months ago, at the Hilton if memory serves, though strangely he never published any of it.
The Gilligan interview was published in the Telegraph and is freely available on the internet where I read it.
As far as I know Andrew Gilligan first appeared in the East End about three years ago when he made the documentary about the IFE. If you have evidence that he was around forty years ago that would have made him quite young as he was born in 1968. Perhaps you should give us your evidence.
As for Ted refusing to deny something this is like asking the question ” So, have you stopped beating your wife?”. You are becoming ridiculous. What exactly is your point?
Interesting, the IFE documentary was broadcast exactly a year ago, so you have information that he started making it three years ago? I had no idea he’d been poking round for so long, but thanks for the hat-tip.
Your ‘forty years’ remark can only be explained if I take it you didn’t read your own previous comment!
And yes, I absolutely agree that the ‘refusing to deny’ line is ridiculous. What you probably don’t realise is that this is exactly what Ted used to do (and may still do, for all I know) – he would demand a reply to his questions within a very short space of time, if he didn’t get a direct response to his questions, he would then threaten to report that TH Council had “refused to deny…”!
So this is “Tit for tat” then? Now I understand the tenor of your comments! It certainly sounds like you’ve got a bit of a personal vendetta going on here!
Ted may be a reporter and that may very well be how reporters operate. If it is they’re only doing their jobs. I’d be very surprised by a reporter who didn’t ask difficult questions.
Let’s not forget that all actions by a Council should be capable of explanation to the public. That’s because Councils are accountable to the population which elected them and because they are spending public money. That’s why reporters get to ask them questions!
So far as I am aware Ted is not running for office and this wasn’t a newspaper last time I looked.
I note you said “A Tower Hamlet” was your blog. Judging from your comments you obviously have an interest in Tower Hamlets from an employment perspective.
– Did you start that blog as part of your job with the Council or it it a personal blog?
– Are you still employed by the Council to hide facts from reporters?
– Maybe you’re “a reporter” on East End Life?
– Does the review of East End Life mean your job is now on the line? Is that what’s behind your queries and comments?
(For everybody else see http://atowerhamlet.blogspot.com/2010/05/hands-off-our-community-paper.html for an explanation of the latter comment)
Love the description, “unpopular reporter”….never had that one before. The problem with some of the people on East End Life is that they’ve never asked a serious journalistic question in their lives.
Frank, am still waiting to hear about your “credible reports”…. . Or did you in fact make them up? Shurely not…
I worked for the council for many years in a very humble role until I retired, though never for EEL. I never had to deal directly with the media; I saw Ted on a few occasions, though we never spoke. I did see some of the email ‘enquiries’ he sent. And sorry, Ted, but I can’t believe you didn’t realise you weren’t scoring well in the popularity stakes.
Neithee can I believe, Mr Jeory, that an experienced hack would ask me to divulge my sources! If they’re really not as credible as I think, it only takes a single word from you to show me – did you go?
Frank, if I was unpopular with you and your colleagues on EEL and the like, I was doing my job. It’s readers that I care about – because in the main, they’re the ones who pay the taxes and don’t have the chance to ask the questions. It sounds like you went native at the town hall, that you weren’t able to see the wood for the trees and that conspiracy theories excited you and not facts. I have a motto in journalism: “Cock up, not conspiracy – let’s see the facts.”
And that’s why you’ve ended up using silly terms like “credible reports”. You must have “retired” very young, I have to say.
As for the answer to your question, as I’ve said before, read tomorrow’s Sunday Express and you’ll find out.
Okay, all I found was a piece about Nicolas Sarkozy against Gaddafi. Were you in France? Libya?
You didn’t read p44 did you, Frank…
No, Ted, not unless page 44 is on their website. Intrigued though I am, I’m not turning into toff in retirement by buying the Sunday Express! I should have popped over to the Ideas Store.
Is this your way of trying to push up circulation, Ted, or is there a deeper reason for being so evasive?
whitevanman is Terry Fitzpatrick. Interesting.
Ted’s continued silence and refusal to answer a straight forward question begs the question what has he to hide?
Buy tomorrow’s Sunday Express and see where I was…
Methinks Steve and Frank maybe the same person…
Interesting choice of names
It’s interesting to note that the EDL LGBT division highly recommend the vile Islamophobic website Harry’s Place to it’s memebers
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
It’s also interesting to note that Ted has a link on his website to Harry’s Place. Hmm…
Ted has also made no mention of a major news story in Tower Hamlets of the EDL trying to infiltrate the LGBT community to stoke anti-muslim feeling even though he is happy to castigate muslims who are homophobic. Hmm…
It is also interesting to note that Ted seems to have an unhealthy obsession of writing negative news stories about muslims or the muslim community. Just check out the Express’s website for his articles. Why just muslims?
http://www.express.co.uk/search/ted%20jeory/
as in http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/230120/-1-6m-council-newspaper-in-the-headlines ?
To quote
“The borough’s opposition Tory councillors said that one recent edition of the paper carried 17 photos of Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman.
They say the five-month review is a “waste of money” and that the paper should be scrapped immediately.”
or as one of those commenting out it
“It is time a dose of reality hit some of those councils who think it is ok to waste taxpayers money on some council newspapers which often turn out to be nothing more than lifting the profile’s of highly paid local government officials! This sort of blatent waste of taxpayers money must end now!”
My, my you are a Teddy fanboy!
No, as in the 30 or so sensationalist articles he has written such as
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/138895/Asda-in-halal-storm
which contribute to the climate of fear and phobia about the muslim community taking over this country and who are nothing more than a terror threat.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Ted writes some really good journalistic pieces, it’s just a shame that it’s spoilt by his unhealthy obsession with the muslim community as if no other community has it’s fair share of nutters i.e the EDL
No, as you’ll note the item I specifically identified, it’s more a case of being a fan of anybody who is addressing accountability in an appropriate way and questions some of the practices of the so-called leaders of this community and how this Council chooses to spend public money.
On the halal item, it’s a culturally insensitive move by Asda from a number of perspectives!
I’m just a bit surprised that Ted didn’t think to comment on the adverse impact this move by Asdas might have on the local Bengali traders who sell Halal meat.
Does everyone remember the former Labour MP Phil Woolas?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/phil-woolas-ejected-parliament-election
Well, how was Ted reporting the story?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/172637/General-Election-2010-Islamists-in-Minister-Phil-Woolas-slur
Hmmm…..
The way I see it justice has been done. The reference was convicts past character. Just because someone been good all their life doesn’t mean they can’t commit crimes in the future, So are people who are outraged saying DO NOT give a reference to anybody? Because everyone has the potential to commit crime, whether they commit or not is another matter.