Tory group leader Peter Golds sent the following letter today to Aman Dalvi, the Tower Hamlets chief executive who is also the Returning Officer in the Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election on April 19.
Dear Mr Dalvi
Please find a copy of a leaflet being circulated in Spitalfields on behalf of the Independent candidate.Please note the second page the candidate is photographed standing in front of display material used by the council in its official activities.I also draw to your attention the leaflet does not contain the name and details of the printer of the document. It merely states “promoted by Alibor Choudhury on behalf of Gulum Robbani, 57 Cottage Street, E14 0AA”.
I am sure that with six adults registered to vote and therefore presumably living at this address (which is a private home and not a business), and it being the operational centre of G Social, which has received council funding, a mainframe printing press with facilities for colour printing would be somewhat intrusive.
Therefore it is a matter of legal and public interest as to where the leaflet was printed and who by, particularly if this printer or printers is also in receipt now or in the future of council contracts (public funding).
Another matter of interest regarding Mr Robbani, who was election agent to the Mayor in October 2010 and subsequently became a paid adviser to the Mayor, is his position as Secretary of the Poplar Mosque and Community Centre, Robin Hood Gardens, E14.
The Mosque is an integral part of the Blackwall Reach Development and featured in recent discussions at Committee and previously Overview and Scrutiny. It was noticeable that there was a large and vocal contingent from the East London Mosque and associated organisations who attended both meetings.
As a matter of public interest in view of the size and scale of this application; did Mr Robbani attend any briefing meetings with officers and the developers and the Mayor? If so, did he declare an interest as a very interested party as well as being a paid adviser and were such declarations written in the record of the meeting?
There has been concern expressed that the Community Centre, agreed as part of the outline planning consent, should be that and not part of the Mosque. In view of Mr Robbani’s position and influence in the administration and the Mosque, will this situation be retained?Has he been briefed on this applications by officers in his capacity as an adviser?There has been considerable concern expressed by residents with the Mayor and “officers” attending meetings in the Mosque as part of the consultation exercise, which were conducted in Bangla and thereby excluded other non Bangla speaking residents. Was Mr Robbani the “officer” mentioned by residents as attending?
Many thanks
(Cllr) Peter Golds.
Trial by Jeory 
Cllr. Golds is to be congratulated for starting the process of exposing the insidious corrupt practices of Lutfur Rahman and his cronies – Gulam Robbabini and Alibor Choudhury.
This is proof enough, if proof were needed. Look at the complex web of deceitful links between Lutfur Rahman, Alibor Choudhury (now lead member for resources), this guy Robbani and their connections to the IFE/ East London Mosque. The big question is how much more of Tax Payers monies are going to be linning the pockets of Lutfur Rahman, Alibor and Robbani?
It’s beggars belief that these people are allowed to get away with this; but then it’s entirely possible when you have an ineffective Acting Chief Officer – Aman Dalvi who has been systematically colluding with this lot. So much so that Isabella Freemans position as the Councils monitoring officer has been demoted – thereby rendering her apparently impotent.
Isabella Freeman should discharge her duty and report this corrupt Mayor to district Audit and the Secretary of State.
Trouble is brewing for lutfur now- his Bengali councillor coalition is failing apart and there are rumours that he as had affairs with two independent councillors. Now asad, rofique, kabir shaid and shafique will all be expelled from the labour party for backing rabbani they know that their days in office are numbered. Lutfur is the new lee jasper and will never get into the party when ken looses as many will blame him in part. He is in real real trouble he is hurt now
Dog in the street. interesting post. The rumours of extra marital liasons have been going around for some time especially with regard to Shelina Ahktar and queue jumping to get the council flat she was imprisoned for renting out.
I can’t see how his coalition is falling apart though. If the four are expelled they will no political home except that of Lutfur who has the unopposed right to creat as many consultancy jobs as he likes to give them salaries.
What people failed to realise with elected Mayors is that we have an electoral dictatorship. Short of a criminal conviction they simply cannot be got rid of.
Unit 101 & Street Dog. Prediction: Lutfur Rahmans demise started some time ago – it’s just that he is too stupid to see it. I would not be surprised if he is not convicted of a criminal conviction – as the old saying goes: every dog (in some cases bitch) has his day. No pun intended Dog on the Street.
The Lutfur’s lots are abusing power and spending tax payers money as they like. Yesterday, The Channel S Awards Ceremony was sponsored by Tower Hamlets & Canary Wharf. Got knows how much was given. And we all know Lutfur’s connection with Channel S.
Another thing, the rumours going around that the Bengali TV Channel NTV (Sky 834) was bought by the Media Link guy Mujib, who also been given Limehouse Town Hall. Along with him Zakir Khan (former Tory PPC), who also work’s for Canary Wharf. Zakir is of course, brother of Delwar Khan of East London Mosque. People in the community are concern the IFE lots are trying to influence not only Labour Party, also the Tory Party.
On Limehouse Town Hall – don’t know who Media Link guy Mujib is, and Zakir Khan, but how can they be given the Hall? It has been run for years now by a Consortium:
http://www.lthct.org.uk/
One of the organisations in the Hall is ‘Stitches in Time’ which has been going for a while and is run by John Biggs’ wife (?)
Who could give the two people you name Limehouse Town Hall? No-one should have what once belonged to us, and surely still does? (Or has Limehouse Town Hall been sold off by the council?)
bought to you by Ted, the one man Tory propaganda machine in Tower Hamlets. Oh I mean, journalist.
written by “Jez”, aka “tone”, “tony”, “john terry” et al. Check the comments policy, please.
[…] Trial by Jeory has some searching questions in the Tower Hamlets council by-election. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookShareEmailStumbleUponDiggPrint […]
Mr Aman Dalvi may not need to check records. When he became CEO of Tower Hamlets I was researching how he got the job and the level of consultation carried out by the Mayor and I came across this artcle dated 1 December 2011 on the website “Tower Hamlets Watch”. Please see the Link and a quote below;
According to this article Mr Dalvi attended one such meeting with the Mayor.
“Our illustrious Mayor Lutfur Rahman turned up at Poplar Mosque & Community Centre Woolmore Street E14 on the Robin Hood Gardens Estate, on Saturday, Sunday & also Monday evening for over 2 hours. This mosque which is striving for larger facilities as part of the Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project has no entrance for women and obviously as a mosque is for worshipers of Islam……
On Monday Night he turned up with his deputy Ohid Ahmed, Aman Dalvi the councils Corporate Director Of Regeneration and an entourage of other people at 6pm, staying for over 2 hours. Aman Dalvi has been deeply involved with the regeneration of the estate even before he came to work for Tower Hamlets, and accompanying the mayor, residents feel this would have been the perfect opportunity to answer questions. Apparently once the meeting was over with the mosque committee, Lutfur gave a speech to the worshipers attending, letting them know that firstly he was not here really to answer questions about the regeneration but to thank those attending for voting for him in the recent Mayoral elections. When calls were made for questions to be answered about the regeneration, those advisors who were with the Mayor kept trying to block the questions, even though the Mayor seemed happy to answer, the advisors who attended with him made it difficult for those wishing to know more. Most felt frustrated at the lack of answers, and were told that they would know more in January”.
Link: http://towerhamletswatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/lutfur-rahman-upsets-the-residents-of-robin-hood-gardens/
Here’s the rest
“No invitations were made to the wider community, and the only ones attending were the muslim male worshipers. Although this mosque doesn’t have the facilities for women to attend, muslim women on the estate are upset that the mayor doesn’t seem to want to talk to them. They also have a lot of questions regarding their future on the estate, which they now feel is being taken away from them. I’ve talked to quite a few other residents on the estate of different ethnic and faith backgrounds and all seem extremely upset that a meeting was called on their estate with the mayor and they were not invited.
All I spoke to yesterday were completly unaware that tonights meeting of the Cabinet at 5:30pm, that on Agenda item 6.2 Blackwall Reach Regeneration Procurement and Scheme Development that Aman Dalvi was going to call for Compulsory Purchase Powers to be allowed for those members of the estate who dont want to move, or fail to accept the price offered for their homes. That they were going to talk about the partner who had been selected for the estate, calling for power to put in planning permission for the estate. Residents were upset to learn that this was all going to go ahead this evening, without informing or consulting the residents, that all of the residents on the estate were unaware of these plans this evening. In fact they tell me that there have been boycotts of the process occuring on the estate as they feel that their views are not being listened to. The original members of the consultation group who have been involved for over 3 years, feel frustrated at the lack of involvement or real consultation and have callled for Independent Tenants Advisors to be brought on board to help residents engage on a more informed basis. The council has done its upmost to block these requests and has now picked new residents to get involved who are new to the 3 year process and have made them swear to secrecy by signing a confidentiallity agreement.
Now although this has been cancelled just today, why did the mayor or Aman Dalvi for that matter fail to tell those residents present at the meeting on Monday night what was going to occur tonight at full Cabinet?”
[…] Trial by Jeory has some searching questions in the Tower Hamlets council by-election. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookShareEmailStumbleUponDiggPrint […]
Interesting that the leaflet promotes Livingstone. Could there be something to some of the allegations both on Andrew Gilligans blog and in the national press that Livingstone has done a Galloway type deal to get the Muslim vote? He is certainly scummy enough, Livingstone that is.
Could it be ” Vote me and I will give you jobs and grants to non existent organisations”?
Was it just me but I noticed on his mail out a few strange features;
1) Under “Investing in Spitalfields” he refers to funding for “the minaret on Brick Lane” – now excuse me but I remember the contortions council staff went through when Lutfur spent £600k he ordered his staff to strenuously deny it was a “minaret” because s.106 money which paid for it cannot legally be spent on religious buildings (or parts of religious buildings) and argued this was “a tower” and “a cultural building”. So… as we all suspected at the time it was a total lie. Perhaps the mosque should now pay this public money back?
2) Under “Investing in Community Safety” he says “the council have [sic] arrested over 400 drug dealers”. Now I know about the THEOS but they do not have the power of arrest – nobody at the council has. These dealers were arrested by the police.
3) The style of the leaflet reveals striking similarities in the fonts used (note the ‘signature’ using the tacky cursive font that Lutfur uses for his ‘signature’ on his promotional posters) with those used for council produced promotional documents and posters. Could this document have been produced with the help of council staff?
James – bravo!
James,
The council approved a “minaret” in 2004. Perhaps you are saying that Hammerson’s s106 investment (from their ‘redevelopment’ of Spitalfields Market) came into this later?
Whatever, with Hammerson having paid for this tower/minaret/cultural building, if Mr Robbani sees that as an investment in Spitalfields, then one fears what his position is on the further ‘redevelopment’ and ‘investment’ at Spitalfields Market, with the proposed demolitions of the Exchange, Gun, Bank and Dorset Street.
By the way, James, you never replied about the Spitalfields Society speaking in favour of the demolitions at Committee. It appears that Mr Vracas has an agenda just as hidden as the bussed-in lot in the audience. He never declared before or during his 3 minutes speech endorsing the demolitions and the building-over of Dorset Street that he is applying to be the licensee of Dino’s Grill, opposite Dorset Street. He only said he wanted Dorset Street covered with new offices as the street is a blight – a reminder of vice, murder and cock-fighting…didn’t mention that he would want thousands of thirsty ‘suits’ in an office block across the road. Funny that. Be it IFE or CofE an agenda/interest is exactly that:
http://spitalfieldssociety.org/2012/02/04/executive-committee-meeting-25-january/
Lastly James, are you helping Ala Uddin instead of spending time writing on here, and in support of the Spitalfields Society? At least Ala Uddin signed the petition against the demolition of the Exchange…if you do still want Labour to win in Spitalfields (and Weavers). Or maybe you are hoping for a waitering job at Dino’s opposite Dorset Street? (Only asking.)
I think the Fruit & Wool Exchange building is historic and should be protected. I suppose you’ll probably read into that all sorts of silly things. As for supporting Ala Uddin…it’s very uninspiring having to support a candidate not for his own qualities but because he represents the best chance of stopping another candidate who is worse. Maybe I won’t vote.
Just seen the East London Advertiser front page. I kicked myself when I realised it must be an April Fools day spoof.
“Disgraced former councillor loses sentence appeal”. Unbelievably the article states that her lawyers asked top judges to cut her sentence to allow her to fight to win her council seat back!!!!
However the world seems to have made sense of its self in the ruling that “it was not thee sentence that killed off her career – it was her CRIMINAL Acts”.
In my view, this scandal has brought politics in Tower Hamlets into disrepute. Please Labour party, learn from this disgraceful episode and count your lucky stars that she defected to support the Mayor et al (IFE) before getting caught!! Also, never allow people back to stand on a Labour ticket who betrayed the Labour movement and the electorate in pursuit of their own self-interest.
It must feel so unfair to be elected as a Labour councillor, then betray the political party that selected you, to serve some other interest, to get caught with your fingers in the till !!! and then the nasty judge sentences you to 16 weeks in jail so you can’t be a local councillor. Surley this is a beach of her Human Rights?
At appeal Mrs Justice Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Moses and Justice Calvert-Smith will see unfair the world has been to this poor Councillor. NOT
On another matter, have Swan Housing taken back the flat in Blackwall Way or is it still being sub-let!?!?!?!
James, couldn’t reply above…
No, I don’t read into your anti position on the demolition of the Exchange any or even all sorts of silly things. You didn’t speak in favour of the demolition at the Committee either so you are not in the developer’s pocket/stand to gain anything by the development.
You did though bring up The Spitalfields Society here but still are not addressing their hidden agenda/interest in the demolition of the Exchange. Why not? You only want to repeat here what the Society report to you about the bussed-in element of the audience being “IFE/Lutfurites”… and add your own or maybe still the Society’s, guess at what the developer/owners may have promised them: an Islamic college.
What about the Society who actually spoke at length in favour of the demolition of a building that was here long before this elitist Society and their members – what about them, James? Also, what have they been promised? Any guesses? Could it be the tons of money their hostelries (yes, Ten Bells as well) will make from the thousands of “office-occupiers” created by the Corporation/Exemplar if they demolish the Exchange?
Oh, and given the accusations already on here about you having racist rants, it seems the Spitalfields Society are similarly seeing Bengalis under the bed:
Why is Mr Vracas is saying that the pro-demolition Speakers who joined him/Spitalfields Society were both “Asian”? Ms Ekong is “Asian”? She is a director of Urban Inclusion Ltd and Tower Hamlets Co-operative Development Agency (currently) and formerly SOS Black Women’s Enterprise; Ethnic Minority Enterprise Project and Cityside Regeneration Ltd. She didn’t tell the Committee that or, like Ms Miah – the only probable “Asian” pro-demolition Speaker – that they have offices here but appear not to live in the borough.
Also, look how the Society have individually named the anti Speakers. Nasty.
James, the facts are that those who are publicly supporting and aiding the Corporation/Exemplar’s plan to demolish Spitalfields buildings and a Spitalfields street – for whatever hiddenmotives – are:
The Spitalfields Society
Ms Emem Ekong (at least two current companies on Artillery Lane)
Ms Miah (office on Osborne Street but in favour of demolition for personal reasons)
And the Labour Candidate (Ala Uddin) and the LibDem Candidate (Richard Macmillan) oppose the demolitions. (Don’t know about the Conservative’s Matthew Smith or the Green’s Kirsty Blake.)
*http://spitalfieldssociety.org/2012/03/15/minutes-of-meeting-of-spitalfields-society-held-on-wednesday-7-march-2012/
The word is that Robani has been telling voters in spitafields to vote for him because after the Mayor he will be next most powerful man in Tower Hamlets. It’s clear from the way in which Lutfur Rahmam has been personally leading Robanis campaign and that they spend all the hours of the day and night together that this is probably true.
I wonder what Alibor, Ohid, Emran, Oliur, Rabina and the rest Lutfurs Cllrs are taking this. All this special support and the promise of such lofty status for Robani while the rest of them are relegated.
Cityside Regeneration Limited…ah, now we are getting down to it. What and who are/were Cityside Regeneration Ltd? Ms Ekong was a director for 5 years, along with quite a few LBTH councillors. Founding Director though was Michael Bear of Hammerson and of course it was Hammerson who paid for the minaret/cultural building/tower for Brick Lane Mosque.
This money of Hammerson’s for the Mosque building came via blood money, – or call it ‘section 106 obligations’ – to demolish 60% of Spitalfields Market for an office and shopping mall. The demolition by Hammerson, after consent from LBTH, went against 40,000 objectors and a local campaign (as Ted may recall?) “Controversial” is the usual adjective applied to Hammerson’s office block and mall, aka Bishops Square.
And what else have Cityside Regeneration Ltd done for Spitalfields and Tower Hamlets: the Rich Mix Centre! Millions and millions wasted and still looking for more to stay afloat.
So ‘investment in Spitalfields’ by Hammerson is interesting. And ex-Cityside Regeneration Ltd employees speaking for developers who want to demolish more of Spitalfields for more office blocks is interesting.
And what councillors (some sitting) have served in Mr Bear’s Cityside Regeneration Ltd…and left us with Bishops Square, Rich Mix…
(These are in SBT and Weavers, co-incidentally both gearing up for by-elections, but there may be other Hammerson and Cityside…er…projects elsewhere in TH?)
In 2011 an extension on Fournier Street was blocked by a planning committee for a crime it didn’t commit. Three men promptly escaped from the maximum security ‘Society’ to the Spitalfields underground. Today, still wanted Hammersons, they survive as planning-appealers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the D-Team.
I actually rather like Phil Vracas’ new wine bar – “The Spirit of ’76” at 76 Commercial Street.
Phil has lovingly created a great place for infidels to relax and unwind after a hard days decadence.
I love Phil’s wine bar and sometimes I go. Nevertheless, I think the plan to demolish the London Fruit & Wool Exchange really sucks and I don’t agree with Phil’s apparent support for that proposal.
Your turn. Why do you think Lutfur and Robanni support demolition? What is in it for them?
“Apparent” support from the Spitalfields Society for the demolition of the Exchange??! He was one of the legion of bussed-in and otherwise supporters for the demolition. His totally incorrupt ‘three minutes for demolition’ are here with Ms Ekong’s and Ms Miah’s:
http://moderngov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=27309
“Apparent”! Did he slip a roofie into your Ribena last time you were at his wine bar – which he neglected to mention to Committee Members is bang opposite this proposed mega-block of office-occupiers.
Nothing “apparent” about the support of Ekong and Miah either, although their business angle is more obvious. Perhaps they should have told Members though that they choose not to live in Tower Hamlets, just, er, ‘fundraise’ here and Speak for developers who want to demolish old important East End buildings: http://www.urbaninclusion.co.uk/team.php?a=4
I don’t know why you think the bussed-in supporters in the public gallery are any different from the Speaker-supporters of the demolition: Spitalfields Society, Urban Inclusion Ltd (ex-Cityside Regeneration) and Nexus Global Consultants on Osborn St (Rohema Miah – although she did not name her business.) These people were ALL drafted in by Exemplar to influence the Members that night to get the Exchange demolished – and all have their own selfish, financially gainful reasons. Why Ms Ekong even liaised with the community (that’s us) for Maxwell Shand of Exemplar….like hell she did. Yep, they must all be on a promise, or Exemplar pay up front for ‘community consultation’ or those three organisations that spoke in favour are true altruists, right?
I don’t know what you’re on about with Hammerson and an extension on Fournier Street. What’s ‘D’ for “D-Team” stand for? David Donoghue of the Spitalfields Society? It can’t be D for “decadence” after places like the White Swan have been near-ruined by your no strippers in the East End purge. And Mr Vracas of the Spitalfields Society wanting an ancient East End street obliterated where there has been ‘vice, murder and cock-fighting’ (er, isn’t his residence on the street where Annie Chapman was murdered?) What a bogus historical ‘justification’ for this East End demolition from his Society, and what a wowser he is – remind me not to stop in for his brand of “decadence” at his new bar. Excellent plug for his establishment, by the way. Perhaps though you should pass it on to the Members of the Strategic Development Committee – meeting again tomorrow night – who should have been informed about Mr Vracas’ business interest, and why the Spitalfields Society really want this Spitalfields Market building demolished for an office block.
Nomouse – Calm down! You’re almost hysterical…I was making a cultural reference that anyone from this country who had not spent their entire life sealed in a damp cardboard box in a windowless basement would have recognised. It was not meant to be taken literally.
Amongst your ramblings I have noted you said;
“after places like the White Swan have been near-ruined by your no strippers in the East End purge”
If you are meaning me when you say “your” I have to make it clear to you that I am totally and utterly opposed to the misguided (or probably just dishonest) campaign by Cllrs Rabina & Rania Khan et al to ban strippers in the East End and I have made my feelings on this clear on this forum and elsewhere on a number of occasions. Personally, I like strippers and I think the East End probably needs more of them, not less.
As for the rest of your comment… I don’t know anything about an ancient street being obliterated or the murder of Annie Chapman or cockfighting or the Strategic Development Committee. Frankly, your angry ramblings don’t make much sense.
The plug was meant to annoy you. Result.
“Anyone from this country”?…. you really have a problem. Like the Spitalfields Society whom you just keep on plugging away for here. “Asians” everywhere. At least not among their Members. No wonder the Honorary Treasurer calls his bar Spirit of 76 – because that’s about the last time “Asian” was so abundantly and derogatorily applied. Can’t imagine why Tarik Khan has joined the Spitalfields Community Group.
The Spitalfields Society’s support for the demolition of the 1929 Spitalfields Exchange is totally shameful but thankfully well-documented – no matter how much you say it is only “apparent”. The SDC is meeting now*, no doubt recalling the Spitalfields Society’s support for the demolition of the Exchange and the obliteration of Dorset Street. Oh, and not my “angry ramblings” on ‘vice, murder and cock-fighting’ – that’s the Spitalfields Society’s reasons for obliterating this old street. Amazing what people will say to help developers build an office block of boozy bankers on that same street opposite their new wine bar. Of course if you think the Spitalfields Society are being genuine with this historical justification, then Mr Vracas’ own street, Hanbury, would have to go under the bulldozers too and as for the Ten Bells….
At least the Members of the SDC saw straight through Mr Vracas and his Society, and fellow rent-a-mob supporters of the demolition of the Exchange:
“Anyone from this country”…”cultural reference”… how arrogant, superior and plain bigoted, on top of your racist rants here. No wonder Spitalfields is so divided.
*http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=360&MId=3448&Ver=4
Mouse – Why is it problematic to say “anyone from this country?” It seems to me that you are the one reading things into that beyond what I mean which is quite typical. The cultural reference was “The A-Team” which if you had spent your early years here watching television (which is what I was alluding too but alas you are too paranoid to see that) you would recognise the words I used. The ‘joke’ is long passed now and anyway it was clearly lost on you, poor humourless wretch.
I didn’t even use the word “Asian” so why are you implying that I did? How misleading.
I am not a member of the Spitalfields Society (as I think I said before) and never have been and as I also said many times before I am against the demolition. However you seem determined to put alternative words in my mouth.
You are even quoting from something which confirms what I was saying before about the chair complaining about bussed in supporters but you are astonishingly distorting that to say the people the chair complained about was/were Phil Vracas? And you don’t even use your real name – so frankly you can make anything up, smear anyone with half-truths and suppositions and disappear back into your fertive world. How about using your real name? Not got the nerve?
All that said – surely it is better to go with an application which saves the façade and gets rid of Whites’ Row carpark than reject all applications and be left with someone worse at the end?
@James Franckom
Sorry, I still do not agree with you on the demolition of the 1920’s Exchange, Gun and Bank buildings and the even older street being ripped up and built over. I never mentioned the Corporation’s car park – as of course no-one is arguing that should not be demolished. I suspect you know this. However why should I or anyone continue commenting here and responding to you to receive a load of personal and nasty abuse? Those people who spoke publicly at the Planning Committee should have declared their interest and they are up for criticism from anonymous ‘wretches’ like me, who did not stand up there in public in their mutual attempt to get an important East End building demolished for their own selfish ends. And Mr Vracas is as guilty of this as Ms Ekong and Ms Miah and the ones in the gallery with the pre-printed arm bands saying ‘Yes to Fruit and Wool’. You keep making out these people are altruists who have nothing to gain by doing what they are doing. Mr Vracas should not have told Members that he has just opened a wine bar opposite Dorset Street?
It was you who started with the Spitalfields Society and their comment about their fellow supporters being “IFE/Lutfurites”. I replied then, only to point out that the Society had spoken in support of the demolition and since then you have attacked me personally. I don’t think what you are doing is done with any humour. I may be poor and a “wretch” to people like you, but I’m not humourless. Insulting people as to their possible ethnicity (“anyone from this country”) and religion (“infidels”) and circumstances plus all the personal remarks from you here isn’t intended to make me laugh. Your intention is to intimidate and bully – I merely brought up Mr Vracas’ undeclared interest in speaking for the developers’ plan to demolish and now here you are, after all the personal insults to bludgeon home your agenda of ‘what’s wrong with this application to demolish’?
It couldn’t have been you who wrote:
“Ensure the protection of our local heritage which is constantly at risk from the encroachment of City developers”
and
“Prevent changes either due to planning, building use or licensing that would be at odds with the wishes of residents”
Or is that just local heritage that isn’t on Commercial Street next to the bars and pubs owned by his friends who have been in Tower Hamlets for all of about five minutes. (Yes, five minutes is a joke.)
And the wishes of local residents should only be from local residents that you favour?
(This, as you know, is from your website: http://www.norton-folgate.co.uk/the-proposal)
The objectives of your organisation seem at odds with what you are doing and saying here. Or perhaps these are just aspirations..or perhaps you have changed your mind on these/dropped your organisation/are available for Exemplar Properties LLC’s next round?
You didn’t answer any of my points, you only carried on with your wheel within a wheel endless litany of tedium.
James Frankcom/Folgate/F,
I’m not answerable to you. And if being consistent in objecting to this Spitalfields demolition application and its developer pal supporters is tedious to you, so be it. (That superiority of yours again. We get it okay, you are white and english and male – you’ve got the trifecta.)
No matter what you say on here – and the Spitalfields Society, Urban Inclusion Ltd, Nexus Global Consultants and the other ‘Yes To Fruit and Wool’ renta mob in their public speeches and presence at Planning Committee – the Exchange should not be demolished in any part. It should be retained and adapted.
You and the Spitalfields Society members do not come from here and yet you arrive and start telling us what built heritage should be destroyed and what sold off and what divvied up for the developers. Why you’ll even speak for developers at Planning Committees. And all without revealing what is in it for you in getting these Tower Hamlets heritage buildings and a street demolished.
Lastly, I (tediously) didn’t expect an answer from you on any point, but on your public position with your Liberty of Norton Folgate re-instatement aim:
I checked your map and see now that Spitalfields Market (and these Spitalfields Market buildings) are outside of the Liberty, so that must be why you and your “community council” are not concerned with this local heritage at risk from the encroachment of City developers. Selfish, but predictable, then.
However, the Nicholls and Clarke and Tabernacle Street sites are in the Liberty? If so, when the Corporation of London, who now own them, as they do the Exchange, Gun and Bank and Dorset St, apply to build more office blocks on these sites (with or without Hammerson), will you be wearing a green arm band saying Yes to Nicholls and Clarke and the Corporation’s “Path of Progress”? Or will you be doing a Vracas (didn’t he once stand as a Conservative Cllr?) and joining Ms Ekong (formerly of Michael Bear’s Cityside Regeneration Ltd) and speaking in support of the developers?
One really wonders which side you and the Spitalfields Society were on when 60% of Spitalfields Market was demolished for the Bishops Square office development against the wishes of 38,000 objectors…and now we are in the final phase of the Corporation’s ‘redevelopment’ of Spitalfields Market with the demolition of the Exchange, Gun and Bank.
Are you sure you are/were a member of the Labour Party?