Trial by Jeory

Given the person quoted, I thought regular readers would like this story in today’s Sunday Express.

I wrote it before today’s fire at a tower block in in Bromley-by-Bow in which thankfully no one was hurt.

But I don’t think today’s incident in any way alters the “health and safety gone mad” argument in the Sunday Express piece. It concerns Dan McCurry and the houseplants he’s placed in the communal landing outside his flat in Clare House in Bow.

Dan McCurry is a Labour activist in the area and a regular commenter on this blog. He and fellow Old Ford Housing Association residents are a bit peeved by letters they’ve recently received. Similar letters have also been sent out by Tower Hamlets Homes, but I’m hoping they’ve got more common sense than Old Ford…

So some fun Sunday reading for you.

A GROUP of tower block residents has been ordered to remove the pot plants that spruce up their drab communal corridors… because they are a fire risk.

Tenants were told their pots in the ex-local authority building are “combustible” and would endanger the lives of firefighters if a blaze broke out.

Old Ford Housing Association, part of the Circle Anglia group, last inspected the plants about three years ago when leaseholder Dan McCurry wanted to enter them in a flower competition.

Legal executive Mr McCurry, 47, who lives on the 19th floor of the 21-storey block in Bow, east London, said: “They disqualified me from that, not because they were combustible but because they’re not flowers. They didn’t mention anything about fire hazards then.

“I’ve tested one of them outside with a lighter and I can assure everyone that they’re definitely not combustible. They’re just leaves.

“They make the place look nice. Without them, it would be just drab.

“It’s important to have decor here but they’re just being heavy-handed and lacking common sense.

“Pensioners are frightened to complain but they’re furious about what they’re being told. It’s bureaucracy gone mad.”

Old Ford sent out its health and safety ­letters earlier this month. It said it recognised its decision was distressing but it had a duty to act as a responsible landlord.

Its customer services team told Mr McCurry the fire at the Lakanal House tower block in south London four years ago, in which six people were killed, had changed the face of health and safety. They wrote: “The landings have to be cleared of everything, which includes the plants. Items that are deemed combustible must be removed.

“Our concern as a landlord in the first instance is the safety of our residents.

“The plants as well as other items have to be removed to ensure that we can get you out of the block in the event of a fire.

“When a fire breaks out, smoke is one of the main causes of death and when people are trying to escape they become disorientated and are not sure if they turn left or right and the smallest thing can be an obstacle for some of us, especially those that have poor or failing eyesight as well as other disabilities.

“We also have to ensure the safety of the firefighters when they are entering the block and trying to rescue people.

“I am aware that these letters that are sent out are distressing for residents and cause frustration but we all have to adhere to the rules that are set out so lives aren’t needlessly put at risk.”

An Old Ford spokesman added: “We took this decision following clear advice from London Fire Brigade.

“They advised that personal items in common parts and corridors must be removed. We understand our residents want to add a more personal touch, however it is in everyone’s interest that we put safety first. Taking these very simple steps could potentially be the difference between life and death.”

A London Fire Brigade spokesman said it was no longer its role to judge whether plants and other obstacles were risky. He said its job was to ensure landlords carried out checks and the landlord decided what was acceptable.

It’s Ramadan, so belated best wishes to all readers of this blog who are fasting. I’m told it’s gruelling but also incredibly fulfilling.

Some are also intent on making it politically fulfilling. You can’t beat a deeply religious occasion for a bit of political opportunism, I suppose.

As dawn broke on the first day of Ramadan, this appeared on Lutfurite Facebook pages:

It’s funny how our Mayor Lutfur Rahman, so shy and silent in the face of questioning in the council chamber, never misses a chance to plaster his name and boasts everywhere else.

He’s also just posted this newsletter to specially selected homes throughout the borough.

The Mayor’s News. Quite why he needs it when he has the multimillion pound machine that is East End Life at his disposal is something of a mystery. For the avoidance of doubt, this leaflet will have been funded privately not from our council tax.

At the bottom of the second page, it says it was printed by Faith Business Ltd in Greatorex St, Whitechapel. This is a business whose former directors include Shah Yousef, the ex-owner of the London Bangla “newspaper” who was responsible for printing these smears against Cllr Helal Abbas in 2010, and a certain Mohammed Jubair, the talented multi-tasking journalist who manages to combine a chief reporter’s role with Channel S and a £175 a day job as Lutfur’s “community media” adviser.

As for who funded the leaflet, I don’t know. But it seems that Lutfur has made amends with his former self-proclaimed backer, Shiraj Haque, the millionaire housing association tenant  who was convicted by the council last year for relabelling cheap Italian plonk as more expensive Australian shiraz at his restaurant in Brick Lane.

He’s such a man of the people is Shiraj. A true champion of workers’ rights…

Which is why, I’m sure, another media darling of late, Unite general secretary Len McLuskey, was so happy to be pictured with him at the end of last month. Red Len went on a walkabout with Lutfur and Shiraj, citing the EDL threat to Tower Hamlets as their guiding motivation. I wonder.

Now what might Lutfur, still ostracised from Labour, want from Len? Funding? Is Lutfur part of Len’s grand plan for an alternative party of the Left? Does Lutfur still have ambitions beyond Tower Hamlets? For Westminster or City Hall perhaps?

Watch this space.

Meanwhile, here’s a selection of amusing photos of the new Best Friends:

(In the background to this one above, you can see Lutfur’s £55k a year media consultant, the journalist Mark Seddon, but does anyone know who the taller chap is to his right – the man with greyish hair and glasses behind Shiraj’s left shoulder?)

Just a quick post to publish a press release sent by the Tower Hamlets Labour group regarding the filming of council meetings.

They express sympathy with John Wright who was quickly surrounded by the council’s media blackout guards as he tried to film nine days ago. Anyone interested in this issue should watch the Sunday Politics show on BBC1 this weekend; the London edition has done a piece on featuring John.

In Labour’s press release, we start to see John Biggs formulate his line of attack on Lutfur for next year’s election. It seems he will tackle all those issues highlighted on this blog regarding mayoral excess, self-aggrandisement, accountability and transparency.

Here are John’s comments:

“Openness is fundamental to democracy. By attempting to hide away and refusing to answer residents’ questions any Mayor brings his office into disrepute.

“If elected my administration would tear down the wall of secrecy around the Mayor’s office and, as much as possible, make sure that transparency permeates everything we do – this includes having the decency and respect to actually answer residents’ questions at Council meetings, which the current Mayor refuses to do.”

Here’s the rest of the Labour press release in full:

Following an impassioned protest by long-term resident and campaigner John Wright at last week’s Council meeting, Labour councillors have reiterated their support for the live streaming of Council meetings and called on the Mayor to drop his opposition to openness and transparency in the Council chamber. 

The councillors pointed out that they had previously proposed that all Council meetings were live streamed stating in their 2012 Budget motion that “the Town Hall is inaccessible to many residents and in order to increase transparency the council should live stream council meetings.” 

Labour argued for investment in live streaming facilities for the Council Chamber and other Executive meetings in 2012 but this was specifically blocked by the Mayor who refused to accept the amendment to the budget.
 
 

Whilst the councillors recognised that the Speaker had little choice but to follow officer advice at last week’s meeting, they have called on Council officers to ensure that a recorded or live stream of the meeting is in place by the next Council meeting in September.
 

Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Sirajul Islam, said:
“John Wright was entirely right when he said that as councillors we should be transparent and accountable to those who elected us.

“All residents have the right to hear what their elected representatives think about issues affecting the borough, not just those who are able to make it to the Town Hall.

“Labour Group fully support the opening up of Council meetings and have previously tried to introduce a live streaming system in the Town Hall but this was blocked by the Mayor. With the issue rightly back in the spotlight we are calling on the Mayor to drop his opposition and to introduce a live streaming system in time for the next Council meeting.
 


“With the technology widely available I can’t see any reason why democratically elected politicians would want to hide away from the public. The Mayor is always the first to jump for a photo call, maybe with cameras in the room he will finally have the decency to answer residents and councillors’ questions himself.”



I’d left by the time of this little outburst at last week’s full Tower Hamlets council meeting. It would have been nice to have posted a video of it, but the council has of course banned such transparency.

Anyway, well done to Mike Brooke and the East London Advertiser for staying the course and reporting this (which I’ve only just seen):

Families living next to east London’s Victoria Park have been shocked by a member of Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s administration urging them to move house if festivals in the park upset them.

Shahed Ali suggested they could go on a housing exchange register and swap with tenants living in his own Whitechapel neighbourhood.

The outburst came in a debate in which the council voted to call on the Mayor to “respect the democratic mandate of the authority” which has twice agreed to limit event days to six a year, end them by 10pm and put a cap on noise levels and crowd capacity.

But instead, the mayor has put out a tender inviting companies to bid for a three-year contract for up to 30 commercial event days.

Cllr Ali said: “I’d be interested to know if local ward councillors have considered asking these families if they would go on the exchange register.

“Many residents in Whitechapel would happily exchange with them and move into their houses. They can come and speak to me—I’ll help them make that move.”

The suggestion brought outrage from Labour’s Amy Whitelock, accusing him of “starting a class war” and pointing out the noise and disturbance reached a housing estate in Bethnal Green, not just families living by the park.

“Ali’s arrogance is unbelievable—it’s an outrageous remark,” she said. “It’s not a class issue, so why are you making it one?”

The row followed an earlier spat involving Cllr Ali during Public Question Time when resident Janet Wade asked why the Mayor failed to bring in the six-day limit agreed by the council.

Cllr Ali, speaking for the mayor, referred to “these difficult times” when priority was housing, education and protecting the most vulnerable from welfare reforms.

Mrs Wade slammed back: “We appreciate these are difficult times—but that doesn’t mean public parks should be used just to raise revenue rather than benefit people.

“We’re beginning to think the council isn’t a fit and proper body to manage the park.”

The big events were “not family friendly,” she maintained. They were too big, too noisy and go on too late.

Quite what Mayor Lutfur and his councillors have against the people who live near Victoria Park is really something of a mystery. But they do seem to be fond of making little digs against the “middle classes” they believe to live there.

I think they need to get out more. Talk to the people in Bow and Mile End, even. I’ve always liked Shahed, but well done to Amy Whitelock for having a pop at him in the council chamber. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if she raised Shahed’s own personal business interests.

His declared register of interests on the council’s website says he owns an events company called Global Arts Village Ltd. There’s more about this outfit on the council’s website here, where it says:

But the funny thing about this company is that it doesn’t actually exist. Well, not any more anyway.

According to records at Companies House, it changed its name to Arts Worldwide in June 2009 and was dissolved in September 2010.

So why is it still on Shahed’s declaration of interests? Well, that’s because he hasn’t updated it since October 10, 2007.

His form also says he has a substantial interest in Sangeeta Ltd, a books and CD distribution company. However, that, too, no longer exists. It was also dissolved in October 2010.

And the same goes for his declared political party: he says he’s a member of Respect….but oh, hang on a sec, having defected from them to Labour to Lutfur, that part is actually about right.

A declaration of interests that is six years out of date. And neither he nor the council have bothered to ensure it has been corrected in that time.

What we do know is that he runs a successful restaurant in Frinton-on-Sea in Essex (now there is a middle-class stronghold if ever there was one – how ironic).

But where else is he getting his income from? How are we able to check if he has any conflicts of interest in relation to big events in Victoria Park? A few years ago, he lobbied to take over the Boishakhi Mela from Shiraj Haque…

Shahed is a regular reader of this blog and he does, unlike other councillors, have the guts to comment under his own name, so perhaps he can explain why he hasn’t updated his register and maybe even take the opportunity to lodge a new one..right here on this blog.

We await…

This is the moment 71-year-old Tower Hamlets Alzheimer’s ambassador John Wright was asked to stop filming a segment of last Wednesday’s full council meeting.

It demonstrates the confusion caused by Eric Pickles’ announcement a couple of weeks ago that residents had the right to film their councillors in action.

Just hours before the meeting was due to start, Tower Hamlets council’s most senior officer, Stephen Halsey, wrote to councillors telling them the Communities Secretary’s opinion appeared to be wrong. In a letter, which I reported here, he said the council’s constitution specifically barred filming of full council meetings. This advice was then repeated to everyone in the council chamber by Speaker Lesley Pavitt at the start of the meeting.

However, John, one of the borough’s most colourful campaigners, was convinced Eric was right. So, during a segment in which Lutfur’s cabinet member for housing, Rabina Khan, rose to her feet to give her opinion on social landlords, John, who is a longstanding council tenant, got out his camera and pressed start.

Just prior to that, I’d tweeted that town hall security guards seemed to be getting twitchy. And so they were. They clocked John and surrounded him. A council civil enforcement officer, one of the £40,000 a year THEOS, flashed his “warrant card” and told him he would call the police. I later saw an officer hovering outside with the chap who runs the council’s CCTV control room.

The video lasts for 15 minutes and it’s well worth watching it all. This is a man who clearly thought a senior Cabinet minister had given him the green light. Following a couple of minutes discussion with the Speaker, who later told him she would try to get the constitution changed, the meeting was suspended until he decided to back down.

For about 10 minutes, a series of people talk to him, including the veteran East London Advertiser journalist Mike Brooke, who wrote this report. Commendably, Lutfur’s finance chief, Alibor Choudhury, someone more used to provoking a verbal fight in the chamber, intervenes to calm things down.

There are some memorable lines in the exchange: too many, in fact to type out now. But here’s a flavour of John’s quotes:

My Government is filmed, the London Assembly is filmed: why is your council not allowing me to film, or are you hiding something?

Why are you not allowing me to photograph when Eric Pickles says I can?

This is England–we are democratic.

Why are you hiding? Are you all corrupt?

In response, Speaker Pavitt tells him they are not hiding anything, just that they need to have procedures in place because there might be some people who do not wish to be filmed. I think she means people in the public gallery.

John, who has published the video on YouTube, is for many a local hero and I think his actions will be seen as a tipping point. The council will be urgently looking at ways of allowing filming next time round.

Here’s the video.

Mayor Lutfur’s decision to commit £3million of council money to paint domes, polish signs and refurbish faith-based community centres has caused a bit of a stink within the Labour party.

Many members are deeply unhappy that scarce public money is being spent to fund religious activities, particularly given some of those religious activities do not promote the kind of equality at the heart of their party’s values.

I asked them for a statement on their position on Tuesday and they sent it yesterday evening.

This is it:

Cllr Sirajul Islam, leader of the Labour group, said: “We strongly support our many faith communities and the good work that they do in supporting local people. Many organisations will have applied for this funding in good faith to continue the work that they do which strengthens our communities.

“We do not want any of our faith organisations to be stained by the grubbiness of the mayoral administration.

“There is a strong perception that this funding is being used to put pressure on people to support the Independent Mayor at the next election. It is wrong to seek to buy an election with local people’s own money.

“The Mayor does have a duty to explain to the people he is meant to serve how he has balanced these needs against the many other pressing needs in our community, as families face a lack of school places, social care budgets are squeezed, street cleaning cut and local people badly need help with getting jobs. There are many unmet needs in Tower Hamlets.

“We would not seek to reverse these decisions unless there was clear evidence of any corruption or wrongdoing.

“Labour Group have expressed our concern at the Mayor’s profligate approach to the Council’s finances and with this decision coming only days before the Conservative led Government announces further destructive cuts to the Council’s budget, we would urge the Mayor to ensure he is taking every step possible to safeguard the core services residents rely upon.

“If, however, anybody has evidence of wrongdoing or misuse of resources they should of course take this immediately to both the local audit service and the police.”

I then asked Labour’s John Biggs, who will challenge Lutfur for Mayor next year, whether “not seek to reverse these decisions” meant he would guarantee the entire £3million committed to this scheme.

This was his reply:

“It means what it says. We are committed to the decisions the mayor has made this week. We don’t give him a blank cheque. We consider each decision he makes and weigh it up against his commitments and justifications and other priorities.”

So that’s not a guarantee.

This is a tricky issue in Tower Hamlets.

In March 2008, a couple of weeks after Canon Michael Ainsworth was beaten up in the grounds of St George-in-the-East church in Shadwell, the East London Advertiser carried a front page editorial backing his call for “the council to to play its part” in improving security at the borough’s churchyards.

Lutfur was council leader at that point and while there were mumbles of “things must be done”, I don’t recall anything actually happening. Some of these historic churchyards remain vulnerable to violence and anti-social behaviour.

As Canon Michael’s call was about securing churches from violent elements in the borough, the money that he wanted used would have come from “community safety” budgets. That’s very different from paying for the running costs of churches and mosques etc.

Incredibly, £2,400 of the £15,000 Lutfur has given to the Aberfeldy mosque is for “sessional staff, management, ie Meetings, minutes, diary, letter…and £595 is for refreshment/volunteer cost/travel cost”.

So this means our council tax is being used to fund that mosque’s own salaries and expenses. Again, that’s very different from painting and decorating.

This is the danger of this policy: it creates a link between the state and religion, and in Tower Hamlets that really means between the council and Islam and the Council of Mosques. It sets a precedent for more money.

Another recipient of Lutfur’s largesse is the Shoreditch Masjid Trust in Redchurch Trust, just north of Brick Lane. It’s been awarded £25,000 to fund “improvement works”.

The Shoreditch mosque is listed as following the Deobandi tradition, which is closely linked to the Saudi Wahhabis’ outlook on life. And for a flavour of that, let’s have a look at an objection they made last night at the council’s licensing committee.

The committee was hearing an application for an alcohol licence for the small Burro e Salvia Italian deli opposite the mosque. The deli, which sells pasta, ham and cheese, and has seating for 12 people, wanted to sell wine until 7pm when it closes.

But this outraged the members of the mosque, which submitted two letters and a petition against it.

This is one of their letters:

Isn’t the language depressing? That a small, innocuous Italian deli could be accused of driving up levels of crime and racism…well, it’s the kind of argument you’d hear in Islamic republics.

And we’re giving them £25,000. Bit sickening really.

A fortnight ago, Roy Greenslade, the Guardian’s media commentator and professor of journalism at City University, reported here the view of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that members of the public could film council meetings.

Pickles said:

I want to stand up for the rights of journalists and taxpayers to scrutinise and challenge decisions of the state. Data protection rules or health and safety should not be used to suppress reporting or a healthy dose of criticism.

Modern technology has created a new cadre of bloggers and hyper-local journalists, and councils should open their digital doors and not cling to analogue interpretations of council rules.

Councillors shouldn’t be shy about the public seeing the good work they do in championing local communities and local interests.

His comments came as he issued new guidance on what councils should do to make their meetings more transparent.

Here’s the relevant section from that guide on filming:

Can I film the meeting?

Council meetings are public meetings. Elected representatives and council officers acting in the public sphere should expect to be held to account for their comments and votes in such meetings. The rules require councils to provide reasonable facilities for any member of the public to report on meetings. Councils should thus allow the filming of councillors and officers at meetings that are open to the public.

The Data Protection Act does not prohibit such overt filming of public meetings. Councils may reasonably ask for the filming to be undertaken in such a way that it is not disruptive or distracting to the good order and conduct of the meeting. As a courtesy, attendees should be informed at the start of the meeting that it is being filmed; we recommend that those wanting to film liaise with council staff before the start of the meeting.

The council should consider adopting a policy on the filming of members of the public speaking at a meeting, such as allowing those who actively object to being filmed not to be filmed, without undermining the broader transparency of the meeting.

Just a few hours before its full council meeting tonight, the most senior officer at Tower Hamlets, Stephen Halsey, has just given the minister a two-fingered rebuff.

Here’s a letter he’s just sent to senior councillors:

Dear Mayor Rahman & Group Leaders

Council Meeting 26^th June 2013

I thought it would be useful to clarify a couple of points where questions have arisen in relation to Wednesday evening’s Council meeting.

Monitoring Officer advice

Some Members expressed concern at the April Council meeting that no officer was present with delegated powers from the Monitoring Officer to advise on a potential amendment to the Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer is currently on leave and will not be present at Wednesday’s meeting.  A senior legal officer will be in attendance with delegated powers to advise on legal matters but this does not include power to agree any changes to the Constitution.

This is in line with the requirement in the Constitution itself, that such changes may only be made by the Council after consideration of the proposal by the Monitoring Officer.  Unless the proposed change is considered to be ‘trivial’, some time will be required for this consideration.  It would be helpful if  Constitutional changes were not the subject of late motions moved with little or no notice.  If such changes are moved, it may be necessary for officers to take the proposal away and report back to a subsequent meeting.

Late items

More generally, the submission of late motions or other items without notice to the Council meeting does not promote considered decision making or transparency.  The rules around giving notice of proposals are there for a reason, and all proposals put to the Council should be subject to appropriate officer advice.

I would therefore ask all Members to refrain from moving late items on any subject unless it relates to a genuine emergency.

Filming

I am aware that there are comments circulating on the web suggesting that Wednesday’s Council meeting will be filmed, presumably by someone in the public gallery.  These follow a statement issued by Eric Pickles MP in which he apparently indicated that the Government has changed the law so that Councils must allow people to blog, tweet and film meetings.

I should clear up a misapprehension in this regard, in relation to the Council meeting nothing has changed and there is no obligation for the Council to allow members of the press or public to film the meeting.  The Council’s Constitution provides that ‘No photography or video or audio recording of any kind by Members, guests or members of the public may take place at any Council meeting without the express permission of the Speaker’ (Council Procedure Rule 27.1), and this remains the case.

Where requests have been made to previous Speakers to give such permission, officers have advised that this should not be agreed and this remains my position for a number of reasons.  These include possible reputational damage to the authority – or worse, action against individuals – resulting from publication of material that may be a partial record of events, presented out of context or even edited to be misleading; and the potential infringement of individuals’ rights to privacy, including members of the public and officers who have not given their permission to be filmed.

Officers have therefore advised the Speaker that, in their view, she should not agree any request from a third party to film the meeting and I understand that the Speaker has supported that position.

Looking forward it may be possible to agree arrangements for the Council’s own video service to address the above points in a considered way and promote the transparency that we all support.  However I do not consider that allowing unregulated and potentially damaging third party filming is the best way to achieve this, particularly as there is, in fact, no requirement to do so.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Halsey

Head of Paid Service & Corporate Director Communities, Localities & Culture

Reputational damage?? To Tower Hamlets council??

So, he’s saying the council’s constitution specifically bars filming. And any change to the council’s constitution would need the consideration of the Monitoring Officer. But because she (Isabella Freeman, who is in the middle of suing her employer, remember) has been allowed to take a holiday on the night of full council meeting, any proposed amendment would not likely see the light of day.

And with that decree (sent, ironically, just a few hours before proceedings), our highly paid officers have ensured darkness remains over the monthly disgrace that is our full council meeting.

Stephanie Eaton, the sole Lib Dem councillor in Tower Hamlets, and probably the borough’s deepest thinker (ok,ok, I know it’s not a high bar..), has this to say on the Community Faith Buildings Scheme:

Thanks for offering me a chance to comment on the Mayor’s decision to allocate £595,000 to the improvement of faith buildings in the Borough. I’m going to come at this topic in a slightly oblique way but I hope you’ll see the point I’m making.

In Perth, Western Australia, where I was born, the Swan River holds great significance to the Noongar aboriginal people. The water is sacred because a dreamtime spirit in the form of a snake called the Waugal created the river on its journey to the sea.

The Swan River is ‘sacred’ for me too, but not in the same way that it is for the Noongar. For me, a non-believer and member of no church, I feel a similar sense of attachment to faith buildings in Tower Hamlets, and that’s why I support the policy of the Council contributing to their upkeep.

Of course, all Council spending has to be justified, and especially so when there are reductions in government grant. Last year Tower Hamlets Council had a reduction of 7% of its net revenue budget. But even after cuts we are a Council that spends £1,327 million per year. This year, we are increasing the level of general reserves by £11.7 million to £38.1 million. Unlike some other Councils, Tower Hamlets Council’s finances are in good shape. However £595,000 is a significant amount and could be spent in other ways. Some people will think that it should be spent elsewhere – because to spend it on faith buildings is to privilege religious groups at the expense of others.

To my knowledge there are no places that are “atheist only” in the Borough. But as an atheist, I have enjoyed concerts in St Leonard’s Church, discussed books in the lovely Nelson Street synagogue, seen history exhibitions in the London Muslim Centre. I love hearing the bells ringing out from St Anne’s Limehouse and am moved by the annual service to remember the victims of the Bethnal Green tube disaster at St John’s Church.  Like many residents, religious and otherwise, I also sit in Museum gardens, use the Idea Stores, cycle around Victoria Park, and go to events at York Hall. All of these places have been developed with public funding and are supported by Tower Hamlets Council. Secular buildings and spaces that are welcoming to all enrich our Borough. Religious buildings can do so as well. I appreciate that not everyone wants to visit a church, mosque, synagogue or temple. I will never use the Mile End skate park but I’m happy for it to be there and to make my contribution to its costs.

Places and buildings are important to different people for different reasons. I do not believe the Waugal lives in the Swan River. But the river is a mystical place for me in my own way. There are faith buildings and secular buildings in Tower Hamlets that are special or sacred for one person or another. I think it’s good that the Council helps to preserve and enhance faith buildings as it does secular buildings and places. To do otherwise would be to deprive us all.

It would make a good Church sermon, this.

The latest edition of East End Life is most interesting for what’s not in it. While on p6 there’s a report on the latest round of cash handouts to various community groups (more of that in another post), there’s nothing about another tax-funded vote buying exercise which was announced on the same day last week.

I’ve no idea why Mayor Lutfur or his legion of highly paid “communications” advisers don’t make more of the edicts known as “mayoral executive decisions”; maybe he wants to keep them quiet.

But last Thursday, two months later than planned, he slipped out via this section on the council website his latest re-election campaign move.

I first wrote about his “Community Faith Building Scheme” here last November when Lutfur’s cabinet agreed a budget for a £2million programme. His cabinet then added a further £1million to this pot in February. The programme is being funded from supposedly precious council reserves (this in a period of cuts, remember) to “offer assistance to faith communities to repair, adapt and improve buildings in Tower Hamlets in which faith-based activities occur”.

The money is being doled out in three tranches and three types of grant were available. Type A had an initial cap of £75k per application for actual repair and revamp work; Type B was for more substantial works with a cap of £300k; and Type C had a cap of £10k to help with professional fees such as architectural advice needed for Types A and B.

According to the council’s website earlier this year, 42 bids totalling £2,995,880 had been made. So Lutfur and the officer in charge of the project, the regeneration director Aman Dalvi (who some senior councillors have said is too close to the Mayor), decided to reduce the cap on Type A bids to £25,000 so more groups would get something.

So all 42 applications have been at least partially successful and a total of £595,000 of our money has been handed out.

Here’s a table that summarises the breakdown by faith. It also shows the 2011 Census results for people who identified themselves by faith. The council said it would use this as a key driver of how it awarded the grants. The Equality Impact statement in Appendix 5 of this document says: “The figures show that the two faiths with the most people according to the 2011 Census (Muslim and Christian) have submitted the most applications, requested the most funding and have been recommended the most funding.

The breakdown by faith is:

So who’s won?

Well, the East London Mosque, which is sitting on a cash pile a mile high (its latest accounts show it had £2.7million in its account last year), has been awarded £10,000 to install a new sliding glass door, repaint the dome and minaret, and to clean and polish the signage. You’d have thought it would have been a little more charitable and let a smaller outfit take the money.

A few churches have also been successful: the Rev Alan Green, of the Tower Hamlets Inter Faith Forum, will be chuffed that £25k has been given to refurbish his community centre at St John on Bethnal Green.

And the borough’s two main synagogues – the East London Central Synagogue in Nelson Street, which is chaired by Leon Silver of the Inter Faith Forum, and Congregation of Jacob Synagogue in Commercial Road – have got £25k between them.

The Gudwara Sikh temple in Harley Grove, Bow, which re-opened last week after being destroyed by an arson attack in 2009, gets £15k for, among other things, solar panels.

And there are also a few which have been awarded £10k to cover the professional fees needed to explore further substantial works. These include the tiny Bow Muslim Cultural Centre in Roman Road. I wonder what plans they have.

The full list is in the documents below. A grand total of £150,000 has been set aside by the council to “project manage” this programme. Presumably, this will include ensuring the money is spent as intended.

As for the rights and wrongs of earmarking public cash for religious buildings and activities…well, the council says it’s allowed to. It’s a direct consequence of the Localism Act.

The National Secular Society is dead against it. They commented here last November

The Mayor says he is responding to a community demand. I said last November that if this money is used to improve community facilities that are open to all, ie inclusive, then it’s not a bad thing.

But that’s a big if. Many of these places ‘ain’t exactly inclusive.

As will be shown at a later date.

Here are the winners:

Tower Hamlets Labour group has sent me its list of questions for Mayor Lutfur for next week. The meeting will be filmed so people can see for themselves how often he speaks.

There are also a batch of proposed motions, the most interesting one of which, for me, is the mayor’s continued pimping of Victoria Park. He has just proposed a commercial tender for 10 major events per year there. This, despite a council vote on reducing the number.

Motion on the EDL

Proposer: Cllr Sirajul Islam

Seconder: Cllr Rachael Saunders

This Labour Group:

–        Offers its sympathies to the family and friends of Lee Rigby.  To try to use a warped view of any religion or faith to justify his murder is wrong, and cannot be tolerated.

–        Calls for unity against the EDL, BNP and others who seek to stir up hated and division.  We are at our strongest when we are united, as we must be in the face of this attack in our neighbouring borough of Greenwich.

–        Is deeply concerned about attacks on Islamic buildings and threats to the safety of individuals and communities.

–        Notes the EDL threat to demonstrate in Tower Hamlets on the 26^th August 2013 and that the Labour Group immediately wrote to the Mayor and all Group leaders asking them to join with us in opposing the march. 

–        Notes that John Biggs AM, Labour Group and local MPs have written to the Home Secretary and Borough Commander raising their concerns and asking for support for a ban on any march.  

–        Supports a ban on the EDL marching through our borough.

This Labour Group resolves:

–        To ask Council to write to the Home Secretary in support of Rushanara Ali MP’s request that she take steps to ban the EDL march and ensure that our community is fully protected from the EDL and other extremists.

–        To work with community organisations, faith groups, local people and the police to maintain calm and safety in our community.

–        To call on the independent Mayor and all councillors to unite against all forms of extremism and racism.

4in10 campaign for London’s Overcrowded Children

Proposed by Abdal Ullah

Seconded by John PIerce

This Council notes that,

• 391,000 children are estimated to be growing up in overcrowded conditions in London – a quarter of the Capital’s children, including tens of thousands living in Tower Hamlets;
• This figure has risen by around 80,000 in the past decade and it set to get worse as the supply of new social housing dries up.
• The Conservative led government has led a sustained attack on social housing, including cutting funding for building and attacking social security. 
• Only 134 of the 1,618 applicants for four bedroom social housing in the borough were catered for in 2012, with only 16 of those in properties owned by Tower Hamlets Council directly. 
• Research has shown that overcrowding undermines a child’s health, education and well-being, damaging their long-term life chances;The Mayor of London “Overcrowding Action Plan” sets a target to reduce the number of severely overcrowded households by just 5,500 by 2016;
• Save the Children’s 4in10 campaign is calling on the Mayor of London to commit to halve the number of children growing up in overcrowded conditions by 2020.

This Council believes,

• The only solution to London’s housing crisis is a significant and sustained increase in investment in new social rented housing, including council housing, for overcrowded and homeless families;
• The 4in10 campaign is right to focus political attention on the Mayor of London as his “Action Plan” is an inadequate response and fails to make tackling overcrowding a real political priority.

This Council resolves,

• To support the 4in10 campaign and call on the Mayor of London to make a commitment to halve the number of children in overcrowded homes by 2020;

Commercial Events in Victoria Park

Proposer: Councillor Amy Whitelock

Seconder: Councillor Marc Francis

This Council Notes:

1. The motion passed by Council on the 16th May 2012 which resolved to amend the Open Spaces Strategy to include a section on Commercial Events in parks, to reflect the prior decisions of Council, that limits the number of events in Victoria Park to 6 days each year, prevents the park being used for commercial events on consecutive weekends, set a closing time for events to 10pm and a reduced noise limit for commercial events, and prevents commercial events being held in Sir John McDougal Gardens, Millwall Park, Island Gardens and the gardens at Trinity Square;
2. That over 400 local residents signed a petition presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet, calling for the number of events to be reduced;
3. That no amended Open Spaces Strategy has been presented to Council even though it is included in the list of policies reserved for Council who have expressed a will to see the policy amended;
4. The serious damage done to the park by last summer’s commercial events and the continued degradation of the park during Field Day and AS ONE in May 2013;
5. The Mayor has allowed an increased 50,000 capacity for this year’s commercial events, which has resulted in even more of the eastern half of the park being cordoned off from use by the public and damage to the park’s fabric and grassed areas for the rest of the summer;
6. More than 400 criminal offences were recorded at Field Day and Lovebox events last year;
7. The Mayor has recently authorised a tendering process to rent out Victoria Park for up to ten events each year in 2014, 2015 and 2016;
8. The London Borough of Hackney recently decided against agreeing a programme of multiple events on Hackney Marshes each summer after a majority of residents there opposed those plans.

This Council Believes:

1. That the Mayor should respect the democratic mandate of the Council and the wishes of residents and bring forward a revised Open Spaces Strategy which reflects the stated position of Council;
2. That the Mayor’s failure to do so is clearly designed to circumvent the Council’s democratic process and commit this authority to contractual arrangements with commercial companies without proper scrutiny;
3. The Mayor has no mandate to commit LBTH to a contract for the hiring of Victoria Park for commercial events beyond May 2014;
4. LBTH should use the full force of the law to recover any legal costs incurred in renegotiating a three-year contract entered into by the Mayor and Cabinet Members from those authorising it.

This Council Resolves:

1. That the Mayor should immediately suspend the tendering process for commercial events in Victoria Park;
2. The Mayor should authorise meaningful consultation with residents and other stakeholders about the scale of commercial activity within Victoria Park;
3. The Mayor should in the meantime bring forward a renewed Open Spaces Strategy to the next ordinary Council meeting, including within it the amendments set out above, to ensure a more balanced approach to commercial events while the consultation is being carried out.
4. To publicise the campaign to local Labour Party members and residents to help raise public awareness of this problem and pressure on the Mayor of London to act.
5. To call on the Independent Mayor of Tower Hamlets to keep his promises to local people, and deliver family sized homes. 

Motion on garment workers

Proposed  Cllr Rachael Saunders

Seconded Cllr Sirajal Islam

This Council notes the terrible loss of life in the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh. While there may be many underlying reasons for this disaster, and the Government and its agencies in Bangladesh need to continue to investigate and to hold those responsible to account, and while the rapid economic growth in sectors such as the garment industry in Bangladesh is to be welcomed, and is an important providers of wealth and employment, the event also highlights the challenging working conditions of workers in many developing economies.

This Council resolves:

1.       To support and encourage closer relationships between local government bodies in the UK and Bangladesh in order that good practice and experience can be shared.

2.       To ensure that it follows ethical procurement policies in its contracts, and to support campaign organisations and trade unions that promote ethical procurement and which can help to promote good employment practice and safe working conditions without stifling economic growth.

3.       To encourage others, more widely but in particular in our borough, and including in Tower Hamlets schools, to follow ethical procurement guidelines.

4.       To congratulate those bodies and individuals in Tower Hamlets and beyond who have helped to raise funds and support to assist those affected by the disaster.