The following email was sent to me this morning. It’s from councillor Shahed Ali, the former deputy leader of the Respect group and the soon-to-be ex-Labour member for Whitechapel. He was one of the four Labour councillors who have effectively expelled themselves from the party to join Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet. He now pockets an extra £13,000 a year from our wallets for talking about “environment” matters.
I like Shahed and I do think he has a real contribution to make to Tower Hamlets, but I have to say there’s more than a touch of incoherence and hypocrisy about today’s letter. On October 14, 2010, just a week before Lutfur’s election as mayor, he wrote another letter, this time to the East London Advertiser. It was an attack on both Respect chair Carole Swords (who was supporting Labour) and Lutfur himself. You can read it at the bottom of the image here:
I’m also copying an extract here:
How can an independent candidate with a proven track record of breaking party rules possibly be in a stronger position to lobby for the people of the East End? Lutfur Rahman has been a Respect collaborator disguised within Labour.
Wow. Pretty strong stuff. No wonder Lutfur didn’t take up Shahed’s initial offer to “work with him” late last year.
In today’s letter, he tries to justify his decision to “advise Lutfur”. He also says he’s “not breaking party rules” – unlike Lutfur, of course… . Curiously, he also cites as a justification his own decision several Labour councillors around the country advising Independent mayors. Are there any examples of Labour councillors working with Independents who have been expelled from Labour? I don’t know, can someone please let me know.
He also defends those useless, invisible, overpaid Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers (THEOs), weirdly by claiming that because they are employed by the council (earning £35,000 a year each), they are somehow more effective than full blown police officers. That’s worrying.
And I just love his defence of East End Life, saying that it is brilliant at “decimating information”. Too right, it is. (I think he meant ‘disseminate’.)
Anyway, here’s Shahed’s rather long, but intriguing letter today.
Dear Comrades,
I am sorry to learn you are disappointed at my decision to provide advice to Mayor Rahman as a member of the council. Having primarily been elected to a four-year term, my first and foremost priority must be with the electorate of my ward and of course the borough as a whole. I believe that we will be in a better position to influence decisions that will practically make the lives of our residents better by being fully-serving pro-active councillors who strive to deliver demanding aspirations, rather than just pander to opposing the Mayor merely for the sake of opposition.
I believe this would not be a first. Labour councillors advise in the cabinets of Independent Mayors across the country and there is nothing sinister in their passion to do anything other than to deliver for their constituents. Likewise, the case in our borough should not be any different, although I would have grave reservations about serving along with the Tories? This leads me into the fact that I am not happy with the way in which the Labour group in Tower Hamlets is now seen as being extremely ‘pally’ and cooperative with its group leader Peter Golds and the local conservative party.
I was not happy with the outcome of our group AGM. As a second-term councillor and former serving cabinet member, this experience would have enabled me to carry out positive pieces of scrutiny work. However, the leader advised us all at group that a decision was made not to give SRA [Special Responsibility Allowances] positions to those of us that had chosen to disagree with the whip. I believe no such rule exists within the Labour party. Positions should in my opinion be judged upon ability, experience, and track record of commitment to council business. I believe this was not the case instead; positions were awarded in return for votes. For example, a group member was consistently absent from the majority of group and council meetings throughout the year. Many others who had also disagreed with the whip including our former leader, were also awarded with SRA positions? In the context of not agreeing with the whip, it is unfair not to apply this directive consistently.
I also stood for the executive position of ‘Media and Communications officer’, competing against the then and current who was seeking re-election. I was absolutely gobsmacked to read the annual report which in my opinion was completely fabricated. I would have expected colleagues to rightly recognise and acknowledge this to be the case? In my opinion, this member was practically invincible to the role that could have otherwise been carried out as the group Media and Communications officer, as was demonstrated by my pro-active actions. I believe thy chose to intentionally steer away so as to not upset pro-Lutfur for Mayor Supporters, and the leadership quiet happily allowed this to continue. Positions should be awarded upon merit and not otherwise.
During the budget process, the Labour group amendment sought to get rid of a number of council employees (THEO’s), instead to fund police officers. I could not agree with such bizarre actions quiet simply because it should be the fundamental right of our employees to expect our council to safeguard and protect its workforce. Our employees, many being local residents, should rightly expect such support from us but instead, the leadership was attempting to destroy their livelihoods so that we could fund the Metropolitan Police force? That is the job of London Mayor Boris Johnson and the current conservative government, not Tower Hamlets Council. Furthermore as a former council employee myself and GMB shop steward, I could not possibly agree with such actions and therefore could not support this amendment. The Mayor’s budget had already agreed all other of our group amendments excluding the proposal to scrap East End Life (EEL) as a weekly publication. Speaking of such, I personally feel that in a diverse borough such as ours which is a high performing council, and is geographically located to attract a huge number of planning applications and related statutory notices, the decimation of council information to ensure our residents are effectively communicated with is imperative, especially in times of such drastic government cuts. We have some of the highest number of overcrowded households and a demanding waiting list for housing. The choice based lettings pages are crucial and need to be decimated effectively. The Mayor accepted our group savings proposal of 200K so I did not feel it appropriate to challenge the frequency of its publication when I know that residents find East End Life to be an integral communication tool. Getting this information to our residents is more important to me than the fear of Mayor Rahman using EEL as an alleged propaganda tool. Due to us being a host borough for the 2012 Olympics, we will need EEL more than ever to decimate information. For example, only this week GLA member John Biggs expressed concerns about the Olympic Route Network (ORN) running from Tower Hill to the Olympic park. This will cause huge disruptions to the daily lives of our residents and affect a range of council services such as waste collection vehicles, school runs, meals on wheels deliveries etc. We need to ensure we minimise the misery this will bring to our residents by keeping them informed at all times through medium such as EEL.
It is no secret just how hard I worked to elect a Labour Mayor. My commitment was 110 per cent without a shred of doubt, regardless of the fact that our mayoral candidate was not my first choice for the job. I was against, and continue to be against a Mayoral system of governance because I believe in collective leadership. It is sad that it was our former Labour government that is responsible for such. In addition to door-to-door campaigning, I regularly wrote letters to the East London Advertiser which was regularly published and posted online, and I made regular contributions, almost religiously, to the various blogs and social network sites that were following the Labour party Mayoral selection and subsequent Election in detail. I made several appearances in live television debates which clearly did not do me any favours with the strong surge of pro-Lutfur for Mayor Supporters. This included a two-hour live televised program where all mayoral candidates were present with the exception of our Labour party candidate with me representing. I had to deal with and respond accordingly to angry phone-in callers who were extremely offended by the sensitive comments made within the ‘dossier’ submitted by our eventual mayoral candidate. I believe I was pro-active in my actions and if I may so say, extremely brave to challenge a mass television audience with the knowledge that the vast majority of our residents became disaffected with the Labour party due to the shambles of a mayoral selection process in Tower Hamlets.
Having joined the Labour party in 1988, I have been an active campaigner in my local ward where I was born and brought up, and continue to live. In those early days, I spent hours stuffing envelopes and hand delivering ward meeting notices to a membership of over 400 members every month. We did not have the luxury of email, mobile phones, nor could we afford stamps to make this task easy. But I chose to contribute my time and energy because I believed in the cause and wanted to get the then Lib-Dem controlled council out. Since 1995, I also happened to work for Tower Hamlets council leading up to when I first stood for office as a councillor in 2006. Sadly, I was not selected as a Labour party candidate. I believed I was much more deserving than the chosen candidates due to the time and energy I had contributed over fifteen years. The membership also plummeted due to anger over the Iraq war. The assault on civil liberties also lost us grassroots support, allowing fringe parties such as Respect to thrive, of which I also became a beneficiary by winning my seat on the council with a clear majority of 350+ votes to my nearest contender. Yes I felt happy to win but I was equally sad not to have won as a Labour party candidate to which I felt my DNA was woven into its very fabric. I wholeheartedly appreciate the fact that I was accepted to be re-admitted to the Labour party two years later, and I believe I have served my council with passion and commitment.
I decided to give up my ten-year full-time employment in social services to become a councillor because I genuinely believe that under the correct leadership, we can deliver so much to our residents. I had to resign from my job to qualify as a candidate so I could have ended up with the loss of both my employment and aspiration to serve as a councillor in Tower Hamlets. I want people to be inspired by our policies, motivated by our local and national leaders and for our younger generations to become positively involved with politics. Ousting this destructive government of cuts that has affected our residents more than in other parts of the country has to be our priority but equally, I believe I have a duty to play my role in softening the burden placed upon our residents by being in a position to deliver council services at best in the current climate. These challenges are not helped by the latest actions of our CLP chair Graham Taylor. In his other role as Chair of Governors at Bethnal Green Technology College (BGTC), he has played a pro-active role in moving BGTC to becoming an Academy when the Labour group position is clearly against. I am disappointed that our leadership has done nothing to make Graham either reconsider his position, or to distance the party away from Graham’s position. This I believe will bring grave consequences for the local Labour party in forthcoming elections. I am personally heart-broken that our council’s multi-million pound asset that has just also had over twenty million pounds of BSF investment is on its way out of local authority control. To add further insult to injury, the governing body consists of parent governors not even living in our borough, yet making decisions about our borough assets.
It is obvious that having won two parliamentary seats and increasing our majority to forty one Labour councillors in May 2010, we can only blame ourselves for losing the mayoral election only a mere five months later. At the time of writing, five councillors in total have already pledged to advise Mayor Rahman, and others will follow suit if the NEC believes it should just simply brush under the carpet the reasons why we are in this situation here at Tower Hamlets. I do not want to see the day when we lose the majority of Labour councillors in 2014 but unless the local party can be pulled back to the proper left, the presence of the Labour party majority here will be jeopardised.
I am a Labour party councillor, and contrary to various accusations, I have not left to defect to another political party. I feel it is in the interests of all councillors to cooperate for our residents if given the opportunity. This will enable us to deliver more for our residents, and would also enable us to scrutinise Mayor Rahman’s work closely. Of course it would be ideal to have a Labour Mayor in charge of our borough, and nothing would please me more, but in the present moment, we have to make the best of an unfortunate situation foremost in the best interests of our residents. We must also remember that we have the GLA elections in the horizon, and winning back a Labour Mayor for London must be our utmost priority. That is where we should be dedicating our energy.
My reading of Clause 13.X.1 of the Labour party’s rules gives me the understanding that it was designed to provide guidance to Labour groups that operate with a council leader and cabinet model. Tower Hamlets council now operates with a Directly Elected Mayor model and therefore, I do not find this clause relevant in this case. My offer to provide advice to Mayor Rahman does not determine the political control, or management of this local authority. In fact, as an example, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the council provides advice to which the Mayor can either choose to accept of decline. I see no major difference in any councillor providing such advice, to which the Mayor can equally choose to accept or decline. Mayor Rahman does not belong to any other political party, and I have not joined any other political party and do not wish to do so.
Other councils have serving Labour councillors advising Independent elected Mayors in their respective councils so why the distinction with Tower Hamlets? I trust that the Labour party operates consistently with all its members, and as such, it will not be necessary to bring formal disciplinary action to all its councillors offering advice to Independent Mayors at the various councils they choose to operate within around the country.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Shahed Ali (Labour).
Whitechapel ward.
Trial by Jeory 
What a nutty piece, Ted.
Shahed’s 100% right. You don’t seem to understand Labour Party rules. I’ve been in the party for decades, and Shahed and the others ain’t in breach.
You can get kicked out if you campaign against a Labour candidate. Shahed didn’t.
You can get kicked out if you join an opposing group in Council. Shahed hasn’t. Lutfur hasn’t formed an opposing group.
Accordingly, all Shahed and the others are doing is rebelling against a local Labour party whip. Josh, Motin and Anwar can be petty, and they can kick and scream as much as they like. They can even take the whip away which would mean Shahed and the others will be forced to sit as non-partisan indepedents on council. But they can’t touch membership and they know that.
Additionally, you make the point that other Lab councillors across the country aren’t serving under mayors expelled from Labour. But the NEC has founded no substance behind Abbas’s dodgy dossier. It actually makes far more sense for Lab councillors to serve someone selected as Lab candidate, and who is now implementing a Lab manifesto than it does, for example, for Labour veterans such as Kate Hoey, Frank Field and John Hutton to work for the Tories.
Steve, geez, wiv you comand,iint english, you am making me and all de overbro an sis seem like fik an cant like spik english and fing, no wha me meen? innit?
What a disgusting and, frankly, petulant response to a reasonable post. Imran, while I may disagree with you politically on a number of points, I used to look forward to reading your posts as they were usually reasonably intelligent and thought provoking.
Ted – You have a comments policy. It’d be nice if you enforced it.
I cant believe I’m about to say this….. but I agree that THEO’s are a waste of space along with PCSO’s, they are too scared to break up a fist fight on the street, so they are not worth it.
But I disagree (normality comes back, phew) with you Ted about EEL, I actually enjoy reading it and want to know what goes on in my borough. Now I know its costs the taxpayer and ways to make it cheaper should be looked into, but I have a question for you Ted, while trying to leave all the cynicism behind.
In the most recent publication of EEL. the centre pages was dedicated to the arguments for and against the paper, left by Con and Lab. There was also some information there that stated that the EEL was originally published in partnership with the East London Advertiser (you probably know where this is going but have to ask), until it was decided to be brought in-house.
Also that the paper itself used to be published/printed by the company that became to own East London Advertiser until the council took that responsibility away and switched over to the Trinity Group, I think.
So my question/s firstly is what I stated true, or is it more of the pro-Lutfur propaganda that is slowly, but surely brainwashing the good people of TH, as Peter Golds was trying to make out.
Did ELA make money from printing EEL alongside the council and would you/your colleagues be against the EEL today if you were still in partnership? yada yada yada – I’m sure you know what I’m trying to ask and an honest answer would be good as if roles were reversed, I’m sure you would asking the same.
I have no idea whether Archant made any profit from printing EEL, but I imagine they did because they re-bid for the contract against Trinity Mirror in 2005.
Yes, I read Laraine Clay’s piece in the most recent edition and while I have a lot of respect for her as an editor, there was also an attempt again to pull the wool over people’s eyes when it came to costs. The gross operating costs of EEL do not include the costs of the press officers who spend a significant amount of their time writing articles for it. The council argues, ‘Ah, but those press officers would be doing those tasks in any case by writing press releases, so there is no additional cost.’ But that’s again disingenuous: take away EEL as a weekly paper and those press officers’ workloads would fall; they would be writing for the sake of it. I know for a fact that a large justification for having so many press officers in the communications department was because they produced so much for East End Life. They can’t have it both ways. Ditto, it would be interesting to see how much of Takki Sulaiman’s salary is apportioned to EEL.
The 4 pence a copy figure that Laraine cites is a lie – and very senior people who have worked there admit that’s the case. Why does this matter? Well, in its current format, a tax-subisidised paper is crowding out a commericial one when it comes to advertising. The ELA would, I’m sure, love to distribute 99,000 copies around the borough, but it can’t. Why not? Because it would make a huge loss. Yes, I know that many local papers are run incredibly badly by management teams which lack vision, but even the most talented wouldn’t be able to produce a paper for 4 pence a copy. There just isn’t the advertising revenue available in the market. It’s a gross distortion of the market that a public sector newspaper can use our money to undercut a competitor, don’t yo think?
Imagine the Coalition announcing in the wake of the News International scandal that it’s going to launch a new national newspaper called, say, UK Government Life. Imagine the PM saying: ‘Look, we’ve had enough of this dealing with the press lark and we want to get our message out, and all the information that a Government needs to get over to people, through our own paper. To save money, we will no longer advertise in any privately owned papers and we’ll distribute ours free of charge to every household every day. In order to further reduce costs, we will also invite private sector companies to advertise with us at special rates. We’ll be really attractive to advertisers not only because we’ll be cheaper, but also because we’ll be read in every home. We’ll also carry items about news events, for example court cases – and also sport. And we’ll even carry restaurant reviews written by our own staff under pseudonyms who get free meals paid for out of our budget. Unfortunately, however, we won’t be able to carry any reader’s letters because that’s too difficult, logistically. Overall, it’s a duty of Government to communicate with you the taxpayer and for us to set the record straight.’
Would you want that?
I’ve said many times that there are good things about EEL, but my issue with it is that it is lying about costs and that it is a weekly publication. On your question about ‘partnership’, I think Archant were able to argue their case from a higher moral ground once they no longer printed EEL.
And by the way, I’m glad that Josh Peck, in that same EEL piece, at last agreed with a point I made to him a few years ago: that every penny spent by the council’s departments advertising in EEL is a penny less from that department’s budget for frontline services. Such unnecessary advertising is a high price to pay for massaging the figures of EEL. If I were a council manager in one of those departments, I’d be negotiating with EEL’s advertising chief Chris Payne to give me that advertising space for free. Let’s see how that argument would develop…..
I’m only going to agree with you on the cost part, but did ELA make any/share revenue from advertisements and the like when it co-published the EEL alongside the council???
I myself have been paying my taxes since I was 18 and actually don’t know what my taxes get spent on, but I don’t mind it being spent on the EEL – seeming as it was an advert on the paper itself advertising a new grad scheme many years ago, that made me apply for it and paved my career in what I am doing now, which has allowed me to keep paying my taxes.
Now I know that little ‘case study’ for the EEL does not mean anything to anyone else in TH, but if your argument was that of cost solely and scrapping it would save more jobs, then fair do’s, but when you start talking about it not being fair that it undercuts a private competitor, then that for me starts to taint your argument with a bit of sour grapes.
As for the propaganda part of the argument – I don’t read anywhere on the paper where it bad mouths other opponents or organisations, unless I’m missing it.
Yourself and the likes of Gilligan are the people who are dishing out negative propaganda for whatever or whoever – actually directing things at people and organisations, now if say Lutfur is not using the free paper to highlight the bad things that are going on in TH, but then he has journalists like you to do that for him, as you have been doing for a number of years and like it or not, has affected the way some people voted last year because of your ‘persecution’ style reporting on people and organisations.
Then you and I have very different ideas about what it means to have a free press and of a state where that was absent. Can I suggest it to you that Lutfur and all other politicians are reined in somewhat simply because there is a free press at work? EEL undercutting a private competitor helps lead to the loss of journalists on private sector newspapers: that’s not sour grapes, that’s bad for democracy.
Do you work in the private sector, Sheraz?
I have worked in private, public and third sector. I currently work on a publicly funded programme for a housing association.
So I fully well know and understand how others feel, especially front line TH staff. I lost a job once due to cease of funding.
As the differences in what I think free press is, I would prefer EEL any day to the in-accurate reporting of many reporters.
Reporters like yourselves are sensationalist adding to pre-conceived negative opinions and hysteria, have you ever read some of the comments left of Gilligans blog??? Down right racist!
I will give a you very small example of the in-accurate reporting in one of your own blogs that add to the negative propaganda you keep peddling.
The kidnapping of Mahee Ferdus, when you stated he fund raises for East London Mosque, now I have read your/Gilligans blog on and off over the last year and never commented, but after reading your absurd claim, I actually had enough and had to correct the statement, which then started a turn of events where I had to reply to an absolute moron who spies on fried chicken shops looking out for Lutfur and his cronies!
I had to state that he does not physically fund raise for the Mosque, his channel holds fund raising nights every night during Ramadhan for different Mosques in the UK, he even charges Mosques a percentage of funds raised.
But you, being a sensationalist reporter omitted that part and just left readers to believe that a convicted dodgy businessman is financially linked to a Mosque you keep berating.
So I would prefer to read free and informative press about my local area, rather than pay for negative, propaganda peddling press who have reasons other than a certain person being in power
Deary me. Mahee is the boss of Channel S. He himself boasts that he raises funds for them. What do you think those fund-raising nights are? If you have evidence that he is charging the mosques a percentage of the funds raised, then I suggest that you provide your evidence and take it to the police, Ofcom and the Charity Commission because I’m sure they’d all be intrigued.
Failing that, you could take it to East End Life, where it would never see the light of day (the fate of many stories that I suspect have been sent their way)…or, horror of horrors, you could send it to “sensationalist” reporter like me who would investigate and corroborate the claims – and then hopefully publish them, such as in this article here (in which Channel S say they charge only £600 for a fund-raising slot).
Go figure.
LOL (and I hate using that term)
I would also say a lot of things to align myself with a popular Mosque so people do business with me.
When someone denies something, you hunt, when some declares something that works for you, you let lie… go figure!
Any evidence I have, not my job to hand it over as others would have the evidence themselves, I’m surprised your sensationalist reporting skills have not found this out.
I will tell you what those fundraising nights are, East London Mosque has one slot out of 30 to allow callers to donate money.
Other mosques around the UK have slots during the other 29 nights. People representing those mosques attend and with a presenter, ask for donations etc.
So what is Mahee doing wrong here (I’m not a supporter of his as we all know about his shady dealings) he has a channel that many East London Mosque users may use and so makes sense to target the audience.
Using your News Internatonal metaphor, does Murdoch go on Sky or write in his paper to vote for the Tories…. no he let’s them have their view through his medium.
The Mosque wants to use Mahee’s channel to get the message to as many potential donors as possible, he is going out there campaigning for the mosque, is he?
Bloody only right thing Mahee is doing, probably trying to repent for his many sins!!
I would have thought you ex-labour mole Shahed could have cleared that up for you until he went rogue!
Oh dear. you don’t have any evidence after all, do you? Funny how so many others in those 29 other nights are raising funds for the same Islamic Forum Trust charity, isn’t it. I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your NI reference. Sky is regulated by Ofcom, as is Channel S. One sticks to its regulations rather more than the other.
LMFAO (now I like using that one)
You would love a piece of juicy evidence so add to your dossier on Mahee to undermine the good work of the Mosque, sorry Ted no matter how much you laugh, you need to do the work yourself, I wouldn’t help anyone who for the purpose of political gain, take down a mosque/religion as collateral damage, no amount of goading would work.
I’m not an uncle Tom or sell out like many of your supporters here.
The NI reference is to make you see that the people behind powerful medium maybe crooked, but using that medium for the good of the organisation is what many people do.
And lastly you had to mention that torrid brainwashing, so called burkha enforcing group the IFE. So what I a number of the Mosques belong to the trust, they are Mosques for Muslims, IFE work to bring the good work of Mosques together, I’m surprised you have not banded the Council of Mosques into this equation who do the same thing.
You’re going to have to recruit a better mole than the last incumbent to feed you better info and get evidence like you require, but heaven help him or her if they turn against you, as they will get top spot on one of your blogs!
I think you should grasp the concept of irony, Sheraz. It might make you laugh more.
Who needs irony when I we have Ted ‘Superblog’ Jeory.
Weird you mentioning irony, ironic that many voters who don’t like Lutfur stuck 2 metaphoric fingers at reporters like yourself and voted for him as they thought his challenger was worse of the two.
That’s why I’m sure Lutfur, ironically, is laughing all the way to his £116k office.
“Funny how so many others in those 29 other nights are raising funds for the same Islamic Forum Trust charity, isn’t it.”
How many others, Ted? The list of appeals is here: http://www.chsuk.tv/Ramadan%20Guide%202010.pdf
“…so many others…”
You need a bit more time on this one, Ted?
Oh, I think your document was most enlightening. Oldham is one, wouldn’t you agree. And there were also others on the other channels for which Channel S owns the licence. Why don’t you send me those as well. Most helpful.
Ah, thanks Ted, that’s much clearer – “…so many others…” meant one!
Oh, there are others. Check the other Channel S licensed stations for their fundraising nights and you’ll see.
Sorry, Ted, I couldn’t find any evidence to support your accusation. Either you should back up such a serious claim or, if you cannot, then withdraw it.
This is not about defending the IFE if they really are up to no good (someone should introduce the concept of transparency to them, they lend themselves to a shifty, masonic image), it’s about presenting evidence-based facts instead of slinging mud.
In inglsh innit.
Graham Taylor votes himself a directorship of Bethnal Green Technology College Company Ltd and TH Labour Group leadership do nothing. And what did Lab cllr and BGTC Governor Lesley Pavitt vote?
TH Labour are helping themselves to the TH scool estate.
Shahed Ali is right on this one.
Ted brilliant work, I think your blogs are spot on, and through your fabulous journalism, we have a medium to question and stand up to community thieves, like our millionaire Housing tennant and channel S, and of course the group our friend Sheraz belongs to the IFE.
Hello….. can you hear in there???
Local Politics – can you get your head out of Ted’s behind for a second.
Have you been going around with your telescope again spying on fired chicken shops and any other eateries for that matter looking for Lutfur’s cronies?
Ted and the likes of you did brilliant work alright, helping to push through the IFE man into power.
But then you have to consider if Ted really does do brilliant work, because those bloody ignorant IFE people and Lutfur are still in power, with all the criminalities that have been brought against the mayor, he still there with no end in sight.
I suggest you go back to your hole, pick a better opposition leader and run a proper campaign in 2014 to get the likes of Lutfur out, without being an Uncle Tom, siding with journalists who hurt your religion, then, maybe, just maybe…. your side might be in power and be in line to line your pockets like the current man is doing.
(For those who are able to grasp English and understand what I wrote above and from some of my previous posts on other topics, you will be aware that I do not support the current Mayor and his people, be it the IFE or not, while I also do not support the team ‘Local Idiot’ plays for, who would just funnel funding to their own cronies and organisations, but our guy Local Politics like to bury his head in the sand, or inside a certain reporters behind and not seem to grasp that basic concept.)
Sheraz, please start a blog as it would be great to have another East End “superblog”. You also make great comments and jokes – and we need balance and levity. Please!
Ted, I’m sure you will not disagree with the attempt by Hope Not Hate to stop the EDL March through Tower Hamlets; they have an online petition which will go to Tower Hamlets police and it closes at midnight tonight. They are asking especially for Tower Hamlets residents to sign:
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/ban-edl-march-of-hate
Anon
I’m not sure if you are being genuine with your comments, if you are then I thank thee, but comments here and there are all I can manage.
Sheraz, I am being genuine and look forward to whatever and whenever you comment.