I don’t know if Mayor Lutfur Rahman was a little cold or merely shy when he arrived at court today but whichever PR genius advised him to turn up looking like Inspector Clouseau probably needs sacking.
Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
Apparently, he wasn’t too happy about being photographed and words were exchanged. I’m not surprised, though: he’s been under incredible pressure for the past year or so and the court case would take its toll on anyone.
He has now completed his three-and-a-half day ordeal in the witness stand, and tonight must preside over the Tower Hamlets council’s annual budget making meeting. The man deserves a holiday.
I’ve yet to go through the transcript of today’s proceedings but there were some interesting exchanges yesterday.
I particularly liked this one between the learned colleagues in which Commissioner/Judge Richard Mawrey QC refers to my last blog post:
THE COMMISSIONER: It is late in the day, Mr. Hoar.
MR. HOAR: I am sorry.
THE COMMISSIONER: Despite our best endeavours, the literal temperature has risen considerably.
MR. HOAR: I am sorry. Yes, the literal temperature.
MR. HOAR: Even the famous Mr. Jeory has described it as “the sauna of court 38”.
THE COMMISSIONER: No. I think he was quoting me.
MR. HOAR: He was.
MR. PENNY: I do not know what my learned friend or your Lordship are talking about, I have to say.
THE COMMISSIONER: Apparently, I understand that Mr. Jeory quoted the statement I made that this was “an unofficial sauna”.
MR. PENNY: I see. I was unaware of that. I do not believe that it forms material in the case; at least, I hope not.
MR. HOAR: It does not.
THE COMMISSIONER: I think you may rest assured on that account, Mr. Penny, that saunas will not enter into it further.
MR. PENNY: I am grateful.
The immediately preceding exchange between the petitioners’ barrister Francis Hoar and Lutfur wasn’t nearly as droll.
Q. You can see the effect of your memos from — we have already seen them — 899 onwards, your tame press, the Bangla Mirror, the London Bangla?
A. That is ridiculous, Mr. Hoar.
Q. Your tame press repeating, hook, line and sinker, all your press releases?
A. That is ridiculous, Mr. Hoar.
Q. They are your tame press, are they not?
A. That is a ridiculous suggestion.
Q. The London Bangla is so tame that on the Friday of this trial it called all your enemies “enemies of all British Bangladeshis”, did it not?
A. I have no control over the editorials of any paper, let alone the London Bangla.
Q. You do not need to; they are so far up your — Mr. Rahman, you do not need to, do you?
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Hoar.
MR. HOAR: You do not need to. I apologise.
A. Come on, Mr. Hoar. Come on.
Q. I apologise. You do not need to do that?
A. It is not necessary, Mr. Hoar. Come on.
Q. You do not need to do that, because they are —-
A. They are all independent organisations.
Q. I am sorry. I am sorry.
A. They run stories that concern the borough, Mr. Hoar. I have no control over any one of them; nor do I suggest to them what they should be writing.
Q. You see other responses to this. A man named Oliur Rahman — not your councillor — saying, “Why vote for a racist fascist when there is Mayor Lutfur making TH prosper?”
A. Mr. Hoar, I do not even known who this Oliur Rahman is, and I do not control people doing what they do, Mr. Hoar.
Q. You do not control him. You do control Councillor Rabbani. You do not control Councillor Rabbani either, but Councillor Rabbani is a close associate of yours, is he not?
A. I do not control anyone. They are all intelligent, capable, independent people.
Q. Before I go on, there is one matter that I need to put to you. In 2010, during the period when you were off the shortlist for Mayor of Tower Hamlets candidature, you visited John Biggs, did you not?
A. Absolutely not. I made it clear in my statement.
Q. You did it late at night?
A. When you have finished, Mr. Hoar, I want to come in, please.
Q. I am just putting it to you. You can accept it or deny it. I suggest you visited him late at night?
A. Absolutely not. I was trying to get on the shortlist. I had my aspirations. I was working away. I was in litigation with the Labour Party to get on the shortlist. I was advised I had a good chance of success. Why will I go to Mr. Biggs’ house?
Q. You offered a block of your votes?
A. I have no block vote. I worked very hard to get selected. I worked very hard to get elected as a councillor —-
Q. And did you so —-
A. As a mayor twice. Mr. Hoar, can I finish?
Q. Yes.
A. I worked very hard. I knocked on every single member’s door during the selection process.
Q. You did so for a guarantee of positions of influence?
A. I would never do that. It makes an illogical suggestion. When I am fighting, when I am spending money, when I am in litigation of the Labour Party, and it is about two, three days down the line, when I have got this hearing in court, in the High Court, and I mean, (unclear) conversations with the Labour Party — and I would do this? I would never do something like this.
Q. You also have lied in your witness statement, when you say that Mr. Biggs telephoned you and spoke about membership of the House of Lords; that is a complete fabrication, is it not?
A. Mr. Hoar, it was about 8-ish in the evening, and whilst I was getting in my car I received a phone call from Mr. Biggs. As I set out in my statement, I was very surprised. I was very surprised I had received a phone call just a few days before the actual hearing, first being nice to me, finding out how I am, being really sweet to me, and encouraging me not to proceed and to take the party to court.
Q. Why is it you think that Mr. Biggs would have any influence over nominations by Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband, whoever it was, to the House of Lords?
A. Mr. Biggs, Mr. Biggs, listen — sorry. Mr. Hoar, if I wasn’t on the shortlist, the way the shortlist was, Mr. Biggs very well knew he was the clear front runner or the mayoral candidature, and I did not say that he said he would give me a Lordship. He said I have a future, I have a future. I haven’t got the statement out with me. I have got a future in the Labour Party, I have got a future going forward in Parliament or in the House of Lords; and his comments were I should really reconsider whether I would take the party on like this; and when I refused to his suggestions, Mr. Hoar, he started to threaten me, threaten me. Now, why would I lie over that? He made that to me.
Q. Mr. Rahman, you have done nothing but lie in the course of your evidence today, yesterday and on Friday?
A. That is absolutely, absolutely untrue.
Q. You would not know the truth if it slapped you in the face, would you, Mr. Rahman?
A. Mr. Hoar, absolutely untrue. You can suggest that as much as you like. I am here. My future, my future, my whole future is in the hands of my Lordship.
Q. That is why —-
A. I am out here. I would not throw away, I would not throw away my future, the future of the hard work, my hard work over the last 10, 15 years on something as silly as that, Mr. Hoar.
And then earlier in the day, we had the following discussion between Lutfur and Francis Hoar (with an intervention by the Mayor’s QC, Duncan Penny). It relates to my report here of a rowdy full council meeting in December 2010.
Q. Can I take you to [p]1529. 1528 is where it starts. This is a blog, frankly, by Ted Jeory, who is known to everyone in this room, or at least known by his writing.
MR. PENNY: He is not known to me.
MR. HOAR: He crops us whenever Tower Hamlets is discussed. Anyway, I am just going to ask you whether he has got the picture right about one of the council meetings. I think it is the correct council meeting. It is the one on 29th of the 11th, because you see “December 11th”. There wouldn’t have been a council meeting between those two events. He describes this, because you say, “Oh, this is a council meeting, and this is how council meetings are.” Can I just take you to an example of that, which is at 1528, where you see a description of Shiraz Haque and then you see a description of something that Shiraz Haque balled out, so Mr. Jeory writes, “In your presence.” He says: “One mayor, one borough, he will do everything he likes. P, to get out of11 the borough, you can rent one of my flats. Peter, are you going on a honeymoon with Jim Fitzpatrick. (Heckling) I can get you a better rate of interest if you invest in me.” That’s one of the examples of the council meeting and it’s a council meeting that’s what happens.
A. Total rubbish.
Q. You say that that didn’t happen?
A. Total rubbish.
Q. So Ted Jeory when he wrote that was lying about it, was he?
A. I don’t know what Ted Jeory was saying, Mr. Hoar. I have never missed a full council.
Q. No, you haven’t.
A. Those kind of comments have never been made.
Q. So you are saying that Ted Jeory has lied about a council meeting a few days later to, what, entertain his readers?
A. Ted Jeory has said a lot of things over the last 10 years, Mr. Hoar, and I’m not going to comment on those, but attributing those to a member in public, I am sure that Mr. Golds would have been the first one to complain and officers would have investigated.
Q. It is one thing, Mr. Rahman, to say that you don’t agree with Mr. Jeory, but it is another to say that he’s a liar. Which of those is it?
A. I am saying that I was on the rostrum, there were others on the rostrum, too, and I don’t believe anyone else heard those comments being made. So what Mr. Jeory said is up to him.
Q. No, no. That’s not what you are saying.
A. I am.
Q. He has reported a meeting at which he was present, and he has given direct quotes to one of your supporters. You have said that those things were not said at all because your memory of that particular meeting is now rather good.
A. No, no. I am saying to you that I have not heard those comments being made at a public meeting. If they were made, I am sure the chief executive or the monitoring officer would have picked it up. I am sure that Mr. Golds would have put in a complaint and someone would have investigated.
Q. Oh, you’re sure that Mr. Golds would have put in a complaint?
A. That’s what he does. He always puts in a complaint.
Q. This is what you are saying, is it not? You are saying that Ted Jeory was lying about what happened in that meeting?
A. I’m not saying that. It is for Mr. Ted Jeory to say. It is for him to say.
Q. There are only two conclusions, Mr. Rahman, aren’t there? He does not say that this was said sotto voce, very quietly at the back of the meeting. He said that it was shouted out. You have professed to have a good memory of it, and you say that that didn’t happen. So what you are doing is accusing Ted Jeory of lying, aren’t you?
A. That’s what you are saying. I am saying that I don’t know what Mr. Ted Jeory had in mind and what he said. It is up to him. What I am saying is that I didn’t hear those comments being made and I am sure officers, or Mr. Golds, would have picked it up if those comments were made.
Q. During that outburst, you said absolutely nothing, did you?
A. I am sitting there, as a mayor, making my statement, as I do, and I am there. It is not for me to control the public gallery. It is for officers to control that.
Q. These are your supporters, aren’t they?
A. They are supporters of various parties who attend the public gallery.
The full transcript, including a very interesting account of the alleged racism by the ruling Liberal party in the early Nineties is available here.
Lutfur denies all accusations made against him. The hearing continues tomorrow.
Trial by Jeory 
I take it the Oliur Rahman he doesn’t know is the same person who is his deputy Mayor?
Different
Well he certainly didn’t knock on my door during the selection!
He had a list and you’re the wrong religion.
Thanks guys! When I get so many thumbs up it restores my faith in human nature!
I think that Mr Hoar is a bit of nutcase, I have been reading up on this case and I just don’t get some of his questioning. Where is all the evidence on voter fraud? Why is he doing what PWC has only done few months ago. This case is supposed to be about election fraud.
To be fair Ted, I trust what you heard and wrote but I think it’s also unfair to claim that a person sitting on the rostrum could of heard it so clearly. They were also engaged in the meeting so may have not taken an interest in the ranting of some crazy person.
Yes
Is it alleged that The Curry King of Brick Lane is a crazy person? Outrageous. The man is a pillar of the community if a somewhat financially embarrassed one. He has had to unload his interest in the block of flats and the MacDonalds in Commercial Road E1 of which he was the freeholder.
He has also had to go into business with a couple of Turkish gentlemen in his former Clifton restaurant at 1 Whitechapel Road at the junction with Osborn St.
If he loses the Mela festival he is in serious trouble. Any news on who decides who gets the franchise for that?
On your last point that is!
Your the nutcase Ash.
@ Dave Roberts
And why may I ask that you feel that I am a nutcase? At least I am on the subject and not like Mr Hoar, who needs take notes from Peter Golds (who is not even a petitioner or his client)
@Ash. Peter Golds knows when Lutfur is telling porkies on issues of fact. Mr Hoar – being someone who lives in the real world and has not been following the minutiae of the council for years on end – doesn’t necessarily know, although he seems to have worked out quickly that it is “when Lutfur’s lips move”. The notes will keep flowing, so keep on moaning.
This is a general warning for all comments on these threads. I won’t accept anything that implies guilt on any part. These are live proceedings. Keep comments restricted to the methods and atmosphere, not evidence. Thanks
There is a lot more to making a case than just the facts or proof of fraud (as important as that is) Both QC’s have spent significant amounts of time trying to convince the commissioner that the character of the witness is not good and therefore not necessarily reliable.
Its a complex case!
Amazed that Mr Penny was unaware of Ted or his blog. Mr Hoar should’ve used the recorded ‘black cardigans’ and the lack of response by the Mayor. Or, maybe that’s for tomorrow!
Oh am sure he was being legalese.
Black cardigans was in the transcript either Monday or Tues.
Yes, you’re right. That was in the John Biggs part earlier.
Perhaps, someone could ask – maybe Mr Mawrey could ask it – why Murziline Parchment is presently on leave from the council, but had time on Monday to go to the High Court to talk with Lutfur in the morning break, then went over to Pret on the Strand at lunch to hold court with Gulam Robbani, Maium Miah and others.
@ The Acting Sead of Haid Service
Clearly this is all a personal agenda and not really supported by TH residents. Almost everybody involved in this case is political, so to claim that it’s about democracy and transparency is complete nonsense. The fact is the election was run properly and Lutfur won fair and score, like him or hate him that’s the truth. So hopping for a miracle and blaming everyone, the Police, Council and the Election Commission just goes to prove how ridiculous these sore loser can be.
Regardless of what we think of Lutfur, any honest decent person that voted in last May’s mayoral election will agree that the elections were held properly without any intimidation or fraud. Anyway, the truth always prevail and I beileve justice will be done when the courts find this entire case misleading and a waste of time.
Quite clearly not everyone believes what you say to be the truth so how do you know it to be so and how well do you know the Mayor to be able to vouch for his character?
No – this case would never have come to Court if it could be clearly established as a fact that “the election was run properly”
The High Court does NOT allow people to run personal agendas and harass people with court cases unless they have a reasonable chance of success.
The fact that this case got on the list of the Electoral Court means that there is sufficient doubt to make a proper legal investigation by the Court adviseable.
BTW – you might like to read the Electoral Commission’s report on the conduct of the election. They also did not agree that the election was conducted properly.
You can repeat your views all you like – but the only ones that count are those views held by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Court (by the end of this case).
What has anything you write got to do with Murziline Parchment going on the sick, but being well enough to go brief Lutfur in the High Court, then brief Maium Miah and Gulam Robbani in a Pret a Manger?
I’d remind you coaching a witness is illegal, even if you think Lutfur’s clean as a (dog?) whistle.
I must disagree – what I saw when I went in to vote still upsets me today. It may have been a “one off” but I have lost faith in tower hamlets to run a free and fair election. To be clear, a man complained that a woman had put the “x” in the wrong box. The council officer advised the man that she can cross it out and put the “x” in the right box. That paper was adjusted (the man directing the women) and the vote was cast. I don’t know who the vote was for
What a load of tripe. Try taking your head out of the sand and speaking sense. You are either deluded, stupid, just as guilty as these criminals or all three!
Probably carrying messages.
As to your last paragraph the reason the whole thing is happening is because there is evidence that the elections were not held without intimidation and fraud. You obviously missed that bit.
@ Dave Roberts
Are you ok mate? You seem to bark at any comment that remotly says anything positive about Lutfur. You may have a personal agenda against him but 35,000 voters of Tower Hamlets still voted for him. I bet you will say something negative and claim they are all fraudulent votes!
Ash,
I think that’s rather the point though, isn’t it? Whether 35,000 people did vote for Rahman or not. The court case in question is trying to find that out.
Tim.
Nice one Tim – some people don’t seem to understand what this court case is about!
The barrister for the petitioners is play acting. Calling Lutfur a liar was never going to advance his case, but he wants to be seen to be aggressive because he is being paid to be so. If he had anything relative to ask he wouldn’t need to be such a mean geezer.
I don’t know if you have the same pull as Livingstone Dan, but you should be expelled from Labour for these quotes.
I’m just amazed that anybody who has delegated so much, can answer so few questions properly and remembers so little can justify his role as Mayor.
“The rationale for elected mayors – and for separate executives in local authorities more generally – was to make it clearer to councillors and public alike where the responsibility for a particular decision lay”
House of Commons Library Note on Directly Elected Mayors
Standard Note: SN/PC/5000
Last updated: 22 October 2014
Author: Mark Sandford
Section: Parliament and Constitution Centre
That’s not a comment on guilt – that’s a comment on competence.
Competence is also one of the issues here. As Ted pointed out somewhere else here one of Lutfur’s Cllrs required an interpreter after ten years as serving on a council and taking ten grand a year in expenses
Which one can only assume means he that it’s also at least possible that he could not read the paperwork for the issues and matters that he was voting on? Has this been checked?
Of course you don’t need to be able to see to read to be a Councillor or an MP – those who are blind get audio transcripts. Those who are deaf get braille versions and signers for meetings.
However if you don’t understand the language either in terms or audio or visual how can you possibly claim to be able to discharge all your obligations and responsibilities?
Can I just be clear – are those voting down my last statement saying it is perfectly OK for Councillors to be voting on matters affecting the lives of people in Tower Hamlets despite the fact that
1) they cannot read English and
2) do not understand English when it is spoken and need translators
3) are wholly dependent on others for translation of what is being written and said – who may or may not have political interests of their own?
Could somebody please explain how exactly they are supposed to meet with and represent the English-speaking constituents of their ward – who they are supposed to represent – if they cannot talk to them?
I’m not a UKIP supporter but if Nigel Farage were to come up with a suggestion that an English Language Test should be a mandatory requirement of anybody seeking to represent the people of this country I should imagine that proposal might secure more than a few extra votes in Tower Hamlets!
Personally speaking I’m very much at one with Sir Robin Wales, the Mayor of Newham, when it comes to matters relating to language http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24146572
The following are quotes from The East London Advertiser of this morning.
” Lutfur Rahman’s ‘whole future is’ is in a High Court judge’s hands, he has said after being accused of lying in a dramatic hearing”.
” You have done nothing but lie”, said barrister Francis Hoar. ” You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face”.
Mayor Rahman said on Friday that he had been advised by the borough’s chief legal officer that answering questions about his responsibilities in the council chamber could breach his human rights. Judge Mawrey called the claim ” surprising”. Yes, it is just a little surprising, isn’t it?
Is that legal officer the same Murzeline Parchment who was seen in conference with some of Lutfur and his crew and who is it seems on leave, presumably with pay, from the council? Isn’t this a breach of something or other or are there so many beaches that it just doesn’t matter now?
It’s occurred to me more than once that there might well be a case for a Law Society investigation of the conduct of the former Head of Legal Services and some of the advice she offered while in post at Tower Hamlets.
No the Legal Officer was Isabella Freeman
https://trialbyjeory.com/2013/08/29/bye-bye-isabella-freeman-shes-off-to-quangoland/
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/council_legal_chief_isabella_freeman_begins_tribunal_case_against_tower_hamlets_1_2175051
What I meant was what is the position of Parchment now in relation to this action. Has she taken time off to flit between the court and Pret getting the story straight? Because if she is she is in breach of lots of things, some of them criminal.
A call to the Mayor’s off a few minutes ago say that her position is ” Head of Mayor’s Office”. As a council employee should she be taking time off to, quite obviously, assist Rahman in what is, so I understand, a private matter? If she is then it seems he is allowed to use the resources of Tower Hamlets for his defense. Does anyone know what the actual legal situation is. In criminal trials it is an offense to inform or coach witnesses waiting to give evidence.
See if you can bring this up. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100186830/murziline-parchment-lutfur-rahmans-very-unconvincing-chief-crony/
If that doesn’t work just google Gilligan and Parchment.
The legal situation is that people can do whatever they like in their time off.
We’re not living in a police state yet.
Look forward to reading your thoughts on any potential witness appearance by Simon Woolley – who has already been mentioned in court.
But is she taking time off? That was the question was it not?
What’s Simon Woolley got to do with all this? Has he had money from Lutfur as well? The plot thickens.
Who were you talking to here Marc?
Witness coaching is not an offence in its own right. The consequences of engaging in such activity can leave all parties open to accusations of perverting the course of justice. The coached witness risks prosecution under perjury statues while the coach, be it a solicitor or barrister, risks being in breach of his/her code of conduct.
This is a bit like saying witness intimidation isn’t an offence in it’s own right. What I think you mean is, is it an offence at all?
The rules for criminal and civil jurisdictions are, as far as I know, more or less the same. The object of the tribunal is to arrive at the truth. If witnesses conspire to falsify evidence that can of course be done before. The problem is what happens under cross examination especially with such flakey people as Lutfur and crew.
It could be that one of the witnesses totally screws up the evidence and the other in Pret have to be informed so as to adjust their version. If this is what is going on then it’s criminal, no ifs or buts. I think we should be told!
The situation you describe constitutes an offence under perjury statues as I previously said. There is no offence of witness coaching.
Witness Intimidation is an offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 5.
You couldn’t make it up. Yes that was the question. An Asian journalist friend of mine has asked the council’s press department some questions about this and I’ll post later what he has found out.
This should be read in conjunction with http://www.trialbyjeory.com/2012/10/24/murzeline-parchments-application-to-be-ceo-of-tower-hamlets/
Thinking that Tower Hamlets would more readily respond to enquiries from an Asian journalist I got one, a friend of mine, to ask some questions of the Orwellistically named ” Communication ” department of Tower Hamlets some questions. I was wrong it turned out, the hatches have been battened down.
Bear in mind the name of the department, not press but communications. He asked a number of questions about Ms Parchment.
Was she still employed by the council? Was her reported absence from her duties at the Town Hall correct? What was or were the reason/reasons for her absence? Would they like to comment on her reported presence at The Royal Courts of Justice and Pret a Manger in The Strand talking to people who appeared to be witnesses in the current judicial enquiry into possible electoral malpractices in Tower Hamlets?
All fairly innocuous questions that any journalist might be entitled to ask about such a highly paid council official who seemed to be absent from her duties. Not so. Commdept wanted to know about my friend and asked a number of questions about his journalism, which papers and other outlets he had written for, his mobile number etc.
Eventually, it seems they have heard of The Press Trust of India, they decided he was who he said he was and gave this detailed answer. ” Thank you for clarifying which media outlet you represent. The council does not comment on individual members of staff”. This was from Raju Miah. 0207 364 4940 07984 276583.
There you have it members of the jury. What is going on? There are a number of issues here that need to be answered by somebody, maybe old ford1 can help.
What exactly are the duties of The of Mayor’s Office? When Parchment’s appointment was made what was the job description? What exactly is she doing flitting back and forth across The Strand talking to people who are possible witnesses? And that’s just for starters! Feel free to add your own questions.
Maybe get one of the Councillors to ask the same question? Communications Dept. should’t be able to fob them off.
Or failing that why not write direct to one of the Commissioners?
Who says they are to be witnesses? They haven’t given evidence so far.
If councillors read this then they should be asking those questions.
Ted can you give the link? As with ones from Gilligan on Ms Parchment it doesn’t connect.
Did Alibor ever bring that “back of an envelope” constitution, minutes of meetings, accounts, finance information, alibi for Lutfur, etc, to court as promised? Has Alibor given evidence? Can we have a transcript of that PLEASE
A question. If the process that GM has referred to didn’t take place does that invalidate Tower Hamlets First as a political party?
…and/or did they misrepresent themselves as a “party” to the electorate?
If you don’t have a written constitution, don’t have a bank account, don’t have proper officers as required by law, don’t have elections, don’t have anything written down re. records does the Party even exist? Or is it just a “party of convenience”?
Apprently you do if you are Tower Hamlets First. They think they are above the law Oh!!!! I do hope that someone shuts them down
Alibor is giving evidence today. He has produced the TH First Constitution, registration and financial details for the court.
Any dates on those documents? I think they were asked for them in advance of the court case but I’m not clear whether they supplied copies to the plaintiff’s barrister when asked?
Anybody know?
They do have a constitution. LR admitted on Monday that he had signed it and apologised to The Commissioner.
However, they don’t have a bank account. Is this permissible?
Alibor is on the stand being questioned about candidate selection process.
@marcashdown will be at RCJ later today and his unbiased tweets may be available.
Why did he apologise to the Commissioner and about what? It is impossible to determine the party’s accounts without a bank account and what this does, if it is true, is to further discredit, and I use that word loosely, all of the evidence of Lutfur’s side.
From the previous Friday:
‘Marc Ashdown (@marcashdown) tweeted at 2:42 pm on Fri, Feb 20, 2015:
Judge intervenes: “You paid registration fee. You know legally you must have a constitution”.
LR: “We don’t have one. Maybe a memorandum?”’
LR apologised for the above.
Thanks AYM. This is now one for the constitutional lawyers. If they weren’t a party then the whole election was null and void. If Rahman is still a solicitor he could find himself disciplined or struck off at the very least, never mind criminal charges.
I spoke yesterday to a former Labour councillor who has given evidence of leaflets circulated by Rahman’s side about their family. The leaflets were from an anonymous ” concerned ” citizens group but the evidence was allowed.