• Home
  • About
  • Comments policy
  • Contact
  • My fans

Trial by Jeory

Watching the world of east London politics

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« A discussion about gay marriage on Abjol Miah’s Facebook page
A press release for East End Life »

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis warns Tower Hamlets council

February 15, 2013 by trialbyjeory

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.

Share this: Facebook & Twitter

  • Share
  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

20 Responses

  1. on February 15, 2013 at 7:35 pm Carole

    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


  2. on February 15, 2013 at 7:44 pm Grave Maurice

    “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?


    • on February 15, 2013 at 8:39 pm Snowman

      It seems that nothing will change. I did notice not one picture of Rahman in this weeks “Rahman’s East End Life”. Progress?


  3. on February 15, 2013 at 8:38 pm Dan McCurry

    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.


    • on February 15, 2013 at 9:01 pm trialbyjeory

      Suggest you read the Ofcom ruling. It’s here, p33 onwards.

      At p43, it says:

      We noted the advertiser and Licensees’ arguments, in particular that the advertisement was not broadcast at a time of pending elections in the borough, or during the period of ‘purdah’ on publicity for the London Mayoral elections in 2012. Nevertheless, an advertisement which primarily serves to promote and enhance the image of any politician will fall foul of this section of the Act whenever it is transmitted.


  4. on February 15, 2013 at 10:19 pm Unpopular in Limehouse

    Came across these in the interesting Tower Ha,lets FOI Disclosure Log – worth a close read

    Click to access IGT_FOI_04_%206330-Channel%20S%20Awards%202.pdf

    And

    Click to access IGT_FOI_04_%206330-Channel%20S%20Awards.pdf


    • on February 17, 2013 at 1:07 pm Snowman

      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?


    • on February 25, 2013 at 7:44 am Mila

      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.


  5. on February 16, 2013 at 12:42 am You couldn't make it up!

    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!


  6. on February 16, 2013 at 5:26 am Curious Cat

    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 ?


  7. on February 16, 2013 at 5:37 am Curious Cat

    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 ?


  8. on February 16, 2013 at 9:30 am Newspaniard

    @Carole. Are you saying that it was done illegally in the past, therefore it must be OK to do it illegally now?


    • on February 16, 2013 at 5:40 pm Carole

      No i am saying they all know the ways of doing things in a way legal so it suits there purpose


  9. on February 16, 2013 at 3:49 pm James

    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.


  10. on February 17, 2013 at 2:35 pm WHS

    More interesting news on Isabella’s fun and games also:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9874695/The-state-versus-the-whistleblower.html


  11. on February 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm doshnombororsassa

    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.


  12. on February 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm Lamia

    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.


    • on February 20, 2013 at 8:55 am doshnomborrorsassa

      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.


    • on February 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm Grave Maurice

      Bravo!


  13. on February 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm trialbyjeory

    Press release just issued by Mayor Lutfur:

    Mayor Lutfur Rahman condemns Tory/Labour collusion in attacking Tower Hamlets

    Mayor Lutfur Rahman has dismissed as ‘hysterical’ recent claims by disgraced outgoing Labour Group Leader, Joshua Peck, and local MP, Jim Fitzpatrick, that the council has reached ‘crisis point’. Mayor Rahman questioned why both Peck and Fitzpatrick are working hand in glove with Tory Ministers in an attempt to de-stabilise and denigrate the work of the council, a move that the Mayor believes will be seen by local people as yet further evidence of high level Tory and Labour collusion.

    Mayor Rahman said, “For people who claim to belong to the Labour Party, Peck and Fitzpatrick seem very keen to work with Tory Ministers and ex-Ministers like Brendan (sic) Lewis and Bob Neil (sic). It is clear that they don’t support my Administration in reintroducing free schools meals; replacing the axed EMA; introducing university grants; freezing council tax for the fourth year and protecting libraries; (sic) youth services and children’s centres when other boroughs are slashing services. I challenge them to commit to supporting these real Labour policies.”

    Mayor Rahman added, “Real Labour supporters in Tower Hamlets will be outraged to learn that their MP and Group Leader, who was forced by his own Councillors’ (sic) to stand down, should be working with the Tories in this way. Elsewhere in the country, Labour are rightly opposing the Tory imposed austerity programme. Here in Tower Hamlets, where we are doing just that, the local Labour leadership has decided to work with the Tories. Local residents will be able to draw their own conclusions from that.”

    The name of the Local Government Minister is Brandon, not Brendan, and ex-Tory minister Bob Neill has two Ls in his name.



Comments are closed.

  • Ebuzzing - Top Blogs - London
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 6,448 other subscribers
  • Latest Tweets

    • Also attended.Thought film was interesting,poetry reading by @slhesketh excellent (as was contribution from the cou… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
    • This all seems great and does seem a beacon in theory but who in Newham actually knows about this?? Zero from our c… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
    • No lessons learned from last time, it seems. No residential streets or pavements gritted in my part of Canning Town… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
    Follow @tedjeory
  • Recent Comments

    taj on Election Day: an open thread 
    Curious Cat on Election Day: an open thread 
    Jay Kay on Election Day: an open thread 
    Curious Cat on Election Day: an open thread 
    Cllr Andrew Wood, Ca… on Election Day: an open thread 
    Abdul Hai on Election Day: an open thread 
    Stewart Rayment on Election Day: an open thread 
    Stewart Rayment on Election Day: an open thread 
  • Archives

  • February 2013
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728  
    « Jan   Mar »
  • Blogroll

    • Blood and Property
    • Dave Hill's Guardian blog
    • David Osler
    • Designed for Life
    • Diamond Geezer
    • Ealing Rose
    • Emdad Rahman's Blog
    • Hackney Wick Blog
    • Harry's Place
    • Mayor Lutfur Rahman
    • Mile End Residents' Association
    • Richard Osley's blog
    • Spitalfields Life
    • The Bow Bell
    • The Londonist
    • Tower Hamlets – it's your money
    • Tower Hamlets Watch

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • Trial by Jeory
    • Join 752 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Trial by Jeory
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: