If any further evidence was needed of just how closely ministers are watching the “basket case” of Tower Hamlets council, have a look at this excerpt from Hansard yesterday. Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis clearly has Mulberry Place in his sights.
Here’s the parliamentary question from Jim Fitzpatrick about Ofcom’s ruling on the council’s use of public money for political advertising on Bengali TV stations:
Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what sanctions his Department is considering following the report by Ofcom into the political broadcasts of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets.
And here’s Lewis’s answer:
Brandon Lewis: In its ruling last month, Ofcom censured five television channels for running advertisements for the Mayor of Tower Hamlets which contravened the prohibition on political advertising. It noted that one of the television channels would have been fined with a “substantial statutory sanction” had it not already ceased trading and surrendered its broadcasting licence. The political advertisements were funded by taxpayers’ money.
Tower Hamlets’ political broadcasts were a breach of the Communications Act 2003, the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising and the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. Although Ofcom has the power to censure or fine broadcasters, it has no power to take any action against an advertiser.
The use of taxpayers’ money for political campaigning is simply not acceptable, and this is in addition to Tower Hamlets’ disregard of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity through its continuing publication of its weekly propaganda newspaper, East End Life. Such actions are not just a misuse of public funds, they are ultimately harmful to local democracy and an independent, free press. It is also further evidence of a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and mismanagement of council staff and resources by the mayoral administration.
We are looking at putting the Publicity Code on a statutory basis to address this corrosive abuse of taxpayers’ money.
Kind of takes you back to the days,of the Janet Ludlows flounders times doing the,same thing and yes then i really do remember the days of Christeen Gilbert and Maureen McEleney
And most of all what stick to mind was when Jim Fitzpatrick was,singing from the,rooftops ALL ABOUT HARCA
And financed by Yes you guessed it Tower Hamlets Council and anything from Housing CHOICE was on every channel newssheet poster
Sorry Jim bit like KETTLE Pot BLACK and,all that
“It is also further evidence of a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and mismanagement of council staff.”
I wonder what will be the straw that harms the proverbial camel…
What would be useful to know is just what the government can legally do. Can they, for instance, suspend it dismiss Rahman? Under what circumstance and under which laws?
It seems that nothing will change. I did notice not one picture of Rahman in this weeks “Rahman’s East End Life”. Progress?
I don’t think Lutfur hasn’t broken any laws if there is no election on. The TV Channel might be in trouble with Ofcom, but they haven’t seemed too worried in the past.
Suggest you read the Ofcom ruling. It’s here, p33 onwards.
At p43, it says:
Came across these in the interesting Tower Ha,lets FOI Disclosure Log – worth a close read
And
The invoices attached say everything that is wrong here in Tower Hamlets. £10,000.00 of public funds handed to a private media company, who serve one section of one community. What did the taxpayer of Tower Hamlets and the UK get in return? More jobs, better housing, better health care? This is an utter disgrace and the money should be returned to the state without delay. The invoice was sent to the “commutations department” with notes made about the “Mayors Branding” this suggests further use of our money to advertise the mayor across one section of one community. One could argue that this cool 10k served to pay for the independents TV publicity and nothing more or less. Tower Hamlets in these times should not be “sponsoring” private TV companies’ large amounts of public money – the other sponsors seem to be private companies or charities wishing to get publicity in return. What the hell did local government want in return for it’s 10K?
re the invoice for £10,000 why did the council pay it when the invoice calculated the VAT wrong and underpaid tax? We have to make up the balance! For benefit of council staff without a calculator, the invoice is £12,000 including VAT, VAT is 20% of £12,000 = £2,400. Not the £2,000 they’ve paid here.
In the good old days, a councillor who spent public funds illegally (i.e. without any proper legal authority) could be surcharged to recover the public money. Sadly this was abolished with the Local Government Act 2000.
The current situation relating to the framework of sanctions for councillors who act illegally (eg spend money without proper authority) is :
1) the ballot box at one end is – and
2) the criminal law at the other end (eg the Government has already made failure to disclose a pecuniary interest a criminal offence).
I rather think the government might be using Tower Hamlets as an exemplar of the “worst case scenario” for any further action it might need to take in future.
I wonder how long it will be before sanction via the criminal law is sought in relation to activities within Tower Hamlets. We’ve already seen one Councillor go to prison – I wonder if anybody else has already put themselves in the frame?
Roll on the Statutory Code for Publicity – that should make the next elections very interesting indeed!
Good gracious
What a load of absolute nonsense about a minor and very routine use of the public’s hard-earned dosh by the world famous, or shud dat be, notorious ?, London Borough of Twits and Hamsters.
Honestly guys, why all the worry and fuss ?
Everyone knows this is so normal in English local government, so please relax and get-on with your lives.
Those that can’t sleep at night having nightmares about this scandal, should complain to the council’s external auditor. It used to be an Audit Commission person called a District Auditor but its all been privatised by the Tory government and work is now done by a very expensive firm of management consultants.
If someone was to allege Mr Mayor was actually up for election when this innocent bit of self promotion occurred, then why not pop-down to the council’s elections department and see if Mr Mayor has included this expenditure on his election expenses. Assuming the worse, that the mayor was contesting the election and this expenditure was not on his election expenses form, then an aggrieved local voter, or group of voters, has two opportunities:-
(1) complain to the council’s Monitoring Officer, probably Isabella Freeman;
(2) complain to the Met Police of a corrupt election practise by Mr Mayor (if you need chapter and verse of the RPA 1983 as amended, just ask).
Meanwhile, isn’t there any good news in the boro ? Like all the councillors resigned and normal people have decided to stand for the council ?
version 2
Good gracious
What a load of absolute nonsense about a minor and very routine use of the public’s hard-earned dosh by the world famous, or shud dat be, notorious ?, London Borough of Twits and Hamsters.
Honestly guys, why all the worry and fuss ?
Everyone knows this is so normal in English local government, so please relax and get-on with your lives.
Those that can’t sleep at night having nightmares about this scandalous misuse of public cash, should complain to the council’s external auditor. It used to be an Audit Commission person called a District Auditor but its all been privatised by the Tory government and work is now done by a very expensive firm of management consultants.
So,
(1) complain to the council’s Monitoring Officer, probably Isabella Freeman;
(2) complain to council’s external auditor.
Meanwhile, isn’t there any good news in the boro ? Like all the councillors resigned and normal people have decided to stand for the council ?
@Carole. Are you saying that it was done illegally in the past, therefore it must be OK to do it illegally now?
No i am saying they all know the ways of doing things in a way legal so it suits there purpose
I’m sick of seeing Lutfur Rahman’s cheshire-cat grin on the scaffolding of estates which have been improved. The wording suggests that the improvements have been paid for by Rahman himself, rather than through central and local funds.
More interesting news on Isabella’s fun and games also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9874695/The-state-versus-the-whistleblower.html
What I don’t understand is, if Rahman saab has done something illegal then why isn’t he being prosecuted? Why doesn’t the law do something about it.
I’m starting to think that most of the accusations against him are exaggerated half-baked concoctions.
If the population of biogted idiots Tower Hamlets want their taxes to be spent propping up Rahmn’s empire and making Tower Hamlets a beacon for regligious extremists, anti-semites, homophobes and misogynists, fine. It’s just galling that the rest of the country has to pay towards propping up this parasitical basket case of a borough. Tower Hamlets is a national disgrace, an ffornt to British democracy and law, and a widespread ciminal investigation is long overdue. Brandon Lewis is gutless, spineless and useless.
An investigation, criminal or other, is certainly long overdue, so Lutfor Saab can have his name cleared of any wrong doing. I don’t think Ministers have the willingness because they know that any investigation into alleged misappropriation of the public purse, terrorism related activity, anti-gay discriminatory policy, or any other batshit asinine far fetched accusation he is labelled of will be proved.
Bravo!
Press release just issued by Mayor Lutfur:
The name of the Local Government Minister is Brandon, not Brendan, and ex-Tory minister Bob Neill has two Ls in his name.