Time and again I’ve referred to Lutfur as Our Dear Leader as his is plastered over dustbin lorries and lampposts, but now he seems to have excelled in his totalitarian desires.
For we are now in the Olympic golden age of Lutfur the Barbarian.
Until a few days ago, the side of 49 Hanbury Street, off Brick Lane, looked like this:
You can read about Roa’s crane here on Tower Hamlets’ best blog, Spitalfields Life.
Here’s an extract from a post there in August 2010:
It was last Autumn that Roa’s squirrel and rat first caught my eye, and then earlier this year I discovered a whole host of vermin that the prolific Belgian street artist had painted in Spitalfields. Now, as you can see from this tall bird that appeared at the junction of Hanbury St and Brick lane last week, Roa is back again, and he has taken the opportunity to further populate our neighbourhood with his distinctive, finely drawn creatures.
I was walking down Hanbury St when I looked up, unexpectedly, to see Roa hard at work painting on the top of a motorised cherry picker, high above my head. He was adding the black hatching onto the white base coat and I craned my neck, watching as he used strokes of the spray can to make each of the individual marks that characterise his highly recognisable style. From the cradle of the cherry picker, at arm’s reach from the wall, Roa could only see directly in front of him, so in his left hand he clutched a sketch that allowed him to see the entire figure, while he wielded the spray can in his right.
Charlie Uzzell Edwards, curator of the Pure Evil Gallery, said that Roa’s intention had been to paint a heron but, after being asked if it was a crane by Bengali people – for whom the crane is a sacred bird – Roa morphed his bird into a crane to best complement its location on the wall of an Indian restaurant. Charlie also told me that Roa always asks before painting his creatures onto walls and has discovered that many owners are receptive to having large paintings enhancing their buildings, which can become landmarks as a result. The truth is that since these paintings take four to eight hours to complete, it is not an option to create them as a hit and run operation, especially if you want them to last.
Roa’s fine draftsmanship sets him above other street artists and I particularly admire the vivid sense of life that he imparts to his creatures, which transfix you with their wide eyes.
Since it appeared the crane has become a tourist attraction (surely Lutfur must know this because he says he lives in that area), but take a walk down Brick Lane today and instead of the crane, you will see this:
Yes, that almost imperial banner contains a photo of the Great Man. It is a picture of him advertising that simply stunning deal he negotiated with Seb Coe last year when he agreed to give up the Olympic marathon route going through our dirty little borough in return for…..Brick Lane being named Curry Capital 2012!
Surely this kind of vandalism needs planning permission? Yes! It’s here. And look whose name it is under: see the application here. Yes, my mate Takki Sulaiman (to be fair, he is only following orders you know), the council’s head of communications. Take an even closer look at that application form at Question 5: “Have you consulted your neighbours or the local community about the proposal?” His answer: No.
Then take a look at Question 10: Does the applicant own the building/has the applicant sought permission from the owner?….Er, “No”. This is what Takki says instead: “Initial contact was with Jeet Balti House (closed) and estate agents (their board is up but no instruction), failed to identify the owner. A Land Registry search will now be done to identify and contact the owner to obtain. If no permission granted, display will not be installed.”
The date of the application was May 16. There was a question posed by a Tory councillor on the papers for Wednesday’s infamous council meeting asking why land searches were taking so long in the borough. So unless the council has promoted its land search to the top of the pile, we can safely assume permission has not been granted.
Yet it is up there. Over the sacred Bengali bird, the crane.
I suspect the gods of culture will be willing someone to tear it down.
There’s a petition here. It already has more than 300 signatures.
(Hat tip to Shafiur Rahman via Twitter and a reader of this blog.)
Trial by Jeory 
I do wonder what drives The Odious Rahman. And indeed what keeps him in power; such ego-centric narcissism is repulsive to most, if not just about all. His supporters are drawn from a very small slice of society; is it fair to say that he pays them all? Or just that there is an extremely adulatory section of people who are too stupid to see his vast failings, merely seeing someone who is ‘one of us’?
My disgust for the unpleasant parasite knows few bounds.
Tim.
(An aside – it seems a shame the picture was morphed from being a stork to a crane. While a superb piece of art, it wasn’t immediately recognisable as either once finished, and hence lacks the impact of Roa’s other pieces.)
This is a kick in the teeth for everyone in brick lane. These great artwork bring thousands of people in the area from all over the world. It brings in recognition and business to all sorts of establishments. This only shows how much the mayor actually knows and cares about the area and people in it. It’s time to for some lynching. We have to work together from all parties to eliminate this cockroach.
There are going to be this type of poster going up all over the borough pre-olympics Old Ford Housing Assoc. have given permission for two sites on condition it does not feature the Mayor’s picture.
Well what do you expect from an aspiring tin pot dictator who is hell bent on turning this magnificent and historic borough into a Banana Republic. And we all know what happens to tin pot dictators – sooner or later. Only two years now till the next TH Mayoral elections when this obnoxious man will be consigned to the oblivious abyss from whence he came.
As I said his demise started a long time ago – the day this guy got elected. It must be said that the people of Tower Hamlets who voted for him and supported him did not do so because Lutfur Rahman displayed great leadership skills because he did not, they did not vote for him because he communicated a great vision to transform the Borough because he did not and could not, they did not vote for him because he was some great orator – because he was not…. and the list goes on. Lutfur Rahman at best is less than mediocre and at worst down right incompetent in everything he does.
Those that voted for him did so because some very talented, well known and exceptionally hard working people thought that he was being victimised, discriminated against and bullied. So, they developed a strategy to introduce the Mayoral system and a communication and election campaign – to overcome the institutionalised socially and politically unjust practices of the Labour Party. It was never about this guy – he was just a by-product – the alternative was Helal ‘Uddin’ Abbas.
Now the architects of this endeavour are so ashamed of this guy – that they cannot apologise enough to the people of Tower Hamlets and it is their pledge that they will do all that they can to ensure rid of this tyrant.
Note that last night was the formal presentation launch of a new Bengali TV Channel called NTV – Lutfur Rahman was not invited and Jim Fitzpatrick was. Jim spoke with humour and elegance. This is and will be the pattern of things to come – excluding Lutfur Rahman within the Bangladeshi and Muslim Communities in Tower Hamlets. On Sunday, Bhoishaki Mela where 100’s of thousands of people will come from the UK over, will also not see Lutfur Rahman invited. Even though that Lutfur Rahman gave the Mela to Shiraj Haque.
Note also, that if Lutfur Rahman thinks that he can rely on his IFE supporters – well folks, they are not as homogenous as Lutfur Rahman would like to believe. There are deep divisions and the disappointment with Lutfur Rahman runs deep. So welcome Lutfur Rahman to the Tower Hamlets style of your destruction.
[…] Flickr.Journalist Ted Jeory has dug a little deeper and believes the advert might have been erected without permission of the building’s owner. Global Street Art also asserts that the banner is illegal. In any case, it seems entirely […]
An online search at Land Registry would take 5 seconds to find out who owns 49 Hanbury St. For us it costs £4 to get that super-fast result. For the TH planning officers Olaseni and Simpson (on the application) it would be free, as the planning office has an account with Land Registry.
Why hasn’t either officer done the online search? (I did and after a few secs found that there is freehold and leasehold information for that title.)
If TH council have put up a poster on the wall of 49 without seeking permission from the owner, then they have committed possible trespass and even criminal damage – and that’s just for the owner of 49, if the wall is owned wholly by 49.
If it’s a shared boundary wall with 47, the private car park on the demolished property next door, then they would have similar issues with them.
Should we assume that the planners and Takki obtained permission from both (or a single) owner(s) – hence the poster went up?
Whatever, the lack of public consultation is also, once again, driving residents to a petition. When will TH planning (and communications) learn that high-handedness in ‘delegated powers’, licensing decisions and cosy dealings with developers is making residents crazy? (The booze tent on Trinity Memorial Gardens comes to mind.)
Oh, if anyone is interested in a Land Registry online search, you’ll need the postcode for 47 and 49 Hanbury St (E1 5JP) – and 2 x £4, if you are not a TH Planning Officer:
https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/portal/!ut/p/b1/04_SjzS0tDC3tLQ0NrXQj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOKNjSxMDA1NjDwsjM3MDTxN3dyNDUNMjQ1MjPWDU_P0c6McFQFK9xGi/
Advert Consent has not been granted for the banner yet. The petition is a good idea but if you also want to object to the advert application, which would be a more productive way to voice your opposition, please follow this link and click where it says “Comment on Application”. Comments need to be submitted before the 29th May.
http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=pa%2F12%2F00779&action=Search
Thank you for the link but surely there is no real consultation, whatever it says, as the council have already put the poster up? Mr Sulaiman applied for “Express” Advertising Consent (whatever that is) adding that this speed – and by implication consent – was required to have the poster erected before the Mela tomorrow. And now it is up, so consultation/comments are redundant.
The council seem to have determined the application themselves, giving themselves consent and in “Express” time. The case officer (Tim Ross) may be able to explain what the council are doing here, as public consultation should accompany an application, not take place after the works are completed. That’s even before the legal issues with possible trespass and damage to both properties, if the council have not received permission from the owner(s).
The unspeakable truth is that far more people come to Brick Lane for the fashion, the art, the fashion victims, nightclubs and retro clothes shops than come for curries. Indeed, internationally, the lane is renowned for its fashion etc because that makes it unique. A lane of mostly mediocre Indian restaurants is not. The age of Brick Lane being a ‘capital of curry’ are already long gone… it has developed a bad reputation among curry fans principally due to corner cutting, frequently sub-standard food, copycat restaurants, bolshy touts and the silliness of each and every restaurant promoting itself garishly with ridiculous notices all professing to be the winner of this and that or the best restaurant in the world etc. The only people who believe this nonsense are the proprietors. The only eating places which appear consistently very busy are Poppy’s Fish & Chips on Hanbury Street and the Beigel Bake. Indeed, the gastronomic side of the lane has increasingly diversified in recent years with the introduction of Chinese and Thai restaurants.
Every weekend I see thousands of visitors walking briskly north up the lane from Aldgate East station studiously avoiding the curry restaurants and their gangs of touts. It seems that the mainstay of the curry houses are weekday visitors from the City – but these people are often put off by the thuggish behaviour of some of the local boys. I have witnessed violence and intimidation on the lane on a number of occasions and seen besuited visitors nervously trying to get away. I have also seen groups of City men being approached and threatened around Whites Row car park by Bengali street gangs who are undoubtedly too stupid to understand that many members of their own community depend on the business those people bring.
Sadly, rather than address the problems of their own making some curry house proprietors appear to be reacting with envy and urge their local councillors to “do something” about the trade they are losing. The Luddite answer it seems is to pile pressure and difficulty on the clubs and bars where people are now going at night with the intention of ultimately forcing some of them out of business. One way of doing this is the embarrassing failure to provide public toilets which are desperately needed and is in itself an affront to public decency*.
Is this how the “curry capital” is meant to be? A place where international visitors to this Olympic Borough will be compelled to urinate against a wall on their way home? The enlightened amongst them will find one of Lutfur’s posters and go against that.
*I recently spoke to Cllr. Josh Peck about the need for toilets near Brick Lane and he acted like he couldn’t be bothered. He seemed to think the two temporary urinals outside Vibe Bar were adequate. These temporary huts leak urine, are smeared in faeces, stink, are falling apart, and the doors don’t work. They are a vile health hazard which are unusable, indecent and totally inadequate. I suggested to him that the venue formerly known as “Public Life” on Commercial Street between Brick Lane and Liverpool Street which is currently vacant and was once a public toilet could be brought back as a public toilet open at least at the weekends with the running costs paid by business subscription. The council still owns the Freehold. Disappointingly he ignored this sensible suggestion and has absolutely nothing to add himself to improve the situation despite many of his own Labour councillors telling me they think it is a good idea.
Reading this comment I experienced “a lightbulb moment” – the sort that happens when the blindingly obvious is stated directly and the years of spin fall by the wayside.
I used to eat a lot of curries on formica top tables in Brick Lane a very long time ago when the choice was the (original) Clifton or the Nazrul. They were workers’ cafes for the garment industry during the day and places for curry fans to eat in the evening. I could watch the curry being cooked in front of me (before they moved the kitchen out back) and it was fabulous!
I haven’t eaten a curry in Brick Lane for a very long time and wouldn’t dream of going there now for a decent curry. I really don’t like the emphasis on plush decor rather than food and I certainly don’t like the atmosphere created by the touts. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a lot of other people held the same view.
I sincerely hope this Council isn’t ploughing money into a part of this borough’s economy which lost the plot a long time ago.
It occurs to me that your comment should be required reading for all councillors – irrespective of party.
I could say that these huts are a [diverse and vibrant] physical metaphor for the state of our ‘leadership’ and some of the public service in our borough as led by the Great One. But, of course, I’m far too polite to say that. Actually, about 78% of the electorate did not vote for Luftur, assuming no fraud whatsoever, so his mandate is nearly imperceptible to the naked eye.
I went to hanbury street from 2pm and till 10 pm, I had counted 27 groups of people, totaling 238 people in total, who came to brick lane to take photos of the crane in hanbury street. They came for that reason only. They were disgusted at the vandalism of such great art. These are people who come all over the world to brick lane. These are the same people who spend money in this area. They won’t be coming back and they will tell all their friends on face book and twitter and soforth. Not to waste their time traveling to this area. What is this cockroach mayor thinking of. Destroying great art works that bring revenue and tourists to this area. Curry festival my ass. Curry houses have lost out on a art work that brings them revenue. Stamp out this cockroach.
East London News got it right with their ‘Lutfur Raman ate my Hamster’ article. This is a load of faff over nothing. The whole point of a Mayoral system is that it’s more visible and that Mayors have a public profile. I think residents should be able to identify the Mayor, it wouldn’t have cost them any extra money to have his face on things. It’s not always appropriate but if you’ve delivered a project or policy I don’t have a problem with it. Perhaps we should have a ‘delivered by Tower Hamlets council’ Logo too so we can differentiate between the Mayors projects/ policies and those of the actual council. The problem with that is too many of our Cllrs know what they oppose but have no idea what they are for
I’m afraid most of this is disingenuous and probably, given the pseudonym, astroturfing [qv] by a council cheerleader. The whole point of the mayoral system is stronger leadership to do things. Doing things, apart from putting his picture on things, fighting with his clique, seeking spurious city status and continuous tacky [yes, that’s a joke!] spin and self-publicity is not the Dear One’s strong point. Most of us don’t want East End Lies, which contravenes the council code for publicity incidentally, not that LBTH are much for rules and regulations, cute pictures of the Dear One, we-won-an-award logos, other random logos,. assorted intellectually dishonest ‘resident’ newsletters, the blatherings of Sulaiman et al. anywhere. Put simply, do something useful and successful first, pat oneself on the back later. Easy enough for even the denizens of the town hall to understand, I would have thought.
Well yes that too but Mayoral systems are also about accountability and democracy and Mayor Rahman is very accountable for his actions. Perhaps not too the council chamber but he is to residents who can get rid of him every four years. The exact same system which allows MPs to do what they like for 4/5 years then face the electorate again. He is showing ‘strong leadership’ and he is ‘doing’ things it just happens that a proportion of people don’t like where he’s taking the borough and don’t agree with his projects. Which is fine get rid of him in 2014 and least you’ll be given the option to.
I think the billboard is tacky and in the wrong place but generally speaking I think having a public image/ marketing is a good thing. It’s funny because many of these projects were agreed under Labour especially housing – residents have absolutely no idea because there was no marketing. You might say that’s a waste of money but if people don’t see council leaders/ cllrs doing things then they’ll assume that you’re doing nothing for the community which is why we have so much voter apathy which kinda got us stuck with this dude in the first place.
I’ve never seen any similar posters for their Exulted Majesties in Newham or Hackney. It must be the “different direction” you mention that our mayor and the leader of Belarus both appear to favour…
You think that having a public image and marketing is more important than the front line services which are being cut and the people who are losing their jobs?
Might I suggest a rethink of your priorities. The important thing isn’t getting re-elected – it’s delivering services to people who need them.
People vote for those who actually do things first and seek election later. That’s a far better explanation of why people don’t vote in Tower Hamlets. Far too few councillors have any sort of track record in supporting their communities and getting things done without being a councillor. Far too many seem to treat it as some sort of gravy train for their own personal benefit.
Speaking personally I trust people who get things done – irrespective of whether or not they are a councillor – rather than anybody who needs to get his face on everything and wants all the latest status symbols paid from public taxes paid by those who can least afford them plus a sycophantic communication team doing an “emperor’s new clothes” trick.
I can’t wait to see what the graffiti artists will get up to if Rahman keeps putting his face on things…….
@ James F
In Hackney the pink Newham logo is everywhere. It’s commonly known that the council is 100% Labour so to a large extent Labour and the Council are interchangeable. The same is true in Barking and Dagenham and in Hackney to a lesser extent. Residents still haven’t realised that Labour doesn’t control the borough so I think this is one way for the independents to demonstrate that it’s their team who is delivering x initiative. I don’t think that’s unreasonable and like I said previously it wouldn’t have cost anything to do and any opposition to Labour would be stupid not to.
I think people see what they want to see. This isn’t a poster of Lutfur he places a LOGO a portrait photo in the footer of these advertisements that’s quite different. It just happens that it’s in a silly place in this instance.
In Hackney the pink Newham logo is everywhere. It’s commonly known that the council is 100% Labour so to a large extent Labour and the Council are interchangeable. The same is true in Barking and Dagenham and in Hackney to a lesser extent. Residents still haven’t realised that Labour doesn’t control the borough so I think this is one way for the independents to demonstrate that it’s their team who is delivering x initiative. I don’t think that’s unreasonable and like I said previously it wouldn’t have cost anything to do and any opposition to Labour would be stupid not to.
Mr. ‘Milk’, you’re not really following my part of the argument, I’m afraid. Most people, including myself, do not want to see elected officials, civil servants, local and national [of which, given your pseudonym you are probably one, note that I’m using my actual name here, I practice the transparency that I preach] put iconic images of the dear-one, dishonest ‘newsletters’, releases, dishonest ‘community’ newspapers, logos, award-badges, slogans, images of other mediocre officials, TV adverts and any other detritus of spin concerning roles that it is their duty and that they are [over-]paid to perform. This same applies to ALMOs, RSLs and all the other agencies of spin and self-congratuation, present in the borough. The argument you have have put forward here is, of course, illogical, translated from the French where it is much ruder ‘eat rubbish, 100000000 flies can’t be wrong’, that is ‘they’ve done it, so it’s OK’. Not true.
[…] Comments « Lutfur the Barbarian covers up the sacred crane of Brick Lane […]