I was too busy with the latest developments in the Dow Chemical affair yesterday to blog about the new developments in the war between the two Tower Hamlets mayors. I first reported on their schoolboy spat here and the Evening Standard updated us all here yesterday.
As Ross Lydall reports:
The ceremonial head of Tower Hamlets has gone to war with the borough’s top politician after running up a £9,000 taxi bill.
Mizan Chaudhury, who is the council’s independent “speaker”, says he has been forced to take minicabs after directly-elected mayor Lutfur Rahman scrapped his official car.
He claims this puts him at risk of being robbed while wearing his diamond-encrusted ceremonial chain and has made him a laughing stock among other mayors who ask whether he has come by bus.
Figures seen by the Standard show that Mr Chaudhury, 35, spent £3,913 on taxis in four months attending engagements across London.
He also took Addison Lee minicabs to two events in Birmingham, costing £845 and £875 respectively.
The total bill since the Labour councillor became ceremonial mayor in May – the job was renamed speaker in November – was £8,972, including the cost of a chauffeur-driven Chrysler between May and September.
But Mr Chaudhury told the Standard he was the victim of a plot by Mr Rahman, elected an independent after being ousted by the Labour party, to discredit him.
Mr Chaudhury said: “Lutfur had his own taxi bill and he wanted me to exceed that. The way he did it was to remove the car I had, which we were paying £600 a month for.
“It was all a set-up. It was never to save money. It was to undermine the civic office.”Every other borough has a civic car. I go to events and don’t get the same respect because I’m not using the borough crest because I don’t have an official car. It’s become the talk of every event I go to. People joke: ‘Did you not take the bus today?'”
Mr Chaudhury claimed that Mr Rahman had also evicted him from the mayor’s parlour so he could claim it as his own office.
Mr Rahman attracted controversy last year when it emerged he had leased a £1,500-a-month chauffeur-driven Mercedes to take him to meetings rather than taking the Tube.
The borough of Tower Hamlets is one of the most deprived in the country.
A council spokesman said: “As part of the efficiency drive at Tower Hamlets we have sought to support councillors in discharging their duties in a cost effective manner.
“As such the speaker of the council was offered the use of a Toyota Prius to conduct his civic and ceremonial duties.
“This offer was declined and instead the Speaker chose to use more expensive taxi transport.”
I don’t know when the next cage-fighting event is on at The Troxy, but these two clowns should just battle it out there. As I’ve said before, Lutfur’s decision to strip the Speaker of his dignity and his car was lamentable, particularly when he is busy self-aggrandising leasing his own Mercedes Lutfurmobile. His was a silly childish act that belongs in the primary school playground.
At the same time, Labour leader Josh Peck needs to have a word with Mizan about how to play politics, how to keep the moral high ground; it seems his temper and his ego has got the better of him.
There can be no event that is worth a £900 taxi bill to Birmingham. What was that event? He needs to understand that it is not his money that he is playing hard and fast with, but ours. I’m sure it must be an ambition of his to run a cabinet portfolio one day, but this kind of spendthrift mentality reflects poorly on him and his party.
If I were him, I’d repay those large taxi fares from the Speaker’s special responsibility allowance, ie the extra £8,400 he gets for wearing the chain.
Together, Mizan and Lutfur have reinforced the reputation of Tower Hamlets as a laughing stock, not a clever thing to do when the borough is trying to persuade the Queen to confer it city status.
Trial by Jeory 
This is hilarious!!!!
What is it about Bangladeshis and cars and ‘respect’? Is the whole thing about how much money they can be seen to flaunt (be it their or from the public purse) to gain them a higher social standing? I really, really suspect that this is not far off the mark.
I used to have time for Mizan. This story somewhat changes that. The fact that he thinks that someone of his position entitles him to £9k’s worth of taxi rides a year deeply disappoints me. And to claim £900 – twice! – for a taxi ride to Birmingham and back when he could take a train for less than 10% of this speaks volumes about his view of the public purse.
The notion of being in politics for the public good seems to be a long, long way away from the thoughts of these clowns.
Tim.
Bit wrong to single this out as a “Bangladeshi thing”, Tim. Cars and respect/status have gone together (across all cultures) since they were invented.
Bit wrong there Ted – you’re going to get howls from the female population of Tower Hamlets
Equating the type of car with the respect and status you enjoy is essentially a really big testosterone thing. It’s especially prevalent amongst those who show few signs of having grown up yet. (Think Clarkson)
The normal rule on the reimbursement of expenses paid for from the public purse is as follows. The councillor or officer should choose the option which is the most economical for the Council and does the job. Should they choose to spend more than that they can – but they will only be reimbursed at the rate which should have been paid within the context of achieving value for money – at the normal rates of reimbursement. That also is normally the rule in relation to leased cars too.
Of course the other interesting aspect is that the leased car is also a benefit in kind when it is in excess of that required to do the job and thus becomes a taxable item.
Failure to claim expenses correctly and failure to pay tax properly are of course both features of the type of “naughty” politician who ends up in court for irregular financial affairs.
How about a solution which says:
* Mizan loses the chain of office and any reimbursement in excess of the normal second class train fare to Birmingham
* Lutfur loses the Mercedes and uses the Toyota Prius instead?
Honour settled?
However that doesn’t deal with the taxpayers money paid out to date.
Who fancies lobbing in a request to the external auditor to take a look at the way in which the Council has applied the rules to the reimbursement and taxation of Councillors expenses in relation to travel – whether that be public transport or leased care?
Then there’s the scope for a Freedom of Information Question. After all this is public money we are talking about……….
I agree with ‘you couldn’t make it up!’ this car fetish is exclusively area of interest. My self worth is not predicated by cars! Also Mizan implying that taking the bus is offensive offends the many Tower Hamlets constituents who can’t afford the bus fare.
exclusive area of male interest*
What is it about you and Bangladeshi’s Tim?
Ted,
Not so. In cultures where there is not the desire for material wealth, there is no such status association. Indeed, many cultures (particularly traditional British culture) are very much against overt displays of wealth – status is gained by many other means, but certainly not by flaunting wealth.
The all-consuming desire for ‘respect’ amongst Bangaldeshis (remind me of the name of that political party again … ), coupled with great materialistic desire, seems to drive them towards whatever public display of wealth they can manage – and often this is shown with cars. It’s no coincidence that The Odious Lutfur chose a premium brand for his Lutfur-mobile, and Mizan turned down the offer of a Toyota Prius in favour of chauffeur-driven taxis.
Ironic that such desires create behaviour that is deeply un-respectable, whichever angle they are viewed from.
Tim
I think quiet a few Baby Bentley driving footballers might disagree….and the Aston Martin loving Prince Charles..
I suspect rocking up to one or two country houses and manor pads in the shires might also dispel that myth a bit.
I don’t believe any of the Goldman Sachs big bonus recipients or the RBS chief who is reported today to be taking just less than a million in bonuses or Bob Diamond from Barclays (etc etc ad nauseam) are Bangladeshi.
Yet all these people have a deep desire for material wealth and (we’re constantly told) insist on it because they’re worth it.
Even ‘Suralan’ (sorry, Lord Sugar) owns at least one Bentley. And not only is he not Bangladeshi but is in fact from a completely different ethnic group.
Charles’s Aston is from the 1960’s. I would challenge 95% of the population to even recognise it as an Aston Martin – hardly an overt display of wealth!
(Let’s leave footballer culture out of this. They are one of the few demographics that is more odious than LBTH politicians!)
Tim
… and, following-up the previous comment, both Charles and those footballers have the decency to pay for their transport out of their own pockets, rather than other people’s.
Tim.
Actually Charles pays for it out of OUR money as well. Either directly or from earnings from land he never purchased himself. If you’re attacking people abusing the privileges of state I wouldn’t start with the royals as your winning example.
I have been told that he actually made two long- distance trips to Birmingham using our council tax money, it’s absolutely disgusting. Our recently announced poverty stricken borough is a mere 8 square miles in size with one of the largest youth populations in Europe. What Tower Hamlets council business could a non-executive ‘speaker of the counci’ possibly have 120 miles away in Birmingham? Nothing.
One trip was to a GCSE Achievement Awards which had nothing to do with our poverty stricken students of Tower Hamlets. The other ‘Jolly’ to Birmingham was to a expatriot Bangladeshi organisation’s event, also which has nothing to do with either council business or residents of Tower Hamlets. Both these ‘personal’ ego trips have cost us more than £1700.00 in taxi fares! What happened to the train which could not have costed more than £100.00 – and even then, personal ego trips with no relation to council business should not be paid from the public purse.
The Labour group leader Cllr. Joshua Peck made several controversial changes to the constituion at last nights full council meeting including attempts to restrict our Mayors spending limits to £5000.00. Why did he not suggest likewise for his Labour group chosen speaker?
So I would like to ask you Mr. Jeory to pose a couple of question’s to Joshua Peck and print the answer on this blog for us;
1. “Does the Tower Hamlets Labour group believe that it is appropriate for taxpayers to pay for taxi trips to the tune of 850.00 per trip for distances such as to Birmingham for events of the Speaker that have no relevance to either council business or to the residents of Tower Hamlets?”
2. “Will Tower Hamlets Labour group ask the speaker to return the taxpayers monies he used for these two taxi fares to Birmingham?”
Mayor Lutfur Rahman has asked Shelina Akthar to return the falsely claimed benefit payments, Joshua Peck should do the same. However the difference is Cllr. Shelina is an independant member so Mayor Rahman cannot force her to do such. However, Speaker Chaudhury is a Labour group member so the leader can take action and if need be, and suspend him for a period that enables the council to save and recoup the money he would have received in personal allowances both as a member and as the speaker if Chaudhury chose not to comply!
Whereas Lutfur never makes journeys outside the borough unless they are of direct relevance or benefit to Tower Hamlets residents…
https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/lutfur-vaz-and-ed-miliband/
Visiting Leicester East for a by-election and taking a bus-load of council staff with him to do political campaigning. As a council tax payer in Tower Hamlets I’m still eagerly awaiting news of the benefits that has brought.
Looks like everyone is missing the point here. If the Mayor, Lutfur Rahman did not remove the leased civic car, then the Speaker would not be in this situation. Lutfur Rahman achieved what he wanted and that was to undermine and blemish the Speaker. No one seems to have the courage to speak about or investigate the costs Lutfur Rahman has incurred – they are above £100000 and yes tax payers money.
The main culprit is Lutfur Rahman who removed the cheapest form of travel for Mizan and left him no choice but to use taxis. If Mizan really was offered a car he won’t be able to refuse it as it will be the Mayor’s decision, so not sure I believe what the council spokesperson said.
I checked through my sources and the first trip to Birmingham was to an event organised by a charity organisation that helps the poor and needy, and the second being a celebration event to present awards to young people who have achieved highly in their GCSE’s. The Speaker was invited as the special guest at both events. There is nothing wrong working with a charity organisation and giving confidence to young people who have done well – surely they deserve the recognition. I have been told Mizan wanted to travel in a private vehicle to those events, but that was not allowed by the authority due to security and insurance issues, or was it Lutfur exercising his powers again. Mizan is innocent in all of this and does not have an ego problem. It is wrong to put it that way.
As a Civic representative of Tower Hamlets (or any other borough) the Speaker (Civic Mayor or Chair of Council) also have the duty to promote their boroughs across the country. The point remains, the Mayor, Lutfur Rahman stitched Mizan up knowingly removing the leased car which was the cheapest form of travel, so costs exceed the Mayor’s own taxi bill and Mizan get’s blemished. The Mayor of Tower Hamlets is the irresponsible one playing with tax payers money and should explain himself of his decisions – let’s not be stupid here, the costs of taxis were incurred only because the Mayor allowed this to happen and this is what he wanted. Mizan never had a say in the form of travel to any events it was the approving officers, under instruction from the Mayor. An FOI request would reveal all.
He doesn’t need to force her to pay the money back. This is now a matter for the Court – and you’d think that Lutfur being a lawyer would know that.
However Lutfur asking her to repay the money is a typical example of trying to look good while forgetting to mention this is actually a standard requirement of any person convicted of benefit fraud – as Cllr Shelina Akthar has been.
Cllr Akhtar has to pay the money back irrespective of whatever the Mayor says. The Mayor could say “I absolve you from your sins my child” (or some such) and she’d still have to pay the money back if that’s what the Court tells he she has to do.
Claiming expenses for trips which are nothing to do with appropriate council business and which fall outside the terms and conditions for claiming expenses for council business is FRAUD – unless the Councillor indicates a mistake was made and pays the money back immediately. Politicians who have committed fraud in relation to travel expenses have gone to prison in recent times.
Are these taxi fares to Birmingham believable? Ted, have you checked the prices with Addison Lee?
This website will take you there and back in a BMW 7 series for half that:
http://www.majestictaxis.com/TaxiFromLondonToBirmingham.aspx
Indeed, for a mere £500 per trip I would have taken a day off work, hired a nice car, and driven him there and back myself! 😉
Milan hired the taxi, took it from East London to Brum and told the driver, both times, to sit outside in the car and wait for him – hence the extraordinary fare.
He shouldn’t even have attended these minor events – and if he felt that desperate about it he should have left what former mayor Salim Ullah recently described as ‘the most beautiful chain in the world’ in the Town Hall. Does he really consider himself worthless sans-bling?
Tim’s remarks about Bengalis are just plain racist. Crawl back under that stone of whence you came, mate. We’ve already made clear that EDL and their fellow travellers ain’t welcome around here.
I agree about leaving the chain behind. When John Bercow goes to official functions as the Speaker of the Commons, he has no need of the regalia: the dress-up occasions are saved for special events. It’s not about costumes. Frankly, the office of Speaker/ceremonial mayor should be reserved, where possible, for people who have a bit more experience; it should not be passed around as a political promise.
If anyones judgement is to be called in to question it’s Joshua Peck’s for handing this role to such an inexperienced, testosterone fuelled young lad.
No EDL member here, nor am I a racist. Just saying what I see. Sorry if it offends you.
Tim.
You’re not just saying what you see. You’re taking the actions of two people, who happen to be Bangladeshi, who make up 0.00001% of London’s Bangladeshi population, and stating (and you are *stating*, and not even positing a theory) that their actions are representative of the Bangladeshi community in general.
Around here, we call that racism. Unfortunately, in Tower Hamlets, the Bangladeshi community has become an easy target (although religion is often used as a proxy).
Imagine the uproar (and rightly so) if you had said something similar about another ethnic group – e.g. Jewish people and money. You wouldn’t say it because you know that all right-minded people would pull you up on it.
You may say you’re not racist, but your initial post, your defence of it, and your subsequent blasé response to Steve O’Driscoll suggest otherwise and the discerning readers of this blog will probably have reached a similar conclusion.
And if you look back to the comments Bosh has made on here before – all about the Chair/Speaker – its clear that he is either Mizan himself of the greatest arselicker ever to grace the earth.
“Milan hired the taxi, took it from East London to Brum and told the driver, both times, to sit outside in the car and wait for him – hence the extraordinary fare.”
How many days did the driver have to wait???
On Ross Lydell’s blog (http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/01/ceremonial-mayor-runs-up-9000-taxi-bill-after-losing-official-car.html) he helpfully includes the hand-written expenses, linked to a PDF (http://anmblog.typepad.com/files/th-speaker-of-council-transportantion-costs.pdf) – OMG, why are all those taxi fares within London so high? And should we, the hard-pressed residents of Tower Hamlets, be paying so he can attend all these events outside our Borough?
Do you know what’s really weird about all of this? This isn’t the way local government business is conducted. Or maybe I should put that another way. This is not the way local government business is conducted in other places.
If somebody genuinely needs to make expensive trips then what should happen is that the taxi (or the train) is booked via a Corporate account because that way you’d always be getting the best price for the trip due to the amount of business you’d be giving that supplier and you would never be paying over the odds. Councils can get very big discounts if they procure services in the right way.
I’d like to know what the Council’s Head of Procurement is doing about this. Specifically:
* what contracts the Council has for taxi services (I guarantee there will be a list of approved providers of taxi services)
* how those contracts were awarded
* what the processes are for approving the use of a taxi for a trip costing more than a certain amount.
* which OFFICER has been reimbursing Mizan Chaudury’s expenses without querying them.
The other thing is that in this era of major cuts in services to needy people one really has to question the nature of events being attended by the Speaker. It looks like bean feast after bean feast.
Completely agree. This seems to be a major failing of financial control and one wonders where else in the council are people allowed to suck out cash. Why has this not been picked up by audits? Does the level of audit materiality at Tower Hamlets Council have to be reduced?
I disagree with Tim’s comments about Bangladeshi culture. However, Tower Hamlets politicians seem to be intent on giving a bad impression of the Bangladeshi community to the general public. Lutfur’s obsession with plush offices and flashy cars; Shelina’s social security fraud; Mizan’s ludicrous taxi fares; Pola Uddin’s fraudulent expenses claims. Some people enter politics to serve the public – in Tower Hamlets, there are so many on the make. I despise the EDL – but why give them so much ammunition?
…and another thing!
It would be cheaper to commission a “travelling version” of the mayoral chain without the diamonds and let the Speaker travel by public transport as most others do.
I happened to be in Trafalgar Square last year at the switch on of the Christmas lights in Trafalgar square last year and saw a number of large black mayoral cars parked up nearby (all in the same place so it was obviously organised parking). But guess what – there were very few and there certainly wasn’t one for every one of the 32 boroughs which get invited to this event which suggests that quite a few other boroughs have reviewed their mayoral transport requirements.
Let’s not forget that the Mayor of London goes everywhere by bike!
Let’s be clear here. Mizan had nothing to do with the taxi bookings. He would of accepted invitations to attend events as all other civic mayors do, but the bookings would been done by the Council. We all know of the instruction that was given by Lutfur for Mizan to take cabs and he had no choice. We all also know that Lutfur terminated the use of the civic leased car, whilst ordering himself a Mercedes. We all also know that Lutfur’s reasoning was to save costs and he holds the purse. The question really now is if there was no budget for the civic car who has been paying for the taxi fares and where did all these funds come from? Under the current governance arrangements Lutfur would have to authorise it and he did from the day he instructed Mizan to use taxis. We also know of Lutfur statement in the council chamber ‘’the buck stops with me’’.
”He would of…” LOL ”Buck stops with me” that’s justification enough for councillors to do what the hell they like then. Here’s a news flash: you are responsible for your own actions!
Bosh- Just put a sock in it. Mizans going down, one one of the worst councillors in the borough, just ask the people in his ward.
It’s apparent from his timesheets ( see http://sps2ksrv.towerhamlets.gov.uk/meetYourCouncillor/Timesheets.aspx?MemberID=100 ) that Mizan spends just one hour a month at surgeries his ward – as opposed to what looks like around 40 hours a month on “Mayoral Jollies”
Can someone tell me how does getting the ceremonial Mayor’s name and picture in the Evening Standard for running up ridiculously high bills for taxi fares promote the Borough to the rest of London?
To me it just makes the Borough a laughing stock!
The other people who make the Borough a laughing stock are the Elected Mayor and the Council’s PR Manager – the latter presumably being the Council Spokesman who stated“As part of the efficiency drive at Tower Hamlets we have sought to support councillors in discharging their duties in a cost effective manner. Evening Standard readers all over London must have been shocked and/or chortled when this came straight after the statement that the Borough is leasing a £1,500-a-month chauffeur-driven Mercedes for Rahman.
Can someone explain tome exactly why this man is having a hissy fit for not being able to wear a necklace which he possessively describes as his? Any average person would be embarrassed to walk around in fancy dress. This chain belongs to Tower Hamlets and respect is earned not gained through acting like a diva.
An FOI request would reveal all the facts:
1. Mizan was arguing the case of costs being incurred by taxi usage from day one of removal of the Civic Car by Lutfur
2. Mizan was constantly demanding officers and the elected mayor to reinstate a leased civic car as that was still the cheapest form of travel – £600-£700 a month, but his demands were ignored
3. A Toyota Prius was never offered and talk of reinstatement of a civic car was only discussed recently as November 2011, but by then thousands of pounds were already incurred by the council. Makes one wonder from where the ”council spokesperson” got this information from. However, up until this day there is still no sign of a leased civic car
4. All decisions to undermine the civic office were made by the elected mayor -funding his personal fight with Mizan with taxpayers money – how irresponsible of him!
5. Mizan is right in saying he has been sticthed up by Lutfur and knowing how Mizan operates, he should have all the evidence to prove that.
Other facts:
1. Out of 31 of 32 London Boroughs civic mayors have leased Civic Cars for obvious reasons and the one in Tower Hamlets was removed by Lutfur back in August, so he could order himself a Mercedes and plot against Mizan
2. The Mayor of London (an elected Mayor not a civic mayor) uses a bike, and other elected mayors use public transport, their own cars or occasionally a taxi – so there is no argument or justification for the elected mayor of Tower Hamlets to have a Mercedes or any type of car – yes, that is payed by tax payers of Tower Hamlets too. Maybe we should try and find out how much the Mercedes and his chauffeur actually costs Tower Hamlets tax payers?
3. Civic mayors are not allowed to use public transport, such as bus or trains, as the insurance policy would not allow this. Also they are invited to events to add prestige and give confidence and show importance to those organisations doing good work. They are also the First Citizens of their boroughs, thus representing the queen in carrying out the civic duties. These cannot be achieved by travelling on a train or bus, therefore all boroughs have a civic car, displaying their civic crests. Lutfur intentionally undermined his own borough and the civic office by excercising his executive powers
4. On average civic mayors attend between 300-500 events in a year
5. 4 out of 32 London Boroughs have elected mayors, as well as civic mayors (speaker/chair of council) – reason being the elected mayors are political and cannot be the First Citizen or civic representatives of their boroughs. Also 3 out of the 4 elected mayors do not interfere with the civic office like the one from Tower Hamlets.
6. Civic mayors attend each others charity fundraisers to support raising funds for each others charities – that is normal and a tradition.
7. We all know of the instruction that was given by Lutfur for Mizan to take cabs and he had no choice as it was forced on him. See link Evening Standard link as a reminder: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23985960-civic-mayor-told-to-catch-a-cab-when-hes-wearing-official-robes.do
8. We all know that Lutfur terminated the use of the civic leased car, whilst ordering himself a Mercedes.
9. Lufur is the only elected Mayor in the whole of London that has a Mercedes and a chauffeur being paid by the taxpayers.
10. The taxi bookings were done by the council with authorisation from Lutfur – nothing to do with Mizan
11. Most people commenting on this blog and especially this piece are Lutfur supporters and most likely being paid to defend the elected mayor of his wrong doings – just by having English or funny usernames does not hide these facts.
12. Under the current governance arrangements Lutfur would have to authorise the budget for Speaker’s taxis, and he also had the powers to put a stop it. Why did he let it continue?
13. We all also know that Lutfur’s reasoning to remove the civic car was to save costs, so where did all the extra money come from to fund Mizan’s taxi fares?- if there was no budget who has been paying for them and why? – it’s quite clear and an obvious plot that was done against Mizan by Lutfur and his paid advisers.
14. The truth will prevail in due course
[i]3. A Toyota Prius was never offered and talk of reinstatement of a civic car was only discussed recently as November 2011, but by then thousands of pounds were already incurred by the council. Makes one wonder from where the ”council spokesperson” got this information from. However, up until this day there is still no sign of a leased civic car[/i]
I know who I’d trust right now. Be careful lest you get your wish and someone does put in an FOI request.
[i]5. Mizan is right in saying he has been sticthed up by Lutfur and knowing how Mizan operates, he should have all the evidence to prove that.[/i]
Where has Mizan said this? Can you link to his statement. I suppose this statement will also categorically deny that he was offered a Prius by the Council?
[i]3. Civic mayors are not allowed to use public transport, such as bus or trains, as the insurance policy would not allow this. Also they are invited to events to add prestige and give confidence and show importance to those organisations doing good work. They are also the First Citizens of their boroughs, thus representing the queen in carrying out the civic duties. These cannot be achieved by travelling on a train or bus, therefore all boroughs have a civic car, displaying their civic crests. Lutfur intentionally undermined his own borough and the civic office by excercising his executive powers[/i]
You realise it’s the bling that’s insured and not Mizan right? Civic Mayors (and elected Mayors for that matter) are allowed to use public transport, in fact it should be positively encouraged so they can see how the little people live.
The Civic Mayor may be the first citizen of the borough but s/he is by no means the Queen’s representative. I think you’ve let the power get to your head.
[i]5. 4 out of 32 London Boroughs have elected mayors, as well as civic mayors (speaker/chair of council) – reason being the elected mayors are political and cannot be the First Citizen or civic representatives of their boroughs. Also 3 out of the 4 elected mayors do not interfere with the civic office like the one from Tower Hamlets.[/i]
I think you’ll find that at least one of those London boroughs doesn’t have a separate civic mayor. Robin Wales takes on both of those roles in Newham. I don’t know about the other two.
[i]8. We all know that Lutfur terminated the use of the civic leased car, whilst ordering himself a Mercedes.[/i]
Yes, we’re all aware of that. I wish he hadn’t. There are a number of things Lutfur has done that I have problems with, this being one of them. However, it by no means excuses Mizan’s profligate expenditure on taxis; including trips to Birmingham, twice.
[i]10. The taxi bookings were done by the council with authorisation from Lutfur – nothing to do with Mizan[/i]
[i]12. Under the current governance arrangements Lutfur would have to authorise the budget for Speaker’s taxis, and he also had the powers to put a stop it. Why did he let it continue?[/i]
[i]13. We all also know that Lutfur’s reasoning to remove the civic car was to save costs, so where did all the extra money come from to fund Mizan’s taxi fares?- if there was no budget who has been paying for them and why? – it’s quite clear and an obvious plot that was done against Mizan by Lutfur and his paid advisers.[/i]
Jesus Christ. The Council has an overall budget of £1bn. You really think Lutfur is signing off every single transaction? According to what another commentator posted, the Civic Mayor has their own budget – that’s where the money appears to be coming from.
[i]11. Most people commenting on this blog and especially this piece are Lutfur supporters and most likely being paid to defend the elected mayor of his wrong doings – just by having English or funny usernames does not hide these facts.[/i]
I thought I’d save the best for last. 😉
I think that statement says a lot for your frame of mind. A lot of the people commenting aren’t Lutfur supporters – just disgusted that a Councillor could be so cavalier with ratepayers money. And it doesn’t win you the argument to suggest otherwise.
Here’s what I suggest Mizan, go lie down in a dark room for a few hours. Then go speak to Josh, David etc and then put out a statement to the press apologising, and offering to pay the money back. The longer you drag this out, the more tainted you (and by extension the local Labour Party and the Council) get.
What’s really worrying is that the comments from “Bosh” are being made from a Civil Service IP address…(which is interesting in a couple of ways…).
I cannot fathom why you fail to understand that to equate people who query how money is being spent by the Council with being a Lutfur supporter is just plain WRONG!
Possibly because you fail to understand that all parts of the Council must consider reductions in non-essential services and activities – and that this involves reductions in activities which some parts of the electorate do consider as essential. Which is why voters get so very annoyed when they see money being wasted on “jollies”.
Traditional activities have been under scrutiny for some time within the context of the funding cuts – so
* how did the Civic Mayor/Chair of the Council scrutinise his traditional activities?
* In what way did the Civic Mayor propose or contribute a reduction in his activities comparable to the percentage cuts being required of Directors of Services?
Wherever did you get the idea that ceremonial Mayors are not allowed to travel on public transport?
If it’s good enough for the Queen it’s certainly good enough for a Mayor! I also think there’s a very good chance that the value of her jewellery has the value of the Mayor’s chain beaten by a good margin!
Are you not aware that a number of Mayors substitute the proper chain of office for a travelling version or a badge of office when out and about – and only wear full regalia on a select number of occasions?
The issue is simple. There is no insurance problem if the traditional chain of office is not worn.
The Civic Mayor/Chair of the Council should wear a substitute badge of office, stop going to non-essential jollies and use public transport where appropriate!
you’re so patronising Bosh, no one pays me to write my views and I suspect this is the case with everyone else, you on the other hand write with such an arse licky manner makes it obvious that you do; especially as you mentioned it first. Go get a real job. WTF have you got against public transport that your precious Mizan can’t get on it? Purleez such a diva and now the has to hire someone to defend his diva-ness. If the diva has a problem tell him to grow a pair come right out and defend himself.
Bosh, you have listed as fact:
“6. Civic mayors attend each others charity fundraisers to support raising funds for each others charities – that is normal and a tradition.”
So what is Darpan? And how is their 10th Anniversary a charity fundraiser? £287.80 of our money has been spent on this trip to Milner Road, East Ham – so what kind of charity fundraiser was it, and what charities of Tower Hamlets benefitted?
Maybe a Freedom of Information question asking for documentation of the specific rationale for attending all the identified events should be asked?
Maybe all future events attended by the Civic Mayor should have a full and complete explanation as to how the corporate objectives of the Council are fulfilled by attending – and how the impact of that can be measured
You know – just like services have to do in order to be accountable for all their public funding!
Ted that was realy bad, you shpuld not have mentioned that the Bosh’s IP address was from a civil service address.
It does add a rather more interesting angle on things, I agree …
Why is that bad? Bosh has been on Ted’s blog before in defence of Cllr Chaudhury – in fact, it may be only in defence of this public servant that this public servant(?) comes on here. And we are talking about squandering public money.
Also, now this ‘location’ has been revealed it would seem that Bosh may be best placed to make the FOI request he keeps on about – and supply the answers.
Why exactly? Ted did not reveal the name of the individual or the IP address.
Are you aware that:
1) the accounts of all government employees are monitored with respect to which non-government external websites they visit – mainly because it’s well known that those who are lazy and lack a proper attitude to work tend to spend their time on websites they shouldn’t be visiting. It also provides the necessary documentation should issues of conduct need to be addressed with that individual.
2) In a number of organisations it’s a disciplinary issue to be using a work computer to access non work-related websites for personal reasons. When you’re at work you’re being paid to – guess what – work! Depending on the type of website you visit you can get fired.
3) the hosts of websites, forums and blogs are usually running software which means they can identify the IP addresses of all visitors. It’s the main way hosts can identify sock puppets. Government IP addresses tend to always announce themselves as such.
I’m sure taxpayers will be very interested to hear how tax payers money is being wasted yet again.
I think it’s also worth examining the Speaker’s register of interests. It states who his employer is, ie the Department for Education.
Now, there are a number of people who are open (either to me via email or via use of full name) about their identity when they comment on this blog but Bosh is not one of them. That’s fair enough, of course, but there is an issue about “friends” of the subject in question passing themselves off as thus – and when these friends cast aspersions on the motives of other commenters, such as You couldn’t make it up!, then I have a problem with that.
YCMIU has justifiably brought up the potential sock puppet problem here. What also if this is a possible ‘strawman sockpuppet’? And they work for this council? (Don’t think this is a possible ‘meat puppet’, but don’t really grasp what that is, so over to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
So Ted – are you saying that the Speaker – Councillor Mizan Chaudhury works for a government de[artment – the Department of Education (as per his Register of Interests)
This of course makes him a civil servant.
Also that the person who has been commenting as “Bosh” (who only turned up for the first time when matters relating to the Speaker’s expenses where highlighted) is also commenting during work time from an IP which identifies itself as a Civil Service IP address
What a coincidence!
using government property and whilst paid to do a government job he’s writing on a blog? sack able offence me thinks!
it’s also very interesting how Mr Bosh knows so much about the Chair of Councils arrangements…
Exactly the point I was making Ted, You shouldnt the poor bloke has enough to deal with as it is.
That is the reason for this blog, and people in the futre should be aware.
I presumer bosh will commen in the future from a Private IP address
No doubt he will comment from a private IP address, and probably under a different name as well.
His prerogative, given the way the comments system here is set up, but it does make you wonder who really is whom.
Tim.