Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tower hamlets council’

This motion will be submitted for debate at next Wednesday’s full meeting of Tower Hamlets council:

Protecting community pubs

Proposer: Cllr Amy Whitelock
Seconder: Cllr Denise Jones

This council notes:

  • That in addition to the provision of its own services the Council should support through its policies and the exercise of its powers a network of well-run community facilities, including shops, pubs, advice centres, places of worship and other local forums and services which are valued by residents. As an example of these, community pubs provide a valuable community service for those who choose to use them. 
  • Twenty-six pubs close every week across the country. In Tower Hamlets many pubs have already been converted to flats or stand empty.
  • Recently local pubs such as The Sun in Bethnal Green and the Britannia pub in Mile End have closed down, to the disappointment of local residents.
  • Pubs inject an average of £80,000 into their local economy each year and support almost one million UK jobs, 46% of whom are 16 – 24 year olds.
  • That whilst some pubs can have anti-social behaviour problems which the Council should challenge, the majority offer a positive contribution to our borough and are part of a balanced and inclusive community offering that helps to define the local quality of life.

This council further notes:

  • The recently adopted Managing Development Document policy DM8 specifies that social and community facilities, such as public houses, will be protected where they meet an identified local need and the buildings are suitable for their use.
  • That while conversion of pubs to residential use would be resisted as contrary to planning policy, this does not automatically mean such applications would be rejected.
  • Residents often feel they have no opportunity to prevent their local pubs from being sold off or converted to flats.
  • The demolition of pubs is classed as “permitted development” means planning permission is not required. Between 2003 and 2012, 414 former pubs were demolished in London alone.

This council believes:

  • Local pubs are a hugely important community hub, bringing local people together and providing social inclusion opportunities.
  • While pubs that cause antisocial behaviour should be subject to enforcement action, well managed community pubs should be protected by the council.

This council resolves:

  • To work with residents to list local pubs as Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act, giving greater protection against pubs being sold off to developers.
  • To support the Sustainable Communities Act proposal: “That the Secretary of State help protect community pubs in England by ensuring that planning permission and community consultation are required before community pubs are allowed to be converted to betting shops, supermarkets and pay-day loan stores or other uses, or are allowed to be demolished.”

To work together with Local Works and the Campaign for Real Ale to gain support for the proposal from other councils in the region and across the country.

Read Full Post »

Labour’s Abdal Ullah will submit this motion, time permitting, to the full meeting of Tower Hamlets council next Wednesday.

Tackling crime in Tower Hamlets

Proposer: Cllr Abdal Ullah

Seconder: Cllr Shiria Khatun

This Council notes:

–       That by the Metropolitan Police’s own figures crime in Tower Hamlets has increased 9% since 2010.

–       Over the same period crime in neighbouring Hackney was down 3% and in Newham down 6%.

–       In 2011/12 there were almost 20,000 reported incidents of anti-social behaviour.

–       Tower Hamlets has the second highest levels of anti-social behaviour in London (p. 149)

–       Figures in the Community Safety Plan, buried on page 130, show that between October 2009 and September 2012 robberies were up 50%, knife crime was up 49%

–       In the 2013 Annual Residents Survey 41% of people said crime was one of their top three concerns, this was the biggest overall concern from residents.

–       The Mayor’s Community Safety Plan makes no reference to the significant increases in crime and ASB nor does it give a true appreciation of the key challenges facing the borough.

–       The Mayor vetoed Labour’s proposal at the 2011 Budget to fund 17 new police officers.

This Council Believes:

–       That the Mayor’s complacent approach to crime has meant the Council has not been focused on tackling what residents see as the most important issue facing our borough.

–       The borough needs a Mayor who will show leadership in facing up to and challenging anti-social behaviour, tasking council officers appropriately and working in partnership with other organisations including the police.

This Council further notes:

–       Neighbourhood policing has been essentially destroyed – many wards now have just one PC and one PCSO.

–       The positive impact of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams which were introduced by the Labour Government and Labour Council in Tower Hamlets. That the SNTs helped to not only reduce crime in Tower Hamlets but also increased public confidence in the police.

–       The changes introduced by Boris Johnson which have cut Safer Neighbourhood Teams to the bone by cutting the teams to one police officer and one police community support officer per ward, down from six officers under Labour.

–       The CSP figures show that incidences of arson in the borough are down 31% since 2009/10.

–       Boris Johnson continues to pursue his plan to close half of the borough’s police stations as well as closing Bow fire station and halving the number of fire engines at Whitechapel.

This Council further believes:

–       The neighbourhood policing model introduced by the last Labour Government and piloted by the Labour council was a strong and successful model for local policing.

–       Under the current Mayor of London neighbourhood policing has been significantly dismantled.

–       The current Mayor of Tower Hamlets has completely failed to protect the community policing model which was so successful after Labour introduced it.

–       Boris Johnson’s cuts to police and fire stations in the borough will have a detrimental effect on community safety.

–       The closure of Bow and cuts at Whitechapel fire station will not only reduce capacity but also put additional pressure on the remaining stations and staff. This will in turn reduce their ability to undertake fire prevention outreach work and could threaten to reverse the positive gains made over previous years.

This Council resolves:

–       To condemn the Mayor of Tower Hamlets for his failure of leadership in tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.

–       To reassert the importance of strong and locally integrated neighbourhood policing team and to support Labour’s approach to reassert a neighbourhood policing model.

–       To reiterate Labour’s call for the Mayor to support and fund new police officers as opposed to additional THEOs.

Read Full Post »

This motion will be submitted to the next meeting of Tower Hamlets council on November 27.

Dealing with the cost of credit

Proposer: Cllr Anwar Khan

Seconder: Cllr Rachael Saunders

This Council notes:

–       The UK-wide campaign to end ‘legal loan sharking’.

–       The outrageous interest rates charged by some pay day lenders

–       The way in which these loans trap people in spirals of unmanageable debt.

–       That as Christmas approaches these companies will seek to use public advertising to target people in our borough who are struggling to make ends meet.

–       That unaffordable credit is extracting wealth from the most deprived communities.

This Council believes:

–       That the lack of access to affordable credit is socially and economically damaging.

–       Unaffordable credit is causing a myriad of unwanted effects such as poorer diets, colder homes, rent, council tax and utility arrears, depression and poor physical and mental health.

–       That there is a need for better regulation of the payday lending sector, including a cap of the total cost of credit.

–       That until such regulation is introduced Tower Hamlets Council should work with partners to do all it can to protect people from usurious lending.

This Council Resolves:

–       That payday loan firms should be banned from setting up businesses in commercial property owned by the local authority. 

–       That pay day loan firms should be banned from advertising in property owned by the council.

–       That payday loan firms should be banned from advertising in Council publications or on Council owned advertising boards, from all public computers.

–       To promote credit unions in Tower Hamlets as community based organisations offering access to affordable credit and promoting saving.

–       To work with school, community organisations, housing providers, faith organisations and  providers of debt and money management advice to ensure that every resident of Tower Hamlets has access to financial advice and support.

–       That the Council writes to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, Sir Peter Hendy (Commissioner of Transport for London) and Vernon Everitt (Managing Director, Customer Experience, Marketing and Communications) informing them of the Council’s decision to ban payday loan advertising in the borough and asking them to consider amending the TfL Advertising Policy to include a similar ban on all London public transport.

–       Instructs the Corporate Director, CLC, to report in writing to the next full Council meeting, the steps the Council or Mayor could take to limit the proliferation and impact of high street credit outlets in the borough.

–       To call on the government to introduce caps on the total lending rates that can be charged for providing credit.

–       To call on the government to give local authorities the power to veto licences for high street credit agencies where they could have negative economic or social impacts on communities.

–       To request the Heads of Planning and Licensing to report to the next Council meeting on ways in which officers can use powers at their disposal to ensure that the Council is doing all it can to prevent the promotion, publicity or opening of payday loan outlets or providers.

 

Read Full Post »

This motion has been submitted by the Labour group for debate at next Wednesday’s full meeting of Tower Hamlets council (declaration: I’m a Tower Hamlets Homes leaseholder).

Proposer: Cllr Marc Francis

Seconder: Cllr Carlo Gibbs

This Council notes:

  • In 2008, Full Council agreed a motion authorising the Lead Member for Housing to commission an independent audit of leasehold service charges following concerns about the two-thirds increase in the level of Management & Administration fees, numerous historic disputes over the costs recharged and a Scrutiny Review which called for much greater transparency and accountability in the calculation of service charges;
  • In 2009, a Project Steering Group (PSG) involving councillors, Tower Hamlets Homes (THH), Tower Hamlets Leaseholders Association (THLA) and other leaseholders agreed detailed Terms of Reference for that audit, commissioned Beevers & Struthers Ltd to carry it out;
  • In spring 2010, THH attempted unilaterally to introduce new methodology for the calculation of management fees and a new policy to charge to ground floor leaseholders for services they did not benefit from, which was blocked by the Lead Member;
  • In summer 2010 a draft version was produced for the PSG, identifying a series of very challenging issues for THH around the management of leasehold services, value for money, caretaking, repairs and maintenance, management and administration fees, and several Service Levels Agreements with LBTH;
  • However, publication of the final audit report was delayed by the Mayoral Election in October 2010 and not finally signed off by the PSG until May 2011, by which time LBTH/THH had already begun consultation on a “Leasehold Policy Review” which was claimed to have been based on its findings;
  • The Mayor and Lead Member subsequently established a Leasehold Action Plan Working Group (LAPWG), including representatives of leaseholders to bring together the Beevers & Struthers’ recommendations, those of the Audit Commission and THH’s own Leaseholder Service Improvement Group, and a Statement of Intent was agreed by all those involved to implement the 54 recommendations or agree an alternative remedy;
  • Over the next 18 months, just five of the 54 recommendations were implemented and in October 2012, THH sent leaseholders “actuals”, which included significantly increased charges in most areas, particularly block/estate cleaning, a 17 per cent “Overhead” fee and new SLAs with LBTH.  They were told these costs had been calculated on the B&S audit and had actually been “dampened” and so would increase further over the next two years;
  • In spring 2013, the St Stephen’s Estate Leaseholders Association published a damning scrutiny report, which exposed the failure to implement the recommendations in the original Beevers& Struthers audit;
  • In response, the current Lead Member for Housing & Development, is now proposing an “review” of the original B&S audit.

This Council believes:

  • The Mayor and THH have not implemented the recommendations contained in the independent audit in accordance with the agreed Statement of Intent and that the original aim of increasing transparency and accountability has been lost;
  • Leaseholders should be fully recharged for the costs of the services they receive, but that the 2011/12 “actuals” are not based on the methodology set out in the recommendations in the B&S audit, but are instead opaque and represent very poor value for money;

This Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:

  • Explain why only 5 out of 54 of the recommendations in the B&S audit have so far been implemented;
  • Explain why an 17 per cent “Overhead” has been introduced across most Heads of Charge:
  • Justify the Service Level Agreements between LBTH and THH and explain what action is being taken to ensure best value;
  • Instruct THH to publish a report detailing how the actions it has taken since October 2010 to achieve “savings” have resulted in reduced costs to council leaseholders and tenants.

Read Full Post »

Here are the list of questions the Labour group will pose to Mayor Lutfur Rahman at next Wednesday’s full meeting of Tower Hamlets council.

None of them will be answered by him of course.

Denise Jones has an intriguing angle.

Councillor Question                                    

Cllr Rachael Saunders

Is the Mayor prepared to be honest about how his re-election campaign is being funded?
Cllr Carlo Gibbs Why has the Mayor suspended the community chest and transferred the funds to the community events fund?
Cllr Shiria Khatun Why has enough not been done to reduce ASB on the brownfield estate in my ward?
Cllr Abdal Ullah What has the Mayor done about the decimation of Safer Neighbourhood police teams?
Cllr John Pierce What has the Mayor of Tower Hamlets done to improve cycle safety in the borough? 
Cllr Denise Jones Does the mayor agree that fraud has no place in our politics?
Cllr Ann Jackson Can the Mayor enlighten us on the allocation of social housing in the Olympic park on a per borough basis and the rationale used for allocation?
Cllr Joshua Peck What assessment has the Mayor made of the supply of large family homes (over three bed) in the open market in the borough and what does he plan to do to ease the shortage to allow growing families to stay in the borough?
Cllr Anwar Khan What is the current vacancy rate in each of the borough’s town centres?
Cllr MA Mukit How many incidents of anti-social behaviour in Weavers over last year?
Cllr Marc Francis Can the Deputy Mayor and Lead Member for Community Safety services tell us what action is being taken to improve the safety of residents in Fish Island using the Hackney Cut and Hertford Union canal towpath?
Cllr Zenith Rahman Why does the Mayor think almost 20,000 incidences of anti-social behaviour in one year is acceptable? If he doesn’t, why hasn’t he acted?

Read Full Post »

This motion has been submitted by the Labour group to the full meeting of Tower Hamlets council on November 27 (declaration: I now live near the airport). It seems The Tower Hamlets Labour group might be on collision course with Labour’s Sir Robin Wales in Newham…

London City Airport

Proposer: Cllr Ann Jackson

Seconder: Cllr Motin Uz-Zaman

This Council notes that:

  • The significant noise nuisance experienced by many Tower Hamlets residents caused by planes taking off from London City Airport
  • This noise nuisance continues to increase as permitted aircraft movements increase by 50,000 to 120,000 a year.
  • This Council unanimously resolved to oppose any further expansion of London City Airport and has raised its concerns about the noise nuisance experienced by its residents but been consistently ignored by the Airport.

This Council further notes that:

  • London City Airport will shortly apply to the London Borough of Newham for expansion of stands at the airport, to facilitate the growth of the airport and the increase to 120,000 aircraft movements a year.

This Council resolves to:

  • Continue to oppose any further expansion of London City Airport
  • To formally object to the Airport’s most recent planning application to Newham
  • To publicise in East End Life this planning application and to encourage residents to make their views known to Newham Council

Read Full Post »

A couple of years ago I highlighted the the spending by Tower Hamlets council on a fairly useless communications tool called My Tower Hamlets. It was designed by Captive Minds, a company that has had a long and fruitful relationship with the council’s head of communications, Takki Sulaiman, both during his time at the town hall and previously when he worked for Cafcass.

It sends out thousands of text messages to people…at a cost to the people.

This one has just been sent tonight.

Message from Mayor Lutfur Rahman: Take care during the stormy weather.

See [link] for info, contact number and advice on council services.

The link takes you to this message from the Dear Leader on the council’s website:

Weather

Of course, there’s no harm in the council issuing warnings and advice like this…but why does Lutfur feel the need to personalise it?

Can you imagine a Mayor John Biggs have the brass neck, the lack of humility to do something similar?

If there are storms, expect Lutfur out and about in his Merc tomorrow. With an East End Life photographer in tow.

Truth is Lutfur is a bit of a drama queen.

Read Full Post »

This post was updated on Saturday, October 19, following a demand from Mark Seddon, the “media adviser for Mayor Lutfur Rahman”. See bottom of post.

Robin de Peyer of the East London Advertiser has the story:

A town hall chief earned £115,000 for 46 days’ work, prompting a government minister to accuse Tower Hamlets Council of paying him “footballer’s wages”.

The council, which is facing budget cuts totalling £100million over three years, has been criticised by local government minister Brandon Lewis after it paid its interim chief executive £2,500 a day during the stint last year.

Aman Dalvi’s role ended after just six weeks, but he received his year’s salary at taxpayers’ expense. He then landed another top council job, earning an extra £119,000 as a corporate director for development and renewal.

His total publicly-funded remuneration package for the financial year 2012/13 – published in a public council document – topped £256,000 once pension contributions were added.

Mr Lewis said: “The fact that the chief executive of Tower Hamlets can be paid more in two weeks than the average household in the borough earns in a year is astounding. Paying a council official the same rate as a premiership footballer is an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money.”

The average household income is less than £30,000, according to a council-backed report. Mr Dalvi was appointed as interim chief executive after councillors could not agree on a permanent candidate for the job. The position has since been scrapped as the town hall tries to trim its £1.2billion annual budget.

A spokesman said: “The council has complied with its statutory requirements in the preparation and publication of the annual accounts. We will not be commenting further.”

Mr Dalvi could not be reached for a comment.

In fact, there’s a fair bit more to it.

The figures are taken from the council’s Audit Committee report on September 26. The relevant page is 113.

Here’s a screen grab from it.

tower hamlets council, aman dalvi

Aman, who is close to Mayor Lutfur Rahman remember, was appointed interim chief executive on September 26, 2011. Prior to that he was the director of ‘development and renewal’. When he stepped up, the council promoted someone else his development job on a temporary basis.

So in the financial year 2011/12 (April 6, 2011 – April 5, 2012), Aman was paid the best part of six months for his development job (about £64k) and a further £90k as interim chief executive, ie about £155k in total. But there’s no note in the 2011/12 accounts to explain that.

For the next financial year, it’s substantially different.

The 2012/13 accounts state Aman earned £115k as interim chief executive, a role he performed until May 21, 2012. As Robin reported, that’s £115k for 46 days’ work in that financial year. He then returned to his development job, for which he earns £131k a year.

Whereas his rate of pay for 193 days’ work as chief exec in 2011/12 was £466 a day (equivalent to about £170k a year), in 2012/13, that jumped to £2,500 a day.

It just doesn’t add up. If he’d remained on his £466 daily rate, he should have earned about £21,400 for those 46 days.

He seems to have earned some kind of bonus worth about £94,000 in 2012/13 (ie £115k – £21k). (And if that is the case, the accounts are misleading – I wonder whether this was discussed during the audit process.)

But what was the ‘bonus’?

In January of this year, Robin reported this:

A corporate director at Tower Hamlets Council has been named as the recipient of what is believed to be a six-figure compensation payout after settling a discrimination claim with the Town Hall.

Aman Dalvi, who is corporate director for development and renewal, brought the claim against the council and Labour group leader Cllr Joshua Peck in September after Labour councillors voted to block his appointment to the chief executive position at the Town Hall.

But Mr Dalvi – who earns more than £125,000 per year in his role at the council – settled the claim in December at an estimated cost of around £100,000 to the tax-payer.

A statement released by those involved said: “Following agreement between the parties Mr Dalvi’s Employment Tribunal claim against the Council and Cllr Joshua Peck has been withdrawn and dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.”

The dispute arose after Mr Dalvi failed in his attempts to replace former chief executive Kevan Collins, who left the £195k top job in July 2011.

Despite enjoying the support of Mayor Lutfur Rahman, Mr Dalvi was unsuccessful in his attempts to take the job after Labour and Conservative councillors blocked the move.

The council had then faced the prospect of intervention from Town Hall trouble-shooter the Local Government Association after an exodus of senior officers caused concern over its ability to function effectively.

But at a behind-closed-doors vote last Wednesday councillors unanimously agreed to approve the extension of acting head of paid services Stephen Halsey’s contract until after the 2014 Mayoral election.

So now we have the proof that his pay-off was about £100k.

What was the dispute? In February, I wrote this post when I reported that Aman and Josh Peck had had a private row during the process to appoint a permanent chief executive. Josh had been concerned that Aman was too close to Lutfur, that he was too malleable, particularly over nominations and appointments to external regeneration bodies.

Add in Isabella Freeman’s questionable legal advice to councillors during this appointment process (more about her delightful deal at the Homes and Communities Agency very soon) and the entire episode adds up to a costly shambles.

Over the next few months as Lutfur steps up his re-election campaign, we’ll hear a lot about his One Tower Hamlets bollocks, how he has been “progressive” and how he repelled the EDL, but the fact is he’s a terrible man manager, one who has cost taxpayers a small fortune in payoffs to senior officers.

In 2008, he effectively sacked Martin Smith at a cost of some £300,000. Aman Dalvi got a £100k bonus for being Lutfur’s failed first choice when Kevan Collins jumped ship, and then there’s all the headhunter fees thrown down the drain.

I suspect he’s wasted around £500,000 on top level personnel issues. Or to put it another way, that’s 1,250 of the £400 educational maintenance allowance grants he boasts as his proudest achievement.

PS Here are two more screen shots of the council’s accounts for your interest.

This one shows the number of staff earning more than £50,000.

accounts salaries

And this one shows the breakdown of the £8million paid out in redundancies to 320 staff over the past two years.

redundanciesScandalous, really.

UPDATE: October 19

A few people people have called or emailed to say they think this post is “unfair” on Aman Dalvi. They assure me he’s a professional, that he’s been hard-done by and he was handed a £100k payout because he merited it.

Well, he gets paid £131,000 a year, which is quite a lot of money. He was warned by those with experience of these matters that he wasn’t suitable for the job of chief executive, yet, encouraged by Lutfur (for whatever reason) he chose to apply.

He then chose to sue the council, ie the taxpayer. I haven’t seen the detail of the legal arguments, but in my view, there would have to have been an egregious slur on his integrity to warrant suing a council he admitted in his own private and public offerings was suffering from financial problems.

Greed seems to have got the better of him. He could easily have made his legal point, if there was one, then handed back the money.

I’m not the only one who will now be scrutinising his actions from now on.

One of those to contact me was Mark Seddon, the famous journalist and former editor of Tribune, who is now Lutfur Rahman’s £55,000 a year communications guru…(a fact never disclosed when he does newspaper reviews on BBC Sky News).

mark seddon

This was his email on Thursday.

The East London Advertiser has withdrawn a story which made the claim that a former chief officer of the council, Aman Dalvi OBE, had been paid £115,000 for 46 days work.

The request is that you immediately do the same.

The claim is simply untrue. Unfortunately, for legal reasons, Mr Dalvi cannot speak to you, in order for the record to be set straight.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Seddon
Media Adviser to the Mayor Lutfur Rahman

This was my reply:

Perhaps you can demonstrate how what I have written is untrue?

As you know, I’ve expanded on what the ELA wrote. I’m q happy to update the blog with your response, but I’m currently happy that I’ve simply reported what’s in the accounts with some additional fair questions.

Can I also please ask why you are acting as spokesman for Aman Dalvi? I thought you were the media adviser to the mayor. How is this your remit?

He then repeated his original email without answering those other questions.

The East London Advertiser did withdraw its article, which was, as I demonstrated, misleading, but it then replaced it with this more accurate version.

Since then, however, MailOnline regurgitated the original piece adding further inaccuracies, prompting this warning to national newspaper newsdesks today:

Information has been published in some media outlets relating to Mr Aman Dalvi an employee of the Council. The details published are not accurate. 

In particular and by example only, there is the suggestion that Mr Dalvi was paid £2,500 per day as an interim chief executive which is incorrect. 

Continued publication of the alleged figure earned by Mr Dalvi and other factual inaccuracies is damaging. This is unacceptable and the Council is seeking advice from its lawyers.

While I agree with the council sending out this warning, what is not acceptable is the threat to spend more taxpayer money on another legal fight of its own making.

Aman chose to have a gagging clause preventing him from commenting…because he bagged a large payoff. And the council’s press office failed to guide the East London Advertiser when its journalist approached them with the outline of its original story prior to publication.

They really do create their own horrible mess.

No wonder Mark Seddon felt compelled to go outside his remit and appoint himself spokesman for a poor (well, not so poor) senior council officer…

Read Full Post »

About this time two years ago, I wrote this:

My own view, as outlined here, is that the EDL should be banned as an organisation. I’ve seen them for myself on marches and they’re little more than a bunch of football hooligans who give both football and free speech a bad name. They go out to provoke and they glory in trying to outwit the likes of Anjem Choudary and the police when it comes to the former’s demonstrations.

So the Met’s decision yesterday to ask Theresa May to ban the EDL marching through Tower Hamlets last week is a good thing. Well done to Mayor Lutfur Rahman and all the other politicians and grass roots activists who helped persuade Scotland Yard. It was an easy win-win for Lutfur, but he grabbed the opportunity.

Plus ca change.

Pic credit: East London Advertiser

Pic credit: East London Advertiser

Credit must again go to Mayor Lutfur and his advisers for seizing yet another gift on a plate from the thickies of the EDL. How he must secretly love them.

And how his people must be laughing at Labour on this: he’s run rings around them.

Last year, Labour’s then group leader Josh Peck and many of his councillors decided to abstain from attending the counter-EDL rally. Josh’s view was that the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) was staging a demo as a precursor to a punch-up with the EDL. As it happens, he was right on that point of fact. But politically, even some of his allies think that was a mistake.

I’m told John Biggs thinks it was an error, which is why he was there in Altab Ali Park yesterday. Yet even under his leadership, Labour has allowed itself to be the object of ridicule and on the back foot. Their long-planned summer barbecue scheduled for yesterday was unfortunate timing, but how anyone failed to spot much earlier that it would be politically problematic is really quite odd.

If they are to beat Lutfur next May, they need to sharpen up their PR act big time…and quickly.

But let’s look at Lutfur’s tactics. His strategy for more than three years now has been to present himself to the Bengali community (via the press, satellite Bangladeshi TV channels and The Guardian) as the martyred Muslim victim of an evil racist plot by the Right-wing media, the institutionally racist decision-making bodies of Labour’s NEC and the anti-Muslim Peter Golds-led Tower Hamlets Tory party.

So when the English Defence League threaten to march this way, he becomes not just the martyr but also the hero leader: a modern-day Boudicca of the East End (in a Mercedes, not a chariot). He’s been telling his friendly uncritical TV channels (including the ones he now so generously helps to fund with council money) that it’s all Labour’s fault the EDL are coming.

He tells them that Andrew Gilligan’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme in March 2010 (disclosure: I appeared in it) was the main inspiration for the EDL. He says because Labour also played a part in that documentary (Jim Fitzpatrick was another interviewee), and because the accusations he was linked to Islamic fundamentalism were a big factor in his expulsion from Labour in summer 2010), Labour is thus responsible for the arrival of Stella-swigging monsters on the borough’s doorstep.

He then gleefully adds: “Look at what Labour are doing to stop them coming: they’re having a barbecue!” He has skewered them.

A classier group of politicians would then have let their actions do the talking; if you have the moral high ground, keep quiet and stay there. But Lutfur’s people can’t help themselves: they say any political leader not at yesterday’s rally cannot be in favour of Lutfur’s One Tower Hamlets mantra. The irony of this rally fascism is undoubtedly lost on them.

So where were the borough’s two MPs yesterday, they ask? Where was Peter Golds? I had a Twitter conversation about this with Lutfurite councillor Kabir Ahmed this morning.

There seemed to be some underlying implication that Peter is not as opposed to the EDL and fascism as Kabir is. Which given the sufferings of Peter’s family in the Holocaust is more than unfortunate. I then asked Kabir if he condemned the homophobic and anti-Semitic abuse that I’ve witnessed aimed at Peter by Lutfur’s supporters in the council chamber.

He was among the first Tower Hamlets councillors to sign the Hope not Hate pledge, he told me; he was a Hope not Hate champion…but repeatedly, Kabir refused to condemn those specific incidents by his own supporters. Such leadership.

There were probably other factors in the decision by some to stay away yesterday. They probably didn’t want to be associated with two of the rally’s predominant contingents: those strange bed-fellows, the Socialist Workers’ Party and the Islamic Forum of Europe.

I’m told the IFE had a 1,000 stewards out on the streets of Whitechapel yesterday. They were everywhere, even guarding the main stage in Altab Ali Park where speakers couldn’t help talking about the need not to strike Syria (the EDL would have applauded that). It was also the same stage onto which John Biggs was apparently initially declined entry.

I also saw a couple of IFE stewards standing guard opposite the Yummy Yummy sweet shop in New Road. I thought that might have been a coincidence, but it probably wasn’t. That sweet shop was no doubt highlighted as a potential EDL target…because, as I revealed earlier this year, it’s run by Anjem Choudary and his crowd.

You see, although the East London Mosque hasn’t exactly helped itself by failing to prevent homophobic and hate-fuelled sermons from the likes of Anwar al-Awlaki in the past, Anjem is the EDL’s biggest enemy. They follow him and his helpers everywhere. They’re on the same intellectual level.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see the United East End umbrella group of community groups etc etc take a stance on Anjem’s presence in the borough? Perhaps Lutfur and Kabir should organise a rally against him and his gang of terror groupies. I doubt we’d ever see the EDL again if he did that.

(And by the way, I hear that the Black Bloc anti-fascist group, many of whose members were arrested trying to attack the EDL yesterday, have started taking an interest in the Islamofascist tendencies of some Jamaat e Islami groups in the borough: that could be very interesting…).

Read Full Post »

isabella_freemanIt is with great sadness that I must report the impending departure from Tower Hamlets council of Isabella Freeman, the town hall’s esteemed head of legal services and monitoring officer.

In an official announcement at 3.41pm today, a senior press officer at the Homes and Communities Agency confirmed she had been successful in her pursuit of the soon-to-be vacant ‘head of legal services’ section there (the current incumbent is retiring). She will also be its ‘company secretary’.

What a fine addition to their team she will make (one of them, Richard Ennis, the head of corporate services, is, like Isabella, an alumni of Slough council).

Among the few who have been in the know about this, there’s been a mixture of delight and astonishment. The HCA is the regulatory body for housing associations and it’s an important government quango.

As such, the most senior appointments at least used to need approval from the Department for Communities and Local Government. And given what the current and recent crop of ministers there think of Ms Freeman, it’s difficult to see how they would have given their blessing.

But – and some might add ‘alas’ – the HCA tells me DCLG approval is not needed. They say they’ve had approval to recruit to “business critical” posts…and head of legal services for a regulatory body is deemed pretty critical.

What her new salary will is yet to be revealed: she’s currently on £115k.

So off Isabella goes. She’s resigned, so no payoff and no more of her threats and badly spelt emails of legal intimidation. I’ll miss them. And so will a few senior councillors.

And it’s also probably case that she’s deprived us all of what would have been the most fascinating employment tribunal the council has ever defended. You’ll recall she was suing her own employer – for what, we don’t know. And we may never know because it’s probable, though not definite, she’ll let that one quietly drop.

If I were the boss of the HCA, I think I’d have had a quiet word with her about it. It’s interesting that a law firm called Pinsent Mason, which has previously acted as a solicitor for the HCA, has been conducting research about her on the web. Whether that was connected to the appointment, I don’t know.

But who next for Tower Hamlets council? An interim appointment beckons while the search for a long term successor begins.

Mayor Lutfur Rahman would love to have his own person in the job, but given the debacle and failure in getting Aman Dalvi into the chief executive’s post (a fiasco in which Isabella played a significant part), he will have a battle on his hands.

The monitoring officer role must be agreed by the full council. And getting them to agree on anything has been pretty much impossible since 2010.

Anyway, to those reading at the HCA…..good luck!

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »