Here’s an interesting insight into the mindset of Mayor Lutfur Rahman.
On December 7, Giles Broadbent, the editor of The Wharf newspaper, wrote a strongly worded opinion column detailing his exasperation with Lutfur’s refusal to answer questions from either members of the public or councillors at full council meetings.
At the previous meeting, opposition councillors fired a whole series of allegations his way, questioning whether council resources had been misused to help his re-election campaign. The council also voted to launch an investigation into claims by the Love Wapping blog that people purporting to work for Tower Hamlets Homes were canvassing for Lutfur during the day.
On each of these questions, Lutfur, though visibly reddening and seething, remained silent. Instead, he exercised his “right” to delegate the answers to his cabinet councillors who then stumbled and mumbled their way through the explanations.
Giles quite rightly thought this shameful.
Here’s part of what he wrote:
And what did the man himself have to say about all this at a recent council meeting when challenged? Furious denial? Tearful apology? The mayor said nothing. Being made to answer to the people “is contrary to his human rights”.
To the rest of the world, this continuing policy of silence is a joke, a punchline to a risible tale of East End lunacy. To the residents of Tower Hamlets, it is a serious and barbarous insult that damages their prosperity.
Compare Tower Hamlets to Newham. Both struck by terrible social and structural problems. Yet Newham – far from perfect – is at least outward looking and positive. It has embraced the Olympics and the Docks in order to share the dividends of growth.
Mr Rahman’s Tower Hamlets is backward, self-indulgent and dim. It is ripped apart by factionalism and stymied by cronyism. And the mayor, who sits atop this stinking pile, has nothing to offer but a sulk – truly a slap in the face for the residents who crave a future, not a
fiefdom.
It is to be hoped in the 2014 election the man who has tried so hard to undermine the principle of democratic accountability will feel the potency of its sting.
Lutfur took this rather badly and feeling the sting of The Wharf’s right to free speech in an opinion column based on the events of a full council meeting, Lutfur penned a letter of reply, which has been added to the original article. Here it is:
“Your column, ‘Spiral Notebook’; ‘Rahman’s insult to Tower Hamlets’, contains a series of gross inaccuracies and unfair innuendoes.
Surely, The Wharf has a responsibility to report and comment fairly? On the basis of this particular column it would appear that neither you nor your newspaper intends to do so in the run up to the Mayoral and local government elections in May.
You made no attempt to contact this council’s communications department or me, before publishing what amounts to a series of gross inaccuracies and innuendoes.
You have made direct allegations relating to the use of branded letters.
Such allegations are very serious and potentially imply a breach of electoral law.
The actual complaint relates to unbranded, council acknowledgement letters sent pursuant to casework.
The allegations that bogus representatives from the social housing company were using their access to residents in Wapping to flog [my] re-election bid are also completely untrue.
Cllr Alibor Choudhury categorically refuted these allegations, also made by the local Labour Party, in Full Council on 27 November. I also categorically refuted these claims in Cabinet on Wednesday 4 December. My rebuttal and that of Councillor Choudhury were carried in the East London Advertiser on Monday 2 December.
How, in these circumstances, you could run with these heavily contested and baseless allegations, let alone print them without putting them to me, is beyond me.
Similar claims have been made before, and the resulting police investigations have consistently found them to be baseless and a waste of police time.
Your comparisons between Tower Hamlets and Newham are insulting and inane. You may be interested to learn that not a single question has been asked of Mayor Sir Robin Wales, in any meeting of full council in the past seven months. In Tower Hamlets most of the political parties are represented. In Newham, all sixty councillors are from Sir Robin Wales’ party.
Perhaps The Wharf prefers a ‘one party borough’ solution?
I have never claimed that answering questions would ‘breach my human rights’ as you claim. I simply delegate the business of council to lead councillors, as is common-place in other local authorities.
I attend hundreds of public meetings where I am directly accountable to electors (rather than to opposition parties who were roundly rejected at the last election but by mere virtue of the electoral cycle continue to boast a majority in the chamber) and hold frequent press conferences where you and other journalists are welcome to hold me to account.
As a regular contributor to The Wharf, I had come to expect a whole lot better from your newspaper. I do hope that normal service may be resumed shortly.
Some who have read that last paragraph believe it’s an implied threat to withdraw his frequent offers of editorial magic. I’m not so sure it is, but if so…how the editors of the Bengali press must quake…
And as for his statement he holds frequent press conferences, does he? I don’t think I’ve ever been invited to one.
Anyway, let’s all applaud Lutfur’s determination to hold himself to account and also his championing of free speech.
I mean, free speech without intimidation and threats is a good thing right?
So what was Lutfur’s response to Anjem Choudary’s trip down Brick Lane last Friday when his Shariah Project groupies handed out mock-legal leaflets warning Bengali restaurateurs they faced hellfire or 40 lashes (take your pick!) for selling booze?
The East London Advertiser reports him saying:
We strongly believe in the right to free speech and association, and I am pleased that, with the police’s support, this group were able to exercise that right whilst upholding respect for our communities, which is the hallmark of our ‘No Place for Hate’ pledge.
He has to be kidding, right? Exactly what respect was Anjem showing to those he wants burnt in hell? Let’s remember that included in Amjem’s band of supporters are those convicted or terror and hate-related offences.
Only nine days ago, Anjem was reported in the Standard as saying the Muslim Patrol thugs who were convicted this month for abusing and attacking non-Muslims in Tower Hamlets deserved a “pat on the back”.
So isn’t Lutfur effectively saying, ‘You’re welcome to come back to protest and intimidate in Tower Hamlets any time you like?’
Which is a bit different to the message he rightly sends to that other fascist group, the English Defence League, which also claimed it merely wanted to exercise free speech.
I wonder if Lutfur, with this potential ‘one rule for one’ mentality secretly wants to provoke another visit by the EDL before next May.
By way of contrast, here are the thoughts of Labour group leader Sirajul Islam and the Muslim Council of Britain on Anjem’s visit:
Cllr Sirajul Islam, leader of the Labour group, said: “While Muslims may choose to abstain from alcohol, it is not right to forcefully push one view upon others.”
He added: “Provocative attempts to push a radical Sharia agenda will serve only to widen the divide between our communities, especially in light of the recent challenges we have faced from the EDL and so called ‘Muslim patrols’.”
Salman Farsi from the London Muslim Centre said: “While Islam may prohibit the consumption and sale of alcohol for Muslims, it is not for any particular groups to impose those views on others, nor bully other communities.”
Trial by Jeory 
Perhaps the editor of The Wharf could make his views known to those Conservatives who will no doubt go through the motions of standing a candidate against Rahman at the next election and possibly taking enough votes to allow him to be re-elected. Ranting isn’t any longer enough, if it ever was. What is needed is some hard headed political compromise.
The Tories and the remains of the Lib Dems should recognise locally and nationally that Lutfur and supporters are the problem and the have to go.
Lutfur’s Reply
(1)
Knowing how bad local government works, could the Mayor’s reply have been penned by the LBTH’s press office ?
(2)
Yep, I definitely believe his reply was written by none-other than the hard working (for the mayor) . No doubt in my mind that the Mayor made a few minor to the statement.
(3)
Police forces are always reluctant to vigorously tackle issues relating to local government bosses, perhaps because those same bosses are the police’s official “partners” in government sponsored activities.
Finding no evidence, either because of a possible council cover-up or lack of independent effort by the Plods, is certainly not an exoneration.
(4)
Funny how the Mayor again declined to deny any of the accusations involving him. Ted, have you inadvertently omitted the juicy bits containing all the Mayor’s denials ?
(5)
Canvassing for the Mayor and his gang during working time paid by the public
is clearly Misconduct or Misfeasance in a Public Office or obtaining money by false pretences (taking a salary whilst not actually working for the local authority) methinks. Has anyone complained to the Plods ?
Curious Cat.
It is no surprise that the usual mob write their newspaper reports such way, as to give the impression that decisions taken at full council meetings are full council decisions. Yes, technically they are however, why not simply also make it clear to those that perhaps are not woven into the fabric of Tower Hamlets politics, that these are in fact Labour group decisions taken due to the Labour group having the majority number of councillors, joined along with their coalition counterparts here, the Tories led by Cllr. Golds.
I watched John Biggs on TV yesterday at the Channel S 9th Birthday celebrations along with Mayor Rahman. Naturally, none of the usual critics criticise Channel S upon this occassion whilst every other opportunity has been used to do just that. I listened to JB referring to Mayor Rahman as his good friend during his speech. But he also made another important point, that it is important for the Bangladeshi community to excel within the mainstream parties, obviously making the point that Mayor Rahman is not affiliated to a mainstream party. But how could that ever happen when Labour choose to dump due process? The subsequent investigation into the dodgy dossier that Labour used to strip Lutfur Rahman of his democratic victory as the party candidate, was unfounded. But was Mayor Rahman reinstated? No.
So please, less of the crap about transparency coming from the press. You are blatantly biased against Mayor Rahman. Newham council is a completely different situation, ruled by Sir Robin and his 100% Labour group. None of them would dare ask him a difficult or controversial question. If they did, they will not be re-selected. They will be slung out as candidates come May 2014.
Cllr. Shahed Ali, sounds so grand with his ‘title’ of Councillor. That’s a problem with Labour especially, they think because they are they are something special to be worshipped. There are simply members of the same public as the rest of the public.
The murky world of local politics and power struggles gone wrong – and against the general public interest – has landed the whole of TH in the current mess. With local elections looming, the professional politicians have awaken from their slumbers and are busy plotting their desired victories. Meanwhile life goes on normally in the run-down borough of TH.
The press is effectively the only voice the general public have to air their grievances with those in power and to discover what those purporting to represent the public’s best interests are doing in the public’s name and with the public’s money. If it wasn’t for the noisy inquisitive press there would be even worse things going on in TH – all covered-up and never ever reported. I bet some of the local would absolutely love that !
The press is not perfect but it is definitely the best and the most honest exposer of corruption, money wasting and all the other hanky-panky that goes on in the wonderful and delightful LBTH.
A good, honest and effective politician ought to never fear the press.
Curious Cat
The Mad Mullah is right in what he says.
The problem is we are over a barrel. There is a gun at our heads and the message is VOTE LABOUR OR GET SOMETHING MUCH WORSE. But Lutfur was Labour. He was created by Labour. As were most of the people who are his allies in the chamber and have collectively dragged this borough into the mire. It is rather like Dr. Frankenstein telling you he is the only person who can get rid of The Monster but the condition of him doing so is allowing him back in his laboratory, unsupervised, to do it all over again.
I suppose we need to be tactical, contain the vomit in our mouths and vote for John Biggs in the Mayoral Election. I know Labour will comfort themselves with that thought because they’re confident they can stich everything up to look nice again and get on with the Balkanisation of our borough (and our country).
As for the council, where Labour is seriously challenged by Lutfurites or there is a sitting Lutfurite we have to vote Labour there too; but where Labour is not being challenged, seriously, by a Lutfurite – then we must vote for the next party best at unseating them be that Tory or Lib Dem. They must be punished for what they have done.
Eventually, we must prise Labour out of this borough and at the earliest opportunity get a petition through to change the LBTH ‘constitution’ back to being a “leader with cabinet” council model, like we had before, but without Labour in charge.
In follow up, if you want to vote TACTICALLY to destroy Lutfur and damage Labour then here is a guide based on the 2010 local election results. There needs to be a decent turn out from people to appalled to vote last time.
Basically, as far as the non Labour/Lutfur opposition goes, in most cases we can expect the Lib Dems to collapse because of national issues – so vote Tory just to be safe.
Bethnal Green South – Vote Labour
Bethnal Green North – Vote Lib Dem (Eaton’s seat – they are strong here)
East India & Lansbury – Vote Labour
Bow East – Vote Tory
Bromley-by-Bow – Vote Tory
Blackwall & Cubitt Town – Vote Tory
Bow West – Vote Tory
Spitalfields & Banglatown – Vote Labour
Mile End & Globe Town – Vote Tory
Millwall – Vote Tory
Mile End East – Vote Tory
Limehouse – Vote Tory (this is a very marginal ward for Labour)
St. Dunstan’s & Stepney Green – Vote Tory
Shadwell – Vote Labour
Weavers – it should be a Lib Dem seat, but to be safe vote Labour
Whitechapel – Vote Labour
St. Katherine’s & Wapping – Vote Tory (another marginal seat for Labour)
In most of these places, if just 500 people (or less) who voted Labour in 2010 switch from Labour to Tory then Labour lose.
One of your duties Cll Shahed Ali should be to use paragraphs. Could you also let us know what exactly was your point?
Lutfur DID claim forcing him to speak would breach his human rights. I was at the council meeting when it happened. His head of legal services (that dreadful woman) said that there were issues under the Human Rights Act and to compel the mayor to talk could breach them. I distinctly recall the uproar at the time and Cllr. Golds condemning the abuse of that law.
Lutfur is a liar.
Monsieur Maurice,
Have you done a FOI on the legal advice given to Lutfer ? If not, I will. They can’t claim legal privilege to withhold the information.
Will someone kindly give me the date of that meeting ?
Thanks.
Curious Cat.
January 25th 2012
I suspect:
a) There was no formal advice; and
b) They can withhold the advice unless it has otherwise been made public or lost its confidential nature.
Cher M. Maurice,
Perhaps the LBTH legal adviser has been watching too many American films and television – the only Right I can recollect is the USA Right of avoiding self incrimination – the fifth amendment. Its not present in UK or EU or CoE Human Rights.
One wonders how the Mayor could incriminate himself by answering some straight forward questions.
Curious Cat
He does not answer so he cannot be quoted. He knows that the opposition would seek to catch him out or make him look stupid and so he has calculated it better to just refuse to speak at all and only make written pronouncements. He also chooses not to answer and says “you cannot make me” so he can appear somehow “above” the council and show his contempt for them and for US. His supporters love it.
Actually – there is a right to silence in English law in case you incriminate yourself. But that applies to questioning by the police in the context if you having (allegedly) commited criminal conduct.
The reference to the HRA by the LBTH adviser, is, as ever, a nonsense.
=> Lawyer
Common Law ?
In Statute Law or a PACE Code ?
(very) Curious Cat
Common law. Might be in PACE too, I haven’t checked get. Google “right to silence” or “privilege against self-incrimination”. It doesn’t work in the context of civil legislation (e.g. relating to the FCA/PRA/SFO etc).
=> Lawyer
Thank you.
Curious Cat
=> Lawyer
SFO = Serious Fraud Office
Fraud being a public (i.e. criminal) offence.
??
Your ‘vote tactically’ post is silly because you do not take into account new boundary changes. The old boundaries from 2010 will not exist.
The only seats on the old list that the Mayor cannot seriously win are in Bow East, West and on the Island and if he teams up with a popular Liberal and he’s rumoured to be doing just that there’s no reason they couldn’t win in other places. Anybody that thinks otherwise is seriously misguided.
It’s even easier for the Mayor to win in a two member ward if he rolls his supporters all behind a single candidate. This is exacerbated in Limehouse and Poplar which are both 1 member wards. What is certain is that the new boundaries are going to create a patchwork mess around the borough unless people as you say hold their nose and vote Labour.
Your Weavers analysis is particularly silly, Abjol Miah came tantalisingly close to winning a by-election only last year. If you’re trying to play with the numbers this way you need to look at the candidate and not just the party. Many candidates polled much higher in 2010 than their running mates many of them will be picked off by the Mayor and could be very competitive in 1 and 2 member wards.
Personally what I hate about Tower Hamlets politics is nearly all political groups go to residents and say vote for me because I’m not the other guy, never vote for me because…
Are you referring to me in this post?
The SFO does indeed prosecute crimes of “serious fraud” (undefined). I doubt they’d get involved in LBTH unless it was something serious. They can force people to speak (under what’s called a section 2 notice), but the responses generally can’t be used in criminal proceedings against that person – because the privilege against self-incrimination is such a strong right in English law.
=> Lawyer,
Thanks. CJA 1987. Presumably one party’s evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings against another and vice versa ?
Curious Cat.
As painful as this may be to some, there is absolutely no difference between the methods of governance adopted by both Lutfur and Sir Robin Wales… apart from the facts that, as Lutfur rightly points out, Wales has a docile council full of spineless Labour drones and he has near total control of the local press.
Haven’t you heard? Ted has moved to Newham……..
Let us move on to the comments about Lutfur’s support for Anjem Choudary exercising his “right to freedom of speech” and “upholding respect for our communities”.
First of all. Anyone who has been paying any attention to what Anjem Choudary says and does KNOWS that he categorically does not “respect” our communities. He is the epitome of disrespect and goes out of his way to be insulting and incite racial hatred with every comment he makes.
I think it certain that Anjem encourages young people (content edited). So what, that may be libelous Ted but let Anjem try to prove in court that it is not true!! It is entirely possible to surmise this to be true because he has proven personal contact with many of the people involved in terrorist acts or plots in this country. He reckons the Rigby killer, whom he knows well, was a “very nice man” with an “impeccable character”. That brainwashed dimwit Jordan Horner who was one of the so-called “Muslim Patrol” which threatened to murder non-Muslims on the streets of Whitechapel was also an acolyte of his, defending his home. There are numerous other examples of very dangerous individuals being associates of Choudary – associates who are more than happy to openly incite and glorify terrorism – and he is their “sheikh”.
And Anjem the Nazi is someone that Lutfur Rahman thinks has a “right” to exercise his freedom of speech. This Choudary believes in the genocidal destruction of Israel, a war for global Islamic Supremacy and the imposition of a particularly pernicious form of fascism here in the UK where there would be no civil or spiritual freedom, let alone “rights” and Non-Muslims and Muslims alikewould cower in fear of his religiously motivated Nazi thugs stringing people up for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and the like. The world Choudary wants would be an unspeakable hell.
Lutfur’s position is especially duplicitous (and I will get more on to this point) given the hysterical response he made towards an Englishman named Tommy Robinson and HIS freedom of speech. In this instance, this person categorically did not have this freedom of speech so cherished by our mayor. Lutfur appealed to have Robinson barred from entering the borough at all, he repeatedly said how Robinson should not be allowed to speak and ‘spread his hate’ and “undermine our communities” – Lutfur was so animated about it he urged people to confront Robinson should he make an appearance anywhere in Tower Hamlets.
If you care to actually compare the things said by Robinson and Choudary then Lutfur’s position is completely untenable. Robinson is clearly NOT a fascist. He is quite clearly a nationalist, a reactionary and a conservative (small ‘c’) but it would seem he is also a democrat and has never said anything about overthrowing parliamentary democracy or forcibly imposing some sort of global, fascist tyranny on the world where the word of an ineffable caliph would be violently enforced and all opposition silenced in a reign of murderous violence. Robinson has been repeatedly on record as saying he is ideologically opposed to white supremacy and nazism. Recently, Robinson walked as well as talked and joined the Quilliam Foundation – a moderate Muslim association. Not the actions of a fascist, nazi or racist.
There is no conciliation or temperance from Choudary.
The only way Lutfur’s position makes any sense is to conclude that our mayor has a complete and utter disregard for the feelings of the “white” community – he does not care if Anjem goes about encouraging violence against us. But he courts our votes – it is just pure cynicism? Perhaps his duplicity is because – despite all the silky words – he is somehow in league with Anjem Choudary and thus cannot go against him – one cannot help but wonder. Whatever the case it is obvious now that Lutfur chooses not to see how offensive, intimidating and imflamatory Choudary and his supporters are to both non Muslims and moderate Muslims alike.
Lutfur MUST GO. His response to this demonstration is almost unbelievably appalling, insensitive and hypocritical.
Two points:
1) There is a second preference vote in the mayoral election. To defeat Lutfur, the Conservatives and Lib Dems should mount strong campaigns with good candidates to encourage a high turnout, but advise supporters to give their second preference to Biggs. It is unlikely that they will do so openly, but they should remind supporters that the best way to ensure Lutfur’s defeat is to use both votes.
2) The ward boundaries have changed so Maurice’s suggestions need updating. The principle is correct though. Conservatives best placed to defeat Lutfur’s council candidates in Wapping, Limehouse, Canary Wharf, Blackwall & Cubitt Town, and Island Gardens – Labour elsewhere.
Lutfur Rahman knows that the EDL will never be allowed to demonstrate in Tower Hamlets. So he is free to pontificate about “free speech” knowing that all he has to do is posit that muslims in Tower Hamlets will riot again (as they did in June 2010, when EDL cancelled their demonstration over the fascist conference at The Troxy). No protest against the islamisation of Tower Hamlets is permitted. Ever since muslims rioted in Whitechapel in the early 1990s over a BNP councillor being elected, all that has happened is that non-muslims have left the area. Muslim fascists are free to wander around paralysing gay people, attacking those who drink alcohol, intimidating voters. but if people so much as dare to vote for a councillor who will speak for them, muslims riot.
Naturally, the media ignored the muslim riot of June 2010. But the video evidence speaks for itself. We have to be grateful that so many muslims were prepared to record their rioting for us.
When a gang of muslims in Tower Hamlets sliced through the head of John Payne, only 3 out of the 30 racists who attacked him were prosecuted. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501105/Asians-guilty-shattering-mans-skull-race-hate-attack.html When a gang of 8 muslims in Tower Hamlets left Oliver Hemsley paralysed, only 1 of the 8 was prosecuted. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/a-brush-with-death-why-britains-coolest-art-and-fashion-names-have-rallied-around-a-victim-of-random-knife-crime-1778125.html And if people try to about such racist and homophobic violence from muslims, muslims riot.
Lutfur Rahman can defend Anjem Choudary’s free speech, whilst demanding EDL be banned, as often as he likes. I’m glad he’s providing the people of Britain with a vision of what kind of society we will be living in when muslims are 35% of the population.
It’s no surprise that a recent survey said that 40% of Brits think a civil war with muslims is “inevitable”. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/26/public-attitude-muslims-complex-positive I thank Lutfur Rahman for helping to wake up the people of Britain.
On the grounds that Harvey Milk was referring to recent and past comments that I have made about the electoral system may I make it clear what I mean. I used the two most recent by-elections, I am pretty sure the are the most recent, to illustrate why Rahman is defeatable.
They were Spitalfields and Weavers. In the former he came in with, a handful of votes over Labour’s Ala Uddin and the “vanity” vote of Tory, Lib-Dem and Green would have put Labour in.
In Weavers if the vanity lobby had backed John Pierce the successful Labour candidate would have had an even bigger majority and dealt Lutfur real psychological body blow, a lesson that he could be heavily defeated in what should be his heartland.
Ominously there are rumours that the newly founded East London Conservation Society or whatever Dan Cruickshank’s merry band of NIMBYs are called intend to stand independent candidates muddying the waters yet further. Can someone have a word with them?
I agree that the second preference vote is important but can anyone really see the Tories especially asking their voters to support a Labour candidate?
They are, but not on the record.
I wish the people of Britain really grasped how awful Anjem Choudary is. Here he is after the 7/7 bombings. Anjem Choudary says that when muslims condemn the killing of innocent people, they only mean muslims. He says muslims consider that it was only the muslims who died on 7/7 who were “innocent”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=223gLcfCj_c#t=255
This is the kind of respect for other communities that Anjem Choudary has. But as Anjem Choudary says, all muslims must stick together. So we shouldn’t be surprised if Lutfur Rahman supports Anjem Choudary’s right to protest, whist condemning the EDL.
[…] « Mayor Lutfur on free speech: I’m pleased that Anjem Choudary was able to visit Tower Hamlets a… […]