Trial by Jeory

I’ve been banging on about East End Life for as long as I’ve been covering Tower Hamlets council and, following a meeting with him at the Tory party conference last October, I predicted here that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles would try to limit its publication by putting it under some form of statutory footing. On Tuesday, he announced he would do exactly that.

There are several views on this subject and BBC London did a small item on its news bulletin two nights ago (failing by the way to broadcast the views of a single Bengali resident).

The following is a guest post by Robert Scott, a resident of Wapping, a postgraduate student at Leeds University and an activist in the Tower Hamlets Labour party:

BBC London News recently featured a short segment, which outlined Eric Pickles’ intention to limit councils to printing four free newssheets a year, which heavily featured Tower Hamlets. Eric Pickles and the residents featured in the piece raised important questions regarding motives costs and the effectiveness of council newspapers. Considering East End Life costs ratepayers £1.5million per year, I don’t think it can be accurately described as a freesheet and I have doubts  whether those costs are recuperated by advertising. [TJ: they are not and, as a senior accountant at the council has admitted to me, that £1.5million does not even include all the costs.]

Councils are required to place public notices in two local newspapers. I don’t know how much that would cost but I don’t believe we’d get  anywhere near to £1.5million a year. Anything above this basic requirement is optional and whilst it is valuable in certain instances, it ought to be reassessed in light of local budgetary constraints.  The council’s communication chief Takki Sulaiman made a really poor effort defending East End Life in the segment:

“It’s about services, it’s about community groups, and it’s about community cohesion. Local authorities have a duty to promote community cohesion, race equality, a reduced fear of crime and promote healthy lifestyles.”

Whilst local authorities ought to be doing all of those things, East End Life is not the principal way or even a particularly effective way of achieving any of them.

THEOs (Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers), useless though they are in responding to crime, play an important role in reducing the fear of crime. If you want to promote healthy lifestyles, why not look into the possibility of introducing universal free school meals for primaries like they have in Newham and crack down on the number of chicken shops in the borough?

If you want to promote community cohesion and race quality then supporting and getting involved in more community events might be a good place to start. You don’t need a weekly newspaper to do any of those things.

We need more support for grassroots initiatives rather than set peace propaganda delivered on a weekly basis and that’s only if you’re one of the lucky few who actually receives the paper: many residents don’t.

Reforming East End Life has the potential to release a lot of money that can facilitate other initiatives. The value of East End Life in its current form is questionable in the best of times, which is reinforced by the comments made by residents in the video. I think we’ve reached a point where the council ought to get rid of it altogether and think of ways to replicate some of it’s more useful functions at a reduced cost or in the very least severely reduce its publication and distribution in order to plug gaps in funding elsewhere.

Tower Hamlets Labour party yesterday expelled five councillors for “actively campaigning” for Gulam Robbani in his successful Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election in April. Robbani was the preferred “independent” selection of Mayor Lutfur Rahman.

The five expelled – Shahed Ali, Abdul Asad, Rofique Ahmed, Kabir Ahmed and Shafiqul Haque – were already in the party’s departure lounge after they had decided to break the Labour whip and serve in Lutfur’s cabinet.

Labour’s press release on the expulsion is copied below and the East London Advertiser reported the story here.

The “actively campaigning” line relies at least partly on the leaflet put out by Robbani, which contains the endorsement of the Infamous Five.

The leaflet is here:

Pretty clear.

Shahed Ali has now asked me to publish his defence. I’ve known Shahed for a fair few years and I have real regard for him, both as a person and as a councillor. But he has sadly cheapened his argument and his status by playing the race card.

He also argues that if he is to be kicked out for breaking party rules, why hasn’t Lord Sugar also been expelled for urging people not to vote for Ken Livingstone earlier this year? Ditto Telegraph journalist/Labour blogger Dan Hodges.

Shahed, who never came across to me as a religious type, also says he was kicked out for being a Muslim. When I questioned him about all this, he stuck to his line by saying Labour is “institutionally racist”.

Of course, this is a line we’ve heard time and time again in Tower Hamlets. Before the Great Split, Labour and Respect councillors regularly used to accuse the Tories of racism because they had no Bengali councillors.

Lately, it has been Lutfur and his crew who say they are martyrs of an anti-Muslim plot.

I suspect it’s a deliberate strategy. And a pretty dangerous one at that.

[You’ll also see that Shahed says he couldn’t have been “actively” campaigning for Robbani because he was in Bangladesh at the time (just as he was when he commented on this post during Lutfur’s election campaign here), but when I asked whether he had ever complained, he declined to say.]

Here is Shahed’s defence:

As far as I am aware, I have been written to by the compliance officer of the London Regional Labour party, advising me that my membership has been terminated for the following reason:

Clause 2.1.4.B of the Labour party rules states: “A member of the party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member, subject to the provisions of part 6.1.2 of the disciplinary rules.”

The letter then continues to state:

“You are, therefore, no longer a member of the Labour Party and have been removed from the national membership system.”

This clearly clarifies to me that the above clause of the party rules have been applied in order to, therefore, terminate my membership. However, I am struggling to apply the same clause in two recent examples as follows. Labour peer Lord Alan Sugar, aka The Apprentice, appeared in the Guardian on 19 April, where it was reported:

Sugar tweeted: “I don’t care if Ed Miliband is backing Livingstone. I seriously suggest NO-ONE votes for Livingstone in the Mayoral elections.” He also wrote: “Livingstone must NOT get in on 3rd May.”

It is obvious that the race for the 2012 London Mayoralty was simply between Labour and the Tories. I therefore doubt Lord Sugar’s appeal to voters could have been anything other than instigating a vote for Boris?  This is the link to the entire article.

Furthermore, Labour party member and Telegraph journalist, Dan Hodges, pledged his vote and support for the Tories against the Labour candidate, Ken Livingstone in his article on 30 April.  This is the link to the entire article.

Tower Hamlets Labour group leader, Cllr. Joshua Peck, according to the article in the East London Advertiser stated as follows:

“I am very pleased the party has now expelled the councillors, who have clearly broken the rules in campaigning for other candidates. This should be seen as a real signal that we are serious about applying the rules. The five expelled councillors have consistently voted and campaigned against the Labour Party. Whilst it is sad that it has had to come to this, these five councillors made their choice and now have to deal with the consequences”, councillor Peck added.”

My question to Cllr Peck is simple.  If he truly stands by his statement of this move being a “real signal about them seriously applying the rules”, does he believe that the same rules should also apply to the above two examples I have cited, or is there any reason why Clause 2.1.4.B of the Labour party rules should apply any different to them as opposed to myself?

I further note that according to the East London Advertiser, Jim Fitzpatrick MP said:

“The rules are the rules, and colleagues know that if they break those rules, there’s a possibility of sanctions, so the expulsion is fair and reasonable.” Mr Fitzpatrick also went on to reject the allegations of racism, describing them as “stupid nonsense.”

This is not the first time the Labour party has been accused of discrimination on the grounds of Race, and sadly the way things are going, it will not be the last.

It is depressingly becoming obvious to me that rules are not rules when one can either purchase them for 400K, or be excluded from the rulebook if one happens to be non-Black or non-Asian. I guess that if one also happens to be a Muslim, kicking them out of the party with no due process, unfairly, also works well with the right-wing media, hence far-right sentiment?

This is not ‘stupid nonsense’ Mr. Fitzpatrick, the rules have not been applied equally. I welcome you to educate me as to what makes my case punishable (based upon accusation) when clearly, others have not also been expelled for non-compliance of the same clause?  This is simply discrimination on the grounds of race and religion.

Finally, I would like to end by adding that I also challenge one single soul in Tower Hamlets Labour party, in particular, members of Spitalfields and Banglatown ward to produce a shred of evidence that I was campaigning for any person opposing the Labour Party candidate?  I was abroad in Bangladesh for five weeks during this period so unless I have an identical twin, unknown to me, it questions my interpretation of the words ‘actively campaigning.’

Councillor Shahed Ali

Here is Shahed’s response to my questions about his statement (I had asked him whether he was glad Robabni had beaten Labour’s Ala Uddin in Spitalfields, whether he had complained about the leaflet and whether he really wished to play the race card):

I have known both Robbani and Ala for decades. This has been mainly through the Labour party and through my time as a council employee. My relationship with Ala was also a very social one and we have shared intense hours together campaigning and supporting various party candidates for various selection battles. Those were the days when it all came down to the membership of party members making decisions.

Therefore I would have equally been glad for, and dissapointed at both outcomes because I know they would both make brilliant councillors with Labour values. However upon this occassion, Robbani will be part of Mayor Rahman’s administration therefore, in a position to deliver for his constituents and ultimately, that is what his electorate in S&BT will want more than simply a councillor not being able to deliver for his ward due to the restraints that would have been imposed upon him by a fraction of Labour group councillors who are simply opposing Labour manufesto policies for the sake of opposition rather than merit.

I have not seen this leaflet which also had my name on it. I was actually out of the country from 22 March to 29 April.  However, I have seen Labour councillors being far more sly in the role they (didn’t) play during the Lutfur VS Abbas saga which in my opinion is a far more stronger indicator of moral values.  As you know yourself Ted, I was probably the most publicly vocal face in opposition to Lutfur at the time both through live TV debates, my own written contributions in various blogs and local newspapers. This upset many people which is the reason why many current Labour councillors choose instead to stay ‘hush’ throughout.

I am not playing the race card Ted. I strongly can find no other reason why the rulebook is applied inconsistently other than the unfortunate world of institutional rascism. Let me ask you: if rules are rules, then the clause given to me for my expulsion should also apply to the likes of Lord Sugar and Dan Hodges.

Lord Sugar as you say may have had other reason not to vote for Ken but that should not exclude him or anyone from the rulebook if it is to be used as a tool to take such decisions. If individuals get to pick and choose whom to apply the rulebook upon instead of allowing it to dictate decisions, then I am afraid we live in a world where those individuals taking such decisions will at times discriminate on grounds of both race and religion. That is why in order to avoid such, the rulebook should be applied equally and consistently  to all regardless.

I have never been the type to simply obey what others instruct upon me simply to be in their goodbooks. Sadly this position does not escalate one up upon the political career ladder.  But that is me, and I would not change that nor envy many of my Labour councillor colleagues who do just that, choose to not challenge in group for sake of being punished by being given no positions in group and its wider circles, also known as a caucus.  

I hope that the Labour party seriously works towards eliminating reason for people to feel discriminated against on the grounds of race and religion. I will continue working hard to deliver whats best for my community, rather than to pander to whats best for furthering my political career at the expense of my constituents.

And for the record, here is the Labour press release:

Press release – For immediate release

Labour expel five Tower Hamlets councillors

The Labour Party has written to five Tower Hamlets councillors informing them of their immediate expulsion from the party. The councillors, Kabir Ahmed, Rofique Ahmed, Councillor Shahed Ali, Councillor Abdul Asad and Shafiqul Haque were all found to have violated numerous Labour Party rules by actively campaigning against the Labour Party candidate during the recent Spitalfields by-election. The five councillors were also reprimanded for their continued membership in the independent Mayor’s cabinet.

Responding to the expulsions Labour Group Leader Cllr Joshua Peck said:

“The five expelled councillors have consistently voted and campaigned against the Labour Party. Whilst it is sad that it has had to come to this, these five councillors made their choice and now have to deal with the consequences.

I hope that this decision will draw a line under the problems of the past and allow us to focus on the important job of holding the independent Mayor to account and battling the Coalition’s cuts regime.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

• The five councillors were found to have actively  campaigned for independent candidate Gulam Robbani who stood in opposition to  the Labour Party candidate.
• Labour Party rules state that “A member of the party who joins and/or supports a political  organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible.

The following is a guest post by Nigel McCollum, who was a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bow East from 2002 until 2006. 

I was a Liberal Democrat councillor for Bow East for one term, so have some minimal insight into the way politics seem to be played out in this borough, and frankly it is getting worse and I despair. I am still asked to take up casework for residents and pass it on to current elected councillors, so I do hope I still have some feel for what the issues are that matter.

For me, what mattered most as a councillor was the grass roots casework – being the ‘scissors’ that assisted those unable to assist themselves in cutting through the masses of frustrating red tape. The “Politics” of the borough was a turn off then, and is a turn off now. Yes I was lured into the machinations of the seemingly exciting Machiavellian gossip and power bases around the Town Hall. But now I recognise this was and is a fundamental problem.

There is an unhealthy “chattering class” from all shades of the political spectrum, and even political online blogs are I believe a symptom of this. On the streets, across the borough, the overwhelming majority of people are totally disengaged, and this is reflected in their knowledge, or rather lack of, about what the Council does, about their knowledge of who the Mayor is and what he does, and crucially about what political parties are offering local people on issues that matter.

Frankly, the vast majority of people in Bow don’t actually care about what state small sections of Victoria Park are left in after LoveBox; they couldn’t give a damn if Lutfur Rahman was driving around in a gold plated stretch limousine; I would say that outside the Bengali community few would recognise him if he started doing his shopping on Roman Road. Their eyes glaze over if we start to talk about links between Baroness Warsi (who’s she? they will say) and the Mayor’s cronies; for them a cabinet is a piece of furniture not some committee sitting in the Town Hall.

What is terrifying is the fact that the very important issues around housing for example are simply not discussed. Within a decade, Housing Choice which was supposed to be small local housing associations taking over council estates in the borough, and improving the housing stock has become something completely different. Housing Choice was in many ways the precursor to “localism”, offering local residents more say in how their local communities were run. Yet within a few short years, while the chattering classes are busy with their gossip and internal factions, what has happened is these small local housing associations have been victim of what in the City of London would be deemed a successful hostile takeover bid.

Old Ford where I live is now managed through an office in Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham, ultimately answerable to a corporate head office in Norwich. In the Isle of Dogs I believe Swan Housing has upped and moved to Camden. Remember the golden days of little but effective organisations like Bethnal Green & Victoria Park HA? Does it frankly matter what local parties offer in terms of housing policy anymore? There is simply no democratic accountability or scrutiny of big decisions that impact on local people’s lives. I do not see any political party really getting their teeth into issues around accountability and scrutiny of public housing. This is a tragedy.

Instead it is total turn-off and irrelevant gossip. Just as in my days on Council the Liberals were led to try and find every bit of alleged dirt possible on essentially Bengali Labour councillors. Even now, I read with despair when I see it is reported that the Mayor and a councillor from Shadwell came to see my former ward colleague, Ray Gipson to backstab Labour’s Josh Peck. So what? Is this talking about important issues that actually matter to local people? There is an element of late night private meetings in smoke-filled rooms that still permeates Bangladeshi politics (I know, I lived there for some years). But these tales are irrelevant and pointless – apart from anything, a respected local man like Ray wasn’t even able to get his core vote out in 2006 to be re-elected, probably because the Liberals were unable to focus enough on policy but more on people. So I ask again does it matter whether the Mayor was backstabbing the Labour leader to an ex-Liberal councillor?

I see former councillors who I worked with, who never once spoke in council meetings, whose ability to fight for their wards was questionable, and as such were defeated, are then put up again as candidates in recent by-elections hoping that their ethnicity and kinship networks will win votes. Please local parties, stop treating the voters with contempt. Forget ethnicity and deal with policies then maybe we will have a more engaged more diverse electorate.

I am shown case work from serving councillors and I am frankly appalled. No supplementary follow-up. No getting to the core of the problems. I was trained in many ways by the late Cllr Bette Baunton, and she instilled in me the need to keep on the case until residents got a satisfactory result. It may have simply been about an overhanging branch or a ripping tap. But, if that meant dogged terrier-like determination so be it. What happened was a local resident and her immediate friends and neighbours were relieved and thankful. That is the bread and butter of local politics. What it certainly didn’t mean was trying to become some quasi-private detective delving into another culture’s deeply held familial and communal traditions and trying to expose it as wrong and flawed. This helps no one and certainly doesn’t help Tower Hamlets.

The borough is not worse off because of some alleged Bangladeshi conspiracy. It is because the elected reps in the main, no longer fight for local people on local issues. Rather they navel gaze, live in their Town Hall bubble and have simply forgotten that a local councillor is supposed to be a local champion – fighting on issues that matter on a day to day basis, not worrying if it is true that the Mayor’s second cousin’s wife’s uncle is actually a millionaire living on housing benefit.

By focussing on these ‘conspiracy-type stories’, we have turned off entire generations of voters. Of course were serious wrong doing takes place then I applaud you and your blog for exposing it. But could we not for once actually discuss policies rather than personalities? By focussing mainly with the latter we are on a dangerous road to a much divided community. Furthermore, I believe by ignoring the everyday concerns of people we are alienating them from ever voting again.

The political culture of Bangladesh is different from the political culture of England. The political culture of Somalia is different from the political culture of Jamaica. But there can be a unity in our diversity if once and for all local leaders stopped this puerile gossip and backstabbing and actually dealt with important day to day issues – jobs, poverty, housing, education, crime, health. Please stop trying to do a Miss Marple on certain councillors. Rather use this as an opportunity to expose the serious policy problems that affect the borough’s politics.

Involve residents once again – go out onto the streets and forget the bubble around the Town Hall and local party executives. By turning in on themselves, the councillors have shamefully allowed the key foundation of our borough, namely housing, to be removed from all democratic accountability and scrutiny.

Finally, regarding Ofcom and Channel S. While this channel may be popular among one section of our community, it is merely one of a handful of Bangla language channels. Ought we not be focussing our energies more on trying to figure out how to re-engage the other disillusioned sections of Tower Hamlets. The silent majority who currently do not vote. Engage them. Come up with discussions that will make them feel involved again, and I predict a much more diverse council, with many parties represented and local people feeling once again they have not been left out to dry.

Rant over. Back to my cave

As Lord Justice Leveson comes towards the end of his scrutiny of the links between politicians, businesses and the national press, he may want to have a chat with the broadcasting regulator Ofcom for its views on what is happening in Tower Hamlets.

It goes without saying that the media has some influence over people’s opinions, but in Tower Hamlets its role is crucial. There is probably no other borough in Britain in which there is such an appetite for “news”. The Bengali population, particularly the more elderly, devour the bulletins broadcast in Bangla by several satellite TV stations, including ATN Bangla, Channel i and Channel S.

However, in all the years I’ve been covering Tower Hamlets, it has been rare to see reporters from those TV stations actually attend council meetings. Yes, cameras are banned, but that doesn’t stop proper journalists observing proceedings and filing reports outside.

Instead, these channels rely on council press releases and town hall handouts. When Labour was in power, they knew this and for years, their cabinet councillors quite sneakily and divisively held briefings exclusively for the Bengali media. Papers such as the East London Advertiser were deliberately excluded from these cosy affairs, often held at various curry houses in Brick Lane. When the Commission for Racial Equality found out, they ruled the practice divisive.

However, to some extent, this still goes on. Mayor Lutfur Rahman, more than anyone else, knows the power of these satellite channels and he has spent years courting them, including Channel S, which was founded (and quite possibly still run) by Mohammed Ferdaus Jalil, a convicted insurance fraudster.

So important is Channel S that Mayor Rahman poached its chief reporter Mohammed Jubair to act as his special political adviser on media affairs. Well, I say “poached” but that’s not strictly true because Jubair continued to work for Channel S.

Could you imagine the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson doubling up as an adviser to David Cameron?

In Tower Hamlets, though, anything goes.

And this decision today from Ofcom (see p4 and I have copied it in full below) is the result of that blatant conflict of interest. The Evening Standard has reported it here. The regulator has said Channel S has breached its Code for producing an unbalanced report of Lutfur’s budget proposals last February. Ofcom said a voiceover by a Channel S reporter was biased and did not seek opposing opinions. It’s possible this was Jubair.

Channel S, in its defence, said the complaint to Ofcom was by a group out to get them. The complainant was Tory group leader Peter Golds.

No doubt Lutfur and his mates will plead they are victims of a little Establishment plot. But they should know that the Ofcom Code was drawn up for a reason: broadcasters have a duty, particularly at election time, to be impartial and balanced in their news coverage in the UK because of their privileged position in being able to speak to large numbers.

At the end of its decision, Ofcom states the following (my emphasis):

We are concerned that the breach in this case comes after three previous contraventions of the Code rules covering due impartiality and elections recorded against Channel S: in Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1773; Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1884; and Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 2035. We therefore put the Licensee on notice that further breaches of the Code of a similar or related nature will be considered for statutory sanction.

Lord Justice Leveson would be doing local democracy a good service were he to call Mayor Lutfur for his views.

Here’s the Ofcom ruling:

Standards cases

In Breach

Channel S News Channel S, 9 February 2012, 22:00

Introduction

Channel S is a free-to-air satellite general entertainment channel aimed at the Bangladeshi community in the UK and Europe. The licence for Channel S is held by Channel S Global Limited (“Channel S” or “the Licensee”).

A complainant alerted Ofcom to a news report in the above edition of Channel S News, which the complainant described as a “political press conference, broadcast as a „news‟ item without any attempt to give an alternative view”.

Ofcom reviewed the news item in question, which was broadcast in Urdu. Ofcom therefore commissioned an independent translation and transcript of the output from a native speaker. We noted the following from the transcript. 

The news report concerned the proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council is the local authority for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in Greater London. 

The council is notable in that its executive function is controlled by a directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, currently Lutfur Rahman, who was elected to this role in October 2010 as an independent candidate. He had previously been deselected as the official Labour Party candidate in the election to be directly elected mayor, and in that election beat the official Labour Party candidate. 

Following the May 2010 election, Tower Hamlets London Borough Council was composed of 41 Labour Party members, eight Conservative Party members, one Respect Party member and one Liberal Democrat Party member. Eight councillors elected in May 2010 as Labour Party candidates, who support Lutfur Rahman, subsequently became independent councillors, and taking into account by-elections since May 2010 the council‟s current composition is: 32 Labour Party members; nine independents; seven Conservative party members; two Respect Party members; and one Liberal Democrat Party member.

We noted that the newsreader in the programme introduced the item as follows:

“Despite the government proposing a cut of £100 million in the proposed budget of Tower Hamlets Council for the financial year 2012/13…In a press conference this Thursday, Lutfur Rahman, the Executive Mayor, has labelled this budget as ‘aimed at the benefit of the people’”.

The news report included footage of Lutfur Rahman, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, conducting a press conference announcing his proposed budget for 2012/13 for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. At the same time a Channel S reporter said in voiceover: 

“In making the budget of the financial year 2012-13, Lutfur Rahman, the Executive Mayor, has given the most importance to the opinions of the residents of the Tower Hamlets Council. This is why he has described the budget as a progressive one for the local residents. Despite the massive funding cuts undertaken by the Conservative government, all attempts have been made to continue with all the important services in this budget. The services to be continued include free home care service, youth service’ funding, children centres, the requirement to pay a single parking fee (even if families own more than one vehicle) and Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers (THEO). Lutfur Rahman stated that ensuring Council Tax freeze, just like last year, and ensuring employment of additional 17 police officers while there are number of police cuts across the country ongoing – these are the main objects of this budget”.

The item included the following statements in relation to the proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council:

Lutfur Rahman said:

“The central government has given us a target to find £100 million of cuts over four years, a very difficult time, we have to do it to remain with the legal means. We have found the cuts, but I can assure you that we have protected the front line services, we have protected our staff. Our swimming pools will be open, our libraries will remain open. We have invested money in our education service. You know the education maintenance allowance, the only council in the country, we have introduced that”.

Soon after, the Channel S reporter said:

“….This budget was described as „a budget of opposite flow to the national government‟ by the Finance and Resource Cabinet Member Alibor Choudhury”.

Alibor Choudhury then said:

“Tower Hamlets Labour Party have sought to work with the Tories to make life difficult for the Mayor [Lutfur Rahman] and this administration. Make it difficult for them to deliver a progressive budget and as far as most people are concerned, what the Mayor is proposing in his budget is progressive”.

This was followed by the Channel S reporter saying:

“Asad Ali, the Health Cabinet member, from his experience of 23 years of being involved with the budgets stated, ‘This is the only budget in this period in which the public opinion was given so much direct importance’”.

Asad Ali then said:

“Based on the history of this council in the last 23 years, I have never seen a budget being made for which the general public were being referred to so that their interests are taken care of. For this one, the public opinion was called for. Public involvement was welcomed…”.

Ofcom considered the material raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 5.1 of the Code, which states: 

Rule 5.1: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.

We therefore sought the Licensee‟s comments as to how this material complied with this Rule.

Response

Channel S stated its view that the complaint in this case originated from “a group of people raising anything and everything that could cause Channel S inconvenience and make our life difficult in relation to the Mayor and Tower Hamlets Council”.

With regard to the news item itself, the Licensee said that the news item did not relate to a “Party political press conference”. Rather, the news item in question consisted of coverage of the press conference called by Lutfur Rahman to which “all the media in Tower Hamlets” were invited to “announce his budget for the financial year 2012-13”.

Channel S said that it had “a duty to broadcast this news [and]…At that time, we were not made aware of any other interests against” Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed budget for 2012/13. Further, the Licensee said, “If we were invited to attend any other press conference to raise their views or anyone making comments in the press conference, we would have entertained this”.

In conclusion, Channel S said that “Tower Hamlets is not a political organization but a public body. We do not see any reasons to take other views while a Council called a Press Conference to announce their annual budget”.

Decision

Under the standards objectives of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a duty to ensure that news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality. This objective is reflected in Section Five of the Code. 

When interpreting due impartiality, Ofcom must take into account the broadcaster‟s and audience‟s right to freedom of expression. This is set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 provides for the right of freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without unnecessary interference by public authority. 

The broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression is therefore not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression on one hand, with the requirement in the Code to preserve “due impartiality” in news programmes. Ofcom recognises that this requirement acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure that, for example, neither side of a controversy presented in news programmes is unduly favoured. 

Rule 5.1 of the Code states that:

“News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.

The obligation in Rule 5.1 to present news with due impartiality applies potentially to any issue covered in a news programme, and not just matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.

However, in judging whether due impartiality has been preserved in any particular case, the Code makes clear that the term “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject matter. Therefore “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of the argument has to be represented. Due impartiality may be preserved in a number of ways and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how it ensures due impartiality is maintained.

We noted that the news report in question showed Lutfur Rahman, the independent mayor for the Tower Hamlets Borough Council, at a press conference announcing his proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. In Ofcom‟s opinion because Lutfur Rahman was elected to his post, and exercises certain important executive financial powers in that post (including setting the Tower Hamlets budget), a press conference called to announce and promote his budget could reasonably be regarded as a press conference dealing with policy matters that were politically controversial. In presenting a news item on a press conference dealing with such a matter, a broadcaster must present that news with due impartiality.

In assessing whether any particular news item has been reported with due impartiality, we take into account all relevant facts in the case, including: the substance of the story in question; the nature of the coverage; and whether there are varying viewpoints on a news story, and if so how a particular viewpoint, or viewpoints, on a news item could be or are reflected within news programming.

In this case, Ofcom noted that the news item in question included various statements that could be characterised as: supportive of Lutfur Rahman’s proposed 2012/13 budget; critical of the cuts that Tower Hamlets Borough Council was reported to having been required to make by central government; and critical of the current and past actions and policies of the Conservative Party and Labour Party in Tower Hamlets. In our view, these statements clearly related to aspects of public policy and would have been likely to attract a range of viewpoints. For example, we noted the following statements within the news item:

“The central government has given us a target to find £100 million of cuts over four years, a very difficult time, we have to do it to remain with the legal means…I can assure you that we have protected the front line services, we have protected our staff”.

“… .This budget was described as ‘a budget of opposite flow to the national government’ by the Finance and Resource Cabinet Member Alibor Choudhury”.

“Tower Hamlets Labour Party have sought to work with the Tories to make life difficult for the Mayor and this administration. Make it difficult for them to deliver a progressive budget…”.

“I have never seen a budget being made for which the general public were being referred to so that their interests are taken care of.”

We considered that the news item did not reflect any alternative viewpoints to Lutfur Rahman’s as the independent directly elected mayor or to those who were supportive of his policies. For example, there was no reflection of the viewpoints of the Conservative Party and Labour Party on Tower Hamlets Council in reaction to Lutfur Rahman’s budget. Nor was there any indication in the news item that alternative viewpoints were even sought by the broadcaster.

There is no requirement on broadcasters to provide an alternative viewpoint in all news stories or all issues in the news. All news stories must however be presented with due impartiality: that is with impartiality adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. Presenting news stories with due impartiality in news programmes very much depends on editorial discretion being exercised appropriately in all the circumstances. 

In reaching our decision, we took account of Channel S‟s various representations in this case.

Firstly, we noted that, in the Licensee’s view, the complaint in this case originated from “a group of people raising anything and everything that could cause Channel S inconvenience and make our life difficult in relation to the Mayor and Tower Hamlets Council”.

In fulfilling its duties in relation to enforcing broadcast standards, Ofcom does not investigate matters on the basis of broadcast complaints alone. Complaints are useful because they alert Ofcom to potential issues. Ofcom however only proceeds to a full investigation of broadcast content after carefully assessing programme content as broadcast against the provisions of the Code, and deciding that the content does in fact raise potential issues under the Code. Therefore, whatever the alleged provenance of a particular complaint, broadcasters must comply with the Code.

Second, Channel S said that the news item did not relate to a “Party political press conference”, but rather, a press conference called by Lutfur Rahman to which “all the media in Tower Hamlets” were invited to “announce his budget for the financial year 2012-13”. Irrespective of whether the press conference in this case was being run under the auspices of for example a political party or a local government institution, as already pointed out the matters discussed at the press conference related to policy issues which were politically controversial. In broadcasting a news report of that press conference it was therefore necessary for the broadcaster to ensure alternative viewpoints were appropriately reflected to ensure that due impartiality was preserved.

Third, the Licensee also stated that it had a “duty” to broadcast this particular news item. Ofcom recognises that broadcasters will want to include in their news programmes reports on issues relating to public policy affecting the broadcaster‟s target audience. We further recognise that Channel S, as a channel serving the UK Bangladeshi community, would want to report on policy matters relating to Tower Hamlets Borough Council, given the large Bangladeshi community residing in that borough. However, whatever the understandable sense of obligation the Licensee felt it was under to report this particular press conference, it was also obliged to comply with Rule 5.1. 

Fourth, Channel S stated that “we were not made aware of any other interests against” Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed budget for 2012/13 and if “we were invited to attend any other press conference to raise their views or anyone making comments in the press conference, we would have entertained this”. In addition, the Licensee stated that, “Tower Hamlets is not a political organization but a public body. We do not see any reasons to take other views while a Council called a Press Conference to announce their annual budget”. Given that this news item was: dealing with issues relating to the public policy of an elected mayor and the local government administration he is leading; and included statements that endorsed that elected mayor‟s policies and criticised other political parties locally, we considered it was incumbent on Channel S to seek to reflect appropriately alternative viewpoints on the matters under discussion. This is irrespective of whether the policy issue being reported on originates with a political party or a public body. Further, in such circumstances, it was not acceptable for the Licensee to wait to be “invited” to attend press conferences that might express alternative viewpoints. Given the seriousness of the issues being discussed, at the very least, Channel S should have sought and reflected the views of, for example, political parties that oppose Lutfur Rahman on Tower Hamlets Borough Council, and specifically his proposed 2012/13 budget. In this regard, we are aware of, for example, the publicly stated viewpoint of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets to certain proposals contained in Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed 2012/13 budget2. It is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how such alternative viewpoints are reflected within news programming, but when reporting the news, broadcaster must ensure that it is presented with due impartiality.

Given the above, we concluded that on the specific facts of this case these news items were not presented with due impartiality. We have therefore recorded a breach of Rule 5.1 of the Code. 

We are concerned that the breach in this case comes after three previous contraventions of the Code rules covering due impartiality and elections recorded against Channel S: in Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1773; Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1884; and Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 2035. We therefore put the Licensee on notice that further breaches of the Code of a similar or related nature will be considered for statutory sanction.

Breach of Rule 5.1 

I wrote this article for yesterday’s Sunday Express (I’ve copied it in full below to save you the link) about some radical new ideas from the New Local Government Network think tank.

They are huge backers of the potential of local government to do good and they want Communities Secretary Eric Pickles to devolve more powers to town halls.

To ensure these new “super-councils” would be fully accountable, the NLGN (whose communications boss is Phil Baker is a former chair of the Tower Hamlets Lib Dems by the way) says they should be elected by compulsory voting.

This would also avoid rogue results and naturally this got me thinking about Tower Hamlets as I went on my run today.

Then I reached Victoria Park.

Less than a month after I raised this warning, our council has allowed London’s most beautiful park to be ruined.

And that’s not just me saying that; those are the words of Eddie Gladman and his wife Iris.

They were in the park for a walk this afternoon. They said the damage caused by the Lovebox and Field Day festivals earlier this month was “heartbreaking”.

These photos don’t do the damage the full justice, but they give you a flavour:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As I was talking to Eddie and Iris, others who had been taking their grandchildren to play also stopped by.

There is real anger about what has happened. One man said the paths that have now been churned into mudtracks were now “dangerous”, that one child had already tripped on a rut.

The 400m athletics track, the only free one in east London, has been turned into a commandos’ assault course: what an “Olympic Legacy” that is.

The mud is now so inviting that it’s ripe for quad bikes: in fact, two little urchins screeched by on a mini-motorbike as I was taking pictures. Here they are: not a park warden in sight.

Eddie told me he’d lived here all his life. He said: “If I had a penny for every time I have walked around this park, I’d be a very rich man.

“They had allotments here during the war. They kept it better then than they do now.

“There’s no respect for it. I called the council to complain about the mess and the woman there told me ‘not to worry’. She said, ‘It’ll be back to normal next week.’

“What planet are they on? The’ve just spent £12million of Lottery money renovating it, and now look at it.”

Even a policewoman riding by on a horse rode agreed it was a disgrace: “And they used to moan about the marks from horses’ hooves!” she said.

Yes, we’ve had a lot of rain, but this was always an accident waiting to happen. That we haven’t had rain before during these events before has been quite fortunate.

The previous Labour run council and Mayor Lutfur Rahman just got greedy.

One of our councillors must now come out and say enough is enough. This has to be the last year that Victoria Park hosts these events.

Last weekend, tens of thousands went to Hackney Marshes for the Hackney 2012 gigs. Hackney Marshes are a far more appropriate venue for these events: there are far fewer neighbours affected by noise, they’re a much larger open space and they don’t pretend to be anything more than a wide expanse. They’re not a landscaped park like ours.

One park keeper told me today that the council was going to try and bill the organisers of this month’s events £30,000 for the damage. He also said there was no way it could be repaired in time for the next festival onslaught: the 17 consecutive days of Olympic Live Nation gigs next month.

A few weeks ago, Lutfur and his unofficial deputy Alibor Choudhury came calling on a neighbour of mine, former Lib Dem councillor Ray Gipson. Alibor told Ray that Labour group leader Josh Peck, a councillor for Bow West, had been letting Bow down and that he, Alibor, was there to fix things.

Well, Alibor, here’s a message: why not start with Victoria Park? Why not tell Live Nation that, aside from the health and safety issues, the muddy park simply won’t be able to withstand more than a million people jumping up and down next month? As the man in charge of our council taxes, you are quite happy to take money for our parking permits based on CO2 emissions, so come on, be consistent in your green credentials and protect our green spaces.

Anyway, here’s the Sunday Express article on localism: given the experience of Tower Hamlets, I think the NLGN needs to think about how local leaders and council officers are more responsive to residents’ views.

The long and expensive search for someone to run Tower Hamlets council…er..continued tonight after councillors decisively voted to defer a decision on what to do next.

At a grandly titled Extraordinary Meeting of Tower Hamlets Council, pretty much next-to-nothing happened.

Councillors had been due to set out a way forward after Tory and Labour councillors last month voted down the previous process, effectively blocking the proposal by Mayor Lutfur Rahman and his merry band of independents to appoint the Development and Regeneration Director Aman Dalvi, who, the last time I saw him reminded me of those plastic little ducks being fired at with bent guns at a dodgy fairground shootout.

But, of course, this being Tower Hamlets, nothing really didn’t happen. The reason they voted to defer a decision until another meeting on July 11 was because today, I understand, two legal notices were served on the council.

One, I’m told, was served by Lutfur Independent Councillor Kabir Ahmed.

Apparently, he has served a pre-action notice of intention to launch a Judicial Review of the failed appointment process. This action, as I understand it, would be against the council, which would mean taxpayers like me and you liable for any costs.

I’ve no idea who is funding Kabir’s action: his latest register of interests from November 2011 show him employed by the Bangladesh Youth Movement, so I doubt he would qualify for legal aid. Perhaps he feels he is wealthy enough to risk such an action, which has apparently named Aman as an interested party.

As for the second legal process, I’m told that is being filed by a senior council officer. I’ve been given the name, but I’m not yet 100 per cent sure it is right. I’ll update this post when I am.

It’s a bit like the last days of the Roman Empire at Mulberry Place at the moment…but without the fun.

With the Olympic and summer takeover of Victoria Park already underway (the hoardings, stage and tents for next weekend’s Field Day are up; see the list of events June, July and August here), it’s worth asking the question of whether the council can cope.

I went for a run in the park at about 11am on Sunday. Many families were also there, looking for a space among the litter and debris for somewhere to sit. Plastic cups, crisp packets, empty bottles of spirits and cider and cans of lager simply left where Saturday’s visitors/vandals had left them.

A bit further along on my run, I spotted two park rangers with a mini-garbage collection van. I think it was too hot for them. One was leaning against the van, playing on his mobile while the other chatted to a mate on his phone.

To be fair to them, they didn’t leave the mess (and it really is the visitors who are at fault) but I couldn’t understand why at 11am the litter was still there. As soon as Whitechapel and Bethnal Green markets finish for the day, a whole fleet of bin workers move in: the operation is genuinely impressive and effective. Why can’t that happen in Victoria Park?

And when there is hot weather, why can’t Tower Hamlets Council place large temporary bins in the park? The smaller bins simply can’t cope with the entirely predictable increase in visitors during warmer weekends. The extra picnic tables they’ve installed are great, but picnics leave litter–and there’s nowhere to put it.

If we’re not careful, our fabulous East End park will begin to resemble north London’s loathsome Finsbury Park. If Tower Hamlets can’t cope, maybe they should hand back control to Hackney council and its Mayor Jules Pipe.

I’ll leave this thread open for your suggestions for Mayor Lutfur Rahman.

In the meantime, here’s some photos I took this morning at 10am (the rangers seemed to have started work much earlier today; maybe they’re under pressure to save overtime at weekends).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On June 21, 2007, I wrote the following piece for the East London Advertiser:

THE Town Hall has cut links with organisers of the East End’s biggest  culture festival after allegations connected to work permits.

Tower Hamlets council chief executive Martin Smith has decided to suspend its “service level agreement” with the Baishakhi Mela Trust following a number of concerns with last May’s event.

He has also announced an investigation into what happened, including an examination of the trust’s accounts.

As the Advertiser reported last month, UK immigration chiefs were forced to reject dozens of work permit and visa applications for artists wanting to perform at the event.

The Mela, which attracts 500,000 people and celebrates the Bangladeshi New Year, is the East End’s most prestigious festival.

But many community leaders are worried its world famous reputation is being sullied.

Bethnal Green MP George Galloway, who flagged up his concerns to the council more than a year ago, has demanded an inquiry to determine whether the Mela has been abused to smuggle illegal immigrants into Britain.

In a letter to the MP, council boss Martin Smith said: “We are aware that there have been allegations from sections of the community of both financial and immigration irregularities on the part of the Trust.

“The council has repeatedly made it clear both in general terms and specifically to the individuals concerned, that any evidence substantiating these allegations would either be dealt with by the council, or in the case of immigration issues, be passed to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police.”

However, he added:“Up until now, no such evidence has been forthcoming. I am advised that some issues which cause us concern, have been identified and the council has therefore taken prompt action to suspend the service level agreement at this point.

“The relevant evidence will be explored as part of a thorough review of the SLA.”

Mr Galloway has asked for assurances that the council’s findings will be made public.

The Baishakhi Mela Trust could not be contacted for comment.

Five years later (five years in which George Galloway and his comrades in Respect somehow found it within their high political and moral principles to jump into bed with Mr Haque), the following is being reported on bd24.com:

Sun, May 27th, 2012 6:37 pm BdST

Dhaka, May 27 (bdnews24.com) –Police have arrested 19 Bangladeshi applicants for UK visa at the British High Commission in Dhaka on charges of fraud. 

The applicants were arrested on May 24 as they had provided forged documentation and false statements with their business visitor visa applications to attend the London Boisakhi Mela, as stall holders, the High Commission said in a media statement. 

The Bangladeshi law-enforcers worked in close cooperation with the UK Border Agency and discovered that the applicants had misrepresented their employment status and produced forged bank statements. 

The group admitted that they had paid agents up to Tk 1 million (approximately £10,000) each to facilitate their visa applications and provide forged documents. 

Nick Low, British Deputy High Commissioner, said: “We do not tolerate abuse of our immigration system and have a zero tolerance to fraud.” 

Terming the agents criminals, he strongly advised visa applicants not to listen to agents who offer to sell forged documents and say they can guarantee a visa.

Following Lutfur Rahman’s election to Tower Hamlets Mayor, it was widely predicted here and elsewhere that his self-styled main financial backer, millionaire housing association tenant Mr Haque, would soon be given back control of the annual Mela. And last July, as I reported here, it came to pass.

Now, there is no suggestion that he has any links to these arrests in Dhaka, but I would imagine that investigations are underway to find out just who was demanding the £10,000 fees for “visa facilitation”.

So I wonder whether whoever is the chief executive of rudderless Tower Hamlets Council at the moment will take the same strong decision as Martin Smith five years ago and suspend relations with the Boishakhi Mela Community Trust pending these investigations? I doubt it. We remember what happened to Martin a year later, don’t we… .

Incidentally, here’s what Shiraj has to say about last week’s Mela in today’s East End Life:

“We delivered a Boishakhi Mela the entire community were able to enjoy, a mela that brought people of all generations and cultures to Tower Hamlets, to celebrate Bangladeshi heritage.”

So much of what that man touches becomes sullied. Why does he seem to have so much influence?

UPDATE – 6.45pm, Sunday, May 27.

The British High Commission in Dhaka has a statement on its website here.

As I say in a comment below, it’s my understanding that anyone applying for a business visa to the UK needs a British based business sponsor. These come in the form of a letter from the UK business which would attest to the true nature of teh work to be done.

I’d imagine that the Boishakhi Community Mela Trust probably provided such letters to artistes from Bangladesh. I’ve no idea whether it did so in the case of the arrested 19 wannabe “skilled worker” stall-holders.

Well, there’s more to this crane and banner than meets the eye, it seems. Much more. I haven’t witnessed it myself yet but I’m told Tower Hamlets council has now done a U-turn and removed the banner from the crane because the owner popped up and threatened legal action. There is also a second banner on the gates of the Bangla City cash and carry that I understand will also be removed fairly sharpish.

On that second banner, I’ve been sent a fascinating email exchange between a Helal Rahman and a certain Chris Payne. I’ll reproduce it here in chronological order.

May 17, 6.58pm

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your email. The banner has already been installed and it is quite nice except the picture of the Mayor which resembles likes a piece of propaganda manifesto from a third world country. If we were aware that this picture was going to play such a prominent feature in the banner, we would have never agreed for this to be hung on our gate. This does not give a good image of the council’s cultural activities, as this is not the norm of an average council in the UK.

I hope that you understand our disappointment.

With regards,
Helal

May 18, 11.40am

Dear Helal,

Thank you for your email below and I am pleased that you like the banner, though I do note your reservation regarding the image of the Mayor.

I have copied this reply to Takki Sulaiman, Head of Communications for London Borough of Tower Hamlets so he can register your disappointment.

Kind regards,

Chris

Chris Payne
Fortuna Associates

May 22, 4.38pm

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your response. My partners have expressed their strong feelings against the current banner and would like to request you to either replace it with the copy that you initially sent to us or for you to take it away completely. We have no problems with the previous image which was proposed to us and feel disappointed that we were deceived such manner.

If you decide to change the banner to the original image please do it as soon as possible otherwise we would like you to remove it within three working days.

Regards,

Helal

May 22, 5.08pm

Dear Helal,

Thank you for your email below, and I am pleased to be able to tell you that we will arrange for the removal of the Curry Capital banners with the Mayor’s image and replace them with banners without his image. We will do this as soon as possible, I am issuing instructions immediately after this email.

We will do our utmost to have this done as quickly as possible though please do bear with me on this.

Kind regards,

Chris

Chris Payne
Fortuna Associates

What do we learn from this? Helal Rahman is, I’m told, the former Labour councillor who owns the Bangla City cash and carry. He had been approached by Chris Payne about installing a banner advertising the area as the Carry Capital 2012. Chris showed him a design that had no photo of the mayor and he agreed to it.

However, some time later, the Lutfur logo banner was installed, and to say it caused a degree of outrage is an understatement.

So who is Chris Payne? Well, longstanding readers of this blog and my former column in the East London Advertiser will know him as the advertising manager for the council’s East End Life newspaper. At one point he actually headed up the council’s communications department.

The last time I saw him was last October at the Curry Life Chef of the Year Awards where the likes of Eric Pickles and other MPs were guests. It was a Sunday evening and at the time I did think it odd he was there. Having spoken to him this morning, I now know why. He left the council last September and a month later established his new company, Fortuna Associates.

What does Fortuna do, I asked him. “It’s a consultancy specialising in income generation with public and private sector clients.” Advertising, then? “Yes. Raising money from advertising, marketing, sales and sponsorship opportunities.”

Was he commissioned by the council to work on the banner? “Yes, and for anything else on that, you need to speak to Takki Sulaiman. I’ve been working on this project since March.”

So he leaves the council, sets up his own consultancy and then starts touting for business from his former East End Life advertising clients in Brick Lane, and then five months later secures a deal to publicise the mayor from his former boss, Takki Sulaiman.

Chris told me no rules have been broken. I’ve asked the Department for Communities and Local Government for those rules. I’ve also asked the council how Chris’s contract was advertised and whether it was a tender.

It would also be interesting to know the value of that contract, why the photo of Lutfur was added to the banner, and how much it has cost the council to install and then take down,

Why is our council so consistently incompetent?