Three issues.
1. Undue spiritual influence, mosques and John Biggs
Tower Hamlets First (I’ll use this name for ease of reference for the time being although they’re banned from using it and in any case it may well be more appropriate to call them the party named in point 3 below) are trying to whip up a frenzy over a visit by John Biggs to a mosque in Roman Road, Bow, on Friday.
It was caught on video here:
In it you can see Shibbir Choudhury, the mosque’s secretary, welcoming John and informing people that he had committed to make Sirajul Islam his deputy mayor if he wins on June 11. Choudhury appears pleased about this and remarks that John was also responsible way back when for helping the East London Mosque get planning permission. This, he says, was a good thing. For that reason he says “we need to support him”.
John says immediately that he doesn’t think “it’s right for anybody to be invited to support a particular candidate in a mosque”. He says, “I’m a Labour candidate and I want you to look into your hearts and vote for whoever you think is the right candidate”.
THF have leapt on this to yell “double standards”, a cry that is fast becoming the new “racist/Islamophobia” tag of this particular campaign. In this they have perhaps been egged on by Giles Fraser, a former official of St Paul’s Cathedral who a few years ago wrote a nice piece about the borough while sipping a glass of red wine in a pub across the way from the East London Mosque, and then landed a job from Lutfur as the chair of the Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission.
Since then he has been one of Lutfur’s most high profile supporters. In the few weeks since the Election Court judgment he has uttered not a word about six of the guilty verdicts but written hundreds about the other one: undue spiritual influence. I suppose as a priest that’s his area of specialism, although it’s perhaps sadly doubtful in this day and age that he would ever experience that himself.
His arguments on this subject have included it’s his human right to express political views. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Richard Mawrey QC’s judgment was more subtle and more complex than that. Bluntly, Mawrey concluded Lutfur had enlisted the chair of the Tower Hamlets Council of Mosques, Shamsul Haque (an unreliable witness, according to the judge) to secure a letter of support from 101 imams. This letter, Mawrey said, came amid a “substantial body of credible evidence that the Imams’ message that it was the duty of faithful Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman”.
Mawrey conceded that his judgment would be controversial, and it is. And I’m sure it’s also confusing to those who can’t be bothered or who are unable to comprehend it in full and understand the context.
In short, Biggs’s visit and the words of the mosque secretary do not in any way compare with the Election Court example. That said, the THF people will be free to challenge it in an election petition should Biggs win on June 11.
However, the episode was enlightening. It shows how politicians do feel the need to visit the mosques to secure votes. I wonder if any ever visit churches on Sundays for their campaigning?
As a result of Friday’s incident, Biggs has decided to cancel all further visits to mosques at times of worship. Here’s a statement he sent me yesterday:
“Tower Hamlets First are a party devoid of principles and morals – this was well established in the court case. Although they now have to describe themselves as ‘independents’ it looks like nothing has changed. Once again they [have] tried to smear me after I visited a mosque before Friday prayers. It adds to the importance, if any more reason were needed, for the borough to move on from this sort of abuse and I hope we will on June 11.
“After yesterday’s attempted smear by THF I have also decided that I will not accept invitations to speak in any of the borough’s mosques or other places of worship at times of worship between now and June 11. This is both to avoid any misrepresentation of me and also to avoid any of our places of worship being dragged into the election campaign. They should always have an independence and dignity separate from daily politics. I have always respected this but clearly my opponents do not.
“I would of course be happy to meet with representatives from places of worship who, quite rightly, may want to hear from me as the election approaches on issues of interest to them and their members.”
2. Leafletgate
Mark Baynes, who runs the Love Wapping blog, has done some excellent, good old-fashioned on-the-ground reporting.
This account of his here is a must read.
Mark lives on the Green Bank estate in Wapping and noticed yesterday that a man was distributing Tower Hamlets Homes leaflets. It’s assumed this man was acting for Tower Hamlets Homes, which is the council’s arms-length housing body on which Rabina Khan’s election agent Ghulam Robbani sits as a board director.
But it wasn’t just THH leaflets he was delivering to people’s homes: he was giving lucky residents a Brucie Bonus in the form of Rabina4Mayor leaflets as well. Clearly, this has the potential to be a serious issue and a possible breach of election law.
Mark quickly got out his iPhone and recorded the guy at work. Here’s his video:
And here are Mark’s stills of the leafleter.
Mark quite rightly reported it to the police immediately and they told him they are looking into it. The man has not yet been identified, but Mark has preserved many of the leaflets for forensics.
Both Rabina Khan and Oliur Rahman took to Twitter to say they’ve been “framed”, that it is all a stitch-up and the result of dirty tricks. They also have informed the police. They have not yet said who they think is responsible but one can only assume they think it’s their political opponents.
I have no knowledge of leaflet situation and suspect a stitch-up; my team haven’t canvassed Wapping yet @LoveWapping@TedJeory
— Rabina Khan (@RabinaKhan) May 17, 2015
@LoveWapping @TedJeory team have absolutely no knowledge of who this alleged canvasser is, in fact we have yet to canvass Wapping. 1of2
— Oliur Rahman (@CllrOliurRahman) May 16, 2015
@LoveWapping@TedJeory We can only assume this is an absurd attempt at a frame-up.We have reported this to police and returning officer 2of2
— Oliur Rahman (@CllrOliurRahman) May 16, 2015
The police are sure to get to the bottom of it, but I must say, even by Tower Hamlets’ standards it really would be a very thick dirty tricks campaign: Mark Baynes has been known to photograph questionable Tower Hamlets Homes leafleters there before.
Richard Mawrey in his judgment made some important points about who were Lutfur’s agents in the wider legal sense in the 2014 campaign. If this leafleter is a Rabina supporter, her team would have to show he was rogue and acting alone. Both he and they would have to explain how he got hold of hundreds of her leaflets.
This could be a significant issue. If anyone recognises the leafleter, please email me (please do not name him in any comments on this blog).
3. The return of Rob Hoveman
Rob, the man in the middle (a rare place for him), has been George Galloway’s very left leaning right hand man for a decade. Between 2005 and 2010, he ran Galloway’s constituency office in Club Row and then moved up to Bradford, where he had a holiday home, when George found another seat for a while.
He’s a phenomonally good operator and loathes Labour with the same passion that he has for classical music and Hornby trains.
Following the collapse of the Bradford Spring last month, Rob, who lives in Bethnal Green, might well be in search of a new job. He knows his way around the town hall, having once been Respect’s part-time political adviser at Mulberry Place. I wonder whether he could be the next Murziline Parchment as a possible head of Mayor Rabina’s office.
If so, watch this space for Abjol Miah, the only Respect councillor he had any real time for.
Trial by Jeory 
Dirty tricks already. Interestingly enough there is a clip somewhere of Rob Hoveman’s rambles following the court verdict. A nasty piece of work who isn’t that intelligent. He’ll fit in well in the Mayor’s office
Hoveman was a long time member of and I think paid worker of the Socialist Rapists Party. He left when Galloway broke up Respect and followed the wages payed by George. So much for loyalty.
I agree about the not very intelligent bit. I have heard him ramble on with the usual Trot crap about imperialism and Zionism and lots of other isms being behind everything.
Have you had any luck in getting Rabina Kahn to explain WHY her election material – as delivered by the man in the beard and as seen on her website – fails to include in an open and transparent way ALL the required information as per the Campaign Rules laid down by the Electoral Commission?
Or does she or her election agent think that the rules – as specified here http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/mayoral-elections-in-england – don’t apply to Rabina Kahn?
There’s precedent in this borough for what happens to
1) people who believe the LEGAL Campaign rules don’t apply to them
2) people who leave all the details up to their election agent.
I wouldn’t have thought this needs spelling out!
This might be another one for CC our resident finder of stuff on the internet. The incident Ted refers to where Giles Fraser was sipping a glass of wine across thee road from the ELM and MC is one I remember well. It was a totally puff piece which leads me to the conclusion that Fraser has had a longer and more financial relationship with the mosque and the IFE than he is, at the moment, admitting.
Basically he claimed that he was outside either his local or a pub he used regularly having a cigarette and a glass of win when he happened to look across the road at the mosque and wondered what went on in there! After making some inquiries he was pleasantly surprised to find just how family friendly and ecumenical it was and he was able to say that all of the nasty things that people like Andrew Gilligan said about it were lies, smears, innuendos etc etc.
The piece was so obviously false that I emailed him with several questions that he never responded to, he has a habit of doing that, not responding when he is obviously telling porkies.
The pub in question is what is now Indo and was The Blue Anchor a watering hole for the inhabitants of Booth House. As far as I can remember Fraser at the time was living, and may well still be, in accommodation at his church in Kennington south London. Consider the scenario. He just happens to be in a pub, he claimed it was his local or some such, wondered what went on the building opposite which is clearly labelled and decided to find out all about it.
Absolute crap I thought at the time but his subsequent £2000 from Lutfur and continued defence of the man and all his works explains a lot and merits an investigation into his financial affairs by church authorities.
Just spotted this….
What was he doing at the mosque Ted? Was he there to offer his Friday prayers and subsequently thrown into the limelight? The secretary was clearly electioneering when he said “we need to support him”. John upon realising he was being filmed gave a speech a returning officer would be proud of rather than the pre prepared script he bought along which he didn’t look at once. If he didn’t do anything wrong he would carry on making mosque visits. If it had been a “THF” candidate, I doubt your words would be the same.
Justice for TH. Is your real name Dave Hill? You sound as stupid.
You must be Nigel Farage. Total nutcase.
Justice for TH. I am just about the only person on here using their real name.
Was just responding to your weird comment that’s all. Couldn’t care less what your real name was.
Read the Mawrey judgement and try to understand why it’s different. There is no law I’m aware of against electioneering in a mosque. Context and circumstances are crucial.
Person who posted video merely asked question wether it was allowed or not. It clearly opened a debate.
Ted wrote
But it wasn’t just THH leaflets he was delivering to people’s homes: he was giving lucky residents a Brucie Bonus in the form of Rabina4Mayor leaflets as well. Clearly, this has the potential to be a serious issue and a possible breach of election law.
Please elaborate your comment
1. If the leaflets were official leaflets then the costs are on Rabina’s election expenses.
2. If the leaflets were not official leaflets then there is a low limit on all Third-Party campaigning which may have been exceeded AND the costs must on on the Third-Party’s election expenses filed with the Returning Officer.
3. If the leaflets were delivered free then there is no crime.
4. If the deliverer was paid then the payment must either be on Rabina’s election expenses or the election expenses of the Third-Party campaigner.
Curious Cat.
To be determined.
Payment can be confusing.
If the Deliverer was paid to deliver the Homes leaflets (as is very likely)
AND
if the Homes knew the Deliverer would simultaneously deliver Homes and election leaflets,
AND
if the Deliverer talked to anyone about the election whilst delivering Homes or election leaflets
THEN
there is a prima facie instance of paid canvasser.
Curious Cat
I think the issue could be not one of election law and paid canvassers, but of the appropriateness of THH hiring leafleters to issue Rabina’s leaflets with the THH newsletter. Heads should roll at THH regardless of the legality.
But THH are now saying
1) they haven’t given permission for the electoral communication to be distributed and
2) the person doing the deliveries is NOT a member of their staff.
http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk/for_tenants/publications_for_residents/open_door.aspx
So there may repercussions somewhere – but maybe not at Tower Hamlets Homes?
Do you really think “heads will roll” is a suitable metaphor for the situation? I really don’t think we need any references to heads being removed!!
A young man with a beard as ostentatious as that can only be one thing. He’s not a hipster he’s an Islamist, IFE probably and ergo a supporter of Lutfur and Rabina.
They’re a mafia and they decide who gets somewhere to live.
So your landlord puts their newsletter through your door and it happens to come with a leaflet telling you who to vote for. #fishy
Question then arise:–
1. Is it Freedom of Expression ? NO
2. Is it an official or semi-office communication ? YES
3. Is the recipient being told to do anything ? YES
4. Is the Landlord likely to get upset if the recipient does not do what they have been told ? YES
5. Could the recipients loose their home if they don’t do what they have been instructed to do ? YES
6. Is the UK’s alleged adherence to the Council of Europe’s Free and Fair Elections a load of bollocks ? YES.
Curious Cat
How about a question along the lines of
7. Does Tower Hamlets Homes have any involvement at all in the delivery of this electoral communication?
If the answer is No then the rest of your questions and comments are completely redundant! 🙂
Tower Hamlets Homes is not a landlord. It is a managing agent set up by the Council as their stooge.
Do many, if any, tenants distinguish the Council from the managing agents ?
CC.
I have no idea as I haven’t asked them. THH is nothing more than an Arms Length Management Organisation There is a distinct difference in law between an ALMO, a landlord, a Housing Association and other RSLs. THH owns nothing and can only do what the council (the landlord) tells it to. In reality, the council fails to adequately manage THH allowing it to waste residents’ money and be largely unaccountable. The Board of THH did have 4 of the ex-mayor’s councillors making it a controlled company as they had the majority of voting rights. Alibor was one but he’s gone now so they’re in even more of a mess. The only mayoral candidate who has pledged to scrap the insidious, expensive and badly performing THH is Biggs. Golds’ comments about THH in his manifesto make little sense and Rabina, who has also failed to control THH, is likely to stick to the lying crook Rahman’s pledge to hold a referendum on its future.
=> Jay Kay
There is a distinct difference in law between an ALMO, a landlord, a Housing Association and other RSLs.
In law, and for more than a few years:-
(a) Housing Associations no longer exist
(b) RSLs (Registered Provider of Social housing) no longer exist.
The collective title in law is Private Provider of Social Housing. PPSH are funded by generous government grants from the Homes & Communities Agency.
Not only are PPSH rents higher than council rents, they cost the general tax payers money and they are not accountable to the public.
Curious Cat.
Your point is?
In the days of the former Labour tyranny I think I recall a Focus leaflet headed ‘Would you vote for your landlord?’. Labour? Never again, they are the root of corruption in Tower Hamlets, and furthermore, betrayed residents to so-called social landlords.
Google Giles Fraser and the East London Mosque for the utterly ridiculous and obviously paid for article but also lots more Giles “£2000” Fraser buffoonery.
Hoveman’s name and re-appearance have triggered the memories of a number of people who have phoned me. Does anyone with Bradford connections know anything about Hoveman using another name on election material to the Returning Officer up there?
Secondly look at this extract from the excellent Andrew Coates. http://www.tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/george-galloway-aisha-ali-khan-and-a-very-curious-story-of-the-met/#comment
The article more or less accuses Hoveman of fraud from Socialist Unity which didn’t go to the police.
More dodgy leafleting going on over the weekend. Have a look at Love Wapping
Well, well, well! Just look what ex-Councillor Gloria Thienel picked up in Victoria Park yesterday
I wonder if it came in an English translation as well? Could be relevant…..
I think Shibbir Choudhury, the mosque’s secretary should get his facts correct regard John Biggs critical involvement in helping The East London Mosque gain its planning consent along with many other of the Mosque sites in the Borough.
This consent and may others was achieved with the instrumental help of the former Labour Cllr Steve Wright, the then chair of the planning committee, who without his involvement the mosques applications would not have been achieved and had been stalled by over 18 months, with many other mosque sites being delayed due to John Biggs prior meddling/ involvement in these applications. So I do not see how Jonh Biggs could or would ever take credit for this.
With regard the on-going leaflet farce with Rabina Khans election team not following the rules, even after the previous exposé of these illegal practices in the court, or lack of having any adherents to the rules by the former Mayor, they seem to be very slow on the uptake to say the least. The result will be action we hope by the authorities if they can get off their backsides to stop this. But then again grounds for another challenge maybe!
As I understand the ‘leaflets’ issue, the sole concern is by a person simultaneously delivering Tower Hamlets Homes junk mail.
That delivery, of the election leaflet, will be a selective delivery targeted at council tenants unless the deliverer puts Rabina’s leaflets in non-tenants’ doors.
No electoral offences noticed.
Curious Cat
Also…..
Any social landlord worth its salt should be making a charge for any post it delivers on behalf of other organisations. If it’s not, then the question that needs to be asked is “Why not?”
Tower Hamlets Homes must be deaf, dumb and blind if it doesn’t know that it MUST also be compliant with all rules relating to electoral communications if it gets involved with deliveries of electoral communications.
In this instance it shouldn’t have even have accepted it as it appears that this particular document doesn’t include all the required data regarding who produced, printed and is promoting it – including ALL relevant names and addresses.
So maybe the CEO of Tower Hamlets Homes can explain:
(1) its part in the latest breach of electoral communications in Tower Hamlets; and
(2) why he or she isn’t familiar with the fact that this election has only been called due to the breach of the rules for the conduct of elections by the ex-Mayor and his agent.
I apologise to THH – I should have indicated an option in my rant to the fact that the individual might not have been employed by THH to deliver its newsletter and no permission had been given to include election material or indeed any other material
The recent statement from Tower Hamlets Homes now makes clear that they have been “very badly let down”
see their statement http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk/for_tenants/publications_for_residents/open_door.aspx
(also reproduced below)
Nonsense!
You’ve completely ignored the fact that all election material both printed and online must include various facts about who has produced it, printed it and promoted it – including names and addresses.
=> You Couldn’t
*** MUST *** is far too strong a term which effectively means little to some.
What do you say to those who publish printed information in 4pt. or 5 pt. typeface in a pale colour having virtually no contrast with the background colour ?
Obviously the publisher is obeying the law. But we all know the election law and election procedures of the UK are crap, sub-standard and an acute embarrassment to civilised countries that genuinely respect the notion of democracy. No wonder Scotland wants Independence !
Some addresses are as abstract as possible and not in the form many would consider to be a ‘full’ address.
Hang your collective heads in shame, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems for poncing around in Parliament whilst ignoring the requirements of ‘democracy’.
One day, You Couldn’t, you may mellow into an individual who recognises everything is not black or white but varying shades of grey and the UK is nothing to be proud about.
Curious Cat.
I say that anybody who does not comply with the rules is breaching the rules since the intent and purpose of the rules is completely transparent i.e. that all those involved in the production, printing and promotion of election material must be clear for all to see!
I’ve known people report election material in the past when details were missing or illegible or incorrect – and anybody can report such material if they see it.
If anybody sees any election material which is not up to snuff then they should send it to the Town Hall for the attention of Barry Quirk, the Chief Executive of Lewisham who is responsible for over-seeing the elections in Tower Hamlets until such time as we have a proper Chief Executive in place and/or the Council has been signed off from overview by the Secretary of State.
CC – rather than riding your hobby horse for the nth time and whining yet again, your time and effort would be much better employed encouraging people who read this blog to be responsible citizens and holding people to account by REPORTING stuff that is wrong
After all we are only now getting this rerun of the election because people REPORTED INFRINGEMENTS OF RULES re. what should happen in an election – and as a result of so doing we’ve seen the ex-Mayor disbarred from office, banned from standing for election – and we now have this new election
I’d call that a result for those who report rule infringements!
=> You Couldn’t
Why are you so reluctant to spell-out in ‘chapter and verse’ of the law which laws have been broken and by whom ?
Until the law is broken no legal action is likely.
Once a law has been broken, and there is evidence, then the next difficulty is who – if anyone – is responsible for enforcing the law than has been broken.
See. It really is as simple as I have set-out above.
So, cough-up the evidence please 🙂
Curious Cat.
Are you saying it would be allowable to use council resources for electioneering? If that is the case here.
Ted asked:-
Are you saying it would be allowable to use council resources for electioneering? If that is the case here.
1. No.
2. For sanity’s sake one must clearly differentiate, in ‘law’, between election offences and non-election offences.
3. There is no election law which states Thou Shalt Not Use the Council’s Resources.
4. If the use, authorised or unauthorised, of council’s resources by an election candidate would ordinarily result in a cost to a third-party using those same resources, then the election candidate must declare that sum (in their election expenses) regardless of whether or not actually money was paid-out. It is called the nominal value.
5. Using, or misusing, council resources or any others resources, is NOT an election offence although it is forbidden, probably under one of the very many Local Government Acts. Try 1972 for starters.
Hoper that helps.
Curious Cat.
When are the Government and Police going to top this once and for all. I am a THH Leaseholder and No they are incompetent people to manage my Home.
It gets even better
Tower Hamlets Homes has now issued a statement – see http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk/for_tenants/publications_for_residents/open_door.aspx
I predict we may now see election material asking voters whether they really want yet another Mayor who breaks the rules – and yet another Election Court with all the consequential costs for Tower Hamlets Council Tax payers.
=> You Couldn’t
I predict we may now see election material asking voters whether they really want yet another Mayor who breaks the rules – and yet another Election Court with all the consequential costs for Tower Hamlets Council Tax payers.
What laws precisely have been broken ???? and by whom ?
Curious Cat.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/mayoral-elections-in-england
=> You Couldn’t
A link to the web site of a pitiful and failing organisation (the Electoral Commission) is not evidence of anything resembling an election offence.
Stop running away from the alleged crime scene and tell all of us:-
1. what law was broken ?
2. who broke that law ?
3. how did they break that law ?
P.S. Web site URL’s is not what I am seeking. 😉
Curious Cat.
Can I put forward a proposition about the leaflet distribution in the THH newsletter. It was almost certainly done without the knowledge of THH and was probably the result of a Lutfurite THH employee having the wizard weeze of sticking a load of Rabina Khan’s leaflets into a pile of the newsletters before they were distributed.
It has backfired spectacularly and there will probably be nickings and arrests over it. What it also shows is the amateurish nature of the whole Lutfur campaign.
Now. Can we get back to the main purpose of this post which is slagging off Giles “2000” Fraser?
Dave,
If you ‘really’ want to re-focus public attention on bashing-up your ‘friend’ then highly contentious comments such as
It has backfired spectacularly and there will probably be nickings and arrests over it. What it also shows is the amateurish nature of the whole Lutfur campaign.
are not conducive to your declared aim, particularly as I – a non-lawyer – think, based upon the available evidence, the likelihood of ‘nickings’ and ‘arrests’ to be speculative delusions (also known as ‘wishful thinking’)
🙂
Curious Cat
We’ll have to see but given that the Homicide and Serious Crime Squad fro The Yard have taken over the investigation there won’t be any local H Division cover ups.
Police have more cover-ups and greater internal tolerance of misconduct, assaults on the public, abuse of the law, creating false evidence than the public in general from whom the police are selected.
That is why the UK needs a separate independent national police force, similar in professionalism and powers to the Yank’s FBI.
CC.
Did any of you think the upcoming election would be honest? An awful lot of words on Teds blog about what was expected. No words about the low profiles that the other candidates have offered, or not. What is the point if the other Mayoral candidates stay silent about what is happening?
bobmop. And the point of this post is?
Dave – That we are all talking about the wrongdoings of one candidate. I think it takes the interest off other candidates. Surely these other candidates are in a stronger legal position to complain?
Still don’t get what you are on about. Never mind. Just keep having a go at Giles 2K. It seems he has been involved in discussions of Ugandan nature and might be the next Bishop of Durham!
I think bob mop has a good point. The focus should be on what ALL the candidates have to say i.e.
* not just the administrative catastrophe (I’m being kind) of one candidate
* or any PR swerves of focus of another.
Plus there are always two parties entitled to complain about how an election is conducted.
1) ALL the candidates and their agents are entitled to expect a fair fight
2) The Electorate at large is entitled to expect that all candidates and their agents will comply with the rules set down by the Election Commission – who are responsible for the management of elections. They’re certainly entitled to not only have a say but also to complain to the proper authorities if they think one of the candidates is undermining the election process as laid down by the Electoral Commission.
I dare say the people running and overseeing the election at the LBTH end had a word with candidates and their agents before the election process got underway. I’d really like to know what they are now doing about those leaflets. Have you asked and got a comment from the Returning Officer Ted?
Plus Dave the real purpose of this post is about the election generally – not just Giles – the person you love to hate.
Ted – I’d personally prefer more ‘one topic at a time’ posts as the comments are then much less confusing!
=> You Couldn’t
….. undermining the election process as laid down by the Electoral Commission.
As laid-down in the law and regurgitated by the UK’s Electoral Commission which does not have any remit for the management and/or supervision of elections. Responsibility is mainly the police’s task.
Curious Cat.
I don’t hate Giles Fraser! He’s just a total hypocrite and typical of a certain kind of liberal opportunist that the Guardian seems to find to write in CiF and other bits of the paper. He’s also a last ditch Lutfur supporter and for that reason is fair game.
If you want to have “one topic” posts, I assume you mean articles, then run your own blog and censor it heavily. The beauty of this format is that it allows a discussion which develops and enables people, like me, to do some digging thereby discovering that Rob Hoveman was identified by Liz Davies, a barrister and one time treasurer of the Socialist Alliance, as being someone who had, as far she was concerned, embezzled funds by writing cheques forging her signature.
There is confusion when contributors like yourself get into pointless point scoring exchanges with others about totally irrelevant side issues. It’s very naughty and you should stop doing it and behave yourself!
Steve
Worth a read. I subscribe and it gives an interesting view of Tower Hamlets politics.
M
Sent from my iPad
>