John Biggs outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday
A quick update: (With further updates added this afternoon after the official announcement).
A sub-committee of Labour’s NEC met yesterday to discuss the selection of their candidate for the forthcoming post- and ex-Lutfur mayoral election next month.
A Tower Hamlets selection panel then met in the evening with the authority to select a candidate. This panel comprised representatives of the local party and the regional board.
I understand that John Biggs was the only name out forward for selection and that Cllr Rachael Saunders decided not to accept a very rushed and last minute invitation to attend an interview.
So John is once again Labour’s choice.
This is what he said this afternoon
I am delighted to have been confirmed as Labour’s candidate. Tower Hamlets must now move on from the divisive politics of Lutfur Rahman and his disgraced regime of corruption and mismanagement.
We need leadership that is once again open and accountable and restores the trust of the people we’re here to serve. I want to put the council back on everyone’s side.
Only Labour can beat Lutfur Rahman’s candidate in Tower Hamlets. My focus will be to restore confidence and to serve local families, addressing the big issues and great opportunities we face in our borough – on affordable housing, on education, on safety and most of all helping build a better future for everyone in Tower Hamlets.
Some on the NEC committee believe this is the law of natural justice and that technically the May 2014 does not now exist in law.
There was also some discussion this morning about what went wrong from Labour’s point of view last May. One of the main concerns was that the campaign was something of an ill-discplined shambles and it lacked proper leadership.
When you think about it, given what was at stake last year, that’s a bit surprising. So John will now be surrounded by heavyweight party officials until polling day on June 11.
I think he’s also going to need a decent running mate who’s better able to communicate with and more popular with the Bengali community.
Labour will treat this as a parliamentary by-election so there will be masses of foot soldiers from outside the borough arriving to pound the streets and knock on doors for the next seven weeks. Lucky Tower Hamlets.
It’s inevitable the turnout will be lower than last time because there will be no other elections on that day. When this happened in October 2010, Lutfur walked it. This is a real worry for Labour, even without the worry of facing ‘great man’ (as Richard Mawrey QC mocked him).
I need someone to advise me on this: if Lutfur does go for judicial review, and judging from this tweet from legal expert David Allen Green/Jack of Kent…
Given the findings of fact, and given #Rahman cannot appeal on points of fact only of law, difficult to see how decision can be challenged.
— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 23, 2015
…that would seem unwise, would there be an automatic injunction on the election? My understanding is that nothing can interfere with an election once it has been called. So could we have a new mayor elected by the time that JR is complete?Were Lutfur to succeed in the JR, surely he would be reinstated as the mayor elected in May 2014.
I know Tower Hamlets is a parallel universe, but having two mayors is a bit too much like Doctor Who.
Which brings us to the Tory candidate for Mayor. Dr Anwara Ali, a GP in Brick Lane and a former Labour councillor from 2006-10, is putting herself forward for the post. The Tories have yet to decide how to play it. One Labour source has even speculated to me that Peter Golds may be asked to run.
But Anwara is very keen. This is what she sent me:
As a married, mum of one child, GP cum international business women and ex Council Cabinet member, I believe I am well-placed to be the unity Conservative Mayoral candidate for fragmented Tower Hamlets communities. I have always put my British foot forward – because that is my only foot & first identity – that is who I am.
I believe in families, hard work and a prosperous TH and UK. Religion and ethnicity are personal and I confine them to my home. I have never used them as electrol weapon and will not do so in future. Labour ruled TH for 50+ years and divided whites and blacks into Muslims and non-Muslims.
Lutfur, a creation of Labour and a true disciple of Labour, took it to the extreme. British justice has won the day. Would you disagree if I said that Labour Party still continues to use divisive politics in many parts of the country where there are large ethnic concentrations?
I spoke on this matter at a Conservative conference fringe meeting. The media must also move away from stereotypes – you are the eyes and consciousness of society: you must critique candidates on meritocracy.
You must not look at ethnicity as a unifying essential. It is a Conservative party that delivered UK out of a recession and TH needs an experienced politician but also one with a fresh outlook to deliver unifying non divisive and a healthy local government.
I quite like the tone of that. Former Respect and Tory councillor Ahmed Hussain is also likely to put his name forward.
So who will the discredited Tower Hamlets First ‘party’ stand? They’re already squabbling. Four names have been mentioned to me: Acting Mayor Oli Rahman, former deputy mayor Ohid Ahmed, Cllr Rabina Khan, and G(h)ulam Robbani. All four would keep the auditors happy.
I don’t know what Ukip will do: Nick McQueen ran last time but he’s busy fighting a parliamentary seat in the borough at the moment.
It looks as if it’s going to be very messy and divided for quite some time to come.
Might it not be better for the sensible figures from all parties create a rainbow coalition that tries to lance the boil from Tower Hamlets politics? I suppose that would require Biggs running alone with the blessing of the Tories. Biggs could state that Peter Golds would be his deputy mayor.
He could even offer a cabinet seat to one of Lutfur’s crew.
Ok, ok, I need a lie down.
Trial by Jeory 
I’m not a lawyer.
Judicial Review (‘JR’) is a two or three stage process.
1. The complete case is scrutinised by a judge of some sorts – might be a deputy or even a temporary deputy or a proper judge. The case has to be considered arguable meaning it must genuinely have raise concerns about something that has happened prior AND has a reasonable/good chance of success.
2. If it passes stage 1 the matter can be decided “on the papers” without a full hearing in court or a full court hearing can happen.
3. If it fails to pass stage 1 scrutiny the applicant has an opportunity to orally persuade a judge that the application has genuine merits.
4. Stage 1A is the oral hearing of the application. The results are
(a) dismissal of the application;
(b) acceptance of the case for subsequent determination “on the papers” or at a proper hearing; or
(c) a final decision in favour of the application.
The instant the Admin Court, part of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court, thinks the application has a genuine prospect of success it can issue an order stopping or delaying the election although this, to my non-lawyer knowledge, has not been done in my lifetime. I think this is unlikely.
If the applicant does not include a request for a election delay the court would normally not consider a delay. One has to ask the court for what the court has the power to give – something often lost on some professional lawyers.
A legal debate would ensure on whether, and in what circumstances, a judge can stop an election. Its not in the out-of-date election laws of England. Probably go the Supreme Court and that means a determination long AFTER election day.
When considering an Order for a delay, the Court or single judge scrutinising the original application will very obviously read the Election Commissioner’s judgement AND consult with other judges and the full-time legal advisers in the Admin Court’s office.
Not having yet read the entire judgement, I have not formed an opinion of the extent of the hanky-panky. However I think any judge could be extremely reluctant to intervene in an election process bearing in mind the damaging determination of the High Court hearing into the Election Petition.
An attempt to the Court of Appeal would be heard by probably 3 judges because of the serious nature of the attempt to effectively stop an election – if the Court of Appeal agreed to hear the case – BUT being realistic, Mr Rahman would first need to overturn the judgement against him to have any prospect of success.
Summary: No chance of stopping the election unless a miracle happens. If Mr Rahman is hauled out of his bed at 06:00 am for questioning, the prospects would be even bleaker.
In the Birmingham case, one of the six councillors whose election was declared void took a JR and succeeded (Muhammad Afzal: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/647.html). The byelection for his replacement went ahead as scheduled, after the JR judgment had been given.
=> David Boothroyd
That was a case of mistaken identity – Afzal was not at the warehouse when the police visited and his car was not parked outside either.
CC.
The judgement was fairly appeal-proof. JR is unlikely.
Lutfur is finished he has no route back. To get leave to appeal when you have lost on 7/9 areas of the trial? No chance
I’d like to see John Biggs have Sirajul Islam as a running mate. The most competent councillor I have ever come across and a lovely person
I’ve now updated this post to add in John Biggs’s quotes and to report that Ahmed Hussain is likely to try and stand for the Tories. I’ve also corrected the timing of the NEC meeting and selection process.
Since the Electoral Commissioner stated:
From those decisions, particularly the decisions above on the issue of general corruption under s 164, it follows that the court will have to report that ‘corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election in the area of the authority for which the election was held.’ Given the nature of THF as a ‘party’ and the reality of its control by Mr Rahman, this means that the election of all THF Councillors must be taken to have been achieved with the benefit of the corrupt and illegal practices found by this judgment to have been committed. ”
If they had been named in the petition they would have been banned.
Surely NONE of the THF Councillors can morally stand for Mayor? Or, I’d this something they will ignore etc…
Its the Election Commissioner.
Serious point
Unless banned as a result of the Election Petition hearing, or other laws (which means after a criminal trial), despite whatever election corruption one is involved in, there is nothing in the law to prevent one contesting elections.
Mawrey’s statement (as you quoted above)
is not a legal impediment to those who have NOT been banned by the judge, from contesting elections as a candidate.
Welcome to the unfit-for-purpose Law of England (and Wales of course).
Yes, I agree. However, The Electoral Commission has been shown to be remiss in its acceptance of THF as a bone fide political party, with irregularities in its officers and the titling of officers, a lack of transparency in its finances and the basic recording of transactions including donations, and also fundamentally in its lack of a proper constitution. The EC now has a duty to investigate these matters and decide if THF can continue to field candidates under its name. I doubt THF will be allowed to continue as a political party given the clear differences between the financial accounts filed with the EC and the evidence that was adduced in the recent case. If a member of THF tried to stand as a candidate, they might not be able to use the THF label and this would significantly reduce their chances of success.
We have a truly crazy situation, where we know that neither the Deputy Mayor nor the remaining THF councillors should be in office (since they’ve been elected with the benefit of illegal practices), but since they were not named in the petition against Lutfur nobody can force them to resign.
Unless someone starts a new election petition naming them- any takers?
This is only because the Mayoral and Council elections were run concurrently, not necessarily because all of these councillors committed any illegal acts. But some of them did, and they are still in office…
=> Monja
Unfortunately due to England’s out-of-date and unfit-for-purpose election laws, you are out-of-time. Any legal challenge should have been done within (I’m too tired to look it up) 4 or 6 weeks of the election AND then by 4 registered votes within the area having the election.
1, 2 or 3 voters or someone from outside the election area would be insufficient.
Curious Cat
Notice has to be given within 21 days of the date of the election – according to Andy Erlam, speaking on Radio 5 Live http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r6kq6 – starts about 11:30 minutes in
http://lovewapping.org/2015/04/time-to-rid-our-borough-of-the-tower-hamlets-first-virus/
LoveWappjng’s letter to the Electoral Commissioner.
‘Monday 27th April 2015
Dear Electoral Commissioner
As a resident of Tower Hamlets and registered voter I wish to make a formal complaint against all Tower Hamlets First Councillors elected in the May 2010 local councillor elections.
These Councillors are:
Councillor Ohid Ahmed (Lansbury)
Councillor Suluk Ahmed (Spitalfields & Banglatown)
Councillor Mahbub Alam (St Dunstan’s)
Councillor Shah Alam (Mile End)
Councillor Shahed Ali (Whitechapel)
Councillor Abdul Asad (Whitechapel)
Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury (Poplar)
Councillor Shafiqul Haque (Bethnal Green)
Councillor Aminur Khan (Whitechapel)
Councillor Rabina Khan (Shadwell)
Councillor Abjol Miah (St Peter’s)
Councillor Harun Miah (Shadwell)
Councillor Md. Maium Miah (Canary Wharf)
Councillor Mohammed Mufti Miah (Bromley North)
Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim (St Peter’s)
Councillor Oliur Rahman (Stepney Green)
Councillor Gulam Robbani (Spitalfields & Banglatown)
One of the reasons for this complaint is contained in paragraph 635 of the judgement by Mr Mawrey QC delivered in the High Court on Thursday 23rd April 2014 regarding the challenge to the Mayoral election in Tower Hamlets held on 22 May 2014.
This and the following paragraphs are quoted below: …’
Dream on with your deputy mayor idea.
I just wish the political parties would propose someone decent and neutral – an anyone but the idiots candidate. It would be good if the Tories and Liberals etc did not field a candidate so people can unite around Biggs just so we get some semblance of normality.
Even better, maybe the government could pass a Tower Hamlets Act and abolish the borough or put the army in charge or something.
Well, maybe not the army… but we need sensible mainstream politics urgently and other parties to put aside their differences for the sake of decency and enable THF/IFE/Respect to be defeated soundly.
I’d definitely be in favour of a Coalition Community approach. Leader from one party and Deputy from another.
Build a prison next to the biggest polling station. Call the new prison HMP Tower Hamlets Corruption. Put a note in the window “Cells reserved for bent politicians”.
Grave Maurice – in 2014 the Labour Party came down to the Isle of Dogs, Wapping and so on, and said to a hell of a lot of Tory voters, you must vote Labour on all ballot papers, Euros Mayor and councillors, to get rid of Lutfur Rahman. A lot of Tory voters were fooled by this. Hence a first class Tory councillor like Glo Thienel lost her seat to a little Labour squit.
In the circumstances why ought the Tories step aside for Labour? It is an AV election so there is always the second preferences of Tory voters, but even then why should the Tories call for second preferences for Labour, when Labour lied to Tory voters and got good Tory councillors defeated?
By the same token, it would nice to think Biggs would agree a unity ticket as ‘You Couldn’t Make It Up’ suggests, with Peter Golds as deputy mayor, but the Labour Party is so tribal they wouldn’t do anything of the sort. They’d be far too busy machinating to try and kick Golds out of his Island Gardens seat in 2018, regardless that he’s the best and most effective opponent Rahman had.
Also, Labour will obviously be on manoeuvres to hoover up that ‘mosque machine’ vote that was once theirs, went to Lutfur, now may shy away from the husk that is left of ‘Tower Hamlets First’.
If you want to know if Labour are honest about this, look to the council’s AGM in late May. Labour have in the last 4 years put up a string of Bengali councillors for Speaker, and all have failed to keep control. This year they are planning to put up Khales Uddin Ahmed for Speaker, an inarticulate illiterate who almost undid the case at the High Court by blatantly lying to the judge that there were 80 (eighty!) THF canvassers outside a Bromley by Bow polling station. If Labour had any sense they would dump Khales and put up any of the Tories for Speaker to keep order – but that would mean losing an £8,000 allowance to a non-Labour councillor, and they could never have that…
Sadly accurate and true. Labour the party of the nasties whose arrogance knows no bounds – excepting a few excellent and decent people.
We don’t need national political parties poking their noses into local government – local should be politically neutral and determined solely by LOCAL residents not, for example, by Labour’s NEC etc.
You are right on many levels. But read the whole verdict/report. Biggs is repeatedly shown to be on the right of the Labour Party and to have tried for a very long time to stand up to the left as they went around destabilising everything quite wilfully. The Tories are NEVER going to win an election for mayor. It ain’t going to happen! There can be just two winners; John Biggs or the far left/THF/IFE/Respect.
On that basis we must be pragmatic. I think Gloria was a fantastic councillor and I was gutted when she lost her seat, really, but we have to put party differences aside. This is about personality and the election of one individual to supreme power: if you had no other option but to choose between John Biggs and some
idiot from Respect/IFE etc what would you do?
For a Bangladeshi running mate, very USA I know, it has to be Helal Abbas Uddin. Who is this other joke guy mentioned?
That’s a very boring ‘safe’ option. I really do think they need to kick over the traces and come up with something much more attractive to the voters.
Plus he may have won his court case – but how many of the voters know that? That’s the problem with that sort of allegation – it doesn’t disappear once you’ve proved it was a complete nonsense.
Isn’t there a difference between women and women?
Out of interest who comprised the NEC sub-committee?
Mr. Mawrey covered the ground so thoroughly in such an even-handed way that I very much doubt that an appeal or judicial review will be permitted.
His judgements are long, thorough, entertaining to the point of making the reader laugh, and scathing with a little polite sarcasm.
I’d vote for Ted as the compromise candidate who’s hot on scrutiny – what a pity he’s moved out of the borough!
My thoughts:
1) I can’t see any scope at all for a Judicial Review. You can be very certain Mawrey had that judgement reviewed before he issued it with a view to specifically addressing the scope for a JR and closing down any loopholes. My guess is it’s watertight.
2) I can’t personally see the ex-Mayor being able to afford a Judicial Review – as indicated above this isn’t going to be a quick review of the papers and an overturn of the decision when what we’ve had is a seven week Court Hearing in front of the acknowledged expert on election fraud. This could go on for a long time but only IF if a point of law can be identified. (no point of law, no JR, no deferment of the election)
3) Following on from (2) – which expert on election fraud is going to be appointed to hear any Judicial Review? I don’t suppose there are that many who have any expertise in this area – Mr Mawrey is THE expert.
4) The JR can only consider points of law – hence no scope to introduce new evidence on either side. So what’s the point of law? Saying you want to go to JR and being able to identify a good enough reason for a JR are two completely different things.
5) Labour were a total utter shambles in 2010 and 2014. Far too much ego, far too much in-fighting and far too little organisation and “strategic grip”. If they’ve got any sense they’ll helicopter somebody into manage the election campaign who’s good at winning elections and has had no previous contact with anybody in Tower Hamlets Labour Party or the London Labour Party. No allegiances and no reason not to tell it like it is!
6) John Biggs needs a running mate who has good intellect and strong interpersonal skills and wants to go far in the Party i.e.
either a succession management approach
or the “do well here and you will be remembered at Labour Party HQ for a long time to come” i.e. you will be offered a safe parliamentary seat at some point in the future. The next ‘Rushanara Ali’ would be a good move i.e. an independent thinking woman of Bangladeshi heritage who is sensitive to culture but not culture bound.
Now for the Tories
7) Ahmed Hussain has no chance of being selected – nice chap but that’s about it.
8) I’d be very interested to know how a married mum of one child can find time to be a GP and an international business woman. I mean I know there are some women out there who are wonder women but this is straining credulity – which prompts the thought of whether she can “walk the walk as well as talk the talk”. Somebody needs to do some unpicking of that statement by Dr Anwara Ali. (BTW here’s her LinkedIn profile http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dr-anwara-ali/2b/461/240 ). The first question that Peter Golds needs to ask her is what is she going to give up so she has the time to be a proper Executive Mayor which is, in effect, a full-time job.
9) I wouldn’t fancy the chances of any of the existing Cabinet Members. None of them are competent and all have behaved like tame pooches so far. Plus the judgement makes it very clear that their election is not legitimate. If any of them do go for it you can be very sure their strings will be being pulled from behind the scenes. My guess is the chances of the puppetmaster being unmasked during the run-up to the election are also pretty good – which won’t do a lot for their credibility. Plus as Ted indicates their past behaviour, expense claims, etc etc will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
and for the rest
10) I think all the parties would do well to remember that an Independent Candidate might announce at the last minute. But who would that be?
Andy Erlam running for Mayor with Azmal Hussain as Deputy would be an interesting combination……. 😉
Some of the points are valid and well formulated but the essential elements are Not only a competent Mayor and Deputy but as you have stressed a robust and competent cabinet.
This is the problem with party/ grouping selections of these posts as they are chosen in the main not on an individuals competent to do a good job but on group voting allegiances.
In many cases the best candidate for the post is in another political party or opposing voting block within the same party group and so is often ignored and passed over
Good and achievable policies are the one of the other essentials with clear implementation strategies and robust funding plans
Likewise senior council officers need to be the best you can employ and workman like in delivering the polices.
The past Mayor did much to destroy the competent officer base in order to work as he did without challenge and this needs to be addressed as well.
With these in place the Executive Mayor Role would not be 24/7 requirement and so no one especially a woman with child care restrictions should be excluded
Remove national politics and national political parties from English local government.
CC.
You’re making my point for me.
The best approach is for there to be a Community Coalition Candidate that all the main traditional parties can get behind – which by implications means that deals need to be done in advance as to who is Deputy Mayor and who gets the Lead on different topic areas.
This Council NEEDS good politicians working together and burying their political differences for the sake of bringing the community back together and providing a comprehensive and positive approach to integration of the Bangladeshi community over the course of the current administration – and beyond.
The way forward in Tower Hamlets is for everybody to grow up and stop behaving as if the main issue is how individual politicians can benefit and to start focusing on how the whole community can benefit.
If the traditional parties can demonstrate they can work together then that provides a role model as to how every different sort of community in Tower Hamlets can get on with one another.
It’s symbolic and it’s important – and it needs to happen.
There should be no more “divide and rule” – it’s wasteful and ineffective.
Yes that is a sensible and good proposal.
Andy, the hard-working anti-corruption campaigner, who despite the tremendous odds against him kicked-out corrupt politicians.
Now Tower Hamlets is a safer place for all.
Mr Erlam, are you listening 🙂
@Ted – As Lutfur and his concubines are now gone you going to remove him and his media guy picture from your blog header?
I second that!
I object.
With the Mayor’s picture no longer on dustbin lorries, and everywhere else, everyone will soon forget what he looked like.
Lets preserve local history.
CC.
I think with all the Mayor’s pictures gone we will no longer feel like living in a ‘statelet’ in the grip of the cult of personality. But eradicating them so instantly would be like toppling statues of Stalin while he is still being mourned. (Did you know that some people genuinely cried when Stalin died? Bizarre.)
I think judge Mawrey’s contribution to preservation of local history is pretty masterful – and so well written! Who would expect a court judgement to be so entertaining- I just couldn’t pull myself away from it.
=> Monja,
Try two more entertaining judgements from the same person:-
Birmingham = http://law.slough.info/law44/law44.php
(an introduction into strange happenings in the middle of the night is which starts at
http://law.slough.info/law44/law44p041.php )
Slough = http://law.slough.info/law41/law41.php
(a good summary is “Proving and disproving the ghost voters”
http://law.slough.info/law41/law41p028.php )
Voting Fraud ? No one does it better in Europe than England.
Curious Cat.
I’m not a lawyer and I have no experience of election law or the judicial process. However I have read in full the 200 page judgement.
As noted above, Judicial Review (JR) can only be done on points of law, not on fact.
Here are the points of law that Mawrey made in his judgement:
(1) A wide range of canvassers and supporters working for a candidate count as the candidate’s agents and the candidate can be found guilty of election offences even if they did not directly know of what the agent was doing.
(2) Rahman’s lawyer argued that the wording of s118A of the Act meant that Biggs only became an candidate in law on 14 April 2014. This would mean that the statements about Biggs being a racist could not be false statements under election law. Mawrey disagreed, arguing the words “unless the context otherwise provides” enabled him to consider that Biggs became a candidate the day he declared himself as such. Mawrey also argued that statements made after 14 April 2014 should be viewed in the context of previous false statements – repeating previous allegations incorporated
(3) The bribery involved with Council grants to the local community in the case was complex (nobody simply was paid to vote for Rahman) and this meant that Mawrey had to make the following ruling. The election law on bribery (unlike the Bribery Act 2010) requires that a bribe be made on behalf of Mr Rahman. But it wasn’t made by Rahman, it was made by the Council. Rahman’s lawyer had said the grants to the Bangladeshi were just “pork-barrel politics”, i.e. unethical but legal, and just dirty politics. Mawrey disagreed, saying:
“The difference between ‘pork-barrel politics’ and bribery is that the former is not in the hands of a single individual or directed to the election of an individual candidate. The reason why Mr Rahman’s conduct is on the wrong side of the line is because he was, in reality, the sole controller of the grant funds and he manipulated them for his own personal electoral benefit.”
He said that this was the area of law that had caused him “the most difficulty” by far.
However, Mawrey also found Rahman guilty of bribery separately relating to a more straightforward sum of money paid to local TV station Channel S which did not involve this ruling:
“Mr Rahman caused the Council to pay public money by way of ‘fees’ for broadcasts which were ostensibly about the Borough and its administration but which were in fact personal political broadcasts on behalf of Mr Rahman, promoting him to the Bengali-speaking electorate of Tower Hamlets. In the context that Mr Rahman fully intended to stand for re-election when his first term of office expired, the broadcasts cannot be regarded as other than intended to promote his political career” … “It was undoubtedly corrupt in the sense that Mr Rahman knew that it was wrong for him to spend public money in this way and he persisted even after the initial Ofcom rulings” … “In the circumstances, the court must find that, in relation to payments to the media, Mr Rahman was guilty of bribery.”
(4) Spiritual injury: this was the most obscure piece of legislation invoked. It was Mawrey’s view that while obsolescent, spiritual injury was not obsolete and could not be disregarded, even if it was a little odd.
Thoughts on these:
Point (1) is rock solid, confirmed by at least 4 previous cases. It is highly unlikely that Rahman will be able to get this overturned.
Point (2) is less solid and may be subject to challenge. This could at best partially set aside the finding of false statement.
Point (3) is very challengeable, but I think that it doesn’t matter due to the separate point re Channel S.
Point (4) is also a judgement Mawrey made, and one he admitted in his judgement that could be “controversial”. However his logic seems to just be a straightforward application of previous court rulings, and while this is challengeable, it seems quite solid.
This means that of the 7 offences found guilty, only some have a challengeable point of law, and only in part. Therefore in my (untrained) view, Rahman cannot win a JR because it will not make him Mayor again – it might clarify the law, but won’t change the substance.
For example, the postal vote fraud found in the case was determined purely on the facts. The law means that even one vote is enough to invalidate the election and ban Rahman from office for 5 years. As Mawrey put it “to take an extreme example, a person elected to Parliament with a majority of 20,000 in his constituency who is proved to have arranged only one bogus vote to have been cast through personation, will forfeit the election and suffer disqualification for five years under s 160.” Also, the guilty verdict for payment of canvassers was made on the facts.
Conspicuously impressive posting.
I think you would make an excellent lawyer. I really do.
Very good analysis. As a layman I am impressed. Most so9liictor would be unable to write as well as you. Ever done a law degree or undergone legal training ?
Curious Cat.
P.S. Really great piece.
PS. Ted. I thought you said we were to be laughed out of court. I think I said at the time that “time would tell”.
Andy you are a hero. The borough’s finest. The highest civic awards must surely come your way.
Obviously at least The Freedom of the Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Give us a bit more detail please. I don’t remember any of this.
Alternatively, we could go back to having not having a Mayor at all.
https://www.change.org/p/communitiesuk-abolish-post-of-tower-hamlets-mayor
We have to wait for 2020 and a successful referendum … or a change in the law – Eric?
The situation is far from clear. We could still end up with a THF Mayor, who, as the court said, was elected corruptly as a Councillors from a party that doesn’t exist. It would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
JK,
The existence of a registered political party is immaterial. The main benefit of registering a political party is a description and a logo on the ballot form. Second advantage is copy of the full electoral roll. No other advantages exist !
What is indeed worrying is the crap Law of England stops all further challenges to the legality of the elected corrupt crooks. How on earth is that English law nonsense upholding Free and Fair elections pursuant to the Council of Europe Treaty and Protocols (Human Rights), the EU’s Maastricht Treaty (Fundamental Rights) and Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998 ?????
Why is the Law of England protecting corruptly elected councillors when they belong in prison ? Jail a single parent Mum for having no TV license but let election crooks walk the streets with total freedom. Two-faced England. No wonder the Scots want out.
Curious Cat.
Gullam Robanni should not be recognised as an elected official. His election was absolutely definitely fraudulent. Ala Uddin is a councillor and should attend council.
Exisitng law would have dealt very well with the remaining corruptly elected THF Councillors had they been included in the petition.
I’m guessing that was a judgement call about limiting financial exposure for the petitioners to the cost of legal expenses for the defendants.
I would in no way blame the petitioners for such an approach.
They deserve our admiration for having the nerve to put their financial wellbeing on the line to make the petition in the first place.
If one of the Political Parties had got behind the petition and backed it then yes I would agree the THF councillors should have been included – but I refuse to criticise the petitioners given what they have achieved at the end of the day.
Hi Jay Kay,
The petition had 2 respondents. Alibor Choudhury was not one of them. However, he was included in the by being and given every opportunity to address the court and argue that he should not be as a guilty person.
Being “named” is in election law. It permits the court to examine the actions of a person who is not a party to the petition (thus outside the scope of the petition) and, if found guilty, to be punished by the court – for example chucked-out of elected office.
I wished more of the crooks had also been .
Inevitably individuals get a visit from a proper police force. Knowing the Met’s laziness and their actual lies (remember John Yates’ strong assertions to the parliamentary committee there was no evidence of mobile phone hacking?) one can only hope Hogan-Howe knows how to uphold the law, and promptly does so.
Curious Cat.
I’m well aware of who was named in the petition which is why the corruptly elected Councillors were not dealt with. Hence my comment.
The Police did nothing and as abused kids of Rotherham know, the Police run a mile from any chance of an Islamaphobic accusation.
Please sign the petition calling for the resignation of all Tower Hamlets First Councillors: –
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/we-demand-the-resignation-of-all-remaining-tower
There is a video post verdict here
Those who don’t use Flash can’t see it. Although mp4 users can.
Both Ollie and Shahed have been posting provocative comments on their Facebook pages about fighting and not being quiet. Ollie is still playing the race card and the same old cracked record about racism. What he and other fail to realise is that the lying crook Rahman only got into office by sowing seeds of fear and division where none existed then claiming to be the only one who could protect them.
Have a look at the site of ” housing activist” former Respect candidate and now Trades Union and Socialist Coalition candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow Glynn Robbins. http://www.glynnrobbins.wordpress.com.
Just when you thought that every possible lie had been told by the loony left he comes up with this pile of shit. Who employs this moron?
Nobody. The only jobs SWP people ever seem to have are school teachers – which is a concern
Yes it is and as far as I know the only union funding UAF is the National Union of Teachers, run by Trots.
Answer: Another moron funded by public money ?
The correct URL is: https://glynrobbins.wordpress.com/
Bollocks to the ‘British State’ nonsense. The judgement was about FAIRNESS, HONESTY and DECENCY and those that deliberately abused it for their personal gain.
Poor Mr Robbins. In my non-medial opinion, he appears to be suffering from acute clinical depression and bouts of illusions. I recommend he does not drive a vehicle or operate machinery before being clinically assessed.
Curious Cat
Glynn Robbins has never had a proper job and is pissed off because his election campaign is in tatters.His election leaflet recently came through my door and amongst his many misguided is that Eric Pickles is trying to cut lunch clubs for the elderly and community services. The judgement of Rahman shows it was Rahman himself who was doing this.
He rambles on to say that the ‘Government is trying to sideline our elected mayor and Councillors, without real evidence to justify this, but with disgraceful slurs designed to whip up divisions. It’s an attack on local democracy based on the politics of fear and prejudice.’
Again, according to the judgement it was Rahman who was doing this. Robbins has the right idea but the wrong villain. He’s at a hustings meeting tomorrow. Should be interesting.
Perhaps someone should ask him about his partner/wife renting out her council flat in Patriot Sq Bethnal Green the prfit helping to pay the mortgage on the house they both now live in just around the corner just off Globe Rd. I won’t give the actual address but they know where they live.
This isn’t very good behaviour on the part of someone who describes himself as a ” housing activist”. In fact all he has ever done is have a series of cushy jobs in housing. What a fraud!
Dave,
Its now a CRIMINAL offence to rent-out one’s council dwelling to a third party.
Penalties include court case and loss of council accommodation.
CC.
Where is the hustings?
I wish to challenge the statement that there were 4 consecutive Bengali Speakers. I, an old white lady, was Speaker 13/14. With such a young council it is difficult to find councillors able to do the job as it is time consuming and as they are concentrating on their careers not prepared to take lots of time off. In some boroughs they take a years leave of absence.
In which case one has to seriously question what the Ceremonial Mayor (or whatever people like to call them) have to do.
Frankly finding the funding to have a Mayor – ceremonial or otherwise – turn up to cut a ribbon or attend a tea party when services are being cut left, right and centre means the Council has got its priorities wrong.
At some point Tower Hamlets needs to take a long hard look at how other boroughs do it and how much time they spend on it and stop being wasteful of the time of people who are employed (which would mean it would open up the job to a much bigger range of people) and the Council’s funds.
What’s required is somebody who can chair meetings intelligently. All the other demands are just so much froth – many of which undermine the role of constituency councillors who are exactly the people who SHOULD be turning up to important events in their own wards.
Ted has unearthed a totally different perspective on fraudulent voting practices, election courts and Mr Mawrey by none other than George Galloway writing for the “Socialist Worker” back in 2007- definitely worth a retweet!
Here’s the full link
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/10594/George+Galloway+MP+on+the+most+corrupt+election+held+in+Britain+since+1872
Re. the talk of George Galloway becoming a candidate for Mayor, it seems to me you only have to read his Twitter feed to see where his commitment currently lies
Evening Standard article about Dr Anwara Ali from back in 2010 when she quit Labour and her Cabinet seat as Lead Member for Health. The timing would seem to suggest she was one of Lutfur Rahman’s chosen ones? Anybody have a recollection of how she got the job in the first place?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/doctor-chosen-as-face-of-the-nhs-defects-to-tories-6764313.html
George Galloway’s take on the judgement.
Does he deal with all five reasons why Rahman was convicted – no he doesn’t.
Now about your expense claims and that trip to Greece……
Lutfur’s In Betweeners: Four Tower Hamlets First councillors fly to Greece to dish out advice https://trialbyjeory.com/2015/03/28/lutfurs-in-betweeners-four-tower-hamlets-first-councillors-fly-to-greece-to-dish-out-advice/
and your trip to the country…..and that grant claim.
Tower Hamlets First Hitler sympathiser goes on DCLG-funded jolly to ‘promote integration’ (with some help from the Church)
https://trialbyjeory.com/2015/04/19/tower-hamlets-first-hitler-sympathiser-goes-on-dclg-funded-jolly-to-promote-integration-with-some-help-from-the-church/
any one who thinks Labour is the answer is stark bonkers, tower hamlets first is their child, product of their innate racism, they are as guilty as rahman, and were happy to remain silent so long as the things he is accused of benefitted them.
Hear, hear.
Why can’t TH have a neutral non-political mayor whose FIRST loyalty is to the people of TH – not to a national political party ?
Curious Cat.
Stewart are you saying we should return to the liberal focus run alternative of 7 mini councils in effect, itself illegal under the amalgamation of the boroughs act 1963. Not to mention the 100’s of millions wasted on this exercise the sale of all the borough town halls at give away prices.
With all its similar dividing of the communities this system produced.
“amalgamation of the boroughs act 1963” ?
LGA [1] 1963 perhaps ?
CC.
[1] = Local Government Act 1963
Don’t be silly. They were no more illegal than choosing to divide the Council up into Directorates based on service function and delegating budgets to Committees and aligned Directorates!
You can slice and dice a local authority any number of ways in organisational terms – as many have demonstrated over the years! Tower Hamlets was always organised one way, they then tried another way and then came back to something more like the traditional way
The only legal entity was the Council and hence nobody broke the rules! It’s really not worth getting your knickers in a twist about!
Read the act it was written to bar any form of division into a smaller unit than the new borough area this was by design as the old met boroughs themselves did not want amalgamation in many cases and the act made almost any form of division illegal to stop this. I raised this with one of tower hamlet’s monitoring officers who conceeded I was correct in my interpretation. The only reason the liberals got away with it was no one challenged it and the tory government of the day let it go as an experiment. In our case a costly one as we don’t have a town hall of our own today and the millions wasted resources to the residents. ANON
If you look at any County Council you will find an authority which is organised geographically. This is NOT unusual in a great many local authorities.
Unless you can prove that the LBTH Neighbourhoods had complete legal autonomy – as the old boroughs did that predate LBTH – then the argument would be made that it was a geographical rationalisation of how services were delivered in other Councils.
Besides which there was also a whole raft of academic theology around the neighbourhood concept and it certainly was NOT a way of organising things which central government (ie the people who make the laws) frowned upon.
In fact central government by and large is very happy for local authorities to try new ways of doing things – and many of the innovations around service delivery have originated in experiments undertaken by an individual authority. My recollection is that the LBTH Neighbourhood experiment was one which was looked on with interest. People external to the Council were largely neutral about it.
I think Alan Tobias was Head of Legal when the neighbourhoods came in (and went on to become the Chief Executive of LB Waltham Forest) was very smart and I don’t think a legal issue such as the one you suggest would have got past him.
Which LBTH Monitoring Officer did you raise this with? I can think of at least one who has just been ridiculed in the High Court.
Let’s have all the names then….
Mike Honour the head if the decentralisation tea
Dave Warriner the Director of Central Engineering, when stating the neibourhoods system was draining and wasting money/budgets to an unstainable level and the councils ability to undertake works at a budgets committee was forced out by the liberals the next day for suggesting they must consider recentralising the structure to maintain service levels and not fall foul of a legal challenge to its neibourhood structure. He was pensioned off in a week under the grounds of ill health!
There were many more who understood this but kept silent knowing what would happen to them by this “LIBERAL” Administration.
1) How on earth you get from Stewart’s comment to an endless ramble about the seven neighbourhoods and the London Local Government 1963 is completely beyond me.
2) Here’s the link to the Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/33. Please cite the specific section where it says what you think it says.
3) Do you understand delegation of powers? Every Council has to have a formal statement as to how it works in that authority. It’s the scheme which every Council has which articulates the arrangements which shall prevail in an authority for how budgets will be set and agreed and how contracts will be considered and let and officers recruited and paid and how policy and decisions of the Council will be made – and how any aspect of the Scheme of Management can be delegated first to Committees and then to Chief Officers. The Neighbourhood Scheme was just a variation on the normal scheme for delegation of powers.
4) Do you understand the meaning of legal autonomy? Delegating budgets and powers does NOT create new legal entities. Calling people Neighbourhood Chief Executives (NCEs) does not make them THE Chief Executive. People who had been COs or ACOs for specific services became NCEs. It’s a name change and a change of functional responsibilities – but it’s NOT a change of local government authority. The neighbourhoods were at all times run under the auspices of the only legal entity which existed during the period of the Liberal Administration – which was the Council. Which is why when the Labour Administration came in they were able to dismantle them so very fast!
5) I don’t know if you’ve noticed but there’s a requirement to refer any proposals for changes in boundaries to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England http://www.lgbce.org.uk Thus the splitting up of any London Borough into any separate legal entities would have to first be referred to this body who will then determine what they consider to be the best arrangement – as they do in relation to e.g. ward boundaries. There was no such referral and there was no such division.
6) Any Chief Officer responsible for legal advice who allowed the Council to do anything illegal would effectively terminate their legal career at a senior level. It doesn’t happen very often – and when it does, it usually happens because that officer is corrupt and it is usually revealed as part of a Court Case. The reason is because legal officers are professionals and are obliged to their professional institutes to observe a professional code of conduct.
In other words,although you may have an understanding of how the political side of things work it seems to me you have a less good understanding of how the legal and administrative side of things works.
More to the point I fail to see how ANY of this is relevant to the Mayoral Election.
=> You Couldn’t
Some local authorities are crap because the top staff are crap so too are the councillors (usually Labour)
Nice try but that is NOT the reality in many local authorities.
Some are weak and allow themselves to be pushed around by chief execs (HOPS) and senior councillors.
Some don’t report Housing Benefit fraud by councillors to the police and then actually put in a memo the reason being the publicity would be damaging to the Labour Party.
Others, and LBTH has at least one, produce sub-standard legal work (which I saw before the person flew away to TH)
Some are good professionals.
Some waltz in to a new local authority and destroy all the old records in a “new broom sweeps clean” demo. Just a few weeks later panic sets in ‘cos the files have gone.
Legal officers “professional” ? Wake-up. This is England and in local government standards can be disappointingly low. A few are excellent, many are pitifully poor.
These days everyone who works for a council is some sort of even the person who cleans the toilets. Call them by their real job title “solicitors”.
Local government is badly in need of a drastic reform. Just think how long the disgusting Tower Hamlets scandal was allowed by statutory officials to continue unrestrained !
Curious Cat
Posting Contribution Officer
Trial by Jeory blog.
@ Curious Cat – not back on your old hobby horse AGAIN?
It all depends on the breadth and depth of your experience – and whether you choose to focus on the positive or the negative. I don’t recognise your descriptions of local government as characteristic of local government or Councils as a whole and I’m very sure I’ve got a lot more experience than you. You just don’t like Labour Councils or election law and your comments reveal a lack of understanding of local government as a whole
The fact is if you look at the performance of Councils it will conform to a normal distribution curve. Some will be outstanding. Several will be very good. There’s a huge number which can move up and down the scale of average/OK. Then there are several which are weak – for a variety of reasons and a very few which are failing – and need sorting out very fast in a radical way.
The interesting thing about Tower Hamlets is that it has managed to achieve good standards in some services and completely failed in others.
It also strikes me that it sometimes fails to understand the difference between the two e.g. if you have a good electoral system with everybody doing their jobs properly – (e.g. all people who count as election agents are properly trained and observe the rules; scrutiny of performance at all times and investigation of complaints as they present) – then it should deliver a sound result which is NOT open to challenge or criticism.
* Good systems properly managed and applied deliver good outcomes.
* Good systems which are corrupted deliver bad and/or corrupt outcomes.
Local government is not in any particular need of drastic reform. Most local authorities are coping with an extraordinarily difficult situation post recession. Which is not to say some could not do better.
However only fools judge local government performance as a whole by a few ‘bad cases”. That’s like saying 100% of the system has to be changed because 2% of the problems which went badly wrong – or the 10% which need to improve a lot.
Actually changing any system of government is precisely when you get additional problems arising. That’s because attention to delivering good outcomes is compromised by the need to change the way they are delivered within tight timelines and with no extra resources.
There’s very little wrong with any system of government which could not be improved by EVERYBODY doing their very best to observe the standards and systems which already exist.
=> You couldn’t make it up!
A disadvantage that may afflict you is your unquestioning belief English local government is fit-for-purpose. It is not.
I’ve seen it from the inside and from the outside. Some local authorities appear brilliant, Central Beds DC is impressive but that is councillor-run – not staff-run.
I blame Labour supporters who work in local government. Many got their jobs not actually on competitive ability but because of their loyalty to the Labour Party. They retain their cushy jobs because of their ability to ignore things that, to a normal person, would seem wrong.
I would like the licensing by a professional organisation of everyone working in local government and paid more than £35K p.a. If the staff foul-up in one local authority (especially if its Labour) they are usually paid “redundancy” (always in secret so the public don’t know) and given a false reference stating how good they are. They are then free to repeat the same sub-standard conduct in another local authority for even more money.
Being rewarded, always at the public’s expense, for one’s personal failures is wrong.
You are fundamentally mistaken about the state of English local government. It is a paradise for sub-standard “work” and a endless source of corruption; the majority of which goes unchallenged.
Yes there are good, honest, dedicated and hard-working people in local government doing their best for the public but they are a minority.
A statutory regulator for all English local authorities is desperately needed. If one had existed LBTH would not have been allowed to flourish as it did under the control and direction of the two recently kicked-out gentlemen.
Curious Cat.
@ Curious Cat – You really don’t have a clue do you?
What you are expressing is not fact – it’s your opinion! If it’s fact cite your evidence.
Also do be careful – your politics are showing! I’d take your points more seriously if they weren’t so outrageously prejudiced.
FACT – Good councils can be ANY political persuasion. Bad Councils can be ANY political persuasion. It’s got nothing to do with the political party and everything to do with the people.
Redundancy:
FACT: The government provides a handy little calculator for statutory redundancy payments. https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay
FACT: Here’s the legal guide to redundancy https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights
FACT: The legal basis and terms for redundancy schemes have to be published and the terms and conditions are within the public domain. There is a specific and legal limit on the statutory multiples which can be used and any local variation has to be agreed and published.
FACT: There has to be consultation with the staff and their representatives with respect to the terms and conditions of every redundancy scheme and how it will be implemented – generally in relation to who gets chosen and how assimilation into vacancies work.
FACT: Those Councils – which includes Tower Hamlets – which have not met the strict rules about a redundancy scheme works end up obliged in law to reclaim funds from the individual concerned – and it happens. All Redundancy Schemes which have conditions which are outside those considered “normal” and/or involving significant sums are normally presented to the Auditor for inspection prior to payment. That’s because of the fact Auditors have required repayments in the past. Anybody not getting any termination agreements of significance agreed by the Auditors as legal and binding (ie they are not going to raise an objection) is a fool!
FACT: All local government employees are required to observe a standard of conduct. If they don’t then they can be dismissed – and are. After which if you’re really unlucky and have got somebody in total denial you get to spend a lot of time in Industrial Tribunal proving the case. Which is why malpractice and negligence and breaches of the Code of Conduct tends to be documented very carefully with respect to every individual who is behaving in a way which suggests dismissal will be an option at some point.
References:
Employers owe a legal “duty of care” in law re everything they say in a reference about an individual. If they mislead the prospective new employer they can – and some do – find it very expensive.
Regulation:
FACT: Local Government already has several regulators. Their work relates to the nature of the function they review and inspect. You really should do your homework!
If you mean regulator of the Standards of Councillors – well, yes, that is something which can very definitely be improved – starting with the performance of the Council’s Statutory Monitoring Officer whose job that is (the problem area relates to who monitors that individual!)
It’s an area where LBTH has comprehensively fallen down on the job so far as I can see. It always happens if and when Monitoring Officers start behaving as if their loyalty is to an individual rather than to the Council as a lawful authority and the people it serves.
So – you say there are all these problems that you THINK exist – in your opinion – and I can demonstrate that all these systems already exist to prevent things not being done properly.
Do you have any factual, specific and evidence based points to make that relate to Tower Hamlets?
You really don’t have a clue do you?
Silly statement to make to me.
What you are expressing is not fact – it’s your opinion! If it’s fact cite your evidence.
My evidence is already in the public domain.
Also do be careful – your politics are showing! I’d take your points more seriously if they weren’t so outrageously prejudiced.
I don’t vote. I haven’t voted for several years. I do not support Tories, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dems. If I were north of the border I would enthusiastically vote SNP. The English Greens would be my choice, if I voted, at a parliamentary election.
So you are wrong again. You are spouting typical local government crap. Anything you don’t like is automatically wrong.
FACT – Good councils can be ANY political persuasion. Bad Councils can be ANY political persuasion. It’s got nothing to do with the political party and everything to do with the people.
That is the theory. We live with the reality which is not as good as many would like.
Redundancy:
FACT: The government provides a handy little calculator for statutory redundancy payments.
£1/4 million payments, £400,000 payments are not normal redundancies especially when done in a Part 2 (council meeting with the press and public excluded). Often redundancy is covered in secrecy because its a “personal” matter, so too are the Part 2 redundancy top-ups. Another dirty word is “retirement” which never stops the same person popping-up a day later as a consultant or in another local authority.
External auditors want repeat business, so they are gentle to the council.
FACT: All local government employees are required to observe a standard of conduct. If they don’t then they can be dismissed
Why are you ignoring the real villains ? Those at the top and their bunch of passive puppets ?
If you mean regulator of the Standards of Councillors – well, yes, that is something which can very definitely be improved – starting with the performance of the Council’s Statutory Monitoring Officer whose job that is (the problem area relates to who monitors that individual!)
No MO is going to do anything about councillors from the ruling group who appointed him, and over-paid him. The MO will take action against opposition councillors – every time.
It’s an area where LBTH has comprehensively fallen down on the job so far as I can see. It always happens if and when Monitoring Officers start behaving as if their loyalty is to an individual rather than to the Council as a lawful authority and the people it serves.
Glad you washed your spectacles.
So – you say there are all these problems that you THINK exist – in your opinion – and I can demonstrate that all these systems already exist to prevent things not being done properly.
Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I do not ‘think exist’ about corruption and serious misconduct in local government and all the council failures. I write from personal knowledge. Unlikely you I am not deluded and I tell the truth unembellished, good or bad.
CC.
Can we have that in English please Stewart?
Well the points are valid but the neibourhoods set their on budgets sat only as councillors on the reduced geographic areas had individual town halls and appointed chief executives and other chief officers to each neibourhood answerable to only that neibourhood committee and whilst maintaining a central directorate structure. The neibourhoods repkacting many services and officer posts and I might add with i many cases different pay grades. If thats not setting up parellell authorities in breach of the act I dont know what other actions would be considered outside the spirit of the act let alone the letter.
Oh I forgot it was Dave Kingdom and for that matter a few other chief officers
Councils are at all times obliged to follow the letter of the law – and I’ve never ever heard of any legal requirement to follow the spirit of the act.
You do what the law says you can do. You don’t go outside it and if you want to get creative any wise Politician and every Chief Officer will ensure at all times that they remain within the letter of the law.
Which is why it matters precisely what an Act says as the ex-Mayor has just found out.
They don’t always.
You have no evidence to support your dubious claim that
“You do what the law says you can do. You don’t go outside it and if you want to get creative any wise Politician and every Chief Officer will ensure at all times that they remain within the letter of the law.”
For example: Tower Hamlets grants. Local Authority child abuse and lack of care cases up and down the length of England.
Perhaps your experience is unique. It certainly is not mine.
“Wise” politician ? In local government are very very few.
CC.
Posting Contribution Officer.
You fail to make the distinction between the standards that are required (ie. not optional) and the maladministration or negligence or poor performance that occurs.
Or were you suggesting that Councils might think it’s OK to allow maladministration or negligence to exist?
Nobody’s perfect and I defy you to name a single organisation that hasn’t cocked-up from time to time. Or that being starved of resources does not create extreme risks and impacts on performance. Or that over-worked staff don’t make mistakes. I’m not making excuses – just pointing out that the world is rarely black or white – there are infinite shades of grey.
There are also many stresses and strains for those working in a system where the guidelines as to the standards of behaviour required are:
* either vague as to what is and is not OK (e.g. a not uncommon situation when managers or councillors lack the ability to articulate or understand what is required and the competence to do their job properly)
* or clear and ignored by senior managers and/or councillors (e.g. a Court Case finds officers and/or Councillors ignored clear and explicit standards and systems for their behaviour)
* or explicit but unachievable within allocated resources (e.g. a reason why a Hospital will close an A&E – it’s unsafe to be open)
The issue as to whether or not a Council is failing and/or corrupt tends to be defined by:
* the frequency with which it fails to achieve the required standards; Other relevant aspects are extent and significance.
* its ability to accept rather than deny the reality of what is happening when its failings are identified; and
* its ability to make the necessary corrections.
That’s why the Pickles type intervention does not happen a lot. Most Councils which have poor performance in some aspect fail on the first, get found out and then get stuck into doing something about it. However when you fail on all three – and continue in a state of denial – you’ll find the Commissioners arrive at the Town Hall door – as has happened at Tower Hamlets.
It is why the scrutiny function is particularly important – within departments at a managerial level, within a Council at Committee level and within local government as a whole at a service and whole authority level. It’s why the focus has to be on openness, transparency, integrity and accountability – of both officers and politicians.
It’s why standards in public office – for both staff and councillors – are so very important.
Those who are going to be judged need to know the explicit standards against which they will be judged – and senior managers have the responsibility of making sure both Councillors and staff know what those standards are.
It’s actually quite rare to come across a thoroughly “bad” council but invariably when it happens, subsequent investigation invariable finds that the rot (e.g. “ignoring the rules”) is endemic at the top of the organisation – within leading Councillors and at least some of the key officers – particularly the Statutory Officers.
I know when I started out as a local government officer in the 70s that I was very clear as to the standards that were expected of me, of my bosses and of the elected politicians. Over time, I developed a very well thumbed set of standing orders and financial regulations in my desk drawer – which were the rules for how all members and officers would conduct themselves on Council business. Nobody thought they were optional or could be ignored.
The problem we have in Tower Hamlets is that we have had Councillors – and, I believe, some senior Managers – who have behaved like the bankers in the City of London.
They’ve ignored the standards required of them – in part due to very weak regulation. They tore up the rule book and decided to do what they wanted to do irrespective of the impact on the community as a whole. All for the sake of looking after themselves – bottom line it’s all about ego and GREED.
=> You Couldn’t
I think the fundamental problem with all English local authorities is:-
(a) no statutory Right for the local public to question monthly, without 7 days advance notice in writing, the actions of the senior officials.
(b) no statutory REGULATOR to whom the public can successfully complain (the LGO is a pitiful sick nonsense totally unfit for any purpose except spending public funds on its own existence) about a range of issues from un-repaired potholes and sunken or protruding manhole covers ignored for several years to election mistakes and unlawfully stopping voters voting etc. etc.
(3) no one should be paid more than the Prime Minister of the UK. (two salaries: MP & PM = £142k). If the fat-cat public parasites want more money then bugger-off to the private sector and see if they value their fat cat abilities.
(4) Public service should be a genuine public service carried-out by those who actually like and respect the public rather than being carried-out by public parasites whose primary interest is milking the system for their own financial benefit.
CLEAN-UP LOCAL GOVERNMENT …………………. NOW
Curious Cat.
What’s your evidence base for coming out with these gross generalisations? You ignore the FACT that an awful lot of local government is OK!
You also can’t say the local government and/or systems are bad when the reality is services are not great because resources are scarce and budgets have been slashed. The problem then is not the system it’s the allocation of resources. No amount of complaining will alter that – except to the extent more might be allocated to ‘x’ by taking it away from ‘y’ – in the same council. That’s what elections are for.
Bottom line, there’s no need to clean up “local government” per se.
What’s required is something which is more effective which addresses the type of problems which do arise in SOME places from time to time.
Tell me anywhere in the world that has implemented the system you are proposing. I bet it doesn’t exist – for a very good reason!
If you think anybody can question any senior local gov. manager about anything at any time and NOT give prior notice in writing, you’ve never worked at a very senior level in local government (as I have). Oddly enough senior managers do have a day job and need to be able to organise their time and meet their very many other responsibilities and commitments! Priorities need to be queued.
Complaints systems work well – if there is an appetite amongst senior managers and politicians to make the most of this valuable source of feedback. That can be an issue if they see complaints as a nuisance rather than an asset.
The Freedom of Information Act is a great invention and for the most part works well. Not ideal and can probably be improved – but a lot of places around the world would be very happy to have it.
I think the Local Government Ombudsman could be strengthened – but the reality is you always need to have a system of “last resort” which is what the LGO is – and should be.
What most needs improving and strengthening is the system for scrutiny and regulation at the local level. After all the only cases LGO will ever look at are those that have exhausted the local systems – and that’s the way it should be. Local problems (such a pothole problems) MUST be sorted out at the local level. Otherwise you are creating a money-eating monster very far removed from the root of the problem.
A Statutory Monitoring Officer who had a wider remit and actually did their job properly might be a good start.
I agree about the salaries. I’ve always considered that the maxim that the top salary should never exceed seven times the wage of a worker in a basic job level job is a good one.
The distortions introduced in recent years are a complete joke. Certainly when I started work in local government nobody did it for the money!
My view has always been that the very top salaries can be cut very significantly and if the post holders don’t like it then they should go and get a job in the part of the private sector which generated the salary levels which their jobs were compared with. After all if their inflated salary levels were based on transferable knowledge and skills then they should have no difficulty using these in other places.
=> Couldn’t
What’s your evidence base for coming out with these gross generalisations?
Enough to write a book or two.
You ignore the FACT that an awful lot of local government is OK!
Well that generalisation conflicts with everyday reality. Obviously your level of local government standards is lower than my expectation.
You also can’t say the local government and/or systems are bad when the reality is services are not great because resources are scarce and budgets have been slashed. The problem then is not the system it’s the allocation of resources. No amount of complaining will alter that – except to the extent more might be allocated to ‘x’ by taking it away from ‘y’ – in the same council. That’s what elections are for.
More misleading nonsense. Local government wastes millions and millions every year, year after year. They don’t get real value for money. They often get it wrong and then spend more public money trying to get it right. Officials motto is: “Don’t worry. The council tax payers will pay!”
Bad structural organisations. Serious lack of integrated computer systems. Corruption including giving contracts to, and buying from, friends. Often the prices are much higher than the public would pay shopping around.
However much crap you have in local government, that crap is never ever going to run local authorities successfully and genuinely in the local public’s best interests.
Bottom line, there’s no need to clean up “local government” per se.
Remove your blindfold and see the sun and all the local government crap. Then go on a local-government de-brainwashing course of treatment.
Tell me anywhere in the world that has implemented the system you are proposing. I bet it doesn’t exist – for a very good reason!
Bonkers logic. It everyone followed your faulty logic then there would be no cars or planes or telephones or tele – why ? Because no one else was already using them, or doing it.
Wander around the EU and be amazed at many excellent examples we could, and should, copy and implement in England.
If you think anybody can question any senior local gov. manager about anything at any time and NOT give prior notice in writing, you’ve never worked at a very senior level in local government (as I have). Oddly enough senior managers do have a day job and need to be able to organise their time and meet their very many other responsibilities and commitments! Priorities need to be queued.
More bollocks. I mentioned monthly. 7 days notice in writing enables politically correct answers to be drafted. Surprise, surprise those answers don’t usually answer the questions.
Yes “senior managers” have a day job and surprise, surprise most can’t do the job they are employed to do. That is why expensive consultants are called-in.
I want, for local government, something like select committees involving the public (Margaret Hodge may have been crap as a local councillor but she is excellent as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee). We need to bring-in a similar system for local government.
Complaints systems work well – if there is an appetite amongst senior managers and politicians to make the most of this valuable source of feedback. That can be an issue if they see complaints as a nuisance rather than an asset.
Come-on get real. Complaints stage 3 is supposed to be the chief exec but the person one is complaining about writes the answer and pastes the chief executive’s signature on the letter.
The Freedom of Information Act is a great invention and for the most part works well. Not ideal and can probably be improved – but a lot of places around the world would be very happy to have it.
FOI Act 2000 became law in November 2000 but implemented on 1 January 2005 after massive amounts of local authority files were destroyed to prevent political embarrassment and corruption evidence being available to the public.
I think the Local Government Ombudsman could be strengthened – but the reality is you always need to have a system of “last resort” which is what the LGO is – and should be.
Are you really suffering from advanced dementia ? Everyone, except you, knows the LGO is a sub-standard talking shop and waste of time because it has NO POWERS to do anything. Why do you support the public having NO LEGAL RIGHTS with their complaints? Going to the High Court every time is daunting and expensive.
Besides HMG is thinking of merging the LGO and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into a single failing organisation.
What most needs improving and strengthening is the system for scrutiny and regulation at the local level. After all the only cases LGO will ever look at are those that have exhausted the local systems – and that’s the way it should be. Local problems (such a pothole problems) MUST be sorted out at the local level. Otherwise you are creating a money-eating monster very far removed from the root of the problem.
The public need and deserves (especially as they are paying all the council’s bills) for a professional and competent local authority.
A Statutory Monitoring Officer who had a wider remit and actually did their job properly might be a good start.
The MO, despite being one of three LA statutory positions demands no qualifications, abilities and not even the requirement to be literate. Another sick joke played on the public.
I agree about the salaries. I’ve always considered that the maxim that the top salary should never exceed seven times the wage of a worker in a basic job level job is a good one.
Then all is not lost. There is hope for you 🙂
The distortions introduced in recent years are a complete joke. Certainly when I started work in local government nobody did it for the money!
Times have changed. Crooks and Crap have invaded local councils to the public’s detriment.
My view has always been that the very top salaries can be cut very significantly and if the post holders don’t like it then they should go and get a job in the part of the private sector which generated the salary levels which their jobs were compared with. After all if their inflated salary levels were based on transferable knowledge and skills then they should have no difficulty using these in other places.
Amen. But the public parasites will remain 😦
Curious Cat
It’s very obvious to me that your “experience” comes from an extremely odd place.
So and your prejudices can have the last word.
I’m really not in the habit of conversing with ignorant people who are so abusive of the good staff who work in local government, the people who deliver good services despite the constraints they work within and the adequate if not better way local government works in most places.
=> Couldn’t
It’s very obvious to me that your “experience” comes from an extremely odd place.
The local authority claims to be “excellent”. ‘Odd Place’ is a description which makes me laugh.
Do you really honestly believe TH is the only failing/corrupt/abusive/bad/rotten/crap local authority in England ?
So and your prejudices can have the last word.
I’m really not in the habit of conversing with ignorant people who are so abusive of the good staff who work in local government, the people who deliver good services despite the constraints they work within and the adequate if not better way local government works in most places.
I have never been abusive about “good staff”. Yes critical of bad and poor service, especially when the public and disabled suffer.
In fact I have pleaded with some LA staff not to leave a local authority because it was, and still is, so deficient in quality staff.
You lack evidence to support your assertion “local government works in most places”.
Start living in the real world. I already do.
CC.
Illegally and corruptly elected Oliur Rahman is destroyed on Radio 5 Live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r6kq6
Yep a bit lazy by me the act consolidating the old metropolitan boroughs into the London boroughs we see today actioned in 1965 made it illegal to form or break up the new constituted areas in any way thus the neihbourhoods were all technically illegal
Interesting rail programme – thanks for leaving the link. He wasn’t very good was he!
It’s the first time I’ve heard Andy Erlam speak at length and he came across as very articulate to me. Should make for an interesting Election.
Duh – keyboard spelling changes drive me bonkers – I of course meant “RADIO programme”
Sunday Times
SCOTLAND YARD has been accused of ignoring more than 20 complaints about suspected corruption under Britain’s first elected Muslim mayor amid claims that police feared being branded racist if they intervened.
The Metropolitan police were sent a string of letters and emails raising concerns about the activities of Lutfur Rahman, a former Labour councillor who was dramatically removed as mayor of Tower Hamlets last week after a legal challenge brought by local residents.
Peter Golds, a Conservative councillor for the deprived east London borough, said that prior to the legal action he had lodged more than 20 complaints with senior officers, including Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met commissioner.
He claimed the force “ignored” his evidence and failed to act over widespread electoral fraud, voter intimidation and financial malpractice that allowed Rahman to retain control of the council at the 2014 elections.
Hope all the media pick-up the story.
Time the cops were disinfected and chucked-out (and searched, DNA-ed and finger-printed on the way out).
The public need, and are paying council tax for, good, honest and competent cops. The rest must be booted-out pronto.
Golly, what next ?
Curious Cat.
Too funny!
All has beens.
Andy Erlam to stand.
THF comment
“Labour ruled TH for 50+ years”
Where did she get that nonsense from? Entirely forgotten the Liberal period?
The point here is bad government comes from all sides.
Lutfur created one overarching thiefdom whilst the liberals created seven.
I wanted to remind all readers of this as bad ideas dont need to be replicated in the future when these reckless ideas are rehashed and considered the new way of thinking to cure the problems of local democracy and accountability
have a look at the latest Glynn Robbins addition to his blog. It’s priceless. http://www.glynnrobbins.wordpress.com. This guy is seriously in need of treatment.
I agree with his statement ….
Yes ANGER the other crooks were not kicked-out too !
CC.
You see what I mean CC. These people live in another world to the rest of us, or is it a parallel universe? Does anyone know where he is holding his hustings. I suppose he will be doing it on his own although I thought other parties had to turn up.
Dave,
Its not very polite to call the local NHS lunatic asylum .
I am sure the lunatic asylum is really doing its best for difficult patients with severe delusional fantasies compounded by premature dementia.
This is the first time I’ve seen someone suffering from advanced Rahman-itus. Unsure whether it is treatable or terminal.
CC.
Hustings tonight from 7 to 9 pm at Collingwood Hall, Collingwood Street, E1.
Details here:
http://www.th-federation.org.uk/meetings/next-meeting-monday-27-april/
The Guardian appears to be having a brain transplant. Or maybe it listened to the barrage of comments it has received this week on the tone Dave Hill has taken in the past re the ex-Mayor.
Here’s its take on the events of this week in the Sunday Editorial
“The Guardian view on Lutfur Rahman: ethics must trump ethnicity | Editorial” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/26/guardian-view-lutfur-rahman-ethics-trump-ethnicity
Hogan-Howe must go. London needs a real police chief not a poser in an expensive flamboyant uniform posing for public relations photographs.
CC.
Guardian having a brain transplant? Not quite. Just a momentary enlightenment I recon.
Now they are back to writing crap….
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/26/lutfur-rahman-ruling-democratic-outrage
I think if you take a second look you will note that this is a Letter to the Editor – Actually it’s two – making slightly different points.
Note the heading “Letters” at the top of the left hand side column.
I do think it could be a lot bigger to avoid people being confused!
That’s not a Guardian opinion piece, that’s Tony Greenstein from Brighton! He is stark raving bonkers. No. sorry, hang on. Yes, it could be an Al Grauniad leading article.
For absolute Guardian bollocks look at prize prat Gary Younge saying the refugee crisis in the Med is all the fault of white people in today’s edition.
Rahman has devalued the struggle for racial justice and equality. A more enlightened piece in the Independent here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lutfur-rahman-has-devalued-the-struggle-for-racial-justice-and-equality-and-i-hate-him-for-it-10205410.html
Have they appointed the new Editor at the Guardian yet?
This is becoming a joke!
Andy should be the United Tower Hamlets candidate. He put everything on the line to unseat Lutfer and Alibor. None of the major parties stuck their heads out.
John Biggs, lovely man though he is, should step aside for Andy as should Peter Golds.
All of the parties should unite behind Andy. This is the to my way to defeaf THF.
Campaign message should be:
Get rid of mayoral system;
Amend Representation of People Act 1983 to expell those councillors associated with corrupt behaviour;
Work closely with Commissioners to reestablish trust between the local authority and the whole community;
Build a rainbow cabinet of all parties.
This election is too serious for the great and the good of the major parties to dictate to our borough.
Come on Andy. One, united Tower Hamlets.
Agreed. This election is too important to get it wrong again. The borough needs stability, reliability and trust. There are still many Lutfur supports who will vote for a THF candidate.
I’d agree with the bulk of that
We need an EXCEPTIONAL solution to the exceptional and extraordinary situation currently facing Tower Hamlets.
Andy for Mayor – an independent ‘neutral’ candidate takes the emphasis off the political parties and enables people to focus on the real issues
Two Deputy Mayors: John Biggs and Peter Golds – try them out and see how they perform
Rainbow coalition in the Cabinet – people to be appointed on their merits, integrity and ability to deliver
Focus to be on:
1) elimination of corruption in all its guises
2) building trust between politicians and different parts of the community
3) finding commonalities between the parties on what they want to achieve while LBTH finds its feet again
4) what the community needs not what the national parties or certain individuals want
Let’s also not forget that, in the not too distant past, there have been some considerable achievements when councillors from different parties have worked together on projects and specific issues. We should build on this and not forget that it happened.
Make something good come out of everything that has happened.
Well all whilst I agree with a lot of what is being muted here the reality is any independent will have a tough time to be elected. As has been pointed out Lutfur still has a lot of supporters who may vote for a thf backed candidate.
The likelyhood of many of them voting for Andy is slim to none given his stand and unquestionably brave act together with the other 3 brave people alongside him in bringing the case.
The likelyhood of any of the parties giving him a pass in this coming election or anyone else is a non starter.
The independent candidate will need broad appeal have links to the Bengali community and its faith leaders, and if possible have a known distance and opposition to John Biggs and the other candidates. If such a person exists then an independent has a better than average chance of winning, but I don’t know if such an animal exists or is prepared to enter the bear pit of these elections but as they say time will reveal all.
Aym,
Absolutely spot-on.
In Response to You couldn’t make it up
Yes Your right I have strayed a bit off the matter here but its about corrupt and illegal practices. Despite all the points you have correctly stated to give checks and balances I do have a fair grasp of these requirements but when you have witnessed first hand how and what is stated and given as the councils working tools and the responsibility the head of legal and those with delegated/ statutory authority have and it has been ignored and misused you will appreciate how the world of government sometimes works.
If all these standards and officers due diligence where working as you have stated then why was Lutfur enabled to act as he did and these are only in the areas that have been highlighted in this case. Yo can be assured there are many other breaches and corruption that have TAKEN PLACE AS THOSE I POWER CAN HIDE THEM FROM THE GLARE OF PUBLIC SCRUITINY BUT NOT IN AN ELECTION
Thick cunt.
Dave,
If you are not thinking of licking it, perhaps another word would be more suitable. Think of the children who might, and probably do, browse this fourm.
Thanks.
CC.
A totally inappropriate comment – please remove it Ted.
Well one of the reasons why corrupt and illegal practices thrive is because people turn the other way and fail to whistle blow or report them to those who can do something about it.
In a local authority, that person should be the Monitoring Officer. However when suspicious are aroused that the Monitoring Officer is part of the cabal that protects people like the ex-Mayor from questioning and criticism (and that was certainly a suspicion in relation to a recent female post holder) then it becomes very difficult.
That’s why there should be very clear professional and ethical standards for any Monitoring Officer – and why they should be drummed out of professional practice if they breach them.
I find it very interesting that people were prepared to report examples and provide evidence of what happened to Andy Erlam et al re the Election Petition but didn’t feel able to report to or make themselves heard effectively by the Council, or the Electoral Commission or the Police. Or maybe they did and were comprehensively ignored
“Why were people making complaints ignored by the statutory authorities?” is the question which STILL needs to be addressed.
= Couldn’t
Yes. A good and accurate, as well as truthful, summary.
Isabella Freeman, in my personal opinion from a perspective of knowing her, was weak and “flexible” in favour of her boss – whoever it was – rather than having a solid backbone and doing the “right thing”.
In semi-secrecy the Law Commission has finished it’s semi-secret review (well, it was not publicised very much to any involved in elections) of
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/electoral-law.htm
Electoral Law
Open date: 09 December 2014
Close date: 31 March 2015
On 9 December 2014 we published a joint consultation paper with the Scottish Law Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Commission on options for reforming electoral law.
Electoral law in the UK is spread across 25 major statutes. It has become increasingly complex and fragmented, and difficult to use. The last century has seen a steady increase in the numbers and types of election. Each of these election types comes with its own set of rules and systems, and combining them to produce one election event introduces yet more layers of electoral laws.
The Law Commissions are seeking views on potential reforms that will modernise and rationalise electoral law. All the Commissions’ provisional proposals for reform are founded on two principles:
the laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework governing all elections, and
electoral laws should be consistent across all types of election.
Urgently needed electoral law reform is not going to happen if the English Establishment deliberately close their ears to the public who pay their salaries, pensions, expenses and perks.
The problem with those who insult people on the web with gutter language is that one day you might meet the person you’ve abused and You not knowing me, You have made a terrible error of judgement here Dave.
We all make mistakes, particularly when tired, irritable and overloaded by excessive work.
I don’t know Dave’s age, but as men get older they loose brain mass. This tends to make older men less tolerant of things they dislike.
Sometimes one may instantaneously say or write things that are wrong. Regrettably on this blog there is no retraction or modify button.
Dave wasn’t making a remark to you, the real person, but to an anonymous individual whose existence is confined to cyberspace – a virtual person – so please do not take it too personally.
CC.
Curious cat I appreciate this we all take a bit of even handed criticism on this site as “you could’nt make it up” regularly dishing it out in spades at times. However this does not allow for abuse. As an Eastender brought up in the old school this type of behaviour is unacceptable in any circumstance. Dave does not need to be told this having lived in this local for many years and certainly knows the rules on open debate between those who have different and at times opposing views/ attitudes to politics and lifestyles.
He certainly would not say this in the pub or street as he would understand without doubt to be on the receiving end of a little more than a heated discussion.
There are many different views represented on this site from a wide gamut of contribtors having diametricaly opposed political vires and attitudes but all refrain from this type of behaviour.
Ted – are you moderating comments? The abusive language being used on here recently has got out of hand.
A brilliant article by Yasmin Alibai Brown in The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lutfur-rahman-has-devalued-the-struggle-for-racial-justice-and-equality-and-i-hate-him-for-it-10205410.html
Thanks for the link great article and the follow on links
What’s the Early morning knock on Andy’s door by the Met about – anyone know as it doesn’t baud well for the forthcoming election contest
=> Shadow
What’s the Early morning knock on Andy’s door by the Met about
Please tell us more.
It is NOT unknown for bent policemen to conspire with one of the two biggest political parties to invent false charges against their political opponent. Usually its Labour interests which do it.
Curious Cat
Ycmiu
So the two options are:
1). Labour v Unity Candidate v Conservatives v ‘THF’ v others
or
2) UnityCandidate v ‘THF’
Option 1) would rely on all non ‘THF’ second votes being cast for who?
Didn’t work last time for Labour. What makes them think it will this time?
If Labour won what guarantees are there that anything would change? After all they were responsible for creating Lutfur.
Option 2) would rely on all Unity Candidate votes being cast,whilst holding a clothes peg, from supporters of all non ‘THF’ parties.
Meantime, who is to stop ‘THF’ creating more ghost voters and illegal postal votes to ensure they have an outright victory on 1st preference votes.
Shadowonthehorizon you say option 2) is not going to happen. But Labour, Libdems and all other parties stood aside to rid Tatton of Tory Neil Hamilton.
Why won’t it work this time?
The residents and taxpayers of LBTH deserve better than being treated as fodder by the self- interested main parties.
Except there’s nothing to stop THF rigging the re-run of the Mayoral election with a different candidate.
I feel with John Biggs being ratified by the NEC and declaring as a candidate so soon after the court decision, makes the Labour Party’s position very clear Their doing it themselves with their candidate. The Libdem’s are a spent force in tower hamlets and their support would not make any difference in this contest. I cant see the Conservatives playing this stand aside game and its difficult to see a Peter Golds / John Biggs ticket working in the long run even if elected on this platform given their differences.
Who ever runs has to rely on the common sense of descent Bengali voters to put right the wrongs undertaken in their name
The same NEC whose member, Christine Shawcroft, is speaking at Lutfur’ s rally with Ken Livingstone? Astonishing!
=> Aym,
http://law.slough.info/law46/law46p023.php at para 231
CC.
On a lighter note if a man in a monkey suit can be elected as mayor in Hartlepool anything is possible in tower hamlets
Lutfur to appeal:
http://lutfurrahman.com/tower-hamlets-first-update-court-case-re-election/
From: http://lutfurrahman.com
Shamsuddin Ahmed April 27, 2015 at 2:39 pm
The period from the dissolution of parliament to the Election Day on 7 May must remain a level plain field for all contenders and voters concerned . That was prejudiced by the trial on TH Mayor Election which is a contravention of the law of the land.
During this sensitive period you cannot hold any trial on election matters.
On this ground alone you can apply for injunction on any election in TH on 7 May.
I am surprised that Lutfur’s QC did not raise the issue to halt the trial during this period
BUT neither the Mayor’s nor the councillor’s local government incumbency is connected to the UK parliament’s election.
Curious Cat
Re. Curious Cat on April 28, 2015 at 3:18 pm
More to the point the trial was not held during the period. All the evidence was heard outside the period. What was being delivered was the Judgement.
Somebody on the ex-Mayor’s team needs to learn how to use Google. The query ‘election purdah and court judgements’ revealed the following from the Law Gazette
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/election-purdah-threat-to-legal-aid-reforms/5047479.fullarticle
Note the word “initiation”.
It’s different from “conclusion” or “Judgement”.
and another legal reference point concerning Purdah for the “One Man Band”
http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/2010/feb/purdah-public-bodies-in-the-pre-election-period/
Clue: Note what it doesn’t reference……
=> Couldn’t
Re: Your April 28, 2015 at 11:47 pm
That “purdah” applies to politically contentious decisions and all political activity in local and national government.
The Tories would deprive the public of legal aid and then spend the savings on themselves and their mates. I remember an airport sold for a mere £1 and the Government Training Centres sell-off. But that is an unrelated deeply upsetting matter
I suppose one could argue that holding the Petition Hearing (not a trial because it is technically a civil (or private law) issue) and/or revealing the judgement so close to an election is UNFAIR and electorally damaging to the registered Tower Hamlets First political party.
That is the only? possible challenge.
If Son of Labour is personally exonerated, he is still dammed by the actions of his agents (THF candidates) as documented at
http://law.slough.info/law46/law46p040.php onwards.
The Mayor’s THF candidates mentioned in the judgement seem to be, at least to me, crooks.
Curious Cat
These out of sync. comments for replys are getting very silly!
Time for a new post Ted?
How about explaining what the point of law is for Rahman’s appeal?
How specifically is he going to address the integrity issue specifically in terms of law (ie the only basis for appeal) – and who’s funding his appeal?
Reading the considerable comments on the ruling its hard to see where an appeal with any real basis will be plucked from
On your point of who’s going to fund the appeal this is more interesting, Maybe deep pockets are required for this, but if Lutfur was going for broke
(as the costs thus far at £1.25M+ would certainly bust him financially) He may choose to go with it as he cant go bust twice over can he? So what’s worse when you cant cant pay £125M+ and cant pay £2.5M+
I guess it all depends on whether you can find a Barrister to represent you when you haven’t paid the first one.
I think they’re a bit like a Union on that sort of thing….
“Stuff one, stuff them all”
=> Couldn’t
Criminal Legal Aid should apply.
See: Council of Europe treaty (ECHR); EU treaty (Maastricht) and Tony Blair’s HRA1998 …. Right to a fair trial etc.
CC.
Won’t he need that for his appearance in the Dock when the Police and/or DWP finally get round to taking some action following the Judgement?
There again – Criminal Legal Aid Reforms are going through right now – are they not?
Interesting development
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32497980
Luthur’s One Man Band (piano or accordion perhaps?)
Judge for yourself if the Mayor (that never legally was) is really a one man band …..
I’ve been following a web site with a partial version of the judgement as web pages. It looks 50% done. On it http://law.slough.info/law46/law46p030.php is:-
* History: The formation of THF
* History: Was THF in real terms a ‘one-man band’?
* History: Selection of THF candidates
CC.
Why would the “One Man Band” be relevant to an Appeal?
Where’s the point of law?
Despite not being a lawyer of any description, being a “One Man Band” (with or without music) is merely an observation.
Nothing I have read shows this is a material factor in any decision against him. So if it ain’t “material” nothing as they say “turns on it”.
He is going to need a lot better than that.
CC.
Anyone going to Lutfur’s confession at Waterlilly on 30? Should be awesome entertainment from Q&A!!
Almost to good to miss, to hear the bullshit first hand. Between the press contingent and political train spotters like us it will be a sell out.
As for the Q&A’s the first motion of business should be.
” TURKEYS THE VOTE IS FOR CHRISTMAS”