Given the heat and potential significance of the sale of Poplar Town Hall, it was a bit surprising to see just one member of the press at the specially convened Overview and Scrutiny committee meeting in Mulberry Place last Tuesday: me.
And yes, I got a seat.
And I also won a minor battle with the council’s communications department, who had initially told me I wasn’t allowed to film the proceedings. The committee’s chair, Cllr Josh Peck, agreed to my request, although because at least one (anonymous) senior officer objected, filming the officers’ contributions, including that of development director Aman Dalvi, was banned. A battle for another day.
I apologise in advance for my iPhone camerawork (you try holding one steady for an hour), and the discussion is just about audible with the sound turned up. I’ve had to compress the quality so it can go on YouTube.
I’ll introduce the characters in a bit, but first a bit of background.
You’ll remember that Poplar Town Hall on Woodstock Terrace, E14, was sold in November 2011 to Dreamstar Ltd, a company reported by the Telegraph to be part-owned by Mujib Islam. Mr Islam, the chief executive of Medialink, is the registered owner of Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s campaign website, lutfurmayor.com, and has admitted helping Lutfur to become mayor in 2010.
Dreamstar bought Grade II listed Poplar Town Hall after a rather unusual purchase process for £875,000. Within weeks Mujib applied for a change of use on the building from B1 (community/educational) to C1, which meant it could become a “boutique hotel”. It is thought this change of use, which he finally secured in 2013 (under planning officers’ delegated powers–no committee needed apparently), means the property is now worth millions.
Understandably, there have been allegations of cronyism, and worse.
Tory leader Peter Golds demanded an investigation in January 2014. Among the matters he asked for in the motion passed by full council was a valuation report to show what the building was worth in 2011, and what it would have been worth if it had been marketed as a hotel.
It is that last aspect which is troubling people.
Auditors from the Mazars accountancy firm produced a final report this month. Actually, unknown to opposition councillors, they did produce an interim report in February but somehow the council executive managed to kick that stick of dynamite to this side of the mayoral election. Funny that.
I wrote in detail about the Mazars report earlier this month, here. To say it raised a number of serious questions is an understatement. They found that key records on the bid process had either gone missing or didn’t exist at all; that a council lawyer predicted it would end in litigation; and that Dreamstar’s final bid was not only late (and therefore should not have been accepted, but also it was not even the highest. They also found evidence to suggest the mayor himself was involving himself in the actual sale process, which would be highly unusual. And much more.
The report was damning.
But when two of their senior managers appeared at the committee on Tuesday they provided what Lutfur will regard as a killer line to those accusing him or his administration of fraud.
They said:
“If we thought there’d been any dishonesty, we’d have reported to this to the police or external auditors. There’s a big difference between a few missing records and dishonesty.”
I apologise to Lutfur because as I was taking notes at that stage, I wasn’t actually holding the camera. So he’ll never be able to watch that moment.
However, I suspect more than a couple of the committee members weren’t convinced. And it was clear on Tuesday night that even non-political/lay members of the committee (who were actually the stars of the show) thought there had been at least some negligence, perhaps wilful
So here’s some more relevant background. Poplar Town Hall was first mooted for sale in March 2008 under Denise Jones’s leadership of the council. At a cabinet meeting in March 2008, one of the proposed options for sale and marketing was a small scale hotel.
However, nothing further happened until January 2011, three months into Lutfur’s mayoralty. In the intervening three years, the property was used as a temporary venue for the Ian Mikardo School. That use was coming to an end and Lutfur’s cabinet member for finance and resources, Alibor Choudhury, was concerned about the costs of securing a potentially empty building.
So in January 2011, Lutfur’s cabinet discussed the latest situation. Officers produced a report (as an update to that March 2008 decision) saying they estimated the value of the building at £1.5million. Officers were told to proceed for a quick sale.
Officers asked bankers from BNP Paribas to carry out a marketing exercise. Paribas valued the site at £750k-£950k. The offers that finally came in from bidders in June 2011 fell mostly within that range, although Mazars noted one officer remarking the narrow range of the bids looked “odd”.
Mazars also noted that none of the bidders, including Dreamstar or its shareholders, declared any interests with respect to the administration’s officers or elected representatives.
At Tuesday’s hearing, we were not, sadly, graced by the mayor’s presence. In fact, Josh told the committee he was still awaiting answers to a series of emailed questions.
Meic Sullivan-Gould, the interim monitoring officer, showed up and declared everything was fine. But he still got his knuckles rapped when he admitted he and other officers had “forgotten” to carry out the work demanded by Peter Golds’ January 2014 council motion. He said he and other senior officers had “overlooked” it, that they’d been unable to determine whose responsibility it was.
Sullivan-Gould also said the council would be able to claim a slice of the windfall profits Dreamstar will make from converting the building to a hotel, although no negotiations on that have yet taken place.
Aman Dalvi, the development director, also showed up and seemed to feel the pressure under some pretty intense questioning.
But the strangest exchanges came when Alibor Choudhury took centre stage. He does have an unfortunately bizarre manner when he’s performing in public, as this memorable “black cardigans” exchange showed earlier this year.
He may regard the committee’s motives on this subject as purely political, but he really should maintain the moral high ground and treat the body with a little more respect. Perhaps he’s copying his boss’s attitude.
His performance oozed contempt for almost every single person questioning him, so much so that he must have misheard or misunderstood the questions; otherwise, he seems to have told outright lies.
Several times he was asked if he knew any of the people who’d submitted bids for Poplar Town Hall. And repeatedly, he said No. “Absolutely, categorically not,” was his first answer. He then tried to explain he was unable to answer fully because Josh hadn’t put an actual name to him. Bafflingly, Josh was banned by the committee’s lawyer, David Galpin, from mentioning Mujib Islam by name, even though it’s a fact he was at least a director of Dreamstar, it’s a fact that Dreamstar owns Poplar Town Hall, it’s a fact he was named in the Sunday Telegraph, and all this is documented at Companies House and via other open sources.
Mr Galpin said he could only be named in a closed session of the committee, from which the press and public are banned.
And because we were banned from seeing those further exchanges, all we have to go on at the moment is Alibor denying in general terms that he knew Mujib, a man I thought he’d at times worked closely with in the 2010 election campaign.
Oh well, I’m sure that will come out in the wash..
Whether the committee will conclude there was any dishonesty or abuse of process is yet to be seen, but I think they’ll have an easier job saying value for money was not obtained on this historic property.
The two stars of last Tuesday night’s hearing were probably the two lay members: Nozrul Mustufa and the Rev James Olanipekun. They’re both parent governors in the borough. And they both asked the best questions of the night.
Nozrul was visibly incredulous and angry that neither the mayor nor any of his cabinet bothered to ask the obvious question at the outset of the sale; namely, what could the property have fetched if it was sold as a possibly hotel. He pointed out that this was in 2011, a year before the Olympics and when “hotels were popping up all over the place” in Tower Hamlets.
Nozrul said this is what we elect councillors and mayors to do: to ask these questions.
Alibor at first tried to argue his way out of that hole but then realised he couldn’t. So he blamed BNP Paribas. How responsible.
The full exchange lasts for 32 minutes; I think the best bits start just after 16 minutes with Josh and Alibor’s argument. However, the anoraks will want to view the whole lot.
I’ve also transcribed the exchanges from about 16 minutes onwards below. It all helps to give a full record.
As for the people you’ll see…by this point the two Mazars accountants had left, so their seats are empty; Meic is just to the left of the frame and he comes into shot towards the end. Straight ahead is Josh Peck, with David Galpin on Josh’s left. On Josh’s right are two other officers, the three Tower Hamlets First councillors, Maium Miah, Abjol Miah and Suluk Ahmed.
On the right as you look, you see the opposition councillors: Labour’s John Pierce, Denise Jones and Asma Begum; then Tory Cllr Craig Aston, the Rev James and Nozrul.
Alibor is right in front of the camera, with his back to us.
Here’s the video:
And here’s the selected transcript:
Josh Peck: Did you know any of the people who submitted bids for Poplar Town Hall?
Alibor Choudhury: Absolutely, categorically not.
JP: really?
AC: …give me an assertion.
JP: You don’t know any of the people who submitted bids for poplar town hall?
AC: Test me, throw me a name. I’ve told you no.
JP: I’m not going to bandy names around.
AC: That’s ok, I’ve told you no.
JP: Your evidence to us is that you knew no one who submitted bids for poplar town hall.
AC: Back in 2010, 2011..when the bids were being marketed and when the bids had come in, I did not have a clue
JP: That’s not the question I asked you.
AC: You were asking about the people and I’ve told you already, I didn’t know any of the people.
JP: You don’t know anyone who submitted…?
AC: Well name me a name, give me a name, it might jog my memory
JP: There’s a clear allegation in the media that someone pretty closely associated to the mayor [and..] his campaign ended up purchasing the Poplar Town Hall.
AC: You can’t use the media; in the media, they say that you cost the council £26,000 recently for rejecting Lovebox’s licence, which they got overturned in court. £26,000 of our money, taxpayers’ money. Now, if we go by the media, there’s a lot of things I can say to you, and you can say, so please be factual and stick to council records.
JP: I’m asking you a question; there’s an allegation in the media that names an individual and I’m not going to name that individual in open session..
AC: You have to, you have to; otherwise I can’t answer the question. Cllr Peck, it’s like sending me to a dark room and you know..
JP: Ok, we’ll go into closed session after this and we’ll go through some names.
AC: We don’t need to…this is public…Ted has every right to know. I think you should give us the name then test me. So I can then answer properly can’t I.
JP [turns to head of legal services David Galpin]: Mr Galpin, are you happy for us to name individual names?
David Galpin: I am concerned about it in open session, only because it concerns personal data from a third party; I don’t know who that third party is, so for that reason I’d be concerned about it.
AC: He’s concerned but it’s not illegal and I think journalists here have a right to know who this individual is. You don’t know how I will answer; it might be music to your ears, Cllr Peck. We don’t know.
JP: I’m asking you a general question about whether you knew, whether you know any of the people involved in the bids for Poplar Town Hall. You’ve said ‘no’ repeatedly, so that’s fine.. .
AC: Yeah.
JP: So we can take that answer from you.
AC: But you seem to know otherwise, you seem to be probing me thinking you might get a different response if you chuck a name at me, so why don’t you chuck a name at me.
JP: Given what I’ve read in the papers recently and given what I know, I am surprised..so we’ll leave it at that.
AC: What kind of interrogation is that?
JP: Do you know if the Mayor knew anyone who submitted bids for Poplar Town Hall?
AC: Give me a name and I’ll tell you..
JP: Did the Mayor know any of the people involved..?
AC: As far as I’m aware….No.
JP: As far as you’re aware, the Mayor knew no one who bid for Poplar Town Hall?
AC: Unless you give me a name, Cllr Peck, it’s very difficult for me to answer that question.
JP: We’ll go into closed session later. Did you declare any interest in the process?
AC: I wasn’t involved in the process apart from the decision-making part in cabinet
JP: Did the Mayor declare any interest in the process?
AC: I’m sure he would have if he’d had an interest….We’ll have to check our records
JP: Are you happy that a public building sold for £875,000 could now become a boutique hotel worth millions of pounds?
AC: I’m not sure I’ve got an opinion on that really.
JP: Any other questions?
Nozrul Mostafa: You’ve made reference that the £1.5million was an..estimate….at some point the value from BNP Paribas..was up to £950,000. When that was eventually founded (?), was there no question asked why the value was so low?…I know the officers made that decision; at some point cabinet, even the Mayor, I can’t believe the cabinet didn’t know that this building was going to be sold for X amount of pounds.. below even if it was an estimate and not a valuation..Ok, what is the reason why it was so much off the mark…even if the answer was that that was an estimate up in the air. Was that question ever asked: why are we selling it so cheap compared to the estimate? No one, not even the mayor or cabinet even raised it?
AC: It did come back to cabinet. We had the update report in January saying…that we needed to progress and officers would do that, and officers would report to the mayor at some point in time
NM: And in January, that valuation from Paribas would have been there?
AC: With all due respect, I think I’ve answered this already. We were satisfied that the decision made by officers on the basis they made those decisions, that decision was good enough for us. We were satisfied; therefore we did not question it.
Rev James Olanipekun: How closely does Resource and Development work together, given the fact they should be working in tandem?
AC: There is a relationship, Reverend. Resources and asset management work very closely together especially when it comes to disposals because disposals yield money and money comes into our coffers, which then forms our budget or the financial activity of the council..so there is clearly a hand in glove relationship.
JO: Given your submission, isn’t there the necessity to ensure true value for money?
AC: There has to be a degree of trust; these are our officers, they are experts in their profession; we rely on their advice and guidance. We have our political knowledge; we have the grassroots intelligence that we bring to the table. But ultimately, it’s about working together with these officers about coming to an understanding. And I believe we got there. Our job is to challenge officers as well, don’t get me wrong, we’re elected to advocate and represent our communities and challenge officers when the need arises but I felt it was robust enough and it got us where we needed to be. Otherwise the building could be empty still now, bleeding us hundreds of thousands.
NM: That’s the reason why I was asking. As an elected member, I find it quite disheartening that any councillor wouldn’t challenge their officers with reference to the price that they were selling it or marketing it for. This £1.5m was an estimate, but it was out there. That’s what the cabinet decision was based on to sell it. Now when it came, as the Cabinet lead member for resources, it was £1.5million and there’s a discrepancy there..why were no questions asked?
AC: There’s a simple answer to that.
NM: But was the question asked?
AC: There was a guestimate of £1.5million; at the time, the market determined we weren’t going to get that, you’ve got your eight hundred or whatever it was thousand pounds. That wasn’t because officers didn’t try, or the process was flawed, or anything else. Everything was there to ensure we would get the maximum. Clearly we didn’t achieve the £1.5m guestimate..
NM: Was the question asked? You keep saying guestimate? Was the question asked: it was at cabinet for £1.5million; I could understand if the answer came back that that was a guestimate, and that’s the answer, that’s fair enough..
AC: Let me put it another way…
NM: You keep saying the question wasn’t asked and you didn’t know.
AC: ..Say wed said this wasn’t enough and put it on the market again, and re-market it and revalue it, it doesn’t really help our situation does it? Given that officers clearly demonstrated they’d tried to get us the maximum value for that property, and the circumstances were what we foudn ourselves in at the time, we felt that would suffice. You keep asking me about questions, we could question…
NM: With all due respect, with 2012 coming up..in 2008, we had this policy of this being a hotel. This was marketed as an educational as a B1 use, which wasn’t a hotel use. I can’t believe there wasn’t anyone who asked for a valuation if this is being changed to a hotel, what would the valuation would be? I’m not sure if Paribas did that…
AC: ..that was after the fact though..
NM: ..they valued it at £850-£950k ..
AC:…that’s ‘as is’ though..
NM:…yes, as is…with a B1 use. With the Olympics around the corner, that we were having, did no one ask whether there was an element of this from 2008 when it was marketed as a hotel bid, what would the cost be as a hotel use?
AC: Fist of all, I’m not sure whether officers pre-empted it would be a boutique hotel at that time. It was marketed as a former town hall that had a range of uses, for education and community as one, and given that they followed their noses when it came to getting that valuation. If they’d have pre-empted it was going to be a hotel then who knows? But correct me if I’m wrong, the hotel proposal came after the sale.
NM: I’m saying with the various criteria that were there, I’m trying to understand why weren’t different scenarios put out there. If this happens at C1 use, if this has a B1 use, if this has a D1 use, these are the price valuations we get can get for this town hall. I know the planning application came in afterwards and it was agreed by whoever made that decision…My point is when Paribas gave the valuation why was it just valued at a B1 use and educational use? Why weren’t whatever permuations there could be, this is what it should be marketed as?
AC: We used highly skilled professionals to give us the best value for that property and to do whatever necessary to achieve that. Clearly, if you’ve found a weakness in that, we should take that to BNP Parnabus, Barnabus, Paribas, or whatever they’re called. I can’t sit here and preempt the future and assume things. We had to work with what we had; we had to work with an asset as is. And our job is to make that asset didn’t become a burden or a liability for the council. And that’s my job.
NM: Well, personally, we vote for councillors and cabinet members to ask these questions of their officers, so ultimately..it’s up to you to ask these questions and like I say, the bottom line is…it’s relevant it went to a hotel use afterwards, there was a hotel element when it first went to cabinet for disposal in 2008. I can’t understand why – given there were hotels popping up all over the place, in Commercial Road, on Cambridge Heath Road, Holiday Inns, hotels were coming everywhere–that we didn’t have an element where Paribas..well, I’m just going over it again.
AC: I think you’ve got a valid point. It’s a learning curve. Next time, we might not use BNP Barnabus, Paribas, because if they’re that useless and made oversights of that nature, maybe a recommendation that comes from this is that we strike them off and not use them again.
JP: One of the questions we asked of BNP Paribas is whether they’d been passed a planning brief that included a possible hotel use and they didn’t think they had.
AC: I can’t answer that, I’m not aware of that at all.
So there was no dishonesty, according to the auditors. That’s good to know.
So Alibor doesn’t read Ted Jeory’s blog which has named all the names of the company directors – why does he think he can treat the electorate with such contempt!
Good luck Andy Earlam
Alibor does because he thinks he can & above everyone else. There is an old saying – what goes around , comes around and its just starting. Good luck Andy & team
It’s also amazing that these very professional, expert and trusted officers who handled the sale are working for the same Council as those uninformed, inexperienced officers who don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to Community Grants!
Ummm, well not sure what to make of that. Not exactly a parliamentary select committee. What power does the committee actually have? As Ted says it is good to see the lay members getting stuck in with questions that get to the heart of the matter.
It sticks out that the mayor should be there answering the questions.
It was a sham. The questioning was weak, and poorly researched. The Committee exuded naivety and inexperience – they lacked even the slightest glimmer of authority to achieve their aims, ie a clinical examination of the sale, post the auditor’s report.
There was a plethora of loose unfocused questioning compounded by an astonishing paucity of knowledge. Here are just 2 simple examples of where they should sharpened their questioning:
1. The question was asked (of Cllr Choudhury) had he evaluated the cost of leaving the property empty (until property prices improved). No was the answer. This should surely have been followed though by him being told the cost, and then asked to explain why this (relatively small amount) was unacceptable as an option… Too often the Cllr made wide sweeping statements that went unchallenged.
2. Another good point (there weren’t many) was raised but dropped. Why wasn’t Ian Mikardo school offered an extension? Why weren’t other schools/educational institutions offers the facility?
The list goes on, and on. Frankly the Committee was seen to be ineffective and easily intimidated. It is a sham and a dreadful shame that the Council’s highest examining body is exposed as useless.
It highlights yet again, that the local government the borough elects is the government it deserves. The electorate put these people in office and now they must bare the consequences – for 4 more years of circus charades.
Ted,
I think you should get your facts correct before you state things as facts or you will no doubt be in for a legal shock. I have just checked with Companies House and Mujib Islam is not a director of Dreamstar.
I think it would be wise to do some background checks or you risk being legally challenged. I will be surprised if you don’t get sued.
I thought I’d told you not to comment here. But as you are, check your facts here:
http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/mujibul-islam-3
And check in whose name the 2012 Drreamstar planning application was in: Mujibul Islam.
And I’m not sure Mujib disputes his association with Dreamstar’s bid: see his quotes to Andrew Gilligan here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266479/lutfur-rahman-council-assets-and-close-personal-allies-the-evidence/
Hi boys, lets not squabble,
I got my information from the source: Companies House own web site (by the way by June 2015, ALL Companies House information will be FREE to the public).
There are, or where, two Dreamstars.
DREAMSTAR LIMITED
GABLE HOUSE
239 REGENTS PARK ROAD
LONDON
N3 3LF
Company No. 04391527
Date of Incorporation: 11/03/2002
Status: Dissolved 26/07/2011
Nature of Business (SIC): 5540 – Bars
——————————————————–
DREAMSTAR LIMITED
98 COMMERCIAL ROAD
LONDON
E1 1NU
Company No. 07773327
Date of Incorporation: 14/09/2011
Status: Active
Nature of Business (SIC): 96090 – Other service activities not elsewhere classified
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/09/2013 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 30/06/2015
Last Return Made Up To: 23/10/2013
Next Return Due: 20/11/2014
Mortgage: Number of charges: 3 ( 2 outstanding / 1 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )
Last Members List: 23/10/2013
30/06/2014 ACCOUNTS OF DORMANT COMPANY MADE UP TO 30/09/13
24/10/2013 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR MUJIBUL ISLAM
24/10/13 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 100
23/10/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR. MUJIBUL ISLAM
22/08/2013 DIRECTOR’S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR. TASBIRUL AHMED CHOUDHURY / 22/08/2013
20/08/2013 DIRECTOR’S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR. MOHAMMED MAHTABUR RAHMAN / 20/08/2013
20/08/2013 DIRECTOR’S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR. TASBIRUL AHMED CHOUDHURY / 20/08/2013
07/06/2013 ACCOUNTS OF DORMANT COMPANY MADE UP TO 30/09/12
12/03/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR. MOHAMMOD ENAM UDDIN
12/03/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR. ALFAZ KABIRI
04/03/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR. MOHAMMED MAHTABUR RAHMAN
04/03/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR. TASBIRUL AHMED CHOUDHURY
Current Appointments
1. MR EKBAL HUSSAIN ALI, British, lives in London, 12 appointments
2. MR. TASBIRUL AHMED CHOUDHURY, Bangladeshi, lives in DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, 1 appointment
3, MR ALFAZ KABIRI, British, lives in London, 7 appointments
4. MR.MOHAMMED MAHTABUR RAHMAN, USA (American), lives in DUBAI
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, 1 appointment
5. MR MOHAMMOD ENAM UDDIN, British, lives in London, 2 appointments
Hope this helps.
By the way, how can a DORMANT company buy council property – is this buying a form of corporate Sleep-Walking ?
Seems to me to appear suspicious activity.
Curious Cat
Why would anybody vote down Curious Cat’s documentation of public records?
Do they think matters of public record shouldn’t be made public?
or are they just stupid?
or both?
Next time you are going to film Ted, tell everyone at least a week in advance and perhaps more camera and tripod lugging people will attend.
As you experienced, its a lonely world doing it on your own. Well done. A really professional job.
Curious Cat
I thought your camerawork was better than Dispatches, Panorama or BBC News, but not quite as good as ITV London News. We are lucky the Mayor and his cabinet provide us with so many video oppotunities.
Thanks for all the work on this Ted.
it is quite clear from the questions of Josh Peck, John Pierce and Nozrul Mustufa that the administration made no serious attempt to achieve best value for money in the sale of Poplar Town Hall. We can hardly be expected to believe that the beneficiary of this cut price sale is a leading Lutfur supporter to be pure co-incidence.
Alibor Choudhury’s attempt to blame BNP Paribas and council officers was quite pathetic.
The Limehouse Project was also raised towards the end of the meeting. Is this yet another scandal about to be exposed?
If you are talking about getting best value, did you know at the same time Limehouse Library was also sold, it went for only £925k. The Limehouse Library is double the size of Poplar Town Hall, I am surprised nobody is concerned about the value of that property or has raised any concerns. BNP Paribas marketed both the properties at the same time. To be honest value of a property is not always determined by the price, the council should also look at regeneration and employment factors and then consider the best option.
Ted and the nutcase Andrew Gilligan both have a personal agenda against Lutfur Rahman and that’s very clear from their continuous smearing, if they were genuinely concerned about public assets being desposed under value then why have they not raised issues with all the recent properties the council has sold including selling 3 bedroom houses in Swaton Road for £175k? You can’t get a 1 bedroom flat for that kind of money.
The question that we should all ask Ted, Gilligan and Peter Golds is if they had any genuine concerns on the sale of these properties why did they not raise any objections in 2011, 2012 or 2013 why wait 3 months before the elections and then start this attack? These properties were all advertised and marketed and all the councillors were fully aware of their sale!
Lamentable response. Tim Archer raised it in council in 2012. And who has bought Limehouse Library and Swaton Rd?
Serious questions have been asked over Poplar Town Hall because there are serious issues around it? The Mazars report has highlighted them.
funny moment at 11 minutes when Alibor deals with Josh about the missing money in Roman Road. Wonder why Gilligan et al don’t investigate that.
It’s been investigated and as Alibor knows there was nothing to find other than arguable waste here and there
Why is it you always engage in whataboutery? I hear that schoolboy tactic so often from Lutfur’s camp.
Limehouse Library was purchased by the owner of Hazef Turkish Resturant, they have applied for planning to convert it into a student accommodation with more then 60 units.
Do an FOI for Swaton Rd (5 properties) and Tedegar Rd (5 bedroom house) and you should be able to find out the people that have brought those properties.
So what’s the issue? Any connection between these new owners and public officials/elected representatives?
I thought the issues were about selling assets at an under value?
All the assets were sold at similar times in 2011, it will be useful to show what prices they were sold at so we can do a comparison.
You mean there are more assets that executive councillors failed to ask questions about (in terms of value)??
Serial failures.
But don’t you think a wise politician would have been particularly careful about enduring the right questions were asked on a bid involving people he or they knew?
Nazrul Mustafa was bang on.
The outcome is either incompetence or willful intent. Either way there ought to be consequences.
well £1.6 mill worth of waste seems like an awful lot to me. But then again I don’t work for the express. Not sure what you mean when you say whataboutery. Are we only able to ask about the profligacy of the mayors camp and ignore it when it comes to others. One would think you have an agenda.
Well I think you make a large leap to say £1.6m was wasted: name the specifics to back up that claim.
i dunno mate, i’m only going by the report you made about it a couple of years back in 2012.
https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/lutfur-makes-move-for-bow-and-launches-probe-into-failed-1-6m-regeneration-scheme/
Don’t know what happened since though. Perhaps you should investigate?
Pathetic responses from Ash and Sirius. All they can say in Lutfur’s defence is: Why haven’t other scandals been investigated as thoroughly as Poplar Town Hall?. I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg, so I suggest that Lutfur supporters be careful what they wish for.
Andrew,
Your hate for Lutfur is driving you insane, are you still not satisfied with all the investigation and the right wing journalists banging on about the same thing.
Thank you Ash for your kind remarks.
My insanity prevents me from understanding that it is perfectly reasonable for the mayor to sell a Tower Hamlets asset worth £3.5 million to his supporter for £875,000.
And it also prevents me from understanding why those who reported this matter (instead of Limehouse Library and Swaton Road) are the real culprits.
I shall immediately seek psychiatric help.
That would be a good idea or maybe join the BNP.
Is that BNP Paribas? Alibor thinks it is all their fault.
No the original BNP that hates ethnic minorities, especially when they are successful.
=> Andrew Conway
I love you insanity. Please may I and countless others share it ?
Thanks,
Curious Cat.
Spot on Andrew – please keep commenting in the same vein
Maybe we should look for a review of ALL disposals of Council assets since Mayor Rahman took office?
Or maybe the auditors are already thinking about that?
Andrew Conway, where did you get the figure of £3.5m from? BNP Paribas was in charge of carrying out a marketing exercise and they had valued it at between 750k and 950k. If anyone is at fault, it is BNP Paribas for undervaluing it well below your figure of £3.5m.
It seems you guys will go to any lengths and pluck out a figure from thin air to beat Lutfur with it. It is just pathetic. I do not know when you guys will realise that you are just wasting your time crying wolf all the time.
MOTCO – £3.5m was mentioned by Gilligan:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100280385/lutfur-rahman-damaging-new-evidence-as-auditors-close-in/
It is completely obvious that a much better price could have been obtained had the sale been advertised widely, and made clear that a change of use could be considered.
Any competent administration whose priority was to get the best deal for local residents would have acted in that way.
I agree with contributors who have mentioned that there are other examples of Tower Hamlets properties sold off cheaply. They all need to be investigated.
Andrew, you have to do better than Gilligan to have any credibility in what you are saying.
Gilligan speculates that the property may now be worth £3.5m whereas you assert that it is worth £3.5.
You are in fact worse than Gilligan.
MOTCO
The fact remains that the building was sold to Dreamstar at a price well below its true market value. This enables Lutfur’s ally to pocket a large profit – money which could have instead benefited the people of Tower Hamlets.
I concede your trivial point that the £3.5m valuation may be slightly inaccurate.
=> Clapham,
Let us see the actual instruction to BNP and the remit of the service they were asked to provide to their customer, the LBTH.
Then let us examine the offered advice.
With so much fraud in local government, one has to be so careful not to blame contractors for doing exactly what their client demanded and subsequently paid for.
Curious Cat.
Curious Cat, go on and do it. Go and scrutinise the letter of instruction to BNP Paribas and examine the offered advice. If you are not in a position to do so, then do not just utter some hollow words pls.
If you listen to Josh Peck in that video you’ll hear that Paribas say they weren’t briefed on the hotel possibility.
Ted, that may be so, but a buyer is free to do whatever he likes after he has acquired the property. He might turn it into a hotel or a shopping centre or whatever he fancies. He might apply to have the purpose changed after he has purchased the property. This is all ‘after the event’.
At the time of sale, Paribas valued it at between 750k and 950k.
Ok, you don’t get the point. That’s clear
Yes, Ted, I do not get the point but as long as you get it, we are all happy.
No, it is only corruption that I dislike – and I hope it won’t be successful.
Ash I disagree with you. Go on: call me a racist. Call me Islamaphobic. That and a large spoonful of whataboutery seem to be the only weapons in your arsenal.
I suggest you watch some Star Trek and see if you can learn to use logic and reason (ears like Spock optional) when debating.
=> Arshad,
Your posting, to which I intended replying, has vanished into /dev/nul or :blackhole: (that’s Linux)
You are not so why glibly and gleefully ignore the glaringly obvious points (note the plural) about worrying happenings (note the plural) at LBTH whilst under the care, control and direction of His Worship ?
One does not require an IQ greater than the average (100) to identify what appears to be relating to the happenings at LBTH.
Since this country is not yet part of India, Pakistani or Bangladesh where corruption, fraud, murders and abuse of women and girls is an hourly occurrence, some people living here, regardless of religion, skin colour, parents ancestry, affluence or lack of, clearly believe their local council should be above reproach in all its activities. Only a liar or a fool would suggest LBTH is blemish-free.
There is no justification for anyone in England accepting low standards in public life. The public are supposed to look-up to those in public life and appreciate their efforts on behalf of the WHOLE community not a section of it and certainly not efforts restricted to associates.
So why do you keep claiming everything is entirely honest, entirely competent, entirely lawful and entirely for the WHOLE community ? Are you really an educated parrot who can’t think for himself and are reliant on regurgitating someone else’s unscrutinised propaganda ?
Clever people think for themselves and do not let others put words into their mouths. Less clever people lack independence of thought – hence the highlight of their day in trying to fool others with artificially created illusions.
This whole LBTH affair is significantly greater than a local election result. And I have never knowingly smeared His Worship.
Curious Cat
Curious Cat, you might like to think you are clever. You come out with statements like “clever people think for themselves……blah blah….” Please stick to the debate without hypothesising about who is clever or who is an “educated parrot”. It does not cost money to afford someone some courtesy by debating on an equal footing rather than thinking so highly of yourself. Even if someone appears to be less intelligent than you, do not insult them. Just address their points in a respectful way.
I made this point in another post and it is worth repeating it here. I absolutely believe in the principle in our legal system that one is innocent until proven guilty. Lutfur has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing for six years as leader and mayor. So, he is absolutely innocent, squeaky clean and we will continue to defend him as such until you can prove otherwise.
=> Clapham,
I no longer have a copy of Ash’s vanished posting that prompted my reply. It is always best to see postings in context.
My posting stated …
worrying happenings (note the plural) at LBTH whilst under the care, control and direction of His Worship
If His Worship is the boss then the boss should accept responsibility for the imperfections that conspicuously exist in the activities of the LBTH. That is not exactly the same as accusing someone of a criminal offence, is it?
I suggest to you that no one can be “absolutely innocent” until accused. So, what are the accusations relating to your protest of “absolutely innocent” ?
Are you claiming that His Worship, also known as Son of Labour, is “absolutely innocent” of being the mayor ? Exactly what do you believe His Worship is “absolutely innocent” of ?
Curious Cat.
Curious cat, I did not fully understand what you were saying there.
However, I am happy to repeat for your benefit. Lutfur is absolutely innocent of any WRONGDOING of whatever nature. Nothing has ever been proven thus far and therefore we should judge him accordingly.
=< Clapham
It is impossible for anyone to be "absolutely innocent" of an unspecified allegation, accusation or charge/indictment.
I am certain that no currently living person can be absolutely innocent of every possible wrong or even criminal action they have taken during their life.
When you write, obviously with enthusiasm about your hero, it is apparent you literally do not know what you are writing about.
For instance, if His Worship kissed a girl at school against her wishes – how can you, many years later, assert that he “is absolutely innocent of any WRONGDOING of whatever nature”.
Another example, if he swore angrily at a person when he was a teenager, or if he did something which was wrong many years ago, for example not paying his bus fare, can you really accurately claim he “is absolutely innocent of any WRONGDOING of whatever nature” ?
Many have driven faster than the legal speed limit. Supposing His Worship did, just like everyone else does, can you truthfully maintain your claim that he “is absolutely innocent of any WRONGDOING of whatever nature” ?
Do you understand the point I am trying to make?
Curious Cat
Curious Cat, not only are you a pedant, you are funny and a little bit crazy.
Let me say it again – Lutfur is innocent of any wrongdoing alleged against him in the last six years in connection with his office as leader or mayor of LBTH.
Curious Cat, you gave three examples of possible wrongdoing i.e. kissing a girl against her wishes, swearing at someone angrily and exceeding the legal speed limit. These are all incidents of possible wrongdoing in a personal capacity. We are not interested in what Lutfur gets up to in his personal life. We scrutinise him for whatever he does in connection with his being an elected representative in LBTH.
=> Clapham
How do you comprehensively know EVERYTHING he has done ?? You do not unless YOU are RAHMAN.
Are YOU Rahman ?
Curious Cat.
One of the least edifying exchanges at the council meeting on Wednesday was between Peter Golds and Alibor Choudhury during members’ questions (2:06:13):
PG: “Would the mayor give details of the disposal of 111-113 Mellish Street, E14?”.
AC: “How can we take you seriously. You are a compulsive liar. Today you lied about the mayor trying to jump into bed with the Conservative party….”
AC then made more attacks on PG, none of which had anything to do with Mellish Street.
Basically, there was no attempt to answer the question; and amazingly the speaker failed to intervene.
What is it about Mellish Street that AC is trying to hide?
In the News of the World trial Rebekah Brooks was found innocent of any wrongdoing. She must therefore be a terribly incompetent manager to have no idea of what was going on under her nose or not to have asked questions about where information was coming from.
Likewise in this case, the Mayor, relevant officers and relevant Cabinet members MAY be innocent of any wrongdoing but are demonstrating sheer incompetence for not having asked the necessary questions or examined necessary options.
Don’t tell me she is going to apply to become the Mayor or the Monitoring Officer at LBTH ?
I know she has all the necessary qualities and the Cameron connection too. A policeman told me afterwards “Money buys justice but the poor go to prison even when innocent.”
Imagine the Sun’s headline: Rebekah rules at London’s premier place Tower Hamlets.
Seriously what can you genuinely expect from English local government ? Competence and honesty ?