Trial by Jeory

In what was probably one of the most underwhelming by-elections ever held in Tower Hamlets, Respect has regained a foothold in Spitalfields and Banglatown.

Its candidate, the former councillor Fozol Miah, won by 113 votes from Labour’s Abdul Alim. The turnout was a mesmerising 16.8 per cent.

Fozol was a Respect councillor between 2006 and 2010 and while he seemed to be a genuinely decent bloke he hardly set the council chamber on fire. I imagine he will now join the queue for jobs in Mayor Lutfur’s administration, which is already looking decidedly threadbare.

As for Labour’s loss… . Spitalfields and Banglatown is a law unto itself and Fozol only just missed out on re-election back in May does have a large personal support there. However, it is the back yard for both Helal Abbas and Lutfur Rahman. I’m sure that if Lutfur had really put his heart and soul into a pro-Labour campaign, Alim would now be a councillor.

I suppose it’s also interesting that Abbas’s currency there seems to be on the wane. This result will inevitably add momentum to moves to oust him at Labour’s April AGM.

The following is taken from the Tower Hamlets council website:

An election was held for a vacant council seat in the Tower Hamlets Borough ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown on Thursday, 16 December 2010.

The result of the election was as follows:

• Abdul Alim, Labour Party – 553 votes
• Jewel Chowdhury, Independent  – 28 votes
• Magaret Ann Crosbie, The Green Party  – 52 votes
• Fozol Miah, Respect – 666 votes (elected)
• Ferdy North, Liberal Democrats – 33 votes
• Matthew James Smith, Conservative Party  – 135 votes

Number of ballot papers spoilt: 19

Electorate for Spitalfields and Bangaltown Ward: 8,827

Votes polled: 1,486

Turnout: 16.83 per cent

16 December 2010

A kind reader has sent me this link to an FoI request that’s just been disclosed by Tower Hamlets council. Actually, there was no need to FoI it as it is a public document, but all the same, I think it will make interesting reading for most people.

It’s a list of the Special Responsibility Allowances paid to Mayor Lutfur Rahman and 24 councillors. That means almost half our 52 elected representatives are being paid over and above the £10,065 they get as basic councillor pay. And that’s before Lutfur, if he finally manages it, fills another few members of his cabinet at £13,325 a go.

Some of these positions, such as the chairs of the Development Committee (Cllr Carli Harper-Penman) and Overview and Scrutiny (Cllr Ann Jackson), do involve a fair amount of work, but whether an extra £10,710 is the right amount, I don’t know.

Other positions attracting serious pocket money defy belief. Take the General Purposes Committee, for example. Its chair, Cllr Helal Uddin of Bromley-by-Bow, trousers almost an extra annual £8,000 for presiding over a few hours extra work a year, if that. Check out this link and you’ll see there has only been three meetings this financial year. In total, there have been four agenda items, all of which were simple rubber stamp reports such as agreeing the terribly crucial appointments to the Billingsgate Market Consultative Advisory Committee. I once sat in one of these meetings to see exactly what went on and the answer was pretty much nothing. The councillors usually arrive late, the officers (who claim the evening sessions as lieu time) sip tea and nibble biscuits, and then the meeting is usually over within a matter of minutes.

Then there is Mizanur Chaudhury who get £5,800 for being an “Olympics Ambassador”. What?? Why?? Shouldn’t he be doing whatever he does for free, just for the pure privilege?

That there are so many paid positions is a corruption of our system. They are the paid vote. Some 500 council staff will soon lose their jobs. Many of these payments should also go. Given that most of the recipients are Labour members, Mayor Rahman, who while council leader was the worst offender for paying his mates, might well propose such a move.

Councillors wouldn’t dare squeal if that happened. Not even Tower Hamlets councillors…or would they?

I’m not quite sure where to start with my thoughts on last Wednesday’s Tower Hamlets council meeting. In the years I’ve covered the goings-on at Mulberry Place, I’ve seen some pretty tawdry and comical moments, but Wednesday’s affair suggested the amateurs had well and truly taken over the asylum. Judging by the horrified expressions on the faces of the council’s senior management team, they thought so, too.

Firstly, allow me to get the important admin details out of the way. I arrived at about 8.20pm – an hour after the meeting had started – and was greeted at the town hall doors by someone who looked like a cop, talked like a cop, but who is paid far more than a cop. He was a Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officer, or better known to many as a THEO. I first wrote about them in the Sunday Express last year, here. Unbelievably, they’re paid £35,000 a year. “Are you here for a reason, sir?” he asked me. Yes, I said, I was there for the council meeting. I told him I was a resident and a member of the press. “Well, I don’t think we can let you in, sir. It’s full.” I smiled and walked past him while he sought advice from a proper policeman. I was let in.

I then had to deal with Amateur Number Two. For some disturbing reason, the council has got rid of the press desk (ie a table) that used to be placed right at the front of the public gallery. There is no legal requirement for the council to give the press a desk, but it is considered best practice. It allows journalists to remain apart and neutral from any barracking in the public gallery; it identifies journalists to the public and to other journalists; and it allows us to see and hear the proceedings so that we can report the meeting to the wider world. All this seems to be lost on the council’s £100,000-a-year head of communications Takki Sulaiman. For the moment, I’ll be generous and assume it’s because he can’t grasp that concept, rather than suggest he is deliberately trying to hinder the work of the press in the interests of the new regime (because, shurely, he wouldn’t do that would he… .)

So when Takki told me there was “plenty of space” for me to sit at the back of the gallery, I smiled and then ignored him. Another far more helpful council officer understood my point and found a seat for me in the second row.

Which is where I had the lovely privilege of witnessing Amateurs Numbers Two and Three. Directly behind me was millionaire housing association tenant and main Lutfur Rahman supporter Shiraj Haque, who, because council chairman Cllr Motin uz Zaman was too weak or terrified to control, spent the entire evening: a) eating crisps; b) playing with and talking into his mobile phone; c) insulting me, Andrew Gilligan and everyone bar Lutfur and his supporters; and d) displaying the kind of political naivety that I’m sure made even Lutfur cringe.

Here are just a few of the things Shiraj bawled out:

“One Mayor, one borough, he will do anything he likes”; “Peter [Golds], get out of the borough, you can rent one of my flats”; “Peter, are you going on a honeymoon with Jim Fitzpatrick?”; and heckling during a discussion on investment strategies, “I can give you a better rate of interest if you invest in me”.

At no stage was he told to shut up. Respect chair Carole Swords may have an opinion on this: she’s currently banned from the public gallery for one heckle too many.

In contrast, Lutfur himself, sitting on the dais next to chief executive Kevan Collins, maintained a semblance of dignity – even as his young four-strong cabinet displayed a mixture of embarrassing inexperience and bungling incompetence. Lutfur needs to have a word with his kindergarten crew and tell them to dodge Labour’s poison bullets, stop the childish name-calling and forget the threatening finger-wagging: they’re meant to be in charge now and they need to earn respect.

But what of the politics, you ask….

1. Lutfur began his opening speech by addressing the large number of his supporters in the public gallery with: “It’s a pleasure to see so many members of my community here.” That raised the eyebrows of more than one councillor.

2. As my fellow blogger TowerHamletsWatch highlights in an accurate post here, Lutfurite cabinet member Oli Rahman revealed he knew other councillors had been submitting supposedly confidential members’ enquiries (ME) on a particular issue. Stupidly, Oli said MEs are not confidential and now his remarks are to be fully investigated. Again, inexperience and incompetence.

3. Labour councillor Carlo Gibbs and Mayor Lutfur engaged in a momentary but intriguing love-in. Both praised and smiled at each other during a Q&A session. Even Shiraj gave Carlo the Emperor’s thumbs-up. Carlo used to work for Jim Fitz and is very much and up-and-coming politician. It might be that he is playing half of the good cop/bad cop routine and wooing Lutfur in, but I doubt it. I think he’s being more sincere. On Lutfur’s election night, Carlo was overheard saying that Labour should work with the new mayor, but he was then shouted down. This is a relationship to watch, I reckon.

4. Abbas does not seem to be suited to the role of Opposition leader. He’s just too quiet and not forceful enough in the council chamber. Labour need to address this problem.

5. A Lutfurite motion calling on all councillors to work with the mayor was soundly defeated. To me, this was a fairly pointless motion, but I’ve no doubt it will be reported widely in the pro-Lutfur sections of the absent Bengali media as a major snub.

6. A brilliantly insightful and important question on council investment strategy by Labour’s David Edgar, who is a highly respected accountant, to Deputy Mayor Ohid Ahmed, who is not, comprehensively exposed the latter’s lack of grasp on finance and his inability to think on his feet.

7. A motion proposed by Labour’s Josh Peck on the over-exploitation of Victoria Park for summertime music events was passed unanimously. (There were 10 gigs there this year, blocking off almost half the park for entire weekends and causing mayhem for locals who were subjected to revellers vomiting and urinating on their properties.) However, the following comments by Lutfur’s cabinet member for culture, Rania Khan, were later described by one Labour councillor as “dog whistle” remarks: “We need to maximise income [and]…I would urge councillors to think about the whole community not just those who are lucky enough to live around the park.” The demographics of the park perimeters are mostly white and Afro-Caribbean.

8. A motion on Bancroft History Library and Archives provided the most dramatic moments of the night. I’ll save my observations on that for another post, except to say here that it exposed deep rancour between former council leader Denise Jones and her party colleague (just) Marc Francis. He  spoke against her with such passion that his voice at one stage faltered and then broke the party whip by voting against a call for Deputy Mayor Ohid to apologise for defaming her and questioning her integrity. Marc lost that vote, but helped secure a council investigation into the Bancroft/Rich Mix affair. As I said, more another time…

Apologies to those awaiting a post on Wednesday’s full council meeting at Tower Hamlets, but I’ve been a touch busy with my day job. I intend to write a lengthy post about it over the next couple of days – and yes, there is plenty to say about what happened: the meeting was among the most poisonous and uncontrolled affairs I’ve been to.

In the meantime, Tory group leader Peter Golds has asked me to publish a personal statement from him following the bizarre and disturbing comments made by some people on my previous post here. These comments extended to some borderline homophobic insults hurled at him by some senior political activists in the public gallery of the council chamber on Wednesday night (but, as I say, more of that later.)

Here’s Peter’s statement:

It is clear that a number of your correspondents do not understand what an elected politician should or chose not to understand.

I received an enquiry from a resident regarding Medialink and raised that enquiry. This is what councillors do in every local authority up and down the country and of course what Members of Parliament do each and every day.

Before I received a response the head of Medialink telephoned me four times in one afternoon to discuss my enquiry. It was obvious that had been told the details of my enquiry. This could only have come from within the council and breaks all protocols.

Having received the actual response, which was not confidential, I shared it with the original enquiry and Ted Jeory who was also interested in the subject.

I then received increasingly threatening calls and messages from the same person. On Wednesday I met with the council’s Chief Executive and monitoring officer who were quite clear that my enquiry was right and proper and that as the response did not break commercial confidentiality I was entitled to share it.

It should be noted that I have raised many enquiries regarding consultants engaged by the Council, including Verve Communications who once had a very large contract. Strangely no one has attacked me for raising that particular company.

It should also be noted that at council on Wednesday night a member of the administration let slip that he had knowledge of an enquiry raised by another councillor.

There is to be a full investigation into how this is happening.

As a matter of fact on another issue, I have served on many appointments panels. On one occasion I ensured that the panel did not reach a decision until we had women and BME candidates to consider and on another I refused to serve because the assembled panel was entirely male and we would be interviewing women for a position.  I would treat any candidate who submits a dishonest CV in the same way, and in most organisations such a CV is grounds fro instant dismissal.

The attacks of racism against me are puerile and totally wrong.

I am more than happy to engage in debate with anyone, but attacks and lies for people who hide behind pseudonyms and are often the same person deserve to be treated for what they are. Sock puppets is the usual term. The sort of people who used to write poison pen letters, often on green ink.

For those unfamiliar with Verve Communications, it is the PR consultancy that used to run the press office and East End Life at Tower Hamlets Council. It was headed by Lorraine Langham. Following a series of investigations by Peter and me, when I was at the East London Advertiser, a council committee concluded that Verve had been allowed to exploit its position for commercial gain. Ms Langham subsequently left the council and is now the number 2 to ex Tower Hamlets CEO Christine Gilbert at Ofsted.

See here for more info.

I’ve been sent a copy of Lutfur Rahman’s election expenses, which are publicly available from Tower Hamlets council for a cost of just a few quid. However, the dutiful public servant that I am, and in the spirit WikiLeaks, I thought it would be useful to simply publish them here.

I won’t go into detail about every single penny of his £11,316.69 spend, but instead allow you, dear “army of armchair auditors”, to undertake your own exercises in scrutiny.

To help, this link outlines what details limited companies must include on their invoices.

This is the summary sheet:

And the full document can be found here. Informed comments only, please. Any baseless accusations will not be allowed.

And, in the interests of fairness and balance, if anyone has the expenses for the other candidates, do please email them to me.

During Lutfur Rahman’s election campaign, strong suspicions lingered about who might benefit from his victory. Certainly, millionaire housing association tenant Shirajul Haque was one name mentioned. After all, I’m told by several sources that he bragged he had underwritten Lutfur’s legal fees during his High Court challenges against the Labour party (something Lutfur himself denies).

I suppose Shiraj is a generous soul: over the years he has also given money to the Labour party and offered cash to the Lib Dems. But as with many businessmen mixing in the political arena, I’m also sure he would want a pay back. And nothing would please him more than to regain control of the annual Baishakhi Mela, the cash cow festival attracting 100,000 visitors in Brick Lane and Weavers Fields every May. Control was removed from his a few years ago after council appointed auditors filed a devastating report about his organisation’s lack of financial control.

So it will be interesting to see who puts in bids and who wins the tender for two tenders that have just been advertised. One, here, is for the “production management” of the Mela on next May 8, the other, here, is for the “creation of the procession” for the Mela.

Here’s a flavour from the tender blurb from the former:

In August, a planning blog here highlighted a new two minute animated film that had just been produced by Tower Hamlets council. It was commissioned in December 2009. In it, a cartoon man and dog experience what it’s like going through the council’s planning process.

It starts with East End Life being delivered through the man’s door (that’s a rarity in itself, by the way) and then him turning to the front page. “New Plans For Your Area” is the freesheet’s splash. (That never happens either: to find out about a planning application in your area you have to scour the public notices in the back pages).

However, continuing in this sunny vein, the narrator says: “In the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, there are plenty of opportunities to have your say.” Suitably inspired, the man and dog stroll through the spotless, empty streets into an Idea Store to check out council information and then head for the various public consultations.

The message is laudable: get involved. Because if you don’t, the council planning officers will have their way.

Until I was notified of this film by a councillor today, I’d never heard of it. And neither have I been told by the council that tomorrow night there is one of its “highly publicised” consultation meetings about the desperately-needed regeneration of the Poundland and Perfect Fried Chicken boulevard that is the Roman Road (anyone unfamiliar with the Roman should know that it is about 500 metres or so from the Olympic Stadium: the stadium dominates the view looking east now).

This is one of those events at which we are told we can shape our future here. But if it hadn’t been for some active neighbours of mine, no one would have known. In fact, so secretive are the plans the council has for our area that it has declined a series of Freedom of Information requests for the minutes of a secret town hall group called the Roman Road Implementation Group. See the rejection letter from the council’s legal chief Isabella Freeman here. Yes, the council wants to hear YOUR views, according to its cartoon, but it certainly doesn’t want you to hear THEIRS. Apparently, revealing what planning officers are planning would be very, very bad. Here’s what Ms Freeman said:

…the disclosure of these minutes would reveal the Council’sinternal thinking processes. This would be detrimental to the ultimate quality of decision making as it will make officers reluctant to explore possible solutions which may, after discussion, be disregarded but which could have the potential to deliver valuable results for the community. This would have an adverse effect on the work of the Council.

The council’s cartoon has been watched by fewer than 1,000 people and most of them are probably puzzled American teenagers trying to “get” British humour.

Tory group leader didn’t find it amusing, though. He asked officers how much it cost to make. Answer: £16,440. “Words fail me,” he said. “Tower Hamlets is supposed to be the most deprived authority in the country, they complain constantly about cuts and yet spend public money on this nonsense. What an absolute farce.”

Here’s the council’s response to Peter:

25 November 2010

Dear Councillor Golds

Re: Members Enquiry – Tower Hamlets Gets Animated About Planning

Thank you for your Members Enquiry dated 23 November 2010, regarding the cost and commissioning of our Planning Consultation Animated Film.

The film was commissioned in December 2009 by officers in Planning and Building Control and, after a selection process, it was produced in partnership with the experienced film and media company ThirtyThree, who have produced this kind of film before.

The full cost for the film totalled £16,440, including subtitles and Bengali translation. It has been well received in the community and nationally and we have had a lot of positive feedback. We will be further monitoring the success of the film at upcoming planning engagement events, where this film will play a consistent role. Its objective is to encourage more local people to get involved in planning, which is even more important now given the emerging Localism Bill. We anticipate there will be a real focus on Local Authorities to better engage and involve local people in the planning process.

I hope my comments are of assistance to you. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Owen Whalley

Head of Planning and Building Control

I’ve a busy few days coming up this week, so I won’t be able to write as much as I’d like to at the moment on a new report funded by the Cordoba Foundation. I haven’t read all of it yet, but I have looked at those parts which relate to Tower Hamlets.

The report is the work of Dr Robert Lambert and Dr Jonathan Githens-Mazer. The former was head of the Met Police’s oft-criticised Muslim Contact Unit, while the other is a North American academic. Both now run the European Muslim Research Centre at Exeter University, which is funded by Islam Expo and the Cordoba Foundation.

I’ll be blunt: I don’t trust the Cordoba Foundation. I first came across them in February 2008 when I broke the story (subsequently raised in the Commons here that Tower Hamlets Council had allocated the organisation, which is headed by Anas Al-Tikriti, £38,000 of Government Preventing Violent Extremism money to fund a debate including Hizb ut-Tahrir. The debate at the London Muslim Centre was legitimate enough – whether Muslims should participate in democracy (the audience overwhelming said no) – but council leaders agreed that using money to pay HT speakers was not exactly appropriate. After I told the council about the guest list, they said they would withhold some of the £38k. After several weeks of deliberation and obvious collusion with the Foundation, the grand sum of £4,000 was kept back. I wrote about it in the East London Advertiser here:

A SURE way to gauge how sensitive, panicked and confused the Town Hall is over a story is to see how long the council’s press office takes to answer our questions.

Take the controversy surrounding the council’s £38,000 grant to the Cordoba Foundation. You’ll recall that Tower Hamlets had agreed to subsidise a series of debates and media training courses by the foundation in the name of “tackling extremism”.

When we revealed in February that this meant they’d be subsidising the appearance of Dr Abdul Wahid, the UK leader of Hizb ut- Tahrir at a debate, council leader Denise Jones promised to pull the plug.

Every week since then I’ve asked whether a final decision had been made. The council finally gave its answer on April 7. Not a very detailed response, mind you, just that it had “terminated” relations and agreed to pay some costs. I asked how much it was paying out. Answer the next day: £34,000 of the £38,000.

The remaining £4,000, the council insisted, represented the cost of the February 26 debate. So on April 8, I asked for a breakdown of the £34,000. Now, given that the council had been in negotiations with Cordoba for the best part of six weeks before settling on the figure, you’d have thought that breakdown would be ready to hand.

But no. It took Tower Hamlets two weeks to produce it. Why? My bet is that no one at the council had examined the detail and that the figure of £34,000 was little more than a back-of-the-envelope compromise calculation, rather than based on actual costs and invoices.

For example, the foundation says that a debate almost exactly identical in length and content held last October (that also included Hizb ut-Tahrir it turns out) cost £8,000; the broadcast on its partner Muslim Community Radio alone cost £3,000.

Other entries show speakers at the debate being paid £600 and a peculiar “management fee” (the foundation is run by Anas Altikriti, the boss of the Muslim Association of Britain) of £4,500.

Some £19,000 was also spent on a series of media training course aimed exclusively at helping “young Muslims” deal with the press. Experts in microeconomics always look for the incentives behind people’s actions: what motivates them.

Whereas you and I will always check our own bills and bank statements for mistakes because it’s our money, there’s no such similar pressure on council officers with other people’s cash (they would have been more interested in damage limitation).

Similarly, the Cordoba Foundation would be bound to do everything possible to secure as much of the £38,000 grant it was originally promised. It’s up to the council to ensure Cordoba has not frontloaded its costs on projects already completed.

As such, I asked the council’s press office a bunch of follow-up questions. This was their (immediate) answer: “We won’t be providing any more information or breakdowns about work with the Cordoba Foundation.”

I also asked the council’s Freedom of Information Act manager for all documents on the affair, but he’s delayed his response beyond the statutory 20 day limit too “to take advice”. I wonder why that is.

The Foundation seems to be going strong still and Dr Lambert and Dr Githens-Mazer give it high praise in their report here. It’s called, “An introduction to a ten year Europe-wide research project: Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime – UK Case Studies 2010”.

One of those case studies is Tower Hamlets and in particular the “establishment” victimisation of Mayor Lutfur Rahman. The relevant section starts on p179 of the document under the heading, “Barbarians at the gates of the City” and the sub-heading, “A case study in the subversion of liberal democracy in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets”. A footnote says that section has been written anonymously by someone who has “worked extensively in Tower Hamlets politics”.

Now, in the all the time I’ve covered Tower Hamlets politics I’ve never seen either of the good doctors at the Town Hall. And neither did they or anyone else call me or try to contact me about this report, which, given that they have cited my name and quote extensively much of my work from this blog and from my time at the East London Advertiser, is a bit lazy to say the least.

If they had have done, they might have avoided the simplified and inaccurate rewriting of history – designed, no doubt, to meet their pre-determined conclusions – that this section of their report actually is. I read it agog.

On p180:

In May 2008, Labour became aware that a new direction was needed, and a broad coalition of councillors….elected Lutfur Rahman….However, Rahman’s brand of left-wing populism represented a direct threat to the established hierarchy within the Tower Hamlets Labour party.

Left-wing populism?? Labour becoming aware that a new direction was needed?? Dear doctors, his coup against the then group leader Denise Jones was all about factionalism. In the two years before he took over – both as a member of Denise’s cabinet and also as a backbencher – Lutfur was one of Labour’s main ringleaders against Respect’s populist Left-wing policies and motions in the council chamber. In one of my columns I described him as the leader of Labour’s “giggling squad”, so vocal was his mockery.

On p183:

Britain’s Islamic Republic [the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary] played into existing narratives in the local and national media that accused the council of imposing ‘Islamic values’ on the borough. The most bizarre example concerned the proposed replacement of the dilapidated arches at either end of Brick Lane with two new structures that were described by several media sources as “hijab-shaped”. Quite apart from the fact that comparing a 10-foot steel arch to a piece of cloth requires a certain leap of imagination, the arches…were not designed by the council but by an external contractor.

I’m not sure if the anonymous author of the doctors’ report talked to the architect of the proposed arches: I did. In our background conversation before going on the record, he was extremely uncomfortable. When I pressed him, he said:

“We were briefed to design something that celebrates the demographic changes of the area. The arches were not designed to look like hijabs. Huguenot and Jewish women wore headscarves. The arches are just modern curves and they will have symbols on them reflecting the different immigrant communities. Having the Star of David on them is one option we have considered, but no decision has been made yet.”

Sometimes, it pays to read between the lines.

Pages 185-186 devote a special section to the “removal of Lutfur supporters” in the selection process for the 2010 council elections. The author says this move was designed to undermine the future mayor, thus:

In August 2009, Mohammed Shahid Ali, Salim Ullah, Shafiqul Haque and Fazlul Haque were the only sitting councillors to be de-selected at the first stage of the process to choose candidates for the 2010 local elections. The reasons given for their removal were spurious, and do not appear to correspond either to their performance as councillors or to the Labour party’s previous support for them. The only factor that they all had in common – other than being Bangladeshi Muslims – was their support for Rahman.

Unlike the men of Exeter, I witnessed these four characters at work first hand. Salim Ullah, I had a lot of respect for and I was surprised at his de-selection, but during his time as Labour chief whip he was not the most calming of influences. He was said to be a poor performer in group.

Shafiqul Haque was a die-hard supporter of Michael Keith and Denise Jones, so much so that when he was appointed to Denise’s cabinet in 2007 (to replace Rupert Bawden), one gobsmacked Lutfur supporter said of him: “You’d have to go a long way to find someone less able to lead the council on strategic development than Rupert Bawden, but true to form the leadership has managed it. What next: Mohammed Shahid Ali for mayor?”

Which brings me to Mohammed Shahid Ali. In November 2007, I reported at that month’s planning committee meeting that his eyes closed for long periods, his body jerked about and his vocal chords emitted grunting sounds that were extremely similar to snores. He had a “headache”, he said later. And like Shafiqul Haque and Salim Ullah, his English was poor.

And then there is Mr Fazlul Haque. Soon after he won a by-elction in the Weavers ward in 2008, I received a tip-off that the Tower Hamlets address he had declared on his nomination papers was not actually his home. The rumour around the council was that he lived with his wife and kids in Ilford. So one night, I parked outside his Ilford home and watched his Mercedes pull up late into the evening. He didn’t leave in the further hour I waited there. I returned the next morning and spoke to his wife. She said they were “separated”  and that he had just been “visiting” her and their children.

I then drove over to his small flat in Tower Hamlets. The estate caretaker told me Haque used to live there, but he had left with his family several months ago. A startled Chinese student answered the door. She said she lived there with another student and “Fazlul – yes, Fazlul lives here as well. I sleep in the living room and Fazlul is in the bedroom.” When we returned there not long afterwards and as Haque deployed Labour’s lawyers on us, his tenant students had disappeared leaving Haque to “live” there alone. When senior Labour councillors were told about this, they were horrified.

So in each case, these four “Lutfur supporters”/”Bangladeshi Muslims” were removed because they were either just poor councillors, or just rotten, or both. UPDATE: Of course, Shafiqul Haque appealed against his removal and won to retain his council seat.

On p190 of the report:

The next major blow came in May 2009 when Rahman moved to appoint a new chief executive to the council. Given that the council had seen four chief executives in six years, this was by no means extraordinary in the context of the borough

Inaccurate and disingenuous in the extreme. Here’s the list of chief executives from 2000-2009: Christine Gilbert, 2000-2006; Martin Smith, 2007-2009. In between Christine’s departure in September 2006 and Martin’s formal appointment in April 2007, there were two “acting” chief executives. One was the social services director, Ian Wilson, who led the town hall until his retirement at the end of 2006; the other was, er, Martin Smith, who stepped up to the position from finance director after Ian left.

It is simply rubbish, therefore, to say that Martin’s forced departure by Lutfur Rahman was “by no means extraordinary”. Extraordinary is exactly what it was because it ended up costing council taxpayers like me something like £400,000 in silence money. What is also extraordinary is that the report fails utterly to mention the name of Lutfur Ali, the moonlighting assistant chief executive appointed so eagerly hired by Mr Rahman despite the mistakes on his CV and despite the doubts about his ability among professional headhunters.

In all the analyses of Labour’s treatment of Lutfur Rahman, there’s one aspect that many overlook: his ability to do the job. One senior London Assembly member (not John Biggs) told me during September’s saga: “The problem that Lutfur has is that he’s just rubbish. That’s why the party doesn’t want him as Mayor.” A bit harsh perhaps, but that’s probably nearer the truth than any mocked-up Islamophobia. I don’t believe for one second that he’s an Islamic fundamentalist, but neither am I sure he has what it takes to avoid being used by the likes of them and whoever authored the garbage in the Exeter report.

I’ve not yet read the rest of the report, but if it’s of same quality as the Tower Hamlets section, should I bother?

Sometimes life as a journalist can be a bit surreal. As I was having lunch in a restaurant near Spitalfields Market last Sunday, a handwritten note on a paper napkin furtively winged its way to me.

“Rahman not at Tower Hill Remembrance Service, despite being expected by Kevan Collins!!” it said. I know who sent it; I won’t name them but it was a couple of well-known political activists.

That day’s edition of East End Life seemed to back up the note. While there was plenty of coverage of the various Remembrance services in the borough, there were no pictures of our new executive mayor.

The Tower Hill service is particularly special because it commemorates those who died in the Blitz of the East End.

I asked Tower Hamlets council’s press office for an explanation on Monday morning. Five full working days and several chasing emails and phone calls later, I still have had no reply. One council press officer told me my question was not “a priority”.

That press officer was, I’m told, acting on the orders of Takki Suliaman, the £100,000 a year head of communications who was apparently a bit of a figure of fun when he was a Labour councillor in Haringey a few years ago. He was appointed the town hall’s chief spin doctor in March after being recruited under Lutfur Rahman’s leadership by that notorious moonlighter, Lutfur Ali.

Since Lutfur Rahman became mayor, the council’s controversial press office has become a bit of a miserable place. Staff are going through a redundancy process and, quite frankly, some are dying to leave. However, two things are certain: Mr Sulaiman is certain to dump others to protect his six-figure job and East End Life will continue to be published.

In the meantime, Mr Sulaiman would do well to let the people who pay his exorbitant wages why the Mayor he serves was unable to attend one of the most important and symbolic events of the year.

Lutfur, who also did not wear a poppy at last month’s cabinet on November 11, came to office promising to unite communities and to respect the borough’s history. He may well have had a valid reason for his absence at Tower Hill, but silence doesn’t get him anywhere. Without Labour’s advisers there to help him, he’s making some silly mistakes.

I’ve written a bit about this in tomorrow’s Sunday Express.

UPDATE: Tuesday, November 30

The following was sent to me by a serving councillor who attended the Tower Hill event:

Lutfur Rahman had notified the organisers that he would be attending the main borough ceremony at Tower Hill, the memorial to the 42,000 merchant seamen who lost their lives in wars.

He was allocated seat B12, which is on the right hand side, front row. When he did not appear the seat was discreetly occupied.

There are a number of ceremonies in different parts of the borough including Bethnal Green Library, Poplar War Memorial, Tower Hamlets Cemetery and many more. According to lists from the Town Hall councillors attended all of these. Cllr Abbas was at Poplar War Memorial.

East End Life did not refer to the elected representatives because of “purdah” relating to the Spitalfields by election. It would be interesting to see who issues that particular decree.

Eleven days ago, I wrote here that Tower Hamlets council had accepted a booking for an “Islamic Revival” conference that was being organised by Al Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudary and which was to feature a live video-linked speech by Omar Bakri Muhammad. It was due to take place tomorrow.

When senior council figures were made aware of the booking, they cancelled it.

This morning, Anjem Choudary announced that he has a new venue. This is from his website

IMPORTANT NOTICE

New Venue: International Islamic Revival Conference 2010, Water Lily Business Center, 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 4UF.

Due to the oppressive British regime, its local authorities and police, The Islamic Revival Conference 2010 has been relocated to the above address.

There will be a LIVE address by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad AND from Sheikh Faisel to be broadcast at the new venue insha’allah.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Islamic Revival Team

The Water Lily is in Mile End Road and is based in what was the famous Wickhams department store. I have just spoken to the owner. He said he had had “loads” of phone calls from worried friends and neighbours. He said he had this morning been in touch with the police. Why? Because no such booking has ever been made. It is a complete fabrication, he said.

He told me: “In the past, we’ve cancelled some bookings from some of his other groups, so maybe he’s deliberately trying to annoy us.”

Looks like you’re just not wanted in Tower Hamlets, Anjem…