Well, this shows you the power of a good campaign. Yesterday, I called on Mayor Lutfur Rahman to overturn the decision by his council to rent out a national war memorial gardens to a catering company for a giant month-long bankers’ booze-up.
Tower Hamlets Council has just released the following statement:
Commenting on the Trinity Gardens proposals, Mayor Lutfur Rahman said: “Staging events in the Gardens was an idea put forward by Trinity House who have been working with the Council and the proposed event organisers so I am surprised by comments made this weekend. The Council do not wish to cause any offence to any of the parties involved. As it no longer has the support of Trinity House and the maritime community I have put a stop this event.”
Ward Councillor and Cabinet Member for the Environment, Cllr Shahed Ali, added: “These gardens are an important part of the borough’s heritage and I am extremely glad the Mayor has used his executive powers to stop the event taking place.”
Job done. Well done – and thanks to Jim Fitzpatrick for airing it in the first place. At least he had some common sense. I have no idea why no one at the council, which says it cares about the heritage of the borough, saw this as a crass idea from the outset. A really good politician who had a feel for the symbolic nature of the multicultural nature of the memorials, would have seen it that way and made capital by squashing the proposal at the beginning. And then publicising it.
Why is this council so reactive?
UPDATE – October 11, 8am
Tory leader Peter Golds has pointed out something curious in the council’s statement above, that Shahed Ali is described as the “ward councillor”. Shahed, who was kicked out of the Labour group when he joined Lutfur’s cabinet, represents Whitechapel, while Trinity Square Gardens is in St Katharine’s and Wapping.
As Peter asks, has Lutfur now assumed the powers to redraw boundaries – or is just another clue to how familiar he is with this historic part of London?
And another thing, as they say, the statement on the council’s website refers twice to Trinity Gardens; it’s always good to be accurate about these things isn’t it because it shows you care? The name is Trinity Square Gardens. Here’s the sign on the park entrance to help the council’s communications team:
Trial by Jeory 
Ted
Doesn’t your ego allow just one comment on the Mayor and well done to putting a stop to the plans. Instead, talking up a divisive idiot like Fitzpatrick who may have brought up the issue, but someone else put an end to it.
Lutfur supporters (not myself) would take your obsessive comments about him and his cronies more seriously if you were a bit more balanced.
Are you really telling me: 1) you’re not a Lutfur supporter; and 2) that Lutfur didn’t know about this plan before Jim raised it?
The words cuckoo, land and cloud spring to mind.
Why didn’t Lutfur put a stop to it earlier, even on Thursday when I first aired it? Why didn’t he realise how divisive it would be from the very outset? Poor political judgment if you ask me.
Ted
Don’t try to switch your memory to a month at a time, I know you read my comments, those from months back, I know you read them because you tend to reply to many and you know from those comments I criticised some of his decisions.
Heck I even agreed with some of your points (God knows how that happened), so don’t try to make it out that I am a supporter of his, it’s a lame move even for you Teddy.
He could have actually done you a favour, agreed with the original decision and give you more to write about him, but h chose to go against it.
So whether you like him or not, he did the right thing eventually so just give him his props (street slang for a pat on the back).
You know I spoke with someone who works with him just the other day and I brought up the matter of one of his obsessors, that being you, the Mayors apparent attitude to the likes of you is along the lines of, “I don’t give a crap about the likes of him” and laughed.
I wish he stuck his verbal two fingers up at you again on this one, just to imagine that constipated look of anger on your face itching to write another blog which at the end, does not and will not change the way people vote again in a few years.
But this was an important issue which should have been stopped and the Mayor did it.
All that smacks of support for our wonderful mayor I suppose Ted, or do you want to post up that favourite of yours and and add links to all my old posts, something you have a habit of doing from our last literary waltz, which if you read carefully again, is a balanced view on the Mayor, negative and positive.
You could do well to take in some of the above comment!
Well, if I were Lutfur, I’d be working even harder to win votes because if he doesn’t have yours he really is in trouble.
Lol – why you gota make me use that term.
You know, Fitzy knows that Lutfur will most likely get into power again, my vote or not.
See all that stuff you obsessively blog about him, does not really equate too much to the people who vote in TH.
Honestly, even though the marquee issue is important to people memories, to the average Tom, Dick and Abdul, its not a deal breaker.
So he ain’t got nothing to sweat about.
But Lutfur has a lot to thank you and people like you for, you see many young voters used that venom you dish out and voted for Lutfur, they didnt care about local politics, just that a Muslim man was trying to be stopped from being mayor.
So if you stop obsessively blogging about Lutfur, that’s when he really should be worried!!!
You see, this episode has all the hallmarks of Bancroft library: it was only when he realised the level of public anger that he reversed the decision. He just can’t seem to spot these things in advance, which is, I guess, what happens when he surrounds himself with advisers and officers who neither live in the borough nor have any affinity for it.
He should be brave and sack the Ken cronies and advertise for some decent advisers. Hey, I’d even apply…
“Hey, I’d even apply” Stranger things have happened!
So you are telling me that you would apply to be one of his advisors if the positions were open…… happily sit in that swish new office of his that he apparantly spent in excess of £160,000???
You would do that after you criticised the mayor for this???? OK
Anyway – I just wish that there was another reason for Golds to make that statement about being correct with the finer details on things and for you to then have to post it as an update….. say prior to my other comments about Yazdani and correcting another commentator about whether a certain building was in fact funded by taxpayers, which it is not.
This type of factual correcting eludes you when you choose it too, but when it suits you, you will support it… ‘go figure’ I think was one of your commentary nuggets wasnt it?
And if you read the post more carefully, you’ll see the words “Well done” after Shahed’s and Lutfur’s statements.
Actually this is all nonsense. All Moneybags have to do is apply for a TEN (Temporary Entertainment Notice). The council cannot object. The police CAN (but never do) provided only that they have documented evidence it will lead to crime and disorder. Nothing the Mayor can do about it. Get your people to tell Moneybags people to call my people and I can explain it all. Barking mad, unbelievable, undemocratic but there it is. Labour legislation (Jim was Minister for London). WTF?
Not sure this is the case, David. Even with a TEN, they still need the permission to use the gardens. They can’t just go erecting marquees wherever they like, can they?
It is unclear who owns the site. Provided the owner/manager (City Corporation? Parks department?) gives permission, then Moneybags can automatically get a Temporary Entertainment Licence (the council has no control over these). It is issued by the Police who themselves cannot object unless they can demonstrate the likelihood of crime. Easy Peasy. In any event, Licensing is a quasi-judicial role – requiring a line-up of councillors – over which the Mayor has no control. I rest my case.
I knew that was coming, but that well done is not very clearly aimed at anyone, but Fitzy on the other hand, he gets a metaphoric one man standing ovation from you.
Even you could have applied the sandwich technique,
“well done to Lutfur, at least he did one thing right, after a long time, amongst many others wrongs to the universe he carried out”
For a man with a mortgage to pay as you stated once, you could sure act like my 5 year old
I think you’re obsessed with me, Mr Sheraz.
Ohhh the obsessed part hit a nerve did it.
You use the excuse of saying you watch over east London politics to watch Lutfurs every move, what a load of crock.
I’m not the one with a dedicated blog on him Teddy, heck I only comment on here on some blogs, not all, I don’t know what car u get driven in and how much it costs per day, I don’t know how much it cost to refurb your shed/office you spend most of your life in.
Hmmmm!!!
Champagne all round!
RD was right about you!
You are correct! RD for mayor!
Well, I suppose he does qualify to stand…*gulps*
Champagne all round, ah’ll have some of that, fancy a drink at Tower Hill
Hang on a minute here. I’m glad to hear that a stop has been put to this extremely stupid proposal for staging inappropriate events in the gardens, however there’s a bit more to it than that.
What’s good about a Mayor calling off an event when his officers should have had the good sense to realise it should never have been under discussion in the first place.
* Is he suggesting that he is calling off the event because of the protests – rather than because it was always a totally inappropriate idea?
* Why’s he not more surprised that his officers were progressing the proposal? Did he think it was OK up until the point where people started to object?
* Does the Mayor need to have it pointed out to him (yet again) that respect of the war dead is very important.
I’d love to know what guidance has been given to the Licensing People – or whoever was involved with this – re. granting entertainment licences on public open space in this borough – particularly where that open space involves graves and war memorials.
Or maybe it was the Parks people – we all know how they like to have their palms greased when it comes to events….
Who exactly came up with the idea for letting this space be used for events such as this in the first place?
I looked up Trinity Square Gardens to check its status and found the following on the Keep Britain Tidy site. It’s a little muddled as to who owns the land but it clearly indicates that the site is managed by Tower Hamlets Council – which I assume means managed by the Parks Department.
“These formal gardens have a rich history and great views of the Tower of London. They contain lawns, bedding and shrub beds (designed for interest every day of the year), fine trees, memorials to the Merchant Seamen who died in both world wars and to those executed on the former Tower Hill scaffold. The Gardens were created by special Act of Parliament in 1797 and restored in 2003. We manage them with the Corporation of London and the War Graves Commission for the enjoyment of thousands of tourists and office workers, as well as visitors to the memorials.”
I wonder if anybody bothered to check out what the special Act of Parliament has to say about what can happen on this land……
PS Did anybody know that this area is also the site of the former Tower Hill Scaffold which was where Sir Thomas More (and a lot of other people) were executed – because I certainly didn’t! It’s located immediately adjacent to the war memorial area.
I am saddened to hear of attempts to tarnish Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman with the nonsense that he or his administration has no respect for the thousands of men and women of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets whom lost their lives through both world wars. These were lives without any religious or racial boundaries, many of whom happened to also be of Bangladeshi and Muslim origin.
Naturally the concerns raised about the proposed option for a temporary use of Trinity Square Gardens demonstrates exactly why this is an option our Mayor has rightly put a prompt stop to. It is no secret to either Ted or Peter that due to the drastic cuts imposed by this Tory government, the council is actively seeking to protect services to our residents. The council is under pressure to find savings and maximise income generation. Various options are put forward to the executive for consideration and Trinity Square Gardens happens to be just one of a multitude of options that the Mayor has not agreed.
I can only assume from the details posted in your blog that Jim Fitzpatrick MP was first alerted to concerns raised by the Deputy Master of Trinity House. However it is Trinity House who sought to explore the idea of making Trinity Square Gardens available for events? Just as Mayor Lutfur Rahman was puzzled, it is no surprise that Jim Fitzpatrick MP was equally baffled and I thank them both for sharing genuine concerns.
However, having read your update posted at October 11, 8am, it is no surprise to me that Tory group leader Peter Golds seems instead disappointed at the outcome. Rather than join the concerns of Mayor Rahman and Jim Fitzpatrick, he instead diverts to his real agenda – his intention of making a mockery out of Trinity Square Gardens.
Why didn’t the Mayor say No at the very beginning? When you say he put a “prompt” stop to this idea, you are aware, aren’t you, Shahed, that these negotiations started in March?
Why, if there are large scale cuts, is the Mayor spending £140k on an office refurbishment for himself and a Mercedes Benz?
He’s doing a good enough job of tarnishing himself without any help from others.
As I said, the Mayor put a prompt stop to it when it was brought to his attention. Perhaps you need to ask Trinity House why they have a conflict of opinion?
Not that it has anything to do with Trinity Square Gardens, this phase of the re-organisation of offices includes that which is occupied by all political groups and Democratic Services staff, not an office refurbishment just for the Mayor. The decant of Anchorage House will also bring about more re-organisation of office space with overall savings in the long-term.
Why did you never have concerns about the car the part-time (active duties) Civic Mayor used prior to a referundum opting for a full-time Executive Mayor?
I have absolutely no problem with the Civic Mayor having a car because that befits the dignity of his office.
I would have had a problem with the Leader of the Council having a car, ergo the issue with the Lutfurmobile.
Do you not see how vain that decision is?
Ted, all previous council leaders were not full time commitments, most actually had full-time employment elsewhere including previous civic mayors. The difference now is that the Mayors car is always seen around the streets because it is being used rather than sitting idle in the basement of Mulberry Place. Check the mileage out in a year or so and the comparison will speak for itself!
Shahed, you conflate two separate issues and you are too bright for that not to be deliberate.
The office of the civic mayor, by its very nature, demands some dignity. Shoving the holder of that office and its chains in the back of a black cab does it and the person who took that decision a disservice. It demeans our borough.
If you can’t see how chavvy and arrogant it looks for the elected mayor, in one of his early decisions, to grab his hands on a Mercedes when he has a perfectly decent car of his own, then I’m just surprised. I know you like your motors, Shahed, but at least you pay for yours out of your own pocket.
Lutfur seems to have enjoyed the trappings of his new powers a touch too much. It’s just not classy.
And I suspect you deep down agree with that. Humility is an important trait, no?
For once I wish everybody would stop politicking about this. A good result has been achieved.
Yes, it should never have come to this in the first place. However, council officers make decisions according to the criteria in policies set out in their plans and under the law. Provided that a proposal is in compliance with these criteria and has followed the legal requirements the officers will progress matters. They do not have to (and should not) have consideration for the political aspects of a decision. The officers should, however, have had more sense than to send the MP a template letter. There are ways and means to tell an MP he is not a valid complainant under the Licensing Act – and a template letter is not the way to do this!
I’m heartily relieved that the mayor decided to put paid to this. I hope that he will not use this to attempt to burnish his image in future but somehow I doubt it. It will be promoted as another great victory for Lutfur and ‘the community’ against…well I’m not sure. Yawn.
I agree that it should have been put paid to long before Ted raised it here – possibly back in March when discussions were first held, but definitely at the point where the MP wrote to the council. Why on earth was Jim Fitzpatrick’s letter not passed on to the Mayor’s office? Not only should he not have received a template letter from the licensing team but he should have received personal contact about the case from the Mayor or one of his advisers. It’s called joined-up government (at a local level).
Peter and Ted – criticising the careless errors on the precise name of the gardens and/or the description of the councillor is just nit-picking and can’t we just be grateful that this disgraceful episode has been ended?
Finally TENs – there are restrictions on them. See here:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4056.aspx#14
In particular the aggregate number of days for an event in any one year is 15 days and there must be at least 24 hours between events at the premises notified under the TEN. So the catering company could not use the area for the best part of a month solid as they were proposing to do and would be faced with tremendous paperwork to cover any events they did wish to hold – possibly/probably more paperwork than they would want.
Just to highlight Cllr Golds’s double standards and sense of priority.
This man couldn’t bring himself to put direct pressure on the Mayor like the good Jim Fitzpatrick MP so instead has resorted to picking up on supposedly more important issues like ‘missing words’ which he himself is guilty of – 3 times he missed the word square. Ted will you take action? See post – https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/call-for-mayor-to-act-on-trinity-square-gardens/
Golds points out:
Lutfur Rahman cancels the bankers’ booze-up in Tower Hill October 10, 2011 by trialbyjeory
UPDATE – October 11, 8am
Tory leader Peter Golds has pointed out something curious in the council’s statement above……
And another thing, as they say, the statement on the council’s website refers twice to Trinity Gardens; it’s always good to be accurate about these things isn’t it because it shows you care? The name is Trinity Square Gardens. Here’s the sign on the park entrance to help the council’s communications team:
Then we find out just how sharp Golds is:
Call for Mayor to act on Trinity Square Gardens October 9, 2011 by trialbyjeory
Peter Golds has issued this statement today:
The proposal to hold parties in Trinity Gardens is an affront to the thousands of merchant seamen who lost their lives in times of conflict. It was possible to join the merchant Navy aged 14 and the magnificent memorial commemorates, amongst many others, these youngsters who gave their lives.
A party in a Marquee will involve drink and noise. A prime reason for rejecting a licensing application is disorder, and the potential for disorder around the Memorial is extremely high.
The proposed date for starting these events is November 22. On November 13th Trinity Gardens will be the setting for the Borough’s main Remembrance Ceremonies. How appalling that wreathes will be removed to be replaced by canapés, champagne and fairy lights.
The current Tower Hamlets administration has form on this matter. Last year, despite a seat being reserved for him, Lutfur Rahman declined to attend the Remembrance Ceremony. His administration blocked off large parts of Victoria Park for money making events in the summer and his officers are supporting a new Hotel on Trinity Gardens – despite there being no facilities for deliveries.
Something needs to be done and Lutfur Rahman needs to understand that One Tower Hamlets means actions and not press releases.
Sigh. I was the one who pointed out the missing “square” not Peter.
OK Ted is there a set of rules for Cllr Golds and another for Mayor Rahman?
Where is that Ingham bloke when you need him??
His special type of commenting is needed to reply to this latest comment from Sharp Eye which I agree with and which would be:
“Great comment Sharp Eye, glad you said it so I don’t have to”
When those who want to indulge in useless nitpicking about the name of the space have got over their inflated egos, maybe we could get back to one of the really important issues
Perhaps Councillor Shahed Ali could now also explain why Mayor Rahman failed to turn up to the Tower Hill Remembrance Service last November.
See https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/lutfur-and-a-lack-of-respect/
If Mayor Rahman did indeed have proper regard for the war dead of all nationalities – as commemorated at this place – wouldn’t he have demonstrated it by showing up and paying his respects?
Can Councillor Shahed Ali give us an assurance that the Mayor will be there leading the Council contingent at this year’s Remembrance Service in a month’s time?
Let’s not forget that this only really requires the investment of a bit of time and effort on the Mayor’s part…..or did this get cut too?
[…] […]