I’ve not yet had the chance to be in court (although tomorrow might be a fun occasion as Mamun Rashid, the former Respect councillor who stood for Labour in Shadwell last May, takes the witness stand…but only after he asked for the services of an official interpreter. Yes, you read that right: an interpreter is needed for a former councillor who took home £40k from council resources between 2006-10.)
John Biggs was the star turn yesterday and he by all accounts spent five hours in the stand. The transcript of his appearance runs to 200 pages and contains 50,000 words, so that’s too long even for this blog.
I’m going to make it available as a document here (Erlam & Others v Rahman & Williams – Proceedings 03.02.15 – Day 2), and I will also post his official witness statements in due course.
They contain fascinating bits of evidence, much of it contested by Lutfur Rahman of course.
I’ll highlight below seven pages of exchanges between John Biggs and Lutfur’s QC David Penny. They are on pp320-330 of the transcript.
They give interesting insights into the way back room deals are alleged to have happened between the two politicians during the contested mayoral selection process of 2010, ie before Lutfur was expelled from Labour.
Lutfur denies this meeting took place. The petitioners are being represented by Francis Hoar. The Election Court commissioner is Richard Mawrey QC.
The trial continues.
Here’s the extract from the cross-examination of John Biggs by Mr Penny.
14 MR. PENNY: There is one issue where there is a conflict that I
15 just want to explore with you for a little bit. Would you be
16 kind enough to go to your witness statement at page 196,
17 paragraph 99. You are talking about Mr. Rahman, your
18 relationship and your observations of him: “I was reminded
19 also of LR’s ability to mobilise support when at the time he
20 was off the shortlist of 2013 and hedging his bets on how he
21 could secure influence in the event that I became Mayor. He
22 and a number of his colleagues, including Councillor
23 Choudhury, visited my home late at night twice to offer
24 conditional support and offer of their block of votes in this
25 election in return for guarantees of positions of influence in
320
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 the event that I became Mayor.” Is that accurate?
3 A. It is accurate, yes. I know that from Lutfur Rahman’s
4 statement no. 4 that he says that that meeting did not take
5 place, but there were two such meetings.
6 Q. We will look at that in a second. Just look at the first
7 sentence of it: “I was reminded of LR’s ability to mobilise
8 support at the time he was off the shortlist in 2013.” That
9 cannot be right, can it? He was not off the shortlist in
10 2013. He was the Mayor in 2013.
11 A. No, you are quite right. This would be in 2009 then. Yes, I
12 am four years out.
13 Q. When the squabble was going on about who was going to be
14 elected.
15 A. I am four years out. It was 2009, you are absolutely correct.
16 Q. It can make a wee bit of a difference, can it not, four years?
17 A. Well —-
18 THE COMMISSIONER: So can we change that to 2009?
19 A. Yes, I apologise.
20 MR. PENNY: That is all right, do not worry.
21 A. It was certainly a year before the Mayoral election. I just
22 got the wrong Mayoral election, you are quite right.
23 Q. Typographical errors can creep into the production of witness
24 statements and so forth. So far as this witness statement is
25 concerned, did you draft it all yourself?
321
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 A. Unfortunately, I did, yes.
3 Q. Each and every paragraph is yours, is it?
4 A. I do not know where this is leading to but, yes, I spent many
5 a weekend at my desk in City Hall drafting and redrafting and
6 paraphrasing and chopping it about, looking for evidence and
7 putting together this gargantuan thing, yes. Is that a
8 problem?
9 Q. It is a question, Mr. Biggs, and you have given me an answer
10 so I am bound by it. As you will know, the rules of evidence
11 establish, all right. Can we move, please, to the statement
12 of Mr. Rahman to which you have made reference. That is in
13 volume R. It is his fourth witness statement at paragraph 85,
14 which is at page 4319. Let me understand this. Are you
15 suggesting that Lutfur Rahman came to your home twice in 2009?
16 A. Have I got the wrong year then? Yes, you are quite right, it
17 must have been 2010. After the Mayoral referendum, there was
18 a short period between the May election and the October
19 election in which the Labour Party attempted to select a
20 candidate. There was one shortlisting meeting, which was then
21 repeated with a second shortlisting meeting. Between that and
22 the point at which Mr. Rahman was placed back on the shortlist
23 following the various legal interventions, he attended my
24 house so it must have been in September or something,
25 August/September 2010 then. For the second time, I have got
322
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 the wrong year. It was 2010.
3 Q. Let us get the chronology clear for his Lordship. The
4 position was that Mr. Rahman was unsuccessful in seeking to
5 get on to the shortlist first time round.
6 A. Yes. S.
7 Q. The processes which the Labour Party had adopted were
8 unlawful, there was a legal challenge and he was then put back
9 on the shortlist.
10 A. I would not agree with that, but those are your words.
11 Q. I think the Labour Party settled the action and paid his
12 costs; is that right?
13 A. They settled the?
14 Q. They settled the action against him and paid his costs.
15 A. I give an account of that in my second witness statement,
16 which is my understanding of what happened.
17 Q. But one way or another, he ended up back on the shortlist.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. He then won the election first time round. In relation to
20 that election, you were second and Mr. Abbas was third.
21 A. This selection, not the election, yes.
22 Q. There was a list and then there was the election proper for
23 the nomination. He was successful in votes. Forgive me, I
24 should make it clear. He is not on the original selection
25 list, he challenges that, he then is on the selection list.
323
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 A. There is another iteration.
3 Q. Go ahead.
4 A. He was rejected, there was a completely fresh panel, he was
5 interviewed again, he was rejected again, he then exercised
6 his right of appeal to something called the Disputes Committee
7 or something — this is all in the appendices to his second
8 statement — and then following that, by whatever route, he
9 received a letter saying that he was on it, then a second
10 letter saying he was not, his lawyers then fired off missives
11 and he was placed back on it.
12 Q. Then there was the election.
13 A. No, there was then the National Executive Committee meeting.
14 Q. I am talking about the votes for who was going to be the
15 candidate.
16 A. The selection?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I am probably using the wrong terminology. All I am trying to
20 establish, as I asked you this morning, is that he was first,
21 you were second and Helal Abbas was third. Then there was
22 intervention from the NEC and you were not made the candidate,
23 but Helal Abbas was, which is what I was asking you about
24 earlier on.
25 A. Yes.
324
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 Q. So far as these meetings are concerned, you say that they took
3 place at your address. I do not want to expose that in court,
4 but that was within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
5 A. It is my wife’s home, yes. It is well-known that it is now
6 her private address, or my ex-wife.
7 Q. Who else was there apart from Mr. Rahman?
8 A. I was thinking about this last night because I read Mr.
9 Rahman’s statement. He said the meeting did not take place.
10 Mr. Rahman was there, Mr. Alibor Choudhury was there, Mr. Ohid
11 Amed was there, Anwar Khan was there and I think there was a
12 fifth person, but I am not too sure who it was. I was there
13 on my own. He had asked that I not have anybody present with
14 me, which I thought was a bit one-sided, but I am a reasonable
15 guy and I accepted that.
16 Q. Did you make a telephone call in 2010 just prior to his court
17 challenge?
18 A. I have no idea. We did attempt to communicate by telephone
19 once or twice in this matter. I think following his election
20 as Mayor, I attended one or two meetings with him at the Town
21 Hall where we talked about the possibilities of
22 reconciliation. In advance of this election, I was quite keen
23 at finding ways of healing things over so we did have
24 conversations.
25 Q. This is before the challenge to his exclusion from the Party
325
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 shortlist. You telephoned him, did you not?
3 A. I have no idea. We were in the business of speaking to each
4 other to maintain —-
5 Q. Look at paragraph 85 of his statement rather than —-
6 A. I have no recollection. We have spoken on the phone in the
7 past, but not for a long, long time. We must have spoken at
8 about this time, but the contents of the conversation which he
9 relays in this statement are not true.
10 Q. So there is no possibility of you having said to him that if
11 he withdrew from the proceedings against the Labour Party, he
12 may have a future in Parliament or the House of Lords?
13 A. I certainly could not have offered him such a future.
14 Q. You see what is in the witness statement, Mr. Biggs. I am
15 just asking you whether such a conversation may or may not
16 have taken place.
17 A. I took this paragraph to mean that, in some way, I had
18 threatened, offered or attempted to cajole him into not
19 challenging something in order to please myself and offered
20 him the inducement that he might get confirmed as a result of
21 that and no such conversation took place.
22 Q. Did you say that senior figures within the Party would come
23 down on him like a ton of bricks?
24 A. I have no recollection of saying that.
25 Q. Is it a possibility?
326
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 A. Okay, I have no recollection of saying that in the context in
3 which it is placed here and I have no recollection of a
4 detailed conversation with him in which we covered these
5 matters. I do not recall that, no.
6 Q. Are you ruling it out?
7 A. I am ruling out that I did not have a conversation with him in
8 which my tone could be construed as threatening. I did not
9 have a conversation with him at which I offered him a seat in
10 Parliament or the House of Lords because they are not within
11 my gift. Even if I wanted to make such an offer, I could not
12 have done so. We did talk during this because it was a
13 stressful time for both of us. We were both mighty pee’d off,
14 I was going to say, that the whole thing had been deferred
15 again and again. It was stressful for every candidate and we
16 did try to maintain civil conversations during it. That was
17 my interpretation of what happened.
18 Q. Was there a telephone conversation in which you invited him to
19 desist from the legal action that he was taking?
20 A. I do not recall such a conversation. I think he may have told
21 me that he was considering legal action, I have no idea. What
22 would I have said in response to that? I do not know.
23 Q. You heard my question. Did you invite him to desist in the
24 legal action that he was taking against the Labour Party?
25 A. You keep asking this question and I am just trying to be
327
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 helpful by trying to remember something that I do not
3 remember. I do not remember having any conversation with him
4 which could be phrased in the fashion in paragraph 85.
5 Q. You keep saying that you cannot remember. I am asking you
6 whether it could have happened or not. In other words, are
7 you ruling this out?
8 A. I am ruling out a conversation in which I threatened him or
9 offered him inducements or tried to encourage him to get out
10 of the way to give me a free field or whatever is insinuated
11 in this paragraph.
12 Q. Are you ruling out a conversation in which you invited him to
13 desist in his legal action against the Labour Party?
14 A. Yes, I am ruling that out. I mean, we may have had a
15 conversation in which he said that he was minded to do that.
16 We might have talked about what that might mean in various
17 guises, but I have no recollection of such a conversation.
18 Q. What would the conversation have been about then? “Oh, John,
19 they have deselected me.” How does it go after that?
20 A. I have no recollection of such a conversation. I am just
21 trying to imagine what would happen if I had a conversation
22 with someone in that position who was a mate of mine. I would
23 say, “Life is not at an end. You could consider a legal
24 challenge. The Party may not support you.” I have no idea
25 what I would have said.
328
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 Q. You were rivals, were you not?
3 A. It is interesting you say that. We are not rivals to the
4 death in my opinion. I have always taken the view that the
5 Labour Party is a fraternal organisation and that we work
6 together and we try to secure candidates and victories. I
7 think my record shows that on occasions when I have lost in
8 the past, I have valiantly endorsed and supported the
9 candidates who have won. At the moment, Lutfur was successful
10 before the NEC suspended him. I held his hand aloft outside
11 the Labour Party office and spoke to the TV cameras with him
12 and put an arm around him and said, “Good on you, mate. I am
13 behind you.” I was very sincere in saying that. It is not
14 quite like a war where one of you has to die at the end of it.
15 It is an adversarial process in which only one of you can win,
16 but hopefully at the end of it, you put away your swords and
17 you work together towards the common good. That is the point
18 of having a political party.
19 Q. In 2010, were you or were you not rivals for the nomination to
20 be the Labour Party candidate in the Tower Hamlets Mayoral
21 election?
22 A. Obviously we were.
23 Q. There was no chance of the words “coming down on you like a
24 ton of bricks” being mentioned in this conversation?
25 A. Shall I read the paragraph again?
329
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 Q. Of course.
3 A. The meetings at my home did not take place. They did take
4 place. All I can say about this is at that the meeting that
5 took place in my home, Mr. Rahman told me that he had a block
6 of votes which he said was of the order of 200 votes — I
7 thought that was rather less than the number of votes at his
8 command — and that he would deploy those in my favour. He
9 wanted me to offer him in return for this an assurance that I
10 would make his nominated candidate the Deputy Mayor if I
11 became Mayor and that I would offer half the places in the
12 cabinet to people from his faction or grouping. I said in
13 response to that in those conversations, misguidedly or
14 otherwise, that what I wanted to do was to try to represent
15 the different factions and interests in the party in the
16 administration of Tower Hamlets in the event that I became the
17 Mayor and that I would certainly consider his nominations, but
18 that was not a reasonable request for him to make.
19 Q. I hope I made it clear that I was asking you about the
20 telephone conversation.
21 A. There was no telephone conversation of the type intimated in
22 this paragraph that I am aware of.
23 Q. None whatsoever?
24 A. We had a telephone conversations. I cannot remember what
25 their content was, but there was certainly no conversation the
330
1 BIGGS – PENNY
2 purpose of which was to threaten and to harry him or to
3 discourage him from standing or making his legal challenge.
4 Q. At this stage, you still wanted to be the candidate, did you
5 not?
6 A. Yes, of course I did.
7 Q. You were none too happy when Mr. Abbas was installed as the
8 candidate.
9 A. By that stage, as I said earlier today, I thought it was a bit
10 of a train wreck, I was weary and battered by the whole
11 process and I thought, “Stuff it” momentarily to myself. Yes,
12 it was my ambition to be the Mayoral candidate and I then went
13 away and here we are today.
14 MR. PENNY: Indeed. Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs.
Trial by Jeory 
Don’t really like/dislike Lufter (Lutfur). But I think the petitioners have cocked this one up since Monday. All that Labour’s doing is Rendezvous-ing and playing their deadwood. They need to rise up and move on. Move away from the Keiths, Abbas’, and Biggs’. Don’t feel sorry for them anymore. They are holding the community at ransom.
So unless the judge is bought like the establishment do/did in Iraq during Saddam’s trial, they don’t stand a chance.
Ted, in your absence, like everyone else, we’ve depended on this guy Sean Rillo Raczka for info.
Ha, well I wouldn’t rely on him and I’m surprised he’s not been pulled up for his courtroom tweets which have to be fair and accurate to gain the privilege he relies on. Plus, he may well be in contempt if he’s not a journalist.
As for what the petitioners are doing (not Labour btw, they’re v v nervous about this case), they have to provide context and history. It’s all building up to the 2014 evidence.
V much wish I could see Mawrey’s facial reactions as all this is presented to him.
I don’t think Tower hamlets politics is advertising itself v well. Let’s put it that way. In that sense at least, this case will serve a good disinfecting service.
I wasn’t aware of Sean Rillo Raczka but on googling him it turns out he appears on the Counterfire website. Counterfire, as some might know, is a breakaway group from the Socialist Rapists Party and is, like its former associates, heavily anti Jewish.
A look at the site today, http://www.counterfire.org, will tell the reader that the whole thing is anti working class Islamophobic plot by the establishment and New Labour to discredit a man and his administration which have brought together all of the communities in Tower Hamlets to defend socialism and deepen and strengthen the class struggle against the neo-capitalist running dogs of Imperialism and White Guardist elements around the Arch class traitor Milibandski who has been un-masked as a secret Zionist who has been plotting with counter revolutionary elements to destroy the revolution even before the revolution as well as those secret anti class elements who posed as supporters of The Dear Leader like the treacherous Meacherists led by Jon Lasmancovitch not forgetting the two faced Livingstonists who might have had too much vodka to find their way to the lap top as well as the revanchist Alan Greenites ( That’s enough sarcasm. Ed).
Further reading of the google entries about Raczka reveals a couple of photos of a young fogy who looks a total prat. There is also some undisclosed scandal of why he was chucked out as Chair of UCU. Any info anyone and where does he live in Tower Hamlets or is this another lie?
I am finding the transcript very hard to read due to all those numbers and broken lines… can you fix it?
agreed – but it’s much easier to read in the real transcript!
Where is the ” real ” transcript “?
Click the link provided by Ted
Azmol Hussain is being dictated by Abbas. Abbas is like furniture (like Keith, just doesn’t go away!). It is a Labour dictated petition. They’re all in it.
Like I said, hope the judge (senior lawyer) isn’t bought.
Cllr Mamun Rashid needed a translator. Why so desperate to get him on as a witness? Azmol and Abbas running the show, let’s not pussyfoot around.
BTW, Azmol has no money to pay lawyers. He has no money. Watch this space. It’s gonna be cringing.
London’s Burning. Could we have that in English? It’s also worth having a look at http://www.facebook.com.thontrial which is run by Raczka. It’s all juvenile stuff, rather like LB, but one thing he has done is to take The Panorama logo and change it slightly. I think he might be hearing from the learned friends before too long.
The link doesn’t seem to work but you can find it through http://www.counterfire.org.
Lets talk about the content of the statement…. from what I can garner:
1. Biggs has written the dates wrong on everything and looks like an idiot in court.
2. Biggs claims Lutfur and his goons came over to this house to do a deal. Rahman says it isn’t so… I can almost here him cooing “it’s untrue”
3. According to Biggs, Lutfur brought Alibor Choudhury, Ohid Amed and Anwar “they’re my toys” Khan to the meeting at his wife’s house which Lutfur says didn’t happen. Is this an opportunity for Anwar to stick in the knife?
4. Lutfur claims that Biggs “threatened” him in a phone call saying that a tonne of bricks and other things could befall upon him if he went ahead and took legal action against being kept off the dreaded Short List. Biggs says he “cannot remember” this conversation.
5. Lutfur ludicrously claims Biggs offered him a seat in Parliament or a peerage if he promised to be good. I am absolutely convinced that Biggs would not have offered something like this because (a) it is obviously far above his station (as well as illegal) to make such an offer, and (b) Lutfur well knows this.
5. At meetings between senior Labour Party politicians in the borough they openly trade “block votes” at secret meetings.
Is there anything else to add? Can we talk about these points now please?
This comment is potentially in contempt. Lutfur has not claimed that Biggs offered him anything, so far as I’m aware.
Would you like to develop that argument? It sounds fascinating.
Q. So there is no possibility of you having said to him that if he withdrew from the proceedings against the Labour Party, he may have a future in Parliament or the House of Lords?
A. I certainly could not have offered him such a future.
Q. You see what is in the witness statement, Mr. Biggs. I am just asking you whether such a conversation may or may not have taken place.
A. I took this paragraph to mean that, in some way, I had threatened, offered or attempted to cajole him into not challenging something in order to please myself and offered him the inducement that he might get confirmed as a result of that and no such conversation took place.
Oldford1 – are you a bit slow or are you just completely in denial?
1) Certainly Biggs comes across as disorganised, no arguments from me there. It is a disgrace that in something as important to his party and to the area that he represents he is so ill prepared and it looks as if he doesn’t care about what is happening. I think after this performance the knives will be out as what I call The Young Guns ” of the party will be looking to challenge him for his London Assembly seat.
All along he has been mealy mouthed on the whole Lutfur affair standing aloof from the actual in fighting and then going for the nomination as Mayor. I think he must now be yesterday’s man and on the way out.
2) It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Lutfur did come to Biggs’ house, after all those of us who have been trying to tell the left about how things are done in Tower Hamlets know this rings true. Decisions are taken in smoke filled front rooms and the table in the restaurant near the kitchen where the owner holds court.
The problem Biggs has is in proving this in the absence of a witness, and Biggs’ problem now in anything he says is that fact that he doesn’t seem to keep a diary and can be several years out on important facts.
3) Whose wife’s house?
4) Why it should be a metric ton I have know Idea but anyway! Once again there is no evidence that this took place and if it did is of little consequence unless provable. I am amazed how, in such an important ongoing affair no body seems to have employed secret recording both audio and visual. The devices are cheap to obtain and simple to operate and even if not admissible in court can be circulated on the net to undermine opponents.
5) Obviously Lutfur lashing our although Biggs may well have done so. A seat in The Lords is of course within the gift of the Labour Party but there isn’t enough money in the job, unless your Baroness Uddin of course. It’s not illegal to make these offers as far as I know.
6) I am surprised that anyone doubts that this goes on and went on. It is part and parcel of Tower Hamlets and other cities and boroughs with a large Asian population. Non Asians have been known to indulge as well hence Tamany Hall.
So what have we so far? Not very much. Yes Biggs came across badly but remember there is no Jury. This isn’t about courtroom drama but the facts. All we know from this days evidence is that Biggs doesn’t keep a diary and gets flustered easily. I can’t see anything else that arose.
The larger question is the damage that this is going to do to Labour at the election. It is safe to say that the demise of the far left in this country began when they got involved with Bangladeshis through Respect.
The left thought that they could manipulate the Bangladeshis but what happened was exactly the opposite. When Bangladeshis decided that the Respect project had gone far enough, they left.
There was a temporary interlude where some returned to the Labour fold and tried to exercise the power that they built up through Respect but when that didn’t work they left and created a new block, Tower Hamlets First, with local business interests and Islamic Forum Europe. This is now also coming apart. I understand that some of Lutfur’s councillors are making overtures to Labour.
Had a number of things not happened Lutfur and co might have got away with it. If he hadn’t been so openly avaricious and had played the game that was certainly a possibility. He could have arranged for few white lefties to have been given seats, why not have some non entities like Stuart Madewell on board to make the thing look multi culti?
He could have sold the old Poplar Town Hall for a decent sum and still made a good profit through his front men but it went for less than a house in adjoining Woodstock Terrace. Result? Loads of adverse publicity.
For Labour on a London and nation wide stage the whole debacle has implications as well. I outline some on Labour Uncut, the post isn’t up yet as they obviously have full time jobs and it can take a while!
Briefly, Labour have a problem with Rahman and Tower Hamlets if the Tories want to exploit it. Rahman is a product of Labour inner city accommodation with Asian power brokers across the country. It could be Rotherham, certain areas of Birmingham, Oldham, Bradford and a dozen other places. Labour were content for generations to allow the Rahmans of the party to do what they liked as long as the vote was turned out.
Rahman and the current mess is a product of that accommodation as well as the fact that elements within the leadership not only allowed him to get away with it in London but supported him and still do against their own leadership.
It is an indictment of Miliband’s weak leadership that he hasn’t sacked Livingstone for his open, if somewhat drunken, support for Rahman. The reason of course is that he dares not because he would face a revolt with London Labour, he can’t have that just before an election so Livingstone gets away with it.
I apologise if I have digressed but I am of the opinion, and have been for some time, that Labour have a credibility problem with what is going on at The High Court and by not dealing with it won’t make it go away.
Labour has got it badly wrong in a number of places.
Rotherham is of course the local authority
* which has been designated as “not fit for purpose” by a report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401125/46966_Report_of_Inspection_of_Rotherham_WEB.pdf
(read a summary – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391331/Rotherham-scandal-The-catalogue-of-council-failings.html)
* where the Council has been described as having “a culture of denial” (remind anybody of anywhere closer to home following a recent report by PwC?)
* where a number of potentially criminal matters have been identified…
* where the Council Leader has resigned and all Members of the Cabinet are to quit too
* where control of the Council is being passed to a team of five Commissioners to be appointed by Pickles. (Any news of the third Commissioner for Tower Hamlets?)
Today I hear that one of the policemen who was being investigated with inappropriate behaviour relating to the scandal infecting Rotherham (and who had been referred to the Police Complaints Commission) has been run over and killed!
It beggars belief what happens when the basic ethics and principles which should govern the conduct of local government politicians and managers get totally lost due to an ever increasing bias influenced by personal ambitions and aspirations.
It’s very clear that serving politicians in far too many areas are far more driven by their own personal interests than by any commitment to serve and protect the local population.
The fact it happens does not make it OK. It’s very, very far from OK.
Let’s put the blame where it lies. Political correctness. Any amount of incompetence and corruption can be covered up by citing the fact that to act might be considered racist.
@ Dave Roberts
You’re a right plonker and speak as you know it all. Almost everything you state is a figment of your imigination, wake up and smell the coffee. Lutfur Rahman is being targeted not because he is corrupt but because it’s politics and shameful local Labour want the power back! Whatever Lutfur has done is nothing new, all of these dirty local politicians have been doing this for decades e.g working with IFE to broker bloc votes, selling buildings for as little as a £1 (did you know the Limehouse Library was sold for £925k and its double the size of poplar town hall which was sold for £875k at the same time). Learn politics!
Read my last post Marc and you will see that I detail how Labour administrations across the country reached accommodations with Asian power brokers in return for votes. I also deal with this on Labour Uncut, the post is up, it’s on the article about something or other being in Labour’s DNA.
Limehouse Library was sold ten years ago, maybe more, at the time of a downturn in the property market and is half the size of Poplar Town Hall. At this time I believe you were a Labour councillor.
Which buildings were sold for a pound?
A vote is currently trading at £20 on the Tower Hamlets Electoral Spot Market.
Aren’t you glad you didn’t join Lutfur?
@ Dave Roberts
That’s why I said you’re plonker. Limehouse Library was sold at the same time by the same agent in 2011 and its double the size of poplar town hall and sold for £925k. Try and get your facts right before blurbing out any nonsense.
Did you know Limehouse Library has a Wikipedia entry?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limehouse_Library
“The local Tower Hamlets council put the building up for sale in a controversial transaction which has subsequently become part of an enquiry into the behavior of mayor Lutfur Rahman.[2] “
Allison Pearson comments on some of the issues raised so far in this article in The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11390257/Voter-fraud.-Animal-abuse.-FGM.-Here.-In-our-country..html
I must confess “In our country” is a phrase I’ve heard used more than a few times in discussions relating to “the ‘goings on’ in Tower Hamlets”.
People simply cannot believe some of the quite ridiculous things that have been proven to have happened or are alleged to have happened, in the name of democracy, in this borough – and wonder how on earth this can happen – in our country.
Correction to my last post. Yes Lutfur did sell the library for well below market price. Compare both sites with that of the former Bangla City cash and carry in Brick Lane which went for £8.4 million after competitive bidding on the open market. The foot print was bigger than the other two but not by much but went for over eight times more.
I am sure you know that one of the shareholder of Bangla City is former councillor Helal Abbas. The site is now being turned into hotel with over 150 bedrooms?
225 bedrooms and I am also one of those making money.
I don’t get your point Ash. Why shouldn’t Mr. Abbas (who is sorely missed by the people of Spitalfields) be a shareholder in a hotel? If you are suggesting wrong doing then you should come out with it and say what you mean. Otherwise don’t make libelous insinuations.