I’v now heard of several cases of when Lutfurite canvassers (it’s alleged they’re being paid to knock on doors) have introduced themselves at people’s homes without clearly stating who they are. One contact said they were paid a visit by Cllr Alibor Choudhury recently and claimed even he failed to clarify his status; instead he apparently said “Hello, we’re from Tower Hamlets council and we believe in bringing the council to you” before asking whether there were any problems he could solve.
Mark Baynes, who runs the LoveWapping blog has detailed at some length the problems he’s witnessed, eg here, here and here. Channel 4 have also been examining the issue.
Peter Golds raised it at full council last week. I asked him to write a piece for this blog.
By Cllr Peter Golds
Three weeks ago a Labour candidate in Cubitt Town was calling on voters in Galbraith Street. How do I know? Easy, because a voter told me the next day.
The voter knew this was a Labour candidate because she had material identifying her party and herself as a candidate and indeed said so. A week later I was with a team canvassing in Stewart Street and I have no doubt that the Labour party heard about this.
Why? Because we also identified ourselves and had leaflets and stickers indicating exactly who we were.
Once the local elections get fully under way candidates and helpers will be easily identified as they will be wearing coloured rosettes when calling on voters.
The stories circulating regarding canvassers supporting Lutfur Rahman and his team of candidates–and they are canvassers–are increasingly disturbing.
These people are not identifying themselves either as canvassers or immediately as supporters of the Rahman administration. In one case a resident on Manchester Road, questioned the two young men who called on him asking what it was about. He was told that this was their job. In which case who is paying?
Here is the text of an email sent this week to the police and the Returning Officer from a block on a Cubitt Town estate:
I am receiving complaints from neighbours that two young men are knocking on doors with official papers in their hand and leaflets from the Mayor, when challenged concerning official ID they have fled saying contact the Mayor’s Office.
I am concerned at anyone going round knocking on doors without any kind of ID saying who they are and particularly where vulnerable people are concerned.
They have just knocked on my door and I can confirm they do not display any form of ID.
Perhaps you could kindly look into this and ask the Mayor to arrange for anyone canvassing for him to display appropriate and suitable Identity.
Note that once again when challenged they referred to the Mayor’s office.
There is also concern as to the huge numbers of letters, sent out at taxpayer’s expense by the council, supposedly as a response to enquiries.
A worried voter met me to say that she had received one of these visits from two young men (they always appear to work in pairs); again they were evasive as to who they represented, mentioning “the council”.
A little later she received a letter from a councillor from another ward, whom she had never met, and would not in any case have contacted. This claimed to be a response from an “enquiry” that the resident had raised. As the lady said to me, she knows her local councillors by name. Why, so soon after the visit of the two young men had she received this letter when she was adamant that she not raised an enquiry.
Worryingly, these unsolicited letters are now logged on the council’s computer system. There is evidence that the number is very high. Will these people receive another unsolicited letter at the start of the election campaign?
What data protection is there about his? The council is a public body, often holding sensitive information about residents, what is or could be fed into these letters and indeed visits?
Political parties contact voters, and we often contact them by leaflet or letter. However, we use our own resources and voters are made aware of our affiliation. We are also subject to strict rules on data collection.
This below the radar campaigning is part of the problem of the Rahman administration. They themselves are all but personally invisible to the electorate at large. Yes, the Mayor enjoys going to organisations who are the beneficiaries of his grants programme, and who naturally are delighted to have him unveil a plaque thanking him for his generosity.
This is not to use a campaign term, “pumping the flesh”. Nobody sees him on an actual doorstep or handing out leaflets on a street corner.
As for his candidates, there was a classic example this week.
The Mayor attended the new site of the traffic light tree sculpture close to Billingsgate Market. Naturally, he arrived in the taxpayer funded car, which promptly parked in the McDonald’s customer car park, using up a customer parking space.
From where Lutfur Rahman posed for a photograph, in front of Billingsgate Market, the town hall can easily be seen. It is a walk of three four minutes at the most. Had he walked it, he would have passed actual voters.
With him, in the car, was his media guru Mohammed Jubair and former councillor, Mohammed Shahid Ali, who was deselected by the Labour Party in 2010 and is apparently the Mayor’s chosen candidate for Mile End, some way from his home on the Isle of Dogs.
Perhaps Mohammed Shahid Ali needs a ride at taxpayers expense to find the ward he has been allocated? Certainly, whilst a councillor his main claim to fame was to fall asleep during a planning meeting and then vote on the matter in hand, which somewhat annoyed residents.
In conclusion, there are serious questions to be answered about these canvassers and council resources. Bluster, abuse and threats from the so called cabinet is not the way forward on this matter. It is time for others to look into the situation.
Trial by Jeory 
> These people are not identifying themselves either as canvassers or immediately as supporters of the Rahman administration.
Whilst not liking what the mayor does, has Peter Golds any genuine grievance against what appear to be people canvassing for the mayor ???
What laws have these people broken ?
Do these people work for the council ?
If so, are any of them in posts ?
Are they doing their door-banging in council office hours ?
Are they using any council resource for political purposes ?
Seems like typical Labour Party practice They do it all over the country.
Instead of moaning why not leaflet the area warning voters of suspicious men claiming to be from The Council and advising the voters NOT to open their doors to anyone not showing proper identity AND if the voters have any doubts about the strange men to telephone the police on that number (never used it, 111 ?)
Remind voters that if the callers are genuine, they will not mind giving the householders their identity card to read carefully. You can also mention that some identity cards may be forged 🙂
If Peter Golds wants to put the mayor’s men out-of-business public moans is insufficient. Actions speak louder than moans !
Curious Cat.
CuriousCat. If you don’t understand how many rules these people are apparently breaking, I suggest you educate yourself in UK electoral law, in UK data protection law. Then come back with a better understanding why this is so alarming.
=> IslandDweller
No, I do not understand what laws, if any, the men are breaking.
Since you obviously do, kindly enlighten me and everyone else too.
Having had another quick gander at the original posting, I have not identified one criminal act. Just because you and Peter Golds may dislike the activities of these people, it does not make those activities criminal – certainly not without REAL information.
Having read most of the famous RPA 1983 and the many amendments, the DPAs and bits on the CPS web site, I have not identified any specific examples of unlawful conduct. Thoughts that someone’s conduct may be unlawful does not, without REAL evidence, make that conduct unlawful
So Mr Island Dweller, please do enlighten me.
Thank you.
Curious Cat
You can review the video of the Council meeting where it was hotly discussed. This will better inform you as to the many points you are missing.
I think I am being reasonable by basing my comments on what was posted above. Nothing above appears to substantiate a de facto criminal act.
If no one is either willing or capable of summarising the alleged law breaking, then I am happy to withdrawn from this thread and concentrate on my work.
I lack the time to listen to council meetings.
Curious Cat.
Ignorance of any wrong-doing does not mean that none took place.
Agreed.
The English legal system says, rather unfairly, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So, Jay Kay, what constituted a criminal offence and where is that criminal wrong-doing mentioned in the main posting ?
I do sympathise with those who find the LBTH status quo ghastly and dreadful. It is very depressing and immensely unappealing.
Curious Cat.
Curiously enough around six weeks ago I had a visit from two polite well spoken Asian young men, they did not clarify just who they were, but I indulged them for five minutes.
They asked me if I had any issues with the Council and that if I did they could arrange a meeting with the Mayor, I mentioned that handing out large chunks of public money to faith organisations was a concern, they did not respond to this but moved on swiftly to tell me that a number of local residents had expressed their appreciation of the well maintained condition of the estate.
I thanked them for this and informed them that I was director of the freehold company which owns and maintains the estate, they appeared startled to hear this.
Oddly enough about the same time we had to remind Tower Hamlets Homes that LBTH no longer owned the place and had not done so since our collective enfranchisement seven years ago!
I wonder where my two visitors got their directions from?
From memory, I think it may be unlawful to pay canvassers BUT no election has yet been called, so that part of the law does not apply.
There are different restrictions for Parliamentary elections regarding expenses incurred before election day.
Anyone can bang on any door and give the voters all the Bollocks they want. Most voters are unable to distinguish between truth and lies spoken by doorstep callers. Consequently voters are likely to be mislead by lies spread by canvassers.
Once an election has been called, it is a criminal offence to lie about a candidate. However, with local elections, that period starts 25 ‘working’ days before polling day. 26 days before election day the nasty canvassers can make any allegation they want secure in the knowledge they are most unlikely to get caught (for defamation). The police are notoriously weak in upholding laws relating to elections. They really do have to be booted into action or encounter something they can’t easily ignore.
The English electoral system is a stinking sewer pit. Yet some derange people call it ‘democratic’.
Curious Cat.
Not so Curious Cat, it’s a criminal act before, during or after and election. The twenty-five days only really applies to the regulation of expenses.
Section 111 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983
If a person is, either before, during or after an election, engaged or employed for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election—
(a)the person so engaging or employing him, and
(b)the person so engaged or employed,shall be guilty of illegal employment.
So these people could be risking a fine, imprisonment, and being banned from standing in an election/holding elected office.
As Peter points out, mainstream parties know the rules, and abide by them.
Interesting times.
=> Graham Taylor
Thanks for that interesting citation.
For a successful prosecution one would have to establish
Its not unlawful to pay someone to check residents are happy with the council’s activities and services within the borough.
The essence is to link, beyond all reasonable doubt and to establish the ‘mens rea’ of the payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
makes the helpful points
(1) Its not a strict liability crime
(2) the act has to be done AND the intention of the payer has to be proved.
A good barrister may argue that the Payer (whom some of you know by another name) was so concerned to ensure the public services provided under his leadership were being properly and satisfactorily provided, that the Payer sent-out his men to check.
Now, if those men were paid out of council funds, it could strengthen the argument that it wasn’t really canvassing. But in the absence of formal council documentation describing the initiative and its implementation (including funding) the weaker the position of the Payer especially if the Payer personally provided the payments.
The difficulties then are:
* Hearsay evidence in a criminal case
* identifying the men
* getting the men to tell the truth and drop their boss in the ****
* the source of the money
* receipt of the money by the men
* proving the involvement of the Payer.
Looks almost impossible to prove at this moment.
I’ll do a FOI asking about the official policy of sending men out and how they are organised and paid etc.
Curious Cat.
FOI
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lbth_men_visiting_residents/
I can refine it subsequently.
CC.
I will let the others argue the politics of this discussion. As a pensioner I am bombarded with warnings about requesting identification.
I had a huge row with these people. I live in a supposedly secure tower block, they banged on all the doors on my floor almost at the same time, I asked for identity, they had none. I asked how they got into the block and they told me it was none of my business. I eventually called the police but was told the police had no powers to remove them from the block. They were worse than used-car salesmen!.
The usual means of (unwanted) admission is a key fob from the housing people, entering a secret code or someone let them in when they pressed a load of door buzzers.
If they are working for the mayor, then I am reasonably confident someone in authority gave then a key fob or the secret code.
Do you know what method the fire brigade use to enter the blocks? Fob, code, or pressing buzzers ?
If you are harassed by these unwanted nuisance callers, (causing you fear, alarm, distress, anxiety etc.) for a minimum of 2 occasions, report their presence to the police and tell then it is an offence pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Don’t let the police ignore your lawful complaint because Mr Plod hasn’t got a clue.
Complain to the local newspapers that strange unauthorised people are prowling around your block making a nuisance of themselves. Complain too to your landlord.
Curious Cat.
Curious Cat. You are, at the least, very inconsistent in your take on events. Some of your observations are spot on and at other times you wander all over the place.
Mr Mad Mullah,
Your ambiguity prevents me identifying the wanderings. Can you be more specific ?
Curious Cat.
I think the point that he is making is that most people on here who are not rabidly pro Lutfur would not make the point that in this country you actually need evidence to show illegality and nobody has come up with any, if it is Lutfur’s supporters that are accused.
Most commenters prefer to ignore that kind of technicality when it’s one side that is being accused.
=> Oldford1
It was about 2003 or 2004 when I banged on the door of a very old lady living in a small council bungalow, not in LBTH.
The lady complained to me the day her postal vote arrived, a Labour Party man visited her and refused to leave her bungalow until she had voted for Labour and handed him her completed ballot paper.
I did not believe her. I though the Old Dear was fantasying. She was very old and I thought she was confused. This is not a third world country, I thought. Things like that just don’t happen in England, I innocently and naively thought as a newcomer to English local politics.
The old lady persisted trying desperately to convince me. I didn’t believe her but treated her with great respect and friendliness.
All over the borough I subsequently heard similar accusations. A nationalised Pakistani friend told me the Labour candidate’s father (a former Labour councillor who brought a house in his daughter’s name and then applied and received housing benefit for him to live there) had visited all the Moslem voters in his road saying postal voting was difficult and the voters should sign the form then give them to him, the father, for filling-in.
The police did nothing, as usual. The council weren’t interested and the Labour Party simply ignored it. Got a watered-down version printed on the front page of the local press.
I’ll always remember the old lady, now dead, and feel both embarrassed and regretful I didn’t believe her at the time.
Until the toxic and putrefying English electoral system is cleaned-up, true democracy is sometimes being withheld from the people
In another local election, voters went to vote but were refused because they had been given postal votes. The voters complained they never received a postal vote. They had no vote at that election. Subsequently it was revealed they had unknowingly signed forms presented by Labour to apply for postal votes. The Labour council refused to say which address the postal votes had been sent to..A Labour controlled council is usually corrupt to the core.
Mr Mayor is a son of Labour. Why do any of you think he won’t employ the usual Labour election practices ?
Curious Cat.
An interesting article in light of two recent bits of information I’ve come across.
One is that I saw on the Facebook page of the Keep the King Edwards Park Green campaign (against the plans to dig it up for Thames Water super sewer) the organiser posted that they were aware of various local election candidates going round claiming that they had actively supported the campaign when the organiser had never heard of them, much less seen them provide any assistance. The Facebook post welcomed them to get in touch and actually do something. It also did not state which party/parties these candidates were from.
Secondly, while looking for the status of a planning application yesterday, I noticed that the council has launched a local election protocol to make sure everybody plays by the rules and there is no fraud this time round. It’s here:
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news__events/news/january_2014/local_elections_protocol.aspx
So obviously that’ll put an end to the shenanigans Peter describes, won’t it?!
Curious Cat is clearly accusing Peter Golds and others of having no evidence that any criminal acts have been committed in is first two posts and in his third and fourth posts at least allows the possibility that there has been some form of illegality. Perhaps it might be best if he did stick to his day job.
=> Mr Mad Mullah
I am not accusing anyone of anything.
I am writing that in the original posting there is no evidence, as opposed to what the police call intelligence, of a crime. Evidence is hard supportable facts beyond dispute.
I am not saying nothing dodgy has happened In the cesspit that is the LBTH.
Moaning is never the best means of tackling the allegations. Leaflet everyone, exposing the scandal and get evidence that will secure a prosecution. Actions speak louder than words
Curious Cat.
I pressed the send button too soon. The situation has anyway been clarified by Graham Taylor. Could we have clarification tat oldford1 and on the article below labour insider are both MarcFrancis?
Curious Cat : FYI – the fire brigade enter flats by using a “drop key.” Take a look in any secure door in any LBTH flats and you will see a small hole somewhere in the door housing. The key, which is double jointed with a hinge is as long as a pencil and as wide as one and are shaped like an L. They slide it in and twist to gain access. These drop keys are readily available and canvassers, contractors et al have them. I even managed to get one myself.
Key fobs to council owned blocks are also easily available.
If a pair of these characters turn up on my doorstep without ID, ipso facto acting suspiciously, would I be within my rights to invite them in, lock the door behind them and call the police?
You would commit False Imprisonment.
Citizens Right to arrest is not (and I’m not a lawyer) authorised by .
You could certainly take some photographs to display on the web. Everyone on here would be delighted to see them. 🙂
Curious Cat.
Is there a lawyer out there?
Yes. You would be guilty of false imprisonment.
I’ve been canvassing for years. I don’t carry ID.
Apart from a rosette maybe. No one does.
There’s no crime in it.
Aren’t we missing the point here? These people are claiming to work for LBTH, if they do, then isn’t this a misuse of public resources? If they do not, then aren’t they gaining access via false pretences? Where I live, there are a lot of vulnerable people, who really do get scared form having strangers turn up and try to pump them for information and make false claims that they cannot back up.
Either way, it’s all just a hugely transparent attempt at trying to secure votes at the eleventh hour, when the Mayor and his cronies have clearly shown that they really are only interested in helping certain parts of our community? They may claim otherwise, but we all know that the vast majority of what they do, and where they pump public money is religiously motivated. They should hand their heads in shame….
In my eyes, you get into politics to help the local community at large, and you treat everyone the same. You shouldn’t get involved if your motives aren’t right. i.e. for the money, the power, the shoehorn in your chums’ ludicrous planning applications, to asset strip for personal gain, or to further you own political and religious ideologies upon those who are not the same.
Back to these volunteers/canvassers, if they knock on my door, they’ll feel my toe somewhere that they may not enjoy. Though if half of the rumours I hear about some of Lutfur’s cabinet are true, they just might enjoy it. More so if I wear a nice frock and a bit of lippy.
They’re not claiming to work for LBTH. No-one’s come up with any evidence to support that claim at any rate.
And it’s not any sort of shady eleventh hour bid…it’s election season, and people canvas for elections. They knock on your door and say, I’m calling on behalf of X who’s standing for reelection, here’s a leaflet listing all the good things he’s done, will you vote for him?
There’s nothing illegitimate about that. If you don’t want to vote for their candidate, just say, ‘no – I’m supporting someone else’.
Would it be legitimate if those canvassers were being paid?
No. That would be unlawful.
When I say the eleventh hour, I mean into his term. Lutfur’s cronies weren’t knocking on the doors of the elderly and infirm of Tower Hamlets to see what they could do when he took office. Why now? It’s not even canvassing if my spies are correct. It’s more a bribery of sorts, and that’s how any person with even a smidgeon of intelligence would take it.
=> Mr Trial & Jury
Its already been established on here that paid canvassing is UNLAWFUL even in the wonderful LBTH.
Curious Cat